Feeds

back to article Fly-tipping yes, dog poo no - Jacqui promises Ripa changes

Much-loved Home Secretary Wacky Jacqui Smith today announced changes to the code of practise which governs use of the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act and promised to remove the under-tens from the DNA database. Local councils' use of Ripa has caused a media storm this year although the majority of incidents covered still …

COMMENTS

This topic is closed for new posts.

Page:

Black Helicopters

Snooping

I wonder if she will exclude commercial snooping of private communication from it?

0
0
Anonymous Coward

Its clever

She's effectively santioning the misuse of the act under the guise of preventing it. Doublethink at its finest here.

0
0
Silver badge
Black Helicopters

The arrogance of that woman.....

is astonishing.

How many times will she have to be told to delete the DNA profiles of *ALL* innocent people before she actually does it? She has been told to remove them by the "Information Tribunal", the House of Lords and the ECHR. Who is she waiting to tell her to remove them before she actually *does*? God?

Actually, If God turned up in her office and demanded she remove these profiles I imagine she would have Him arrested under counter-terrorism laws, and have His fingerprints and DNA put on the database too.

She would then deny any prior knowledge of the arrest and insist the police were "only doing their job".

0
0
Thumb Down

Oh dear.

So using RIPA in the way we were expressly promised wasn't going to happen, is fine now that Jacqui has been kind enough to let us know about it.

So we can spy on some people but not others, when does the new whitelist come out?

0
0
Thumb Down

What?

"Smith said the use of CCTV has the confidence and support of the British public"

You really DO believe that, don't you Jacqui?

This numpty has got to go.

0
0
Anonymous Coward

Tackle the misery caused by noisy and disruptive Jacquies

"tackling the misery caused by noisy and disruptive neighbours"

The guy downstairs from us, he use to complain all the time about the noise. Tiny little noises would send him into a rage, banging the walls and leaving us little notes about our behaviour. My wife dropped a plastic cup on the floor at 10pm and he was at our door to complain.

He's gone now, the new guy downstairs never complains about the noise and when we asked him if we were noisy he said, no, he never hears us.

Seems to me that this 'misery' is subjective and that simply because someone is complaining doesn't mean there is a problem to be tackled. That we have courts and laws that tolerate minor infractions, that RIPA bypasses and that this situation is exactly why we have courts and laws that tolerate minor infractions. It's not the local councils job to play at being amateur policemen, that's a police job and the judges jobs to determine the truth.

Now Wacky Jacqui has a new thing, police can get a person evicted for anti-social behaviour like noise. But it's done in a magistrates court and magistrates are not judges or even legally qualified, they're just local 'upstanding' people intended to tackle minor offences like littering. Kicking someone out of their home is not a minor matter and should not be taken lightly, why not a fine!? Is EVERYONE in the family making noise? Really? Or are we just slapping on blanket blame because it's easier? Is it so much to ask for proper judicial process for something major like eviction, like is guaranteed in the Human Rights Act?

Anti-social behaviour offences permit hearsay evidence. A family was evicted recently for having loud parties AND ALLEGEDLY taking drugs. i.e. there was no evidence to convict them of taking drugs, it was thrown in to spice up a weak claim. Exactly the sort of thing not allowed in court.

If the complainer guy downstairs had had his way, he would have tried to get us evicted with false allegations of drug taking and noisy partying, and how could we prove we are not taking drugs and not noisy when there is no evidence to discredit and the magistrate who decides isn't even versed in the law? You'd kick us out into the street?

Then there's the DNA thing, the court said she can't hold the DNA of innocent people. She is saying she will only take under 10's off the database. i.e. defying the court again. Just sack her already. When she keeps LOSING HUMAN RIGHTS CASES it means she's attacking UK human rights. A few fake surveys stuffed with leading questions is only intended to fool fellow MPs, it does not mean she has the backing of GB.

FFS, the woman says that if you've seen doggy porn you're a criminal, I bet every single male MP has seen doggy porn. How can you ever vote for a party like treats everyone like criminals and has so many prisoners it can no longer find jails to put them in.

