I notice The Sun has an article by John Humphries this morning supporting charging for access to online newspapers. Presumably there will be more articles like that in the Murdoch newspapers, all supporting the charges.
158 posts • joined 27 Feb 2008
What worries me most about these is that they generate a false sense of security. It has been said that they would not have detected the recent case of explosive hidden in underpants.
It is always dangerous when the authorities put too much faith in technological solutions to problems like this rather like the dodgy bomb detectors sold to the Iraqi police.
I did not find his story very convincing.
But wasn't there a report a few weeks ago (on The Register?) which said they had a training mode where the image could be saved or sent to a remote terminal.
I also think one interview about them said the operator could send the image to someone else if he saw something suspicious. That seems a very basic function to have available.
It is obvious that if they see someone with something hidden then they are going to want an image saved - imagine a suicide bomber who detonated the bomb after it was seen then surely they would want an image saved?
I think the authorities are trying to be economical with the truth about these machines.
I think we can be sure that the paparazzi are going to get hold of images of celebrities in these machines eventually.
It is still running in the STV area but just about all adverts and many of the page links are dead.
I hardly ever used ITV's teletext service because there always were too many adverts but always liked CEEFAX. I had first heard about many news stories from the CEEFAX Newsflash on Page 150. I don't think the digital service has any equivalent, you either watch a programme or the news. That is supposedly progress.
Does anyone remember the early days of CEEFAX with row by row live coverage of the Henley Regatta - IN-OUT-IN-OUT-IN....
And of course TeleKnitware that linked direct to your knitting machine.
CEEFAX art with a black cat down a coal mine.
Is it not just Labour has not the courage to tell the Americans to get stuffed and either drop charges or have him tried in the UK but they do not want to risk sending him to the US and getting a long sentence or even worse committing suicide. So they drag it out until after the election then it is the Conservative's problem.
Wasn't there an experiment years ago in Scotland where computers were given away with Internet access to people in a council estate and most disappeared (i.e. sold) quite quickly.
What is the betting that these households that cannot afford computers for their children will have large screen TV and paying Murdoch large sums for access to all the Sky channels?
What happens if it is claimed the computer has been lost, do they just give another one away?
It seems a typical ZanuLab crackpot scheme to get a few headlines.
Presumably multi-millionaire alleged musician and expert on everything Bonio is in favour of all of us who have never downloaded a piece of music, legally or illegally, to pay the government tax on our ISP charges to make him even richer?
It is not quite the same as the UK, we are getting relay stations carrying DTT but the higher power sites are still needed to provide a feed for many of these relay stations and also people in remote areas not fed by a relay station.
It is possible to use lots of small sites in urban areas but not feasible for scattered rural communities.
The big problem in the US is that you have lots of small TV stations all competing with each other. It might be difficult to get them to cooperate to install a large network where every station is received equally in the area. There were similar objections to using a digital radio system like DAB where a number of different stations share one transmitter and are all the same at the receiver.
This seems a good example of a little knowledge being a dangerous thing. The police seem to have little knowledge of chemistry but think they are experts.
"If the police have to test something to show it is safe, then maybe they should arrest everyone and then just release the innocent!"
In discussions and interview over topics like the police retaining DNA of innocent people it has obvious that they do not understand the concept of being innocent. As far as the police are concerned no one is innocent (except themselves of course) just not been convicted of anything yet.
The interview of some government muppet by John Humphries this morning was funny. He kept saying how they had worked hard and deserved their bonus. John Humphries kept responding with "so they have done the job they are paid for so why do they need they paying extra?".
As usual it is just the senior people who are considered hard enough to get £10,000 bonuses, not the people doing the actual real hard work in unpleasant and possibly dangerous circumstances.
They just don't understand why people are so angry about automatic bonuses to senior staff.
There were reports at the beginning of the week about the police using the charge of "joint enterprise" against people who saw a crime take place but took no action to stop it.
Does this mean that any other police officers who saw this unlawful act take place are guilty of Joint Enterprise because they took no action to stop it and should be charged along with those that illegally detained him?
"- All police officers should have their own DNA collected as a condition of employment"
Does that mean that they are not already required to give a sample of DNA? I would have thought they would need to in case they contaminated the scene of a crime. But if they don;t then it makes a mockery of the statement we keep hearing about having nothing to fear if you are innocent.
I use a Holux GPSport 245 which I am sure is as small as that and has longer battery life. I use it to log my track for long periods then synchronise with any photographs taken and add the Lat/Long to the file for future reference. But a location can be saved and it will point towards that location.
