Thread: Is the England in danger of becoming a Totalitarian State?

That's fucking ridiculous. The government will try anything, and if it's met with backlash they'll claim it's a mistake but if it isn't they take take the passivity as an invitation to introduce it on a larger scale. They just test the water with different strategies to increase control, seeing what they can and can't get away with.

How did Alan Moore put it? He used cameras in V for Vendetta to visually and metaphorically describe what he believed was present time Britain in the 80s. And rather than take it as a warning for the perils of fascism, they took it as a brilliant idea.

Wow - that is insane!!!

To be fair though, it does sound like the cameras are legitimately there to help apprehend and arrest intruders and the voices were never meant to be activated.

But why are they installed in the first place?

Originally Posted by Darkmatters

to help apprehend and arrest intruders...

Security cameras.

In some parts of the world CCTV technology is highly sophisticated... use x-ray scans to see through people’s clothes

Hahhahahahahhahahahahahahahhahahahahahahahahahah

No. The moment CCTV cameras shoot ionizing electromagnetic beams through people on the street, is the moment I get a gun and start shooting officials.

Lol what's next - cameras with tiny little guns attached to the sides of them?

Originally Posted by Marvo

Hahhahahahahhahahahahahahahhahahahahahahahahahah

No. The moment CCTV cameras shoot ionizing electromagnetic beams through people on the street, is the moment I get a gun and start shooting officials.

Get your gun. In the US they're now deploying cameras that use near infrared scans to detect metallic objects under your clothes.
NYPD Terahertz camera to see through clothes | NowPublic Video Archives

Oh wait...you're actually a chicken shit that won't do anything.

Originally Posted by cmind

Get your gun. In the US they're now deploying cameras that use near infrared scans to detect metallic objects under your clothes.
NYPD Terahertz camera to see through clothes | NowPublic Video Archives

Oh wait...you're actually a chicken shit that won't do anything.

Infrared is ionizing ?

Originally Posted by Darkmatters

To be fair though, it does sound like the cameras are legitimately there to help apprehend and arrest intruders and the voices were never meant to be activated.

This would seem to be perfectly plausible. However, not many people know that when 'New Labour' were voted into power in 1996 they introduced over 3,000 new laws within a few years. The following clip is part 1 of 6 clips about a programme aired on British TV. It will put the opening post in a completely different light concerning the point you have made. I would recommend watching all 6 youtube clips. It is a very funny but also a highly disturbing TV show. Interestingly the anti-terror laws mentioned in the show were introduced before 9/11 which is incredibly disturbing and makes one think about what their endgame really is.

In my opinion no, I think the cameras were just a stupid idea, councils upholding their reputation of being wasteful with money.

Originally Posted by Arch

In my opinion no, I think the cameras were just a stupid idea, councils upholding their reputation of being wasteful with money.

I think we are heading towards totalitarianism because the last time I checked the occurrence of 'Peak Oil' production occured in 2009. If that is the case then it is now a downhill slide towards the complete collapse of 'Western' civilisation and this government has in place the means to control the population in the early stages of this 'collapse'. Unless some bright spark perfects the cold nuclear fusion process.

I'm still amused by the guy's last name "Pickles"

Pardon my childish ways but I had to get that out This still sounds like a complete invasion of privacy to me. No cameras should be allowed on anyone's private property unless allowed by the owner. Unless of course he's a wanted criminal but this was not the case.

There is an upside to this, you know. Just organise a whole group of protesters to go around flicking the switch to turn the voice on.
It will make everyone realise just how many of them there are.

Who knew councils had the authority to take your photograph simply because you walked into a communal garden?' Pickles added.

In Britain communal gardens are found between groups of houses, where people can have semi-private outdoor time without the bustle of the urban environment impacting them too much. It's not exactly private property, and many times people have been mugged in these gardens when no one was around to see.

Still, being recorded constantly makes me uncomfortable.

I'm surprised this message board doesn't have a politlical sub-forum for stuff like this.

Originally Posted by Darkmatters

Security cameras.

Not the cameras, which are also bullshit. I'm talking about the voice message. What the fuck is that going to do to a criminal?

