BIG Brother Has arrived--NOW

spokey wrote: livvy wrote: The benfefits to security & crime detection outweigh the impact on freedoms. Jawohl, mein herr. These benefits and impacts have been assessed by whom, exactly? Oh, the police? Well, that's alright then! Why ARE the police keeping these records of law-abiding motorists for five years?

Again that is a public decision, with which party they vote for based on their policies.

Which party in power will not be considering this though?

Have you an assessment that shows that general publci opinion of the majority is against such a move ?


Edited by livvy

spokey wrote: livvy wrote: Big difference between 400yds & 1 inch. 400yds isn't necessarily in sight of & is only talked about for motorways. At 400yds apart vehicles will not be in sight at all times, but they record reg plates as they pass the fixed points. The same with petrol stations etc, they would only record them there, not move with the vehicle. Please, livvy, this is pure sophistry on your part: what can happen in 400 yards on a motorway that would require an ANPR camera at that interval?

Car stop & occupants get out.

spokey wrote: AND WHY ARE THEY KEEPING THE RECORDS OF LAW-ABIDING, TAX-PAYING MOTORISTS AT ALL? Let alone for five years?

Because it provides the optimal balance of effeciency & reasonableness for the system I'd imagine. The bigger the database & with all vehicles covered the more effective the search can be. Most reg plates will be unused data, but if you miss any, that could be the important one for your search a year or two down the line in an investigation. At the time of recording the importance of a single reg plate for future investiagtons can't be pre-determined. But if you have them all the data will be there.

spokey wrote: livvy wrote: Because it provides the optimal balance of effeciency & reasonableness for the system I'd imagine. The bigger the database & with all vehicles covered the more effective the search can be. Most reg plates will be unused data, but if you miss any, that could be the important one for your search a year or two down the line in an investigation. At the time of recording the importance of a single reg plate for future investiagtons can't be pre-determined. But if you have them all the data will be there. So that's OK, is it? Because it's convenient for the police, we should all be spied upon? What is reasonable about keeping record of the movement of every citizen for five years?

As has already been said it's for society to decide at the ballot box.
We elect the governments that implement such things, in our names.

It is also not what I think or you think as individuals, but what measures society is willing to accept in order to strike that balance of security & freedom.

Where the information held is of most use will be for the most serious events.
If your child is abducted & the Police locate & arrest a suspect the following day in a car, then the search of that vehicles movements may provide valueable leads that help in the safe recovery of that child.

Where Police identify a terrorsist cell & the vehicles they are using, , long depth searches of prior vehicle movements for those vehicles could be instrumental in identifying their movements & others related to their activities. The several years of data could be very useful in these enquiries because people don't become terrorsists overnight.

Now in both cases these vehicles would not have been identified as target vehicles prior to Police's first contact with the people concerned, but the search facility available could be instrumental in saving of further lives. As the need to record those particular vehicles movements couldn't be pre-determined. If every vehicle is covered, then it ensures that they will be there. The millions of other vehicles that are of no interest just lay on file, which is not going to affect the users of those vehicles adversely.


Edited by livvy

livvy wrote: As has already been said it's for society to decide at the ballot box. We elect the governments that implement such things, in our names.

Hehehe.. As I've said before, it doesn't appear that the general public have any say in what happens.. 

If we are to stop this madness we need first to address the electoral system.  That reform will never happen though as it will knock the current government out of power.  By rights they shouldn't be in power now

I really don't know what the public thinks, I would hope they agree.  I'm sure there is a great deal of ignorance out there. 

I'd imagine that the tories maybe a bit concerned about PR in the long term, but as it stands they would probably benefit. 

In the long term it's more important that we have a proper democracy. 



Edited by scarface

For once I agree with you 

I think that some of us spend a bit too much time on here!

B 7 VP wrote:  PS---the Association of British Drivers WERE correct in their magazine report.

Can you give us details of the ruling, or is it tip top secret & just for the ABD inner circle ?

