General Chat

...Just read that one of the London attackers was carrying an Irish Identity Card :-(

.....so much for the glory of technology!!

So easy to counterfeit ID cards, steal an identity, especially now so much info can be found about all of us. I'm not anti them as such as photo ID is very useful, I just don't think they will work...fine for honest people using them, but that's not who we're talking about.

Fingerprints on the ID card?
They're individual - and it would make it easier to catch first time criminals :-D

True Maggie but then all personnel would need a reader of some sort as most of us couldn't tell one finger print from another! But good point.

Yes, fingerprints, iris scan, blood group whatever.

I am not saying it's a cure all but anything that upgrades personal identity would, as mentioned, assist in other areas which are abused currently.

My nephew heads a fraud team in London. It is impossible to know whether Mr. X is in fact Mr X when he signs on at the Job Centre (old phrase). It could be any Tom, Dick or Harry and has been proved to be so too many times.

The amount of hatred spouted against all Muslims on twitter was shocking. Deport them all, close down all mosques etc., etc.,

So that's two of my consultants targeted then.

I wish there was a magic wand. I seriously believe that our freedoms are slowly working against us.

Agreed supercrutch I too think the freedoms we hold so dear are being used against us by many.

It's a question of whether the general public is ready to give up some small amount of those freedoms, for instance carrying the ID card. It was used in the war and as some are saying this is a war in all but name in many ways.

This card would be used for access to all public services/benefits. If you really want Big Brother watching your every move; and lets be honest they do already with the cameras; it can record your entry to buildings as you walk through doorways.

Then all those on the so called watch list would be monitored more also.

But the argument is that such a seemingly prudent small step in our democratic country, could be the top of a slippery slope, should we ever be living under a government who would use that data against us if we happened to fall into a group of people that were seen as 'dubious' , politically for eg , ban the bomb campaigners, anti hunt, pro Israeli, pro Palestine, Corbyn supporters lol?

Already big business collects data on what we buy, where we go, how we interact. Would I really want to be 'clocked' without necessarily knowing where that data might end up? for eg, the various phishing/hacking/ lost documents 'left on a train' scenarios that could put private data in the hands of just about anyone willing to pay for it.

I think it's safe to say no one is not known to some degree to anyone that wants to collect information. Nyx you mention business keeping records of your purchases etc Governments could in theory use this to track the list of people they're watching to some degree; not fool proof by a long stretch.
We all cherish our freedoms but in all honesty they're been chipped away over the years, it's just how much have you been told.

No system is fool proof if it relies on human input end of.

Maybe tracking devices on watch list people but then their freedoms etc....

'Tracking' is one reason I don't have any store loyalty cards, (I'll eat what I want, without becoming a statistic, thank you!) or a 'smartphone'.

As for those shops that ask for my e-mail address 'so they can send me a receipt' - I point to the bit of paper sticking out of the till and ask:
'What is that - a receipt? That will do, then I don't have to waste my ink printing it out if I bring the thing back, do I?'
One of my e-mail addresses is my nickname, too.

Unfortunately, with the Electoral Roll online, when someone has your forename, surname, and place of residence it's fairly easy to work out your address :-|

Get used to it.


Sadly its an on going project for these people. :-(


It will happen again.and again,

I fear you're right Kay......take one off the streets and plenty more to fill their space.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/theresa-may-human-rights-laws-terror-legislation-london-attack-tear-up-election-latest-a7776286.html


Many on here mentioned Human rights would this make any difference?

Only if its**proved **they are a threat.!!


Butt wasnt seen as a threat was he.? :-)

It is interesting isn't it, where will she put the borders of what is a threat and what isn't...she did say something about following more if not enough evidence to go to court?...assuming it might be positive it might mean all these "known to us" people would be followed more but then the question is how???

I can see that if something isnt seen to be done some are going to take big exception and resort to all sorts,

Things cant carry on like this, lives being taken on a monthly basis,its all well and good telling people to stand tall and we shall not be moved stance,but a line has to be drawn,when enough is enough.

Yes enough is enough, so say goodbye to some of your freedoms, I have no objection if that serves the greater good and prevents more attacks.

People have to take into account that watching suspects is time consuming, expensive and subject to countless legalities.

When those who scream about civil liberties and human rights being paramount STOP and think about what they are demanding perhaps they will shut up and open their ears to the alternative.

You cannot have your cake and eat it. Remember all the complaints about CCTV? It doesn't take long for an 'intrusion' such as that to prove it's worth.

The services can keep my online browsing and emails for 12 months, the odds of more than .001% of anything being reviewed is tiny.

A friend was banned from FB for posting about faggots (yes the Mr. Brain's meat products) they received a 24 hour ban for offensive remarks YET countless pages contain hate messages and YouTube is an open university for 'how to' build every conceivable weapon. Do you see the irony?

By all means shout for more controls but be prepared, as I am, to also lose freedoms.

Cutting the number of police was a major faux pas.

The police get thousands of calls - some malicious, and a waste of time, but they still have to be 'looked in to'.
With the police force - and 'backroom staff' depleted, they just don't have the manpower.
With both the Manchester and London attacks, they drafted in police from nearby forces - leaving some areas without adequate police cover.

If it happened in a small town - where many police stations have been closed - how long before police from the nearest stations arrive?
......and yet again, there would, in some areas, be a vast area with inadequate policing.

We've also lost the 'local bobby, who knew an area and could keep a subtle eye on suspects, and who people felt they could actually(casually) tell their concerns to - you know, like, 'They may be dealing drugs in number 5 ', and know they would check, in passing, and it would be kept low key.
Now you phone a central call centre, out of your area, and you're telling a faceless person (who may live at number 5) of your thoughts, and dread a car with siren bawling turning up! It was only a suspicion, you thought you were doing a good thing, you weren't sure - but it turns into a major event!

I don't disagree at all about the need for more policing on our streets also more counter terrorism officers being recruited.

However, they will need more cyber intelligence and not just worries from concerned Joe Public, important as that is.

Agree with all of you....I honestly don't think extra police will hurt but I don't think it will stop much either....this is by all accounts a very large group of maybe endless recruits....and if you are narrow minded and only watch one group are you going to be called racist etc etc..

Cyber intelligence needs police in one form or another.
Joe Public is on the scene.
Apparently concerns about the terrorist was relayed to the police - but lack of manpower delayed proper investigation.

Centralisation may save money - but surely there's a limit with public Services.

Calls to the Fire Brigade have also been 'centralised'.
In Hampshire, it's in Eastleigh. This can cause problems if you don't know the postcode of where the fire is, as the operator may have no local knowledge of, say, the New Forest. They're very quiet about it, but I know of at least two occasions where an fire engine was sent to the wrong address.
They're also due to reduce Hampshire fire brigade by 200 this year.