Hounslow Council are installing talking CCTV - which also boasts automatic facial recognition capacity- at a cost of £1.8 million (or the annual salaries of 79 new Police Constables).
Good investment, eh?
By Alex Deane
Courtesy of new EU rules, British fishermen are being bullied into having CCTV on their boats. They will be permitted to take fewer catches if they don't. It's to save the fish stocks, they say. The cameras are to monitor stocks, and also to spot fishermen illegally dumping fish.
So the environmental movement is driving the furtherance of our surveillance society. That's the first time I've made that connection and put it directly – I doubt that it will be the last.
By Alex Deane
Like Tony Martin, Mr Hussain is a man charged with harming those who broke into his home. This was no common or garden burglary. When the Hussains returned home from the Mosque, three masked men awaited them in their house. They tied up Munir Hussain's family and degraded them. The children must have been terrified for their lives, and the parents – including this defendant – must have suffered that worst of agonies, the fear that one's child is to suffer and, perhaps, to die.
Hussain fought them off and chased them and seriously injured one of them with a cricket bat. He has now been sentenced to 30 months imprisonment.
If he not had that adrenalin, that admirable, channelled aggression, he would not have been able to fight these men off and whatever they had planned for him and his wife and children would have been done to them. It is that adrenalin and aggression, aroused entirely by this most ugly of actions from his "victim" and accomplices, which led Hussain to chase them out and to strike them.
My question is this. Should the benefit of the doubt not rest with a man in his situation, grievously provoked and genuinely in fear for his life and the lives of his children? I accept that there are points beyond which we are not entitled to go, even when severely provoked. You are not entitled to tie up the burglar you catch in your house and torture him. But nothing in Hussain's behaviour seems to have been calculated or planned – it was a spur of the moment reaction to the invasion of his home by a gang of masked men and my instinct is to say, in choosing that path that gang took the risk of having what happened, happen.
I understand that he is to appeal. We will watch with interest.
By Alex Deane
Bonfires were lit, fatted calves were sacrificed and sparklers were sparkled up and down the land today at the news of the creation of the office of the CCTV Regulator.
I jest. Of course, given where we are, if he actually acts as a brake on bad behaviour and encourages good behaviour then the regulator is a good thing – because CCTV is now so ubiquitous, so pervasive and so intrusive that we need someone to be responsible for usage and abusage. But that rather begs the question, doesn't it..? Should we have so much CCTV?
I'm not a technophobe absolutist – there is an important role for technology in law enforcement – but it’s a question of proportion: CCTV is now the single most heavily-funded crime prevention measure operating outside the criminal justice system, accounting for more than three quarters of spending on crime prevention by the Home Office.
We ought to learn from the fact that we’re the only country that’s gone so far down this path. The Shetland Islands has more CCTV cameras than San Francisco Police Department.
By Alex Deane
Last week I wrote about The Mall in Norwich, which had given its security guards police powers to fine and detain trouble-makers despite the guards having only minimal training.
Now, the Financial Times is reporting that G4S - a FTSE 100 security group - has begun to supply full teams of investigators on complex criminal cases.
As they report:
John Shaw, who recently took charge of the G4S policing business, said: “We have a team of 30 of our guys in one force on a major investigation right now, practically doing all of the roles except that of the senior investigating officer.”
Mr Shaw conceded the push by the private sector into areas once deemed off-limits would be resisted by some officers and needed to be done in collaboration with forces. But he argued the squeeze on law enforcement budgets meant all police roles were “up for grabs” except those requiring powers of arrest.
This is a genuinely worrying development. The police are not perfect, but they are accountable and bodies such as the IPCC and interventions from the Home Office are generally enough to make sure that when it comes to bad policing, the culprits are identified, punished and the victims compensated.
Private security firms would not have these same checks and balances. We cannot FOI them; we cannot hold them to account for having been trained or employed at the taxpayers' expense; and it is only a matter of time before a private security officer does something wrong and is quietly released out the back door.
It doesn't matter how 'squeezed' budgets are – police powers should only be held by the police.
By Dylan Sharpe
We are a tad late with this one, but it is still certainly worth giving full exposure and our most hearty of congratulations to Liverpool City Council.
Their eponymous Premier League team may be struggling, but the Council - which has recently been named the most improved in the country - last week voted to oppose the introduction of ID cards in the city.
The motion, passed on 9th December, said it did not believe ID cards and the accompanying database would prevent crime, terrorism or illegal immigration and criticised the Prime Minister for giving the impression at the last Labour Conference that ID cards would not be introduced while "clearly preparing for these pilot schemes".
They also said that they would actively refuse to cooperate with any plans to promote the National Identity Scheme and were prepared to work with organisations campaigning against the scheme, including our good friends No2ID, to "raise awareness among Liverpool citizens of the dangers of the ID card and database scheme".
And while I'm talking about Liverpool, I'd like to award a second Big Brother Watch round of applause to the majority of Liverpool councillors who saw off the proposal, put forward by Liverpool Primary Care Trust, to rate films showing smoking as 18 certificates.
It seems that we have found the antithesis of Sandwell Council. Just 93 miles may separate these two authorities but it's an ocean in terms of their thinking on personal privacy and liberty.