0
0
Anonymous Coward

Yet Again

that fat, flatulent old harpy completely misses the point. On what basis does she draw the distinction between fly tipping and dog fouling? Surely the real distinction should be between offenses that are associated with terrorism and those that aren't.

Oh, and removing 70 under 10 year olds from the database. Big f*cking deal! Has it not got through her thick syphilitic skull that it is now illegal to hold the details of innocent people, no matter what age.

God I can't wait for the next election.

0
0
Anonymous Coward

dog tipping vs. fly fouling

I'm not sure if i quite get the British mindset. could someone mind to explain the difference between dog fouling and fly-tipping? Why should those two offenses be handled any differently?

0
0
Flame

What?

Remove records? We need those records (even of the innocent) to catch terrorists, rapists and kiddy fiddlers. Even without the criminal's DNA on file, familial markers can be used to work out who they are.

Looks like the liberal hand-wringers have one the day and left us open to attack by these scum.

0
0
Anonymous Coward

fly tipping?

Is that the smaller British version of the American Cow tipping?

I figure you'd have to be pretty darn fast to tip a fly - or do you blow marijuana smoke at them first?

0
0

Getting rid of dog poo

This is one of the uses that it SHOULD be put to. Forget terrorists, get those dirty people.

0
0
Anonymous Coward

only 70

So that's ok Wacky Jaqui, you've removed 70 innocent people out of 570,000, job done. Feeling confident you now comply with the judgement of the European Court of Human Rights?

That woman is incredible, she should be locked up.

0
0
Thumb Down

Hogwash!

This is absolute cobblers!

The plans for the NIR never included provision for children under 10 to be included in the profiling. The documents clearly state that profiling will begin with children aged 11+, so removing the mere 70 records of under 11's was an easy throwaway gesture for this mad-woman.

The EU directive states clearly that it is ILLEGAL under EU laws to hold the biometric or generic of *anyone* who is not guilty of a crime in *ANY WAY* in *ANY DATABASE* without their consent, yet I see no sign that the Home Office even intends to follow that directive. Instead, we start hearing tales of how the UK wants to 'opt out' of the convention on human rights with plans to have our own version, neatly side-stepping the issue.

Ms. Smith needs to be brough to heel, immediately, and preferably sacked followed by the swift dismantling of all of these crack-pot, fascist plans she keeps spouting.

I certainly won't be voting labour for as long as they continue to erode our civil liberties!

0
0
dek

Public Opinion

"Finally Smith said the use of CCTV has the confidence and support of the British public"

We hear/read these gross generalisations all the time now. Funny, I have never been asked my opinion and neither has the vast majority of the British Public.

0
0
Coat

Jacqui the Ripa ?

I'll get my coat....

0
0
Anonymous Coward

Will someone rid us of this troublesome bint?

I wonder if that nasty little Fascist Jacqui has a dog because it smells to me like she just doesn't want RIPA used for crimes she might commit. I dont really see why fly tipping is any more serious a crime than people letting their dog shit on the pavement?

The ONLY people who should be allowed to use these powers are the security services and the police and then only with the over sight of judges. This is not a set of powers that a bunch of waster councilors, or any other arms/legs of our draconian government, should have no matter what crimes they suspect may have been commited.

0
0
Flame

Jacqui strikes again

Why is it that throughout all of her rambling and explanations of the DNA storage policy that I never once hear her say "and we'll be purging the DNA records of those who haven't been convicted of an offence"

She's now in direct violation of EU law and the EU court.

She should be arrested and removed forthwith.

She's a danger to us all.

0
0
Coat

If there is a better example of.................

the resurgence of Mad Cow Disease Wacky Jacqui is it.

Re(in)surgence. Told you RIPA would work this man is obviously a terrorist. Warm up my database put his name in. There try and get a job working with children now you terrorist scum..

