Felix.

Unless you are wanting people to phone the police and tell them when and where they are going to be illegally driving, or tell them that they are planning a bank heist with the following getaway car – then the ANPR cameras will have to record innocent motorists as well.

These records are kept on the system, so that these can be scanned to see where a specific vehicle has been. These kinds of record searches can only be done in connection with incidents – crimes, missing people, sexual offences prevention orders etc etc.

Our force only has a handful of people who can search these records and can not be accessed by everyone in the job.

The Zohan

Oh dear, Mr Obtuse having a bad day? you have to think a little laterally as it is basic smart card technology like credit cards driving licences passports door entry cards all part of peoples everyday lives.

It contains certain information not unlike some of the info on say a driving licence - I'll say little more about exactly what is on them only I would assume most of us know our DoB and postcodes. People have a choice to purchase and sign up for an Oyster Card no-one makes or forces them to it is choice.

Oh and i never offered myself as an expert just as someone who worked on the scheme - looks like your little mind filled in the blanks and 2+2 suddenly equals 5

I see you didn't manage to answer my question...

Trout

iTrader: (1)

Where do I start?

A driving license has your name and details PRINTED on the front whether it is a card or paper version.

A credit card or smart card may have your name and bank details PRINTED ON IT but not other information. If the Police wanted to access the data within the card they would need a warrant.

An Oyster card only has a serial number printed on it. Does it carry any other information than it's serial number? I don't know if it is a data holding Smartcard.

Either way, any further data is either held electronically on the card or in the TFL Oyster database.

Any data that is held electronically and is searchable is subject to the data protection act, usually meaning it is private.

Are you saying that you know the police have access to this data? Or are you just guessing? Normally data held in this way is subject to a warrant if the police want to access it. In exactly the same way the Police cannot access your bank details, your Nectar card details or your Scoobynet details.

As for your question - you posted a half present quotation and I could not fathom any question within the quote.

Leslie

Apparently he was shot once in the shoulder and then in the head more than once by one officer. Then the other officer leapt on the body and shot him in the head a few more times! He received eight shots in total, seven in the head!

Why do you think that the officers did all that to a man who had not behaved in any way in a suspicious manner? Why was he shot in the head seven times? How would you regard their intentions after that as far as shooting someone was concerned?

Les

Trout

iTrader: (1)

I think he was shot by accident - he must have led a very unlucky life!

Chip

Les,

I can only assume, as I like you, do not know all of the facts , that the police officers thought that the man that they shot was for some reason guilty of commiting an offence of some kind. I cannot for one minute believe that highly trained officers routinely went out with the intention of just shooting dead some random person.

As for the number of times he was shot, well , if I was in a position of believing I was dealing with a dangerous terrorist then maybe I too would want to make sure the that the job in hand was done properly.

I guess as Trout said that he was shot by accident as he was in the wrong place at the wrong time , just like the 52 innocent people that were murdered on July 7 2005

Chip

Trout

iTrader: (1)

What happened to Menezes was a terrible accident.

What makes it difficult for the Police is that they were demonstrated to have lied about what happened.

Highly trained firearms officers made a very bad mistake. That is sad but acceptable. Lying about it and obfuscating the investigation would be a criminal offence if you weren't wearing a police uniform.

That's what makes me highly sceptical about police activity. They are public servants, answerable to the public and yet they find it hard to be transparent with those that they serve.

tony de wonderful

So why not record every phone call or even private conversation in the country...assuming we have the technology to do so?

It might help to catch criminals right?

Police surveillance should have judicial over-sight or we risk becoming a police state.

Power corrupts.

tony de wonderful

Shot in the head once or seven times...makes little difference.

Screw ups happen.

Stop looking to make his death into some broader political issue or agenda.

It doesn't exist.

Trout

iTrader: (1)

It didn't up to the point they shot him. It did once they tried to cover up their mistake.

Felix.

So, as far as ANPR is concerned, what would you rather us do. Are you happy for loads of people to happily drive around with no tax, no insurance, delivering drugs, driving whilst disqualified.... or are you wanting us to try and do something about it using the technology we have.

Bare in mind as well that ANPR cover public roads where as conversations tend to be in private

The Zohan

Oh where do i start.
Ok your reply - too long, too obtuse to warrant much effort on my part.
Suggest you look at the TLF site - (as suggested) and get an application form for one to see what you sign up to, as i said, no one makes you have one it is a choice based on the conditions. so to expand on that if you do not like it do not get one - it is not complusary - it is an informed choice is that clear enough for you?

