ASBOs have failed. Rather than deterrents, they have become badges of honour among young thugs. So what is the government's response? To roll them out over young potentials as well:

So they just haven't learnt from their mistakes, have they? Handing out "baby ASBOs" to even younger children - especially those who haven't even done anything very bad at all.

The name of the scheme that is to to deal with this just sums up Labour's entire style of government: Family Intervention Projects. Why do they feel that they have the right to intervene in out lives?

When this comes alongside the proposal to put young children who "exhibit behaviour indicating they may become criminals in later life" on the DNA database. I mean, WTF? Since when has being a behaving badly ever been a good enough reason for your DNA to be added to their Big Brother database?

Have we finally abandoned the idea of innocent until proven guilty? Do you no longer actually have to commit a crime before you can be convicted for it?

Baby ASBOs and adding disruptive children's details to the DNA database will not prevent them feom becoming criminals, but the opposite - pushing them in to a life of crime, since that seems to be what is expected of them!

No to ID cards. No matter what step-by-step approach is taken. If it is to be "consumer demand" that drives take up of ID cards, then make then completely voluntary, with no compulsion involved in any way at all. otherwise it really isn't "consumer demand" but government imposition.

Especially since the Home Secretary really doesn't seem to get the real issue. It's not about having a physical ID card or the same information on a passport - but the government having our information at all. They seem to have no comprehension it is this database culture that is the largest issue. Having to carry an ID card is part of it, but not all that much in comparison.

And what is scariest is the inability of government to protect our data. Not just this government, but the entire institution of government. This government is specific, though, since Jacqui Smith doesn't seem to get the idea of data privacy, defending her database because it "won't be on the internet". Yes, she really said that, forgetting that data privacy exists anyway. And since it will presumably be on the government intranet, it is obviously be open to good and persistent enough hackers.

Polls show growing opposition to ID cards:

Why is there such a furore over the bugging of Sadiq Khan [Labour MP for Tooting]? He wasn't being bugged, but the person he was visiting. That he is an MP should make absolutely no difference.

MPs should be exempt from bugging personally because they are MPs, but bugging shouldn't have to be restricted with regards to other people around them. MPs are just citizens who happen to be allowed to site of the House of Commons for a while by kind permission of the electorate. Maybe this is something they forget?

It shouldn't be allowed to bug MPs just because they are MPs, but if there is any national security reason to suspect an MP or anyone else of a breach of national security, just the mere fact that they are an MP or come into contact with an MP should be no reason not to bug them.

MPs should have no extra rights to the rest of us. There should be a good reason before any of us are bugged, and that applies to MPs as well. But should a good reason rise, bugging should take place, regardless of whether they are or not an elected Member of Parliament.

Whatever the reason behind this bugging, whether it was made by the police without consulting ministers and whether or not the officer who did the bugging was pressurised into it makes no difference at all. Sadiq Khan MP was not being bugged; the person he visited in jail was. He just happened to be there.

On another note, MPs exist to be bugged. Just by their constituents, rather than the police...

Is there to be an end to anonymous online comments?

It is unlikely that this will really make much difference. The ways in which to hide and protect your identity online are legion, and this sort of story will just increase them. It will never be possible to identify who's who online, as every level of detection will be countered by several layers dedicated to preserving anonyminity.

What this does show, however, is that it is very much becoming less easy - or at least more troublesome - to be and remain anonymous online. Many bloggers write under pseudonyms, like I do - even though my real name is openly shown on this page, and easily findable by anyone who can be bothered - but this won't really make my difference to that. Certainly until they bring in thought crimes, anyway.

via A. Tory
Source: The Guardian

Well it shocked me, anyway. The Lib Dems have said something that is actually right, and that I can agree fully with. It's also actually a liberal proposal! I have to say I'm amazed.

Yes, he's right. But of course this isn't exactly something that they have just discovered and revealed to us all. We already knew it. But at least they've caught up - eventually. Maybe they'll come round to the idea of reducing the stranglehold of the welfare state we're in... Well, stranger things have happened, haven't they? OK, maybe not. But still, at least they've got this far!

UPDATE: I've just realised something very strange - today [and in the last two posts] I have agreed with both the Lib Dems and Labour - to some extent at least. There must be something wrong with me...

Source: BBC

This is something which we can all agree with:

Spot on. The DNA of people who have not been convicted of a crime must not be kept in a database. I've written on this before.

The only acceptable thing to do with that sort of DNA database is to only permanently keep the DNA of those who have been convicted of a crime. A case could be made for keeping those who were prosecuted but acquitted by a jury for a limited period, depending on the severity of the charge. But for those who are not even charged with a crime, their DNA should not even be added to the DNA database. Once that investigation is over, their DNA should be removed from all records. Anything else is a perversion of justice.

Sources: The Times, BBC

So now you just assume everyone's guilty of smething?