By Dylan Sharpe
A 12-year-old caught selling crisps at a school with a “healthy food policy” has been suspended by his headteacher.
Joel Bradley, a pupil at Liverpool's Cardinal Heenan High School, had already been caught selling sweets, crisps and fizzy drinks at a marked-up price, and when he was found a second time selling a packet of Discos for 50p, the school sent him home.
The headmaster, Dave Forshaw, told the Daily Mail:
"We are a healthy school and proud of it. If parents are not happy then they are perfectly free to take their children to a school that allows pupils to sell these things and allows a father to sell them outside on the pavement"
There are two notes of caution I feel I must add. The first is that Joel's dad had previously been found to be selling sweets and drinks from a van outside the school which, although legal, shows a massive amount of disrespect for the school's policy. The second is that Joel was undoubtedly breaking the rules as laid out by the school.
However, this will be a permanent black mark on a young boy's school record. It is also likely to exacerbate the behavioural problems of a pupil who was not really guilty of anything other than showing a bit of entrepreneurial spirit.
In essence, the school has suspended a boy because it can't convince its pupils to eat healthily. The head has picked the easy target rather than face up to the underlying problem and potentially scarred a young man's education in the process.
By Dylan Sharpe
Following significant criticisms, covered by Dylan earlier in the week, Ed Balls and co have admitted there are significant problems with the "Independent Safeguarding Authority" vetting database for people coming into contact with children, and have started making major revisions to it. One can't help but notice that said revisions remove from the vetting requirements the most potent critics of the scheme, such as high-profile authors accustomed to visiting schools, but still – it's a good development.
However, now that the scheme is being revisited, Balls and his coleagues should consider cancelling it per se. There is no pressing need for it. Our national obsession with paedophilia, of which this scheme is a reflection, makes children no safer, whilst – by harming the culture of volunteerism upon which so much of civic society in our country depends – it objectively threatens to make the lives of many children much worse.
Indeed, the Government could make a virtue of having listened to the voices of many people in carrying out such a move. It would also greatly benefit a constituency about which the Labour Party apparently cares a great deal – that is, the poorest in society, whose children depend disproportionately on such volunteerism, as their families are unable to buy into the kind of privately run extra-curricular activities which would be able to afford (and willing to comply with) the accreditation requirements of the vetting scheme. Whilst by no means claiming to be the first to come up with it, I've not seen this point made before in the course of this debate.
By Alex Deane
Tiger "suddenly it's all gone so terribly wrong" Woods has injuncted the British press to stop talking about his love life.
So good job – that's that barn door shut. But the horse had not only already bolted, it had slipped out of town and is living under an assumed identity in Walton-on-the-Naze.
First of all, what real good could it possibly do, even from his perspective? Does he think we won't hear the scurrilous rumours anyway? Does he think that the commentary online, shorn of the relatively restraining influence of mainstream commentary, will be less tawdry and sensationalist?
Secondly, we've written before about restraining the press from reporting things, in the Carter Ruck context.- about how Britain's libel laws are harming journalism. Here's it's slightly different, admittedly, as what's being injuncted is titillating rather than serious. but there's an important point about the nature of freedom of speech to be made, and furthermore where this story lies on the titillating / serious scale is a judgment that I have made. As long as you're happy having what constitutes your news decided for you by me, that's fine. If you're not, then it's probably not fine. The fact that I don't care about the goings-on in the life of Tiger "suddenly it's all gone so terribly wrong" Woods hardly means that nobody does, does it? Nor are they necessarily interested in the story only from a cheap and titillating perspective.
Because there are people who will genuinely wish to know about his life, viewing him as an erstwhile role model they had looked up to, and viewing his pecadilloes, if true, as being symptoms of rank hypocrisy which rob him of that status. His carefully manufactured, wholesome image might be thought to be punctured by these "revelations" and a discussion of such things interests some people. Why shouldn't they be able to discuss them? He chose to live in this way when it raked in millions – they might say – why can't we discuss it now that it's not quite so rosy?
The extent to which serious journalism seeps into info-tainment is also something one should consider. Scurrilous suggestions about Michael Jackson eventually led to criminal trial processes (albeit not a conviction, a fact perhaps connected with large out-of-court settlements). Cheap slurs against Jeremy Thorpe, former leader of the Liberal Party, led to his trial for attempted murder. John Profumo and Christine Keeler. Multiple celebrities and drug trials/convictions: Robert Downey Junior. Pete Doherty. Matthew McConaughey. And so on. Viewed from that perspective, it is very hard to decide where "serious" journalism ends and trash begins.
All in all – my instinct is against any incursion of free speech. Whilst I realise and appreciate that that right is not absolute, it is nevertheless very important in a free society and the threshold must be set very high to breach it. Tiger "suddenly it's all gone so terribly wrong" Woods' I don't like the way they're talking about me hardly comes near satisfying that.
By Alex Deane
But I thought I'd take the opportunity to highlight the work of CameraWatch, who have challenged that non-conclusion with some good research.
Meanwhile, informed sources speculate that a 78% increase in their Forensic Science budget means that the Irish are finally about to build a DNA database… at the same time that they are debating the merits of their CCTV network.
Small world, isn't it?
By Alex Deane