Common sense should make even you realise that the card needs to be checkable otherwise the crime and illegal use would be through the roof. Personal Info is held on TFL database but permission by cardholder/parent/guardian (if under 18) can be given to access it by authorities such as BTP and the Police as agreed in the terms.

I really cannot be bothered to write up a full explanation as your argumentative and obtuse attitude (as usual) doesn't warrant the time and effort.

Needless to say any info is protected and access and disclosure governed by the DPA.

Ta, ta

Trout

iTrader: (1)

If my post was obtuse then your IQ must be significantly lower than I thought!

As for your comment about cards being checkable - why does this not apply to other cards such as bank cards or cashless capabilities such as Barclays Wave?

To access that information the Police would need a warrant.

Trout

iTrader: (1)

The Oyster terms and conditions are ambiguous.

On a case-by-case basis - suggesting as I commented above that information is made available on a demonstrable 'due cause'. It does not suggest a blanket access to information.

Maz

iTrader: (34)

.....In your opinion.......

Leslie

Well he was never guilty of behaving suspiciously, he did not have a rucksack, no baggage apart from the newspaper he bought on the way to the train. He walked onto the train, sat down and was behaving quite normally. He was wearing a lightweight jacket.

There was no positive ID, the OIC made the initial mistake.

Having shot him several times, why did the second officer feel he had to deliver several more shots to the head after the first officer moved away from his body?

It almost sounded like a case of bloodlust to me. Like the time they killed that chap carrying a chair leg in a bag, and the chap standing at his window. Are they trained to kill for any excuse?

Les

boomer

Felix,

as i said earlier, i have no problem with manual ANPR (and i am sure that neither does tdw) as the officers can perform an immediate stop (which may uncover further illegal activities)

However the automatic ANPR robots that are being installed all over the country maintain a log of traffic movements for two years!!

Why do they do this?

• ANPR robots cannot "stop" a car without road tax.
• ANPR robots cannot "stop" a car without insurance.
• If the car isn't registered then they can't even go around to the registered keeper's house for a word.
• ANPR robots cannot detect drugs, and even if the car has a "marker" it still would not be stopped.
• ANPR robots cannot tell whether the driver is driving whilst disqualified.

...but apart from having no impact on the crimes that you mentioned, why it is felt necessary to spy on the entire population in such an intense way?

mb

The Zohan

Don't get an Oyster card then if it worries you so much - it is not in any way complusary. It's called 'choice' and by that people can choose to accept the T&C's and get a card or not. It is no big deal - well for most people that is


Or may it is really a big conspiracy by "The Man" Take TFL on as a test case re personal info and how it is used if it is a concern to you.

Chip

Les,

The officers were asked to make a split-second life and death decision as a result of the armed policing duties they had volunteered for, I don't think as you say it was bloodlust. Put yourself in their position.

As for the guy at the window, he raised his gun towards the officers. Enough said.

Sometimes you need to take off those rose tinted spectacles that you always seem to be wearing.

Chip

Leslie

I was talking not so much about the decision to shoot him since that was made by their authority, but the way in which it was done which worries me as far as the general attitude of the armed section is concerned. The other incidents were quoted as a further example. Are they unduly trigger happy?

You will have to explain your reasoning for your final remark.

Les

Snazy

If there was no benefit I don't think it would have been rolled out so aggressively. Out of interest what would you say the negatives of the system are.
ANPR can't tell who is in the car.
ANPR can't decide the purpose of your journey.
ANPR can't prove the speed you were driving at any point (although can guess an average)
ANPR can't hear your conversations

The idea is intelligence gathering. If an uninsured car pings it between 8-8.15 every morning a traffic vehicle can be sent to intercept it.
If a known drug / gun dealer or runner is out at 3am every morning they can get a rough idea of where it's going, instead of using 10 hours of a officer and vehicles time following a car.
If a crime is committed they can use ANPR data to see the cars in the area within the offence window and cross reference data.

And so on.
While it seems intense, it's really no doing any harm IMO anyway.

How do you feel about so many shops and residences having CCTV these days?



I think what you also have to consider is these officers were acting on intelligence, all be it flawed intelligence, which is actually where it all started to go wrong in my opinion.

Like many other forces who use weaponry, they were given a task and performed it, effectively.
A bomber is given coordinates to drop bombs they fly over and bombs away, do they question their mission? I would say rarely and we have friendly fire incidents because of this.

As has been said the true issues with this case were flawed intelligence, and what appears to be a cover up at the end of it all.

Was it a mistake, yes, a tragic one.

Were the amount of bullets OTT, given the circumstances, and what the officers though they were facing... Nope.
If you compare the SAS ending to the embassy seige in London back in the 80's...remind me how many bullets were fired at and into the grenade wielding terrorist?
Until there is not a glimpse of life left, keep going. They believed their actions were going to prevent a horrific explosion.