0
0

CCTV

Strange that. I wonder what the Home Office's own researchers say?

http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/pdfs05/hors292.pdf

"Furthermore, it has become evident that following the introduction of CCTV, support for its use decreased. This was shown not to be the result of concern over issues relating to civil liberties and privacy, but there is a suggestion that support has declined in step with reductions in people’s perceptions of the camera’s effectiveness; fewer respondents believed the cameras would reduce crime." [p58]

"In short, [CCTV] was oversold – by successive governments – as the answer (indeed the ‘magic bullet’, Ditton and Short, 1999) to crime problems." [p116]

"Assessed on the evidence presented in this report, CCTV cannot be deemed a success. It has cost a lot of money and it has not produced the anticipated benefits." [p120]

0
0
Tom
Thumb Up

JUST SAY NO!

To Smith:

http://petitions.number10.gov.uk/Sack-Ms-Smith/

0
0
Anonymous Coward

CCTV?

"Smith said the use of CCTV has the confidence and support of the British public"

Does she really believe that?

Last year some toe-rags broke into my house and despite being caught on the local council's CCTV doing it they couldn't be prosecuted because the CCTV didn't prove they'd entered my house!! Shambles.

She has to go.

0
0

Innocent Vs Not Guilty

While the DNA of completely innocent people should be removed from the database - (if requested - my brother in law was picked up by the police while at work and DNA tested for the murder of a Bolton prostitute a few years ago. He was completely innocent and cleared from the line of enquiry once his DNA was taken. But if his DNA was on the database he wouldn't have had the embarassment of being taken from work by police?) - we have to remember that some crims go to court (especially for rape) and are found not guilty due to lack of evidence or the victim too afraid to speak out.

0
0
Coat

@what?

You forgot the <sarcasm> </sarcasm> tags... Please tell me you forgot the tags...

0
0
Thumb Down

@Tom

I like the idea of a petition to get rid of Ms Smith, but the reasoning - she's destroyed the moral [sic] of the various British Police Forces - is way off target.

We don't need someone who "actually understands how important the police are for the safe operation of a society". We need someone who understands human rights, civil liberties and how important they are compared to snooping on fly tippers. We need someone who is not looking for any excuse to grow the powers of the state.

We need a petition that states clearly that we think she is a danger to British society, not that she doesn't understand the police force.

0
0
Thumb Down

@andy gibson

"we have to remember that some crims go to court (especially for rape) and are found not guilty due to lack of evidence or the victim too afraid to speak out."

What is it about innocent until PROVEN guilty that you don't understand?

I'm sorry but assuming someone's guilt because the evidence couldn't be found is a very, very dangerous route, one that undermines the foundations of justice in this country. One does not have to prove ones innocence, the prosecution must prove guilt.

Assuming people got off rape charges because there wasn't enough evidence or the victim didn't speak up is also a great way to ruin someone's life and destroy their family and friendships, all on allegations.

0
0
Coat

Do you dare sign the No10 Petition

You can be sure Wacky Jacqui will have that list of names into her database and marked as terrorist/dissenter before it closes.

'When a government is afraid of electorate its democracy'

I'm afraid to sign in-case I get a black mark on my record or a red spot on the back of my head. I'll just wait and hope that democracy works next time I make my X.

0
0
Silver badge
Thumb Down

Re:What?

Congratulation. You have won the "Most obvious Troll of the day" award.

0
0
Silver badge
Thumb Up

@AC

"fat, flatulent old harpy"

Can I humbly suggest that El Reg commission a poll to determine the most fitting moniker of the aforementioned harpy?

I will be voting for this one, it's elegant (unlike her) and honest (again, unlike her).

Bravo.

'scuse me, I'm off to vote for her to be sacked.

0
0
Flame

Why can't she

just fuck off? I wonder if Gordon has realised that no matter what he does, Labour are out of government come next election, so he's letting his mindless idiots fill their boots before they are booted out...

0
0
Anonymous Coward

Innocent *IS* Not Guilty

No innocent and not guilty are one and the same.

