U.K. Introducing the Thought Police!

Akrasia

The U.K. are already building the most concentrated surveillance society in the world, but even the millions of CCTV cameras aren't enough to catch 'Potential criminals' So they have taken another page out of Nineteeneightyfour and are planning to make it a legal requirement for Council staff, charity workers and Doctors to 'tip off' authorities if they suspect anyone might potentially get involved in a violent crime.

The Home Office proposals, leaked to the Times newspaper, insist public bodies have "valuable information" that could identify potential offenders.

Possible warning signs could include heavy drinking, mental health problems or a violent family background.

Of course, they're not calling it the 'thought police'. They have a much more euphamistic name for it "multi-agency information sharing" But thought police they are. Two new agencies would be formed (the ministry of truth and the ministry of love perhaps?)

The leaked document states: "Public bodies will have access to valuable information about people at risk of becoming either perpetrators or victims of serious violence."

It says when staff become "sufficiently concerned" about an individual, that person should be should "risk assessed" and, if necessary, referred for further attention.

Mr King suggests two new agencies be created - one to collate reports on potential offenders, the other on potential victims.
New laws would also be needed to place staff under a statutory obligation to report any concerns, he adds.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/6675335.stm

wes

That just seems well dodgy.....

Zambia

Agree this another hair brained scheme that will die a death .... the police seldom follow up on real crimes. Having them being called for ones you think might happen in the future is unworkable.....Next

joecoote

I think the scariest part of this whole surveillance (tracking) culture that has evolved is how easy it is to accept the logic and reasoning behind it. Sure, if your a law abiding citizen, you have nothing to fear. Easy. Simple. Only criminals need be afraid.

An anomoly, however, exists within those who support it the most. The biggest supporters of this technology and thinking often classify themselves as liberals. Their liberalism is often defined as an individual's right to pursue unfettered wealth. When you've accumlulated vast wealth, what do you want? Protection. Keep the barbarians from the gate. What do you want? A placid and compliant workforce.

Get used to it. It coming to neighborhood near you. Governments love it for tax collection purposes also. Any party or individual who speaks out against it will be accused of aiding and abetting criminals. No one will speak against it for, if you do, they'll be watching.

Fratton Fred

This reminds me more of Minority Report" than 1984, but it's scary enough.

I can't see what they are trying to achieve unless it is Profiling" taken a step further.

Sand

Most likely its been sensationalised but apart from that its a proposal and will probably never get past the "what if" stage

Possible warning signs could include heavy drinking, mental health problems or a violent family background.

It says when staff become "sufficiently concerned" about an individual, that person should be should "risk assessed" and, if necessary, referred for further attention.

Okay - so an agency takes reports/tip offs from doctors/charity workers/social workers and creates a file on people looking for danger signs. They then send someone to check the risk of this person and if necessary refer the case for further attention.

So, theyre not changing the law to convict people on the basis they might commit a crime, its just basically to collect info and focus resources on high risk cases?

Right - Well I guess thats totally unreasonable. Crime should only be dealt with after the fact. No resources should be put in place to identify high risk cases in advance and try and prevent it.

By the way, I dont know enough about the proposal to comment on its likely effectiveness in detail, but the principle of having a recognised channel for various different agencies to share information on families or individuals that concern them doesnt seem terrible in its own right.

taken another page out of Nineteeneightyfour...the ministry of truth and the ministry of love perhaps?

Okay, I get youve read 1984. Possibly it may have escaped you that it was a book about the dangers of totalitarian regimes, not a book about CCTV cameras and information sharing.

Fremen

Right - Well I guess thats totally unreasonable. Crime should only be dealt with after the fact. No resources should be put in place to identify high risk cases in advance and try and prevent it.

Hmm, that's a bit of a straw man argument, and an unnecessarily hostile tone to boot.
No-one was saying that they should put NO resources into prevention of crime. It's just some people find the idea of your family doctor being *legally required* to "tip off" the authorities because you're a heavy drinker a bit objectionable.

If your doctor's worried about you, then by all means he should go to the authorities. It's the legal requirement that's a bit worrying.

hullaballoo

By the same token, would it be fair to assess the opening post as unbiased?

Of course, the counter-argument is that if you have nothing to hide, then this wouldn't bother you in the slightest. Perhaps everyone has something to hide, though.

On the other hand, I was particularly disturbed to see this on the news today: the police in Mersyside have just introduced a remote control flying CCTV plane. It is designed to patrol the streets and spot offences.

http://news.sky.com/skynews/article/0,,30100-1266714,00.html.

Fremen

if you have nothing to hide, then this wouldn't bother you in the slightest

That's a very old argument. It seems reasonable at first glance, but the problem is it assumes the system is perfect, i.e. there's no-one involved inside the system who will abuse their power.

Aside from that, maybe I have nothing to hide, but that doesn't mean I like being watched.

I agree with you, the OP is hardly impartial, though.

hullaballoo

Fremen wrote:

That's a very old argument. It seems reasonable at first glance, but the problem is it assumes the system is perfect, i.e. there's no-one involved inside the system who will abuse their power.