Remembering a lot of their behaviour is based on eye witness accounts, a lot of which was so sketchy it was fantasy.

I have to agree, I really don't think CO19 officers treat their job like a video game or something. To most, the taking of a life no matter how deserved is quite hard to contend with.

In their position, I would have emptied a clip for sure, along with my bowels!

The whole chair leg thing too, if you wield an item with the intention of making others perceive it as a firearm.... Expect it to be treated as one too.

Bonehead

It's an unwritten rule that's carved in stone in the firearms teams that to actually fire your weapon means you'll be out of firearms and back on other duties.

The reasoning being that using a firearm is well and truely the last resort and should be treated as such, they get given a verbal warning each and every time they get deployed with firearms that they have to agnowledge

tony de wonderful

I'n not in favor of mass surveillance with no judicial oversight or due process. It's a recipe for a police state. I don't trust the police to self-regulate...it's something which fails historically or else police states would never exist!

The world did not stop turning before we have ANPR.

This idea about 'needing' it to catch drivers with no MOT's is BS.

tony de wonderful

Of course it's not a thing of harm in itself, but it could be.

Unregulated mass surveillance is bad because it invades privacy and can be abused by an unscrupulous government or police.

Power corrupts...

Lisawrx

iTrader: (1)

I don't honestly see the problem with ANPR. I can't see it as being much different to CCTV.

Perhaps because I work on in a job where I'm 'watched' almost everywhere I go, I just get used to it so much that I don't really think about it, either there or anywhere else.

When you are out and about, you are not in private, so I don't get how being monitored (and pretty much overlooked if not doing any wrong) constitutes as invading privacy.

Richie856

I don't care about CCTV or ANPR cameras because I'm law abiding etc etc so I have nothing to hide.
I'd be happy with more CCTV cameras.
As for de Menezes, as already said, the cops on the ground were acting on intelligence which was wrong.
I wouldn't like to be in the position where I was I thought I was approaching someone with a bomb.
The police shoot to stop, not kill, and whereas it's normally centre body mass shots...for instances like a potential hidden trigger for a bomb, you shoot them in the head/face so you sever the spinal cord and it'll be like 'turning off a light'.
As for people with table legs in bags etc....shoot option everytime.
I wouldn't take the risk that it wasn't.

Leslie

The man was walking home from a pub with the repaired table leg in a bag and was not threatening anyone with it in any way! If it was in a bag he could not have used it had it been a gun. Was it really right to shoot him in such a case. Would it not have been fairer to investigate further before killing him?

Les

Richie856

Ok, I was taking about 'a' situation with someone having something in a bag etc, that if it was believed to be a gun etc etc.
Are you specifically talking about the Harry Stanley shooting of 1999?
The one where did indeed have a table leg in a bag.
Where someone phoned the police to say there was an Irishman with a gun in a bag and when challenged by the firearms officers he turned round and was shot?

When a firearms incident like that comes out, the firearms cops would have to shout a challenge and of course the guy, not having anything to worry about, would turn round.
Unfortunately, if he happened to be holding the leg horizontally, based on the intelligence provided about a gun, the cops wouldn't be taking any chances.
It's not like the films where the person is shot in the shoulder.

A mix of unfortunate circumstances I think.

In hindsight, the guy could've been followed and a containment on his house could've been organised followed by negotiators and him coming to the door.

But hindsight is a wonderful thing as we all know.

Richie856

Also the fact that a gun could be in a bag, plastic or otherwise, would offer enough of ballistic hindrance to stop the round hitting someone close enough.

J4CKO

iTrader: (1)

I think the 7/7 terrorists are as much to blame for De-Menezes death as the firearms officers, two weeks after the bombings was when he got shot, London was still on very high alert so its not surprising that tensions were running high. I dont think it was bloodlust, more panic and confusion, they did probably think he was about to explode.

I am not condining it, just trying to see it from their point of view, I would think that the Police dont just send anyone out with a gun, I suspect they are screened but in this case they got it badly wrong, what did strike me as strange is 11 bullets being fired to stop one man, that is more like my kids on Call of Duty, I would have thought Firearms Police would be trained to deliver a surgical, lethal double tap to the head not keep shooting until there are brains all over the place.

Also, lets not forget, he was here illegally and had some forged stamp on his Visa, had he gone home when he meant to he wouldnt be dead, ironically, being Brazillian meant he was much more likely to die at the hands of the Police back home so it was very unlikely for him to get killed by the British Police. Nobody should get shot for being here illegally and I am not saying it serves him right either.