To say otherwise PRESUMES guilt even when there has been no evidence of guilt (which doesn't require the victim to speak out) and no witness evidence (other than the victim) and that the victim cannot be protected (but they are protected so this is false).

It's to ignore the real situation and hypothesize a movie scenario, of Mafioso Dons that can hunt down their victims whereever they go and however they are protected...

People are innocent by default.

0
0

Terrists

Why is RIPA still being used for fly-tippers etc.

They are clearly not terrorists unless fly-tipping certain materials.

Perhaps that's it, she is worried that instead of some old pram, our roadsides will be littered with spent C4 wrappers

0
0
Go

A new petition...

I've just created a new petition to review Home Office policy-making and addresses our collective concerns more directly than the existing call for the sacking of Jacqui Smith.

It will be awaiting approval for a short while, but (hopefully) you'll be able to find it on:

http://petitions.number10.gov.uk/ReviewHomeOffice/

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Title : Review Home Office policies, including the NIR, to protect out civil liberties

Text : Jacqui Smith, the Home Secretary, is abusing her position to force through unaccountable and irrevocable changes to the freedoms and liberties of the UK citizenry. Specifically the National Identity Register, Biometric/Genetic information gathering, the planned rollout of ID Cards to those groups of society without voting rights (Children, Criminals and Asylum Seekers) under the guise of the prevention of terrorism (without explanation as to how they will defend us), over-regulation and censorship of the Internet, monitoring of email and telephone communications without consent and various other programs many of which are held as illegal under EU law and the Human Rights legislation. All of these acts, often being forced through under obscure parlimentary systems, are enacted without open or honest public consultation and are fundamentally undemocratic. The government should review these plans and policies openly and then act to ensure that our civil liberties, hard-earned by our forebears in many conflicts, are protected by a truly representative and democratic government.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

We mustn't be afraid to voice our concerns. Sign up!

0
0
Flame

And why...

Would anyone EVER think it was a good idea to have the DNA of under 10s on the database in the first place? Only Nu Labia.

0
0
Bronze badge

CCTV is very effective

As I found out when two hoodies stole my car that I'd parked right in front of a camera. It caught their gestures perfectly.

0
0
Happy

@ Sir Runcible Spoon

I thank you

<bows and graciously accepts bouquet>

(AC for obvious reasons)

0
0
Coat

Sound and fury, signifying nothing

The pie faced fascist bitch rides again ! Notice that she has basically said more or less nothing ? "We'll continue to do as we are, only with extra magic pixie dust to make sure it's OK, and no more dog poo stories in the Daily Mail, ta" is about the gist of it.

So ya boo sucks to her.

Perhaps all the the frothing at the mouth RIPA haters can answer some pertinent questions though, like how should we gather evidence of dog fouling ? If, indeed, paper boys are carrying to much weight, in breech of some H&S regs, how do we check without sending someone to have a look ?

Why, exactly, is it a disproportionate use of "state power" for a public officer to photograph someone in the commission of a crime ? How _DO_ I check if people really live where they say they do, and I suspect they are lying in order to defraud the state ?

There would be no problem here, if it wasn't for the common (and justified) misconception that RIPA is somehow only for terrs and crims. If NuLab had told the fecking truth for a change when they were hammering this through instead of caterwauling about how we needed it to protect us from the four horsemen of the apocalypse, viz: terrorists, drug dealers, peados and organised crime, we wouldn't be having such a bloody hysterical frenzy over it's use.

For those of you who obviously haven't bothered to read it, RIPA specifically provides for the authorisation of directed surveillance (e.g. snapping poo spreaders) for the purposes of :

<RIPA>

(a) in the interests of national security;

(b) for the purpose of preventing or detecting crime or of preventing disorder;

(c) in the interests of the economic well-being of the United Kingdom;

(d) in the interests of public safety;

(e) for the purpose of protecting public health;

(f) for the purpose of assessing or collecting any tax, duty, levy or other imposition, contribution or charge payable to a government department;

...