 

 

 

 

Edited by livvy

livvy wrote: B 7 VP wrote:  PS---the Association of British Drivers WERE correct in their magazine report. Can you give us details of the ruling, or is it tip top secret & just for the ABD inner circle ?

I thought he had, in the link in his post !

John.

Livvy gave his answer to this in a pm to me, which Livvy has kindly agreed to me posting in open forum.

I posted it on the orginal thread where we were discussing this, but I'll copy & paste it to here, in case you missed it.

Nigel

The case I'm thinking about was an appeal by the CPS at the High Court on  13/10/2005

It was in regards to a initial conviction of obstruction against Charles Glendinning (a lorry driver) at South Somerset Magistrates Court. He appealed at Tauton Crown Court & won his appeal , the CPS appealed against the Crown Courts decision.

The CPS's appeal at the high court was dismissed, but my point is why it was dismissed. The reasons for dismissal can't lead you to deduce that it is OK for people to warn others of speed traps. The reason for dismissal was simply because  the prosecution failed to  show sufficient evidence.

In this case Mr Glendinning wasn't flashing his headlights, it was alleged he was using hand signals to warn those in the outside lane closing on him that there was a speed trap ahead.

The judgement ruled that the prosecution had failed to show that there was any offence of speeding occuring prior to is hand signals or likely to occur. From reading the judgement if the prosecution had shown either of those things (evidence of an offence occuring or likelyhood of it) then the prosecution would have succeeded.

One of the stated cases they used in this ruling was the conviction of a AA patrolman in 1910 for warning others (Betts v Stevens). In that case the Police officer gave an opinion that a vehicle was speeding prior to the  measured area & that it wasn't speeding through the measured as a result of the warning from the AA patrolman. In effect there was evidence of speeding (although it wasn't sufficient to prosecute because it was only opinion & we know that there then has to be corroborative evidence to convict) but there was no chance to gain the corroborative evidence because of the AA patrolmans obstructive actions in frustrating that gaining of corroborative evidence.

So from the ruling we can say that provided the Police show that there was an offence occuring (even if they don't have enough evidence to convict for it (i.e. an opinion is formed)) or that one was likely to occur then that is sufficient to prove the offence part.

The points to prove are that
1) The constable was acting lawfully in the execution of his duty (He was in the case)
2) The obstruction was intended to obstruct the constable in that execution of his duty (the court was satisfied that Mr Glendinning was doing that)
3) There was an obstruction of the constable (The high court wasn't satisfied of that for the reasons I outlined - i.e that there was no evidence that could have been affected by his given signals, either being driven in excess of the speed limit or likely to do so)

B 7 VP wrote:  Nigel, this is ONE persons opinion of the interpretation of what the CPS WANT the Lords to say.I disagree--.

I asked for you to give details because your link couldn't possibly be what you were talking about, BECAUSE  IT DOESN'T SUPPORT WHAT YOU SAID in your earlier thread.


We are now then clearly talking about the same case "DPP v Glendinning".
What I posted was not  "what the CPS want the lords to say" it's from the high court ruling itself

The CPS want the Lords to go further & say that the prosecution don't even need to show that a vehicle was speeding (or likley to) before the warning was given by the person committing the alleged obstruction. (Which is the reason that the CPS appeal was dismissed at the High Court, NOT because the Police can't prosecute headlight flashers.)

If you've read the high court ruling, how on earth can you or the ABD come to the resolute conclusion (that you did earlier in the other thread)

B 7 VP wrote: ...which means it is now case law, and YOU cannot be prosecuted for doing a headlight warning.....

Read the ruling for yourself & tell me still that it means

B 7 VP wrote: YOU cannot be prosecuted for doing a headlight warning

http://www.bailii.org/cgi-bin/markup.cgi?doc=/ew/cases/EWHC/ Admin/2005/2333.html


OR
Does it infact mean what I said ? 
It doesn't require a change in the law, things like waving with your thumb down out of the window could possibly be taken to be obstruction already if it's judged the intent is to get people to slow in order to avoid a prosecution. Read the ruling.




Edited by livvy