Aside from that, maybe I have nothing to hide, but that doesn't mean I like being watched.

I agree with you, the OP is hardly impartial, though.

Ah, that's true enough yes. I suppose I could be guilty of putting too much faith in those who have that sort of power. I suppose the naivety is bred of an assumption that the criminal justice system is fair. Oftentimes, it isn't, though.

Gurgle

tbh, I wouldn't have a problem with this.

when staff become "sufficiently concerned" about an individual, that person should be should "risk assessed" and, if necessary, referred for further attention

Its still up to the individual to become 'sufficiently concerned'. It makes no suggestion of punishing someone for the potential to commit a crime.

If some public servant were 'concerned' about someone and instead of passing on the info they say 'meh, not my job', I wouldn't be too grateful for their discretion after I was mugged and robbed.

Fremen wrote:

That's a very old argument. It seems reasonable at first glance, but the problem is it assumes the system is perfect, i.e. there's no-one involved inside the system who will abuse their power.

In order to abuse their power, they must have something to gain from it. How would a civil servant benefit from having any given Joe Soap followed around by the police for a couple of days?

Aside from that, maybe I have nothing to hide, but that doesn't mean I like being watched.

Then don't go and collect your dole with a white face, bloodshot eyes and a bad case of the shakes.

Akrasia

Gurgle wrote:

tbh, I wouldn't have a problem with this.



Its still up to the individual to become 'sufficiently concerned'. It makes no suggestion of punishing someone for the potential to commit a crime.

If some public servant were 'concerned' about someone and instead of passing on the info they say 'meh, not my job', I wouldn't be too grateful for their discretion after I was mugged and robbed.


In order to abuse their power, they must have something to gain from it. How would a civil servant benefit from having any given Joe Soap followed around by the police for a couple of days?

Then don't go and collect your dole with a white face, bloodshot eyes and a bad case of the shakes.

oh come on, Have you never dealt with dole officers and other petty civil servants? They can be very vindictive, I have witnessed blatant racism and prejudice first hand. And even when they're not vindictive, they can be very very beaurocratic and if this law was introduced, it would be a legal requirement for these people to snoop on the public and they might be looking for people to be concerned about just to cover their ass in case they go off and commit a crime and they end up being held accountable.

That's the single biggest flaw in this proposed system. It will lead to witch hunts where public officials and Doctors will be blamed for any crimes committed by people they were legally required to be concerned about but didn't report. People will have their careers damaged for not reporting people to the new domestic spying agency. They might be sued by the victims of the crime or they might lose their jobs or refused promotion.
If this happens even only a couple of times, instead of making people feel safer, it will make ordinary people afraid of the public servants, and make the public servants afraid of the ordinary people, and it could very easily escalate out of control.

And while this proposed law is currently designed to prevent public order offences and violent crime, how long before it's extended to 'terrorism' and political 'crimes' (such as direct action protests at military bases or GM farms)
It might even be publicly popular, all it would need are a few 'success stories' where a vigilant public official prevented a domestic violence or a terrorist attack or a bank robbery or a murder or whatever splashed across the front page of the Daily Mail, and then the Home Office could expand their thought police to all other public servants or even the public themselves.

Gobán Saor

Interesting in the recent Wexford suicide/homicide cases, all the focus in the public debate was on the failure of the "authorities" to realise that something was amiss. Looks like we want our cake and eat it too. Looks like we want a "Joe Duffy" style obligation on "someone" to "do something" but we go all fearful at the thought of granting actual legal powers or obligations to do so.

Akrasia

Gob&#225 wrote: »

Interesting in the recent Wexford suicide/homicide cases, all the focus in the public debate was on the failure of the "authorities" to realise that something was amiss. Looks like we want our cake and eat it too. Looks like we want a "Joe Duffy" style obligation on "someone" to "do something" but we go all fearful at the thought of granting actual legal powers or obligations to do so.

well one of the failures in the wexford case was the fact that the warning bells were sounded (without any legal obligation) but because it was outside normal office hours, there was a lack of available public services to deal with the problem in time to prevent the tragedy.

Most people are not stupid or apathetic, they don't need to be compelled to act to protect others, unfortunately, the beaurocracy and institutions of the state are too inflexible to respond to these kinds of scenarios.

Akrasia

And now the Home Secretary John Ried is considering introducing 'Stop and quiz' powers to police

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/politics/6695685.stm

wes

Akrasia wrote:

And now the Home Secretary John Ried is considering introducing 'Stop and quiz' powers to police

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/politics/6695685.stm

Jesus, do they really think this sort of thing will actually do anything beside make things worse and have people distrust the police.

Sand

Jesus, do they really think this sort of thing will actually do anything beside make things worse and have people distrust the police

Oh I think that particular horse has already bolted - otherwise people wouldnt have much issue with stop and quiz would they?

Either way, as the story notes any legislation would be similar to whats already in effect in Northern Ireland so its not exactly radical stuff.

And while this proposed law is currently designed to prevent public order offences and violent crime, how long before it's extended to 'terrorism' and political 'crimes' (such as direct action protests at military bases or GM farms)
It might even be publicly popular, all it would need are a few 'success stories' where a vigilant public official prevented a domestic violence or a terrorist attack or a bank robbery or a murder or whatever splashed across the front page of the Daily Mail, and then the Home Office could expand their thought police to all other public servants or even the public themselves.