</RIPA *>

And again, try to bear in mind that _before_ RIPA, local authorities could already, and frequently did, put people under surveillance. RIPA isn't perfect by a long stretch, but if it wasn't there, there wouldn't be an audit trail for the Daily Wail to FOI in order to get something to whine about.

So there.

*http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2000/ukpga_20000023_en_5#pt2-pb2-l1g28

0
0
Thumb Down

Taking under 10`s off the database

No jaqui, it doesnt work like that, the european union supreme overlord council or whatever they`re calling themselves these days demanded ALL innocent people get removed from it.

mabey she should spend some of our taxes on reading lessons rather than putting her fingers in her eyes, closing her eyes and pretending its not happening, la la la la

0
0

Question from accross the poun

How long is she going to be in power ???

0
0
Silver badge
Stop

Hello, Jaqui, this is the Real World (tm) calling...

So she promises "a review of the RIPA code of practice", whilst ignoring the fact that she has now been *TOLD* that keeping the DNA of people not convicted of crime is illegal. The "removing 70 under 10s from the database is just a sop which attempts to distract people's attention from what's still going on.

She also claims that the use of CCTV has the confidence and support of the British public, but I wouldn't be surprised if these are the same people who, allegedly, think that ID cards are a great idea and should be introduced immediately...

0
0
Thumb Down

@The Other Steve

You may be comfortable with the tinpot authoritarians at your local council watching your every move, I'm not.

If Labour had been honest about the intent of the RIPA then it never would have got through. Or at least shouldn't have, if open debate had been permitted.

I'm not a Mail reader I am concerned about government feature creep, from both a civil liberties and a financial perspective. I don't want the state involved in monitoring my every move, I don't think dog fouling is important enough to allow the intrusion into privacy by ever more people, I don't believe the systems will ever be good to prevent their abuse, I don't like it. I also resent being asked to pay for it.

0
0
Bronze badge

@ Tarquin Fin-tim - under 10s

Professor Sir Alec Jeffreys has argued consistently, and correctly, that in order to be non-discriminatory the NDNAD would have to contain the records of everyone. Under-10s would presumably be included in such a scenario.

The alternative non-discriminatory approach is to include no-one and to use the crime scene database instead, together with temporarily held profiles taken during investigation or for evidence in prosecution.

0
0
Gold badge

Wacky Jacqui

Ahh wacky Jacqui (why don't you call Jacqui that any more? The name is well deserved)...

Yes of course it makes sense to use an anti-terrorism law on noisy neighbors. Sure... *rolls eyes*. You guys over there really need to get things in order or you'll beat the US to having a complete police state.

0
0
Coat

Dog shit

@ David Hicks

"I don't think dog fouling is important enough to allow the intrusion into privacy by ever more people"

Where is the intrusion into privacy ? You walk a dog in public, it shits on the pavement in public, someone takes a photo of you and your doggy pal doing the dirty, in public.

Also, allowing your quadrupedal companion to foul the public highway is a crime, why would you expect to have any right to privacy during the commission of a crime ? Are you really sure that's what you want to advocate ?

Penultimately, who are the "ever more people" intruding into this non existent privacy right ?

And lastly, "If Labour had been honest about the intent of the RIPA then it never would have got through". I'm not sure about that. If they had said that as well as terror, crime, etc, it was going to place limits, a requirement for authorisation, and an audit trail on local authority decisions involving surveillance, none of which existed before, and if they'd made it clear that, counter to what seems to be popular opinion, RIPA doesn't grant anyone any powers at all, and in fact exists to place limits on them, then perhaps the opposition wouldn't have been able to grab hold of the "snoopers charter" argument, which is bollocks in the way I have described. RIPA doesn't enable anyone to do anything, it merely mandates that they ask first before undertaking certain kinds of activity.

Spooks they were a'spying and councils a'snooping well before it all got codified into RIPA, having it written down and regulated arguably makes it slightly less sinister than the pre-existing regime where much was done on the nod and the wink, and mainly done in the dark at that, where you can't see it, and where, as I pointed out, you are unable to complain about it.