It is indefensible and biased - but it would not be fairer to include everyone, guilty of innocent. Why not instead remove from the DNA database of everyone who hasn't been convicted - or at least not even prosecuted - for a crime? That would be fairer. They haven't committed a crime, or even been suspected of one enough to get to court, so why should their DNA be kept?

Since the number of DNA samples and kept in the database were taken from those who were not convicted of a crime amounts to around 10% of the total, the DNA database should be all rights be significantly smaller than it is now. Especially considering that they can't even seem to be able to keep up with the number they're taking already, how can they be able to get DNA from everyone else?

What they are trying to do is enact true Orwellian policies. Big Brother in action. They can see us, listen to us, and speak to us via CCTV cameras now. And they want to know our genetic make-up now! My DNA is my DNA, not theirs. And I don't want it in a national database.

What is worst thing about Lord Justice Sedley's outburst? The response from Tony McNulty, Minister of State for Security, Counter-terrorism, Crime and Policing:
McNulty also suggested that in future DNA could be taken "as a matter of course" after any encounter with the criminal justice system. This is also joined by the PMS, who said:
But what about the innocents whose DNA is already on the database? Surely that has to be morally wrong, if not illegal. Where's Brown's "moral compass" now? The only politician who has replied to this issue with integrity is David Davis:

The only acceptable thing to do with this sort of DNA database is to only permanently keep the DNA of those who have been convicted of a crime. A case could be made for keeping those who were prosecuted but acquitted by a jury for a limited period, depending on the severity of the charge. But for those who are not even charged with a crime, their DNA should not even be added to the DNA database. Once that investigation is over, their DNA should be removed from all records. Anything else is a perversion of justice.

UPDATE: Something I forgot to include in the original post, reminded to me by a post on this issue at Liberty's Requiem.
For once, I can have nothing but admiration for the SNP. It's a very strange feeling for me to have, since normally they are just utterly stupid. Now I'm going to write words I never thought I'd type: Well done SNP!

Sources: BBC, The Telegraph, The Guardian, The Independent, The Times

School children are to be "tagged":

This is just yet another step along the way towards a surveillance state. Tracking where your children are through technology in their clothes sounds like a good idea, because then you'll never lose them, always know where they are etc. But it is just one small step away from implanting tracking devices in bodies at birth, and thus it always being known where you are.

What sort of world are we living in where constant tracking can be seen as a good thing? The implications for privacy are enormous. Those who argue that if you don't do anything wrong, you don't have anything to worry about are just fooling themselves. The idea of tagging the elderly has been raised before, and now the idea of tagging kids. Nest they'll be after the rest of us.

I don't want Big Brother knowing where I am all day every day. Why would they want to know, and what good would it do them? What is the real point of them? The very small benefits they may bring in "security" mean nothing against the invasion of privacy that accompanies it.

Sources: The Telegraph, The Guardian

ID cards are just wrong. I don't want my life reduced to a piece of plastic. The contracts for companies to provide services towards the creation of the ID card scheme went out to tender yesterday. So today I signed this pledge [quoted below] not to use the services of companies who win the contracts. In fact, like Tim Worstall, I might even avoid any who even apply for them if I possibly can.

"I will boycott any company that wins a contract to deliver the National ID card. but only if 500 other people will do the same."
...
The plan for a National Identity Card scheme is an invasive threat to privacy and yet will achieve nothing.
Today the Government announced that contracts to supply computer equipment and manage the application and issuing of cards have been put out to tender.
A boycott of a company's services -- for example changing phone and internet provider from BT to another firm -- is a simple way to make them think twice about whether they want the job.

Sign up here.

Despite the rather amusing nature of this story, it hides a deeper and extremely unpleasant Orwellianism.

"A Florida inmate convicted this week of masturbating while alone in his jail cell is reportedly only one of eight targets—along with state taxpayers—of what a Miami Herald columnist describes as "a spectacular case of selective prosecution."
Given the likely prevalence of such commonplace behavior in state prisons (not to mention boarding schools, seminaries and military barracks), criminally charging any Broward County inmate with masturbation represents a major waste of prosecution dollars." (ABA Journal)

Yes, it is a waste of money to prosecute for it. But the issue goes deeper. First of all, the female deputy who complained was watching him on a monitor - he was alone in his cell - and has done the same for seven others. It sounds almost like she was channel-surfing for Onanists - and must pay quite a deal of attention to them wanking, since in court she "managed to describe [the] offence in startling detail, eight times, once with... approximating the action with arm motions."This deputy definitely seems to be on some sort of crusade against bishop-bashing, money-spanking, etc.

That it is - or could be - illegal to masturbate whilst alone is quite disgusting. Had the deputy been visible to the prisoner, then that would be a different story, but since he was alone in his cell, then why should he be prevented from pleasuring himself? It is natural, after all.

This story does give me a great opportunity to post this hilarious video though...
[Warning: Mature content]

via Iain Dale, Tim Worstall, and Caroline Hunt

Yet another fine is proposed to be added to the motorists financing of the police, as more cameras are to monitor us in our daily lives. This plan is to increase the fine for motorists driving in a cycle lane from £30 - which is rarely given by police - to £120 to be awarded by cameras.

