Things may be turning around in the UK

Post Reply New Topic

Given my predilection for criticizing the UK government's authoritarian style of ruling, I was fairly surprised to find the following site:

http://programmeforgovernment.hmg.gov.u ... index.html

Contrast with this article on the ASBO system:

http://reason.com/archives/2009/05/11/d ... -the-peace

* We will further regulate CCTV.

I'm not sure what this involves, but I don't like the sound of it. A lot of people have identified the problem with CCTV, but they've opted for the regressive solution of simply trying to cut down cameras, which will limit freedom and increase crime.

I would rather have it that all cameras installed by the government should be freely available to the public. I'm not sure how they would do this - perhaps you could feed them all to an internet site, or something like that.

.

I have no experience with asbos making people feel paranoid or police state, i just hear of them given to violent people who mug and attack people here.

Legislation versus cameras topic

Cameras can do a good job of ID-ing persons of interest when a crime has occurred. In Canada they are in more places than you would believe.

However, the hair splitting laws that are mentioned in the story by Dox are just silly. Instead of outlawing sex, in my country we have noise laws--which include screaming, swearing, loud music and anything that would be irritating to neighbours. i
It has nothing to do with sex, language or taste in music. Be a good neighbour!!

In jolly old UK it seems as if the citizenry is taking things much too personally.

ID cards/NIR have already been scrapped.

It's interesting but in my view I don't think it goes far enough.

An end to the denormalisation of certain 'lifestyle choices' - smoking, eating, drinking and so on
A culling of most (if not all) QUANGOs and all fake charities
Repeal of the smoking ban to be replaced by something less draconian and authoritarian
A referendum on Britain's membership of the European Union
The destruction of the NHS CfH database scheme
The restoration of the Common Travel Area
A special CCTV Commission that regulates and oversees all public CCTV cameras (private ones are a different matter.) Good reasons must be given for each camera; if they can't provide a good reason then they should not be allowed.
A look at the pub tie system in this country and measures to actually help the pub trade - beer prices cannot keep rising - more and more pubs are either closing or are in serious trouble

And so on.

The cynic in me believes that this is just so much rhetoric that will, in the fullness of time, lead to very little substantive change.

There are a few good pieces in here:

Rolling back state intrusion is generally a positive move. Every Cabinet decision ought to be founded upon the question, "is there a proper role for government here."

The protections on the DNA database, anti-terrorism legislation, the right to non-violent protest and review of defamation laws are all valuable moves. British defamation law has been particularly difficult for defendants because of its extremely broad scope. Courts in England and Wales will accept jusrisdiction for defamation claims on very narrow grounds.

There are a few puzzlers:

A Freedom Bill looks like so much jargon. Until we see what it actually says, and see that it actually has some practical impact, I am not moved.

Further regulating CCTV seems a retrograde step for what is, at heart, a libertarian manifesto. I would have expected to see their removal from public space. But this is the constant battle between the libertarian and the social conservative sides of the right wing.

The mechanism to prevent proliferation of offences sounds inane. Parliament is free to legislate, and the Crown in Council is free to regulate, subject to statutory authority. Will this mechanism be an entirely new level of review? Will there be a Department of Administrative Affairs established to effect this mechanism?

A "British Bill of Rights" sounds like a decidedly left-leaning piece, particularly the incorporated reference to the European Convention. Until, of course, you start to think about what an, "understanding of the true scope" of these liberties might be. The Tories coalition partners may have words on this subject.

There are few hopeless promises:

Every new government promises greater transparency and accountability, and then discovers that the actual process of decision making does not allow them to control their message, which leads them to circle the wagons on access to information. Cameron's ideological cellmate, Stephen Harper, is particularly hypocritical on this subject.

Trial by jury is something we can all stand behind, but wait for the screams from the Tory constituency members when summoned to serve on a complex fraud case expected to last 18 months. Also, jury tampering remains a real and ongoing issue, and it cannot be blithely legislated out of existence. The law and order crowd would not have been pleased to see a third mistrial on the Heathrow robbery.

There are some particularly stupid moves embedded in here:

The halt to next generation biometic passports has the potential to eliminate visa free access to the United States, as well as creating an opportunity for greater counterfeiting and alteration of British passports.

Oh, and they seriously need to add Fair Use to UK copyright law.

I'm all for civil liberties - ID cards,excessive CCTV and the DNA database are things that really bother me and why I voted for the Lib Dems in the election (although I am uneasy about the Tory coalition, friend of the rich and big business - not that Labour were much better).

However, civil liberties mean although someone should have freedom to do what they like in their own house (within the law), I should also have freedom to be able to relax and sleep in my own house. I am extremely sensitive to other people's noise and hate being able to hear my neighbors at all - it feels like an invasion of privacy and winds me up at any time of day, but at night becomes unbearable, destroys sleep and I could easily end up being violent towards someone who refuses to be quiet in that situation. I consider that someone keeping me awake at night with noise is worse than someone punching me in the face - and people don't have the freedom to do that!

My take on civil liberties is that everyone (excepting children in some respects) should be free to do what they like in their personal life as long as it doesn't compromise other people's freedoms/rights. There will always be conflicting issues and it has to be decided whether the freedom to sleep in peace and quiet (and good sleep is essential for good health) is more important than the freedom for self expression (music etc.). I think the best compromise is to have a time during the evening/night when people should be quieter and a time during the day/early evening when people can express themselves freely (as long as not too loud to damage ears obviously) - noise at this time will still annoy me, but if I know it will be quiet later I can not get too bothered about it and know I'll be able to sleep. If people are going to demand freedom to express themselves at all hours of the day, I will demand freedom from other people's noises at all times of day - neither is realistic unfortunately so we have to compromise.

Actually, one major problem is the shoddy sound proofing in modern buildings - I live in a new flat with sound proofing to apparently modern standards - it is decent between adjacent flats and to the exterior but non-existent above and below and out to the corridor, to the extent that I can hear people using their toilet (and not just flushing). I am frequently woken up at night by doors closing or water rushing through the pipes and don't blame my neighbors at all for this - you can't expect people to stay locked in their flats all night and not use the toilet. The property developers are the real culprits, and laws enforcing good soundproofing between houses and flats would probably improve the quality of life of millions of people and prevent a lot of such conflicts.

On the subject of noise laws and sex... http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/wear/8413974.stm