You and Yours (I think) did an item on scammers advertising concert tickets. One person caught out said he put the name of the group into Google and used the first name on the list of matches because he thought that would genuine.
I would thought everyone would have learnt to ignore the first few Google matches!
Wasn't it also disclosed earlier this year or last year that ACPO is quite a profitable organisation.
Weren't they charging exorbitant rates for checking criminal records for people applying for US Visas or something like that. I think they were also profiting from some road penalties - driving courses for people charged with speeding perhaps?
Senior police officers seem to be as keen on promoting themselves as much as politicians so the media should comply with the law and put a black bar to obscure the face of any police officer shown in a picture or interview (better still a "clown face"). Local papers should do the same for the supposedly friendly neighbourhood "bobby" who will appear regularly in their pages.
Perhaps lots of FOIA requests are needed to other police forces to see if they have issued the same or similar instructions. Though I suspect that it will continue with the average plod on the streets having no idea what his powers and limitations are.
There was an item on Radio 4 at the weekend about how the police can send a letter to the manager of the company requesting a CRB check. This can just say that they have reasons to reject the person without giving any details and he is not allowed to tell the applicant about the letter. It cannot be challenged because the applicant is not aware of it so there is no appeals procedure against it.
"I would have thought the police would have learnt from the first time around that it's a bit of a PR disaster to arrest someone just taking pictures."
You would think that any police officer with half a brain would realise that the continued removal of identification numbers is also a PR disaster but there have been reports that it is continuing to happen so it must be being condoned or even encouraged by senior officers and the Home Office.
I have never cease to be amazed at the efforts of the British police to completely alienate most of the British public.
I hope that Kent Police will be prosecuting the people behind this website which shows photographs of Kent police officers without blanking out their faces. Must be an aid to terrorists.
Surprised that you think T-Mobile coverage is good in the Highlands and Islands. Just had a look at their map, there seems to no coverage on the A82 up over Glencoe whereas Vodafone and O2 have complete coverage over the route from what I remember. Other routes are similarly not covered.
They might have coverage in most larger towns but a lot of gaps in between.
Some years ago the company that I worked for put all the company mobile phones on T-Mobile, we protested because the coverage was so poor and kept our existing phones on Vodafone.
I wonder if these brave plod will feature on Police Camera Action?
The £200 sounds like vague figure made up so it does not sound as if too much money had been wasted. If it had been a real rave then they would have claimed it cost tens of thousands of pounds to deploy the helicopter.
The all night parties celebrating when Gordon Broon gets voted out of Downing Street will have to be careful they do not get raided by the Keystone Cops.
Interesting comment on the press. Local reporters and photographers must often visit their local schools but also other reporters and photographers frequently congregate around the gates of schools if it is vaguely connected with something in the news. A good case could be made for all of them to also vetted.
I had heard comments from people that they have had to have a separate CRB check for each charity that they done work for so I was surprised that the authors are not required to do the same for each school visited.
How does the school check that the person has been vetted? Do they just consult a list or do they have to carry a permit around? If just a list then the paedophile would just need to adopt a similar name to someone already vetted.
The whole scheme just sounds like a money makiong operation for the Quango (and the Chancellor).
It reminiscent of all the hype when AIRWAVE was forced on the Uk emergency services, "all emergency services must be able to talk to each other". I am very tempted to do a FOIA request when eventually all the UK emergency services are on AIRWAVE (as expected it is years behind schedule). Each one has their own command and control so they rarely have to speak to each other directly, they all carry mobile phones if it is absolutely necessary.
It is not impossible to interconnect different networks anyway - the telephone companies have been managing for years (you don't hear calls for all the emergency services to be on the same mobile phone network so they can speak to each other).
The UK is heading fast for a "all eggs in one basket" situation where every emergency service as well as Emergency Planning, some parts of the armed services etc will be on the one network. It is claimed to be resilient but I have my doubts.
I thought OFCOM had a remotely controlled monitoring network that was used for spectrum surveillance? It is not as comprehensive as vehicle driving around but would have thought they had got some useful data from that.
Then their is other RF surveillance network that is said to have been installed.
Be funny if the videosender was being used by the police to spy on someone!
The ZanuLab muppets will justify it in the name of fighting terrorism though I suspect that with this government that it would be used more to track opponents of the government.
I wonder what they would have said in the days of the IRA if a Conservative government set up a project where all letters were routed through a central point where they were opened and the contents photocopied or scanned or perhaps a ban on sealing envelopes.
Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2019