"Drivers will be fined £120 for straying into cycle lanes under plans to give local authorities powers to install yet another set of roadside enforcement cameras.
Even minor infringements, such as moving briefly into a cycle lane to pass a vehicle turning right, will result in a fixed penalty. Drivers will not know that they have been caught until the penalty notice arrives in the post a few days later.
The powers are initially being proposed for use by authorities in London but would be introduced later across the rest of the country.
The cameras would also monitor cycle boxes at traffic lights, known as “advanced stop lines”." (The Times)

Why are more bloody cameras needed? The level of surveillance in our society is already excessive, and this is aimed quite obviously at both punishing those to continue to "dare" to drive cars and to increase revenue.

The problem with cycle lanes is that they are usually shit. They are often in the wrong places, badly marked, poorly maintained, often pointless, and rarely linked up with one another. I rarely use cycle lanes for the simple reason that they are not in the right place. Councils often place them on pavements, which makes them both out of the way and potentially dangerous. Putting a cycle lane on the pavement when they are absurdly short - such as literally around a corner - is pointless. If I were to use it, I would not be able to get back onto the road safely at all.

Cycle lanes are all well and good, but not unless they are in the right place. Painting a few lines and calling it a "cycle lane" to fill up the quota isn't good enough. They need to be somewhere where they actually make a difference, and few of them are.

The draconian manner in which the fines are proposed to be applied is ridiculous. If it does not endanger any cyclist and is done briefly in order to keep traffic moving - such as moving briefly into a cycle lane to pass a vehicle turning right - shouldn't earn the driver a fine of any amount. Common sense has to prevail at some point, though considering the sort of people who think this crap up, I doubt it ever actually will.

On the other side of the coin, however, this is being proposed in order to "make cycling safer by sending a strong message to drivers that they cannot ignore the white bicycle symbols painted on the road." It does have a slight point, but not any extent that warrants this idea. But cycling would be made safer by having cycle lanes in useful areas, following well though out routes, and actually joined up. Also by stressing the responsibility of motorists to pay attention to cyclists. Even so, some cyclists are just terrible at following the road rules themselves, such as ignoring red lights, and thus put themselves in danger and deserve no sympathy.

Source: The Times

CCTV is there to stop, or at least record, crime. Yet it appears that 90% of the CCTV cameras in Britain may well be breaking the law themselves. This is due to breaking the Data Protection Act and, in some cases, the Human Rights Act, according to CameraWatch:

"A new national advisory body for the industry, CameraWatch, which has the backing of the police and the Information Commissioner’s Office, claimed yesterday that the vast majority of CCTV is used incorrectly and could potentially be inadmissable in court...
“Our research shows that up to 90 per cent of CCTV installations fail to comply with the Information Commissioner’s UK CCTV code of practice, and many installations are operated illegally. That has profound implications for the reputation of the CCTV and camera surveillance industry and all concerned with it." (The Times)

It's not a good thing that a lawyer "could drive a horse and cart" through most CCTV evidence.

I don't like the profusion of CCTV cameras across the country, especially when they want to give the cameras speakers and microphones as well, but since the cameras are there, they should at least be able to catch and convict any criminals they record!

As the CCTV cameras are there, they should at least do their jobs properly and be admissible in court as evidence. Otherwise they have no positive role at all.

Source: The Times

Around 183 crimes went unsolved for up to eleven years because the DNA database was not updated with more than 26,000 DNA samples taken between 1995 and 2004. The crimes whose perpetrators got away with for a decade or more included "one paedophile offence, three robberies, nine burglaries, 19 drugs offences and 62 thefts". And still around 5,000 of those samples have not been added, so the full extent of the failures are not yet known.

Since April 2004, DNA samples taken from people who were either acquitted of the charges made against them or were never even charged in the first place have been allowed to be added to the database. This now means that the database now tops 4 million samples, 5.5% of the population of the UK, of which:

"there are now 324,647 people, around 10 per cent of the total, whose DNA is held by the police despite their being either cleared of the offence for which they were arrested or despite not being charged or cautioned at all."

This means that a huge number of people who have never been convicted of a crime have had their DNA taken and held in a national database. Patently ridiculous. A case could be made for keeping the DNA of people who went to court but were acquitted by a jury, since there must have been sufficient evidence for the police and CPS to believe that they were guilty. But there is no case that can be made for keeping DNA samples from people who haven't even been charged! What will the next step be? Taking DNA samples from babies and adding them to the database then, just in case they commit a crime at some point in their life?! It is obscene.

Some say that "if you don't have anything to hide then you won't mind it" but that holds no water. It is not right for the government to hold details of everyone's fingerprints, retina scans, or DNA. That is a policy more reminiscent of a police state than of a liberal democracy.

Source: BBC, The Times, The Guardian