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

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".

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?

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.

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.

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!

Jacqui the Ripa ?

I'll get my coat....

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.

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..

JUST SAY NO!

To Smith:

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

@what?

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

@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.

@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.

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.

Re:What?

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

@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.

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...

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!

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.

@ Sir Runcible Spoon

I thank you

<bows and graciously accepts bouquet>

(AC for obvious reasons)

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

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

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...

@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.

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.

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!

please forgive an ignorant seppo but..

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

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.

@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.