Posts by Dev 5 publicly visible posts • joined 8 Feb 2008
"Our Boys-in-Blue have been developed into the government's own unaccountable, paramilitary, enforcement attack dogs."
And yet every report and commentator says they're more scrutinized than ever, spending more time "accounting" for what they do than actually doing it.
With great power comes a great big stack of paperwork, I mean, responsibility.
Police do something to tackle crime and you call it "big brother" - even in the face of evidence of its effectiveness and the support of the people who it effects. You're no safer because YOU want so much "accountability" that police are too busy EXPLAINING to actually CATCH criminals.
And neatly enough they are so busy doing the worthless paperwork that YOU demand that they don't have the time to be on the streets detecting and preventing crime so you can complain about that too.
I know lets bury EVERY police officer in red tape in case ONE of them is a bully/rascist/corrupt - at least then the other 99% wont be able to do any good. Genius!
Except there's still bad individuals anyway, whoops.
"This will include using radios rather than paper forms to record stop and searches - this is already running in three pilot areas."
That sounds like a good idea (surprisingly). It could mean MORE information is recorded in less time. Actually explaining the reasons for the search fully rather than "fits description" or whatever few words fit on the form.
cops with cameras sounds good too. About time judges actually see what happens on the street after closing time.
"If they want to make it less time consuming, reduce the form to what's actually needed to accomplish accountability. Name/number of officer, time/date/location and reason for search and hand that to the guy getting stopped."
You ever seen a stop and search form? It does have all that information. And more. Someone as well educated yet harassed as you should know that.
"Unfortunately being better educated than a police officer and being prepared to stand up for your rights is grounds for being singled out and harassed"
And the police can tell that from a distance HOW exactly? Or is it you're obnoxious and condescending to the police - making a 3 minute inconvenience to you in the interest of trying to reduce crime some sort of protracted "how dare you" stand?
"Maybe then the police will start reserving stop and search for when it's supposed to be used - when they have a "reasonable suspicion"."
For terrorism the police don't need reasonable suspicion. Don't like it? Write to your MP.
Anthony - RIPA covers more than intercepts, it covers every type of survillance.
I'll give you an example a friend whos a copper told me that demonstrates the point.
A guy had his car stolen with the keys at 2:00 AM and reports it to police. Police find the car, parked and undamaged in another part of the city an couple of hours later by a passing patrol recognising the registration. There is no one nearby.
The obvious thing to do would be to watch the car, see who returns to it and arrest them?
That is directed, covert surveillance and a pre-planned operation requiring RIPA authorization. That authorization is a 12 page form that must be completed, submitted to an inspector and then to the duty officer - someone of superintendent rank who at 4:00 AM will be in bed (with an oncall phone of course).
The authorising officer has to be satisfied that on the basis of the information in the form, which has to include exactly what kind of surveillance is to be used, where, by whom, for how long and for what purpose, that the intended action is proportionate to the circumstances and the risks of collateral intrusion and interference to the right to privacy can be weighed against the anticipated benefits of potentially apprehending someone who may or may not be guilty of an offense.
IF approved only then can surveillance be carried out.
Anyone found returning to the car BEFORE that approval, if arrested, would argue that the arrest was unlawful as it was the result of unauthorized surveillance and so any evidence obtained while they were in custody could not be admitted. - Car thief gets away.
That is of course unless you regard that situation as arising from circumstances that mean it would be impractical to get authorization in which case you can act in the interests of apprehending offenders and get approval retrospectively.
The former is what I think is meant by over interpretation and is exactly what happens.
In fact its probably worse because knowing what would be needed and the likelihood that approval wouldn't even be given at the end of it means it is never sought. Result: Car thief gets away because police are tied up in their paperwork.
So its not just about terrorists - unless you think there are more terror plots than stolen cars. I doubt that myself.
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2024