Thats true Akrasia. When they introduced CCTV cameras, they told it was to prevent crime but it wasnt long before they expanded to every part of daily life. Now there are CCTV installed in every home watching us 24/7 [Secret police never seem to have a union, weird that..anyway]. And they have secret cameras in all the TVs, and listening devices in the radios and keyloggers installed with every keyboard...

Oh wait, no theres not. Thats just paranoid hysteria. Whooh, for a second there I was worried.

public officials and Doctors will be blamed for any crimes committed by people they were legally required to be concerned about but didn't report.

Id imagine it would be *very* hard to get a conviction. You would have to prove that the official was seriously concerned [youd also need to establish a legal defintion of "concerned"] about said person but didnt raise their concerns. The only person who could say with certainty would be the official so it would require self-incrimination.

All in all though, it remains a *proposal*, not policy. Even if it ever makes it off the "What if" stage it will probably be altered and tweaked and tested if civil servants and legal advisers are doing their job.

LostinBlanch

Just in case you hadn't thought that the above wasn't enough. Here's something else,a secret unit set up since October made up of Police and psychiatrists. It's using mental health laws. Interesting to see that it's being sold as an "anti stalker" measure, but the article states that it is aimed at"terrorists and other individuals who might pose a risk to prominent people." Hmmmm. . . how long before it's used to detain people who they don't have enough evidence to convict? Or get innocent people to plead guilty to crimes they didn't commit under threat of being sectioned indefintely?

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/crime/article1847697.ece

The government has secretly set up a VIP “stalker” squad to identify and detain terrorists and other individuals who pose a threat to prominent people.

The unit, staffed by police and psychiatrists, will have the power to detain suspects indefinitely using mental health laws.

The Fixated Threat Assessment Centre (FTAC) was quietly established last October and is set to reignite controversy over the detention of suspects without trial.

Until now it has been up to mental health professionals to determine if someone should be forcibly detained, but the new unit uses the police to identify suspects, increasing fears that distinctions are being blurred between criminal investigations and doctors’ clinical decisions. The Metropolitan Police confirmed that the unit had been established only after its existence was revealed in a Sunday newspaper.

In a statement, it said: “The Fixated Threat Assessment Centre is a joint initiative between the Metropolitan Police, Home Office and Department of Health. Its role is to assess, manage and reduce potential risks and threats from fixated individuals, against people in public life, particularly protected VIPs.

“Fixated individuals are those who are abnormally preoccupied with certain ideas or people. Research has shown that a small minority exhibit violent behaviour.

“London-based FTAC is a pilot initiative, which was set up in October 2006 after research showed that no single unit existed to collate relevant information, assess the risks and initiate appropriate action to manage and reduce any threat.”

Staff at the central London centre will include four police officers, two civilian researchers, a forensic psychiatrist, a forensic psychologist and a forensic community mental health nurse.

It is being hailed as the first joint mental health-police unit in the UK and a “prototype for future joint services” in other areas.

The Mental Health Act requires two doctors or psychiatrists to approve a forcible detention, or “sectioning”, for treatment. It allows a patient to be held for up to six months before a further psychological assessment. Patients are then reviewed every year to determine if they can be released.

The government is trying to amend the act, with a controversial bill introduced in November, to bring in a wider definition of mental disorder in order to give doctors more power to detain people.

At least one terror suspect, allegedly linked to the 7/7 bomb plot and a suicide bombing in Israel, has already been held under the Mental Health Act. The man, who cannot be named for legal reasons, absconded from the hospital where he was being detained and has never been traced.

Liberty said the secret unit represented a new threat to civil liberties. Its policy director, Gareth Crossman, said: “There is a grave danger of this being used to deal with people where there is insufficient evidence for a criminal prosecution.

“This blurs the line between medical decisions and police actions. If you are going to allow doctors to take people’s liberty away, they have to be independent. That credibility is undermined when the doctors are part of the same team as the police.

“This raises serious concerns. First that you have a unit that allows police investigation to lead directly to people being sectioned without any kind of criminal proceedings. Secondly, it is being done under the umbrella of anti-terrorism at a time when the Government is looking at ways to detain terrorists without putting them on trial.”

FTAC was set up following an NHS research programme based at Chase Farm Hospital in Enfield, north London. Researchers examined thousands of cases of prominent people being stalked. It liaised with the FBI, the US Secret Service, the Capitol Hill Police, which protects Congressmen and Senators, and the Swedish and Norwegian secret services.

Sweden granted access to files on the murder of the foreign minister Anna Lindh who died after being stabbed by a stalker in a Stockholm store in 2003.

The research led to FTAC being set up with a £500,000-a-year budget from the Home Office and Department of Health.

Dr David James, FTAC’s senior forensic psychiatrist, has studied attacks on British and European politicians by people suffering pathological fixations. Also on the staff is Robert Halsey, a consultant forensic clinical psychologist who is a specialist in risk assessment.