From: boltar2003 on
On Wed, 24 Mar 2010 14:55:26 +0000
Cynic <cynic_999(a)> wrote:
>On Wed, 24 Mar 2010 12:40:42 +0000 (UTC), boltar2003(a)
>>>>Depends, of course, on whether ANPR stores images as well as just
>>>>registration/location data as to whether even that's necessary...
>>>It won't store images. Even if it did, one red Ford Fiesta looks the
>>>same on CCTV as any other red Ford Fiesta.
>>The drivers wouldn't though.
>They would on a CCTV quality of image. Note that even the much higher
>quality photographs taken by a Gatso are not good enough to identify a
>driver in most cases.

I don't know about gatsos but I got done by a roadside plod van scamera in
hampshire a few years back and in the picture they nicely sent me when I
queried it my face was obscured by the sun visor but my wifes face was clearly
visible and could easily have identified her.


From: boltar2003 on
On Wed, 24 Mar 2010 14:58:01 +0000
AlanG <invalid(a)> wrote:
>>I thought they already had (blue cameras everywhere in
>>Nottingham/Leiceser for example).
>Those are traffic master cameras and only record traffic flow.

Yeah , just like the london congestion charge cameras are only used for nicking
those who avoid paying and would never be used by the police. Oh no. Never.
Absolutely not. Kuddly Ken told us so when they were first installed.

Oh , hang on a minute....


From: Big Les Wade on
Conor <conor(a)> posted
>On 24/03/2010 10:05, Ret. wrote:
>> I never said that - but ID parade 'stooges' are simply selected,
>> according to certain physical traits (height, hair colour, age, etc) off
>> the streets or from colleges,
>You said it was random. That is not random.

AIUI the standard procedure is to select stooges who resemble the
suspect as closely as possible. Then, if the witness picks out a stooge
instead of the suspect, that fact can still be adduced by the
prosecution as identification evidence that tends to incriminate the
suspect; because the stooge resembled him.

If you are inclined to laugh, read the Barry George appeal judgement.
That is *exactly* what happened,

Criticising the government is not illegal, but often on investigation turns out
to be linked to serious offences.
From: Cynic on
On Wed, 24 Mar 2010 15:13:40 +0000, Conor <conor(a)> wrote:

>> Boyfriend overtakes a bus crawling along in a village, without exceeding
>> the speed limit and gets tugged by plod who see him as a young driver
>> and an easy target. They tell him that overtaking a slow moving vehicle
>> in an urban area is illegal - first I've ever heard - and as he's young,
>> he believes them.
>> THE VERY NEXT MORNING, social services are round at my sister in laws
>> saying that they had concerns about my disabled nephew being carried in
>> a car that was stopped by the police.
>> When did this occur? Last week. And you wonder why we all have the
>> concerns about the gubbermint, Kev.
>Just to add, Kev...
>How did Social Services find out about this incident?

If you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to fear.
Think of the children.
If it saves just one child it is worth it.
We need to prevent terrorism and abuse.
No right-thinking person could possibly object.
These measures are for our own good.
Blame the criminals for making it necessary.
It helps win the War on Drugs.
It helps win the War on Terrorism.
It helps win the War on Child Abuse.
It helps win the War on Obesity.
.... feral youths ... knife crime ... hooliganism ... yada yada


From: Cynic on
On Wed, 24 Mar 2010 15:10:10 +0000, Conor <conor(a)> wrote:

>Indeed. And if he believes what he says, why doesn't he post with his
>real name and email address?

He used to. Then suddenly he stopped doing so.

I wonder if perhaps a little bit of reality percolated into his ideal
World where all data is used only for the purpose that is intended,
and all intended purposes are always honestly stated?