"Oh hey by the way there's a camera here so stop this raucous because you were obviously too dumb to case the area you planned on committing a crime in beforehand"

Think about it. Listen to the message and tell me who that's directed to.

Originally Posted by melanieb

Who knew councils had the authority to take your photograph simply because you walked into a communal garden?' Pickles added.

In Britain communal gardens are found between groups of houses, where people can have semi-private outdoor time without the bustle of the urban environment impacting them too much. It's not exactly private property, and many times people have been mugged in these gardens when no one was around to see.

Still, being recorded constantly makes me uncomfortable.

I'm surprised this message board doesn't have a politlical sub-forum for stuff like this.

The political sub-forum is Extended Discussion. It also has other things, but mostly political stuff.

"the England"?

use x-ray scans to see through people’s clothes

Shit, I guess I'm overdue to get about 10 different types of cancer then. Oh wait.

Originally Posted by Photolysis

"the England"?

Yes, sorry. I just copied and pasted Omnis's US totalitarian thread title and replaced US with England and didn't notice that I also needed to remove the word 'the' from my thread title.

Thank god I live in Scotland and am apparently unaffected by this.

Seriously though, as mentioned in another thread, I am totally pro- no privacy. It's for the good of society.

And anyway it's going to happen, because it happens so gradually that the complainers never actually manage to do anything about it. Same thing happened with the airport body scanners, loads of fuss, but now they're here and there hasn't been a rebellion or an uprising.

You guys just need to accept that this is where society is headed and it's better for all of us.

OH GOD I am going to get such shit for this.

But there is no transparency in government to ensure this information is not used for a corrupt ends. You can't expect to the people to hand over their privacy to such an unaccountable institution.

These governments have been targeting protesters, not just criminals. These protesters are trying to do nothing more than regulate corruption in the private sector and fight for a healthy economic system and a separation between government and money. They are not related to any sort of terrorist groups or activities, they are an exhibit of a healthy democracy. But the reaction to these protests has been oppression, in the case of Israel adding protesters to a No-Fly list based on their twitter activity, and that's just the tip of the iceberg.

Originally Posted by Omnis Dei

But there is no transparency in government to ensure this information is not used for a corrupt ends. You can't expect to the people to hand over their privacy to such an unaccountable institution.

Fair enough. I just have too much faith in my government I suppose.

If a government was shown to be absolutely trustworthy then I'd be totally happy for it take all my privacy away. Problem is I guess that it's hard to determine whether a government is entirely trustworthy.

But even if a government is a little bit corrupt, still wouldn't it be worth giving up a bit of privacy if it helps stop a little bit of crime?

Originally Posted by mcwillis

Unless some bright spark perfects the cold nuclear fusion process.

Don't know about cold fusion, but fusion will be available in about 20-30 years ( I think around 2035 the first one comes out?)

No. It wouldn't because that's impossible. Power corrupts. This is a law of nature. You cannot have a government that does not work toward its own personal gain at the expense of the people. You cannot create a perfect society. It's impossible. Checks and balances are required, and one of the most important of these is when the government becomes too parasitic the people need to be able to defy it in secret and collect their own arms with which to remove it.

Originally Posted by Pensive Patrick

Thank god I live in Scotland and am apparently unaffected by this.

Seriously though, as mentioned in another thread, I am totally pro- no privacy. It's for the good of society.

And anyway it's going to happen, because it happens so gradually that the complainers never actually manage to do anything about it. Same thing happened with the airport body scanners, loads of fuss, but now they're here and there hasn't been a rebellion or an uprising.

You guys just need to accept that this is where society is headed and it's better for all of us.

OH GOD I am going to get such shit for this.

It's not good for society. At present it amounts to low level control of the population. Did you know that 'Occupy' protesters are now designated as domestic terrorists? I kid you not; occupy London demonstrators have been listed as domestic terrorists by the City of London Police, who have characterized them in the same context as Al-Qaeda, the Colombian FARC and Belarusian terrorists who bombed the Minsk underground. The Independent newspaper of London reported, 'The City of London Police force was facing criticism after including the Occupy London demonstration in a letter warning businesses about potential terrorist threats.' The police admitted the leaflet, entitled, 'Terrorism/Extremism