RIPA is broken, but it still heaps better than no RIPA. Governments, councils and the like will arrogate these kinds of powers to themselves any way, all bureaucracies do so as long as they are allowed to exist, and there is not, will never be, and never has been, anything you nor I can do about that. At least this way we can see what they're doing.

0
0
Flame

and this is why you don't need guns in the UK

because you can always trust British government to do the smart thing, to respect your rights, and do it's utmost to protect you. Always a paragon of common sense, your government listens to your petitions and protests so there's absolutely no need to balance power between the people and the British government. No worries about the police, who will rush to protect you from the rare criminal element, and would never stoop to capturing all your (the victim's) details and even your DNA for further study.

Further proof that guns are not needed can be found in the recent decrease of violent crime and the massive increase of political decency and restoration of civil liberties, as well as the decommission of the surveillance state, over the last few years since private ownership of handguns were banned. There is good reason to suspect that this increasing trend of government caring and goodwill might lead to the complete elimination of the chav subculture, leading to outbreaks of civilized behavior, decent fashion sense, and good taste in music amongst the ever-better educated youth in public schooling.

Across the Pond, you can see the same trends in California, where crime, fraud, and government -sanctioned robbery are at all time lows with the strict regulation and removal of high powered rifles and low powered pistols. One only needs look to the decreased number of protests to see that people's satisfaction of the current and future Administrations are at an all time high!

Kumbaya! puff puff pass!

0
0
Unhappy

please forgive an ignorant seppo but..

wtf is "fly tipping"? Any google hits I get are blocked by the government firewall! :(

0
0

@Kain preacher / Rick Brasche

Kain, the last general election was May 2005 - they have to call another election before May 2010 (5 years). Generally, they wait until a propitious moment - such as after a major national success. Gordo missed a trick by not calling one at the end of the Beijing Olympics. But then, his poll rating was so poor that it would still have been a disaster for him. Can't understand why his ratings are going up at the moment as the dole queue is approaching 2 mil.

Rick, "fly-tipping" is a colloquial term for garbage that has been dumped illegally ie. not in a designated recycling or waste disposal area. Once it was primarily builders waste (bricks, concrete etc.), but there has been a growth in more toxic materials. People have to have licences and pay for this service - the fly-tippers dump the garbage without paying the fee or taking proper precautions. There was a case last year of a couple that own a few acres of land and keep horses - it has been discovered that the land was used for fly-tipping and it will cost them several hundred thousand pounds to get it cleaned up.

0
0

RE: wtf is "fly tipping"?

Illegally dumping rubbish.

Instead of taking your rubbish and disposing of it in legal ways (often involving paying), people will take it out to the country and dump it at the roadside, dump it up alleys, etc, etc.

Strangely, some people have difficulty understanding why adding extra incentives (various charges for disposing of rubbish) might possibly increase fly tipping !

0
0
Joke

Well hung paper boys?

"to check whether paper boys are carrying sacks that are too heavy".

I never knew that paper boys were so well endowed.

0
0

oh dear

There will be "consultation"

Then a report

The report will be released on a holiday recess

Then they will do nothing about the misuse.

Except to find official; ways to let councils misuse RIPA even more often.

That's the way they work.

0
0
Stop

@AC 18:36

If you are actually saying that allowing UK citizens the 'right to bear arms' would resolve our issues with authoritarian government, or that somehow our lack of right to own firearms is the root cause of our troubles, then you, sir, are a moron of the first degree. (If not, or I missed the /sarcasm tags, then I apologise).

In the US, more than 60% of all fatal shootings are traced back to the victims *own firearm* - Yes, thats right, you are more likely to be shot dead in the US *because* you own a firearm.

3 in 10 fatal shootings are perpetrated upon or cause the death of minors (under 18 years old).

Last year in the US, there were in excess of 11k fatal shootings from illegal firearms alone. Apparently a very high percentage of those were suicides as well.

No, we don't need guns in the UK, we need a legal system and law enforcement that favours the people over government policy.

0
0

Page:

This topic is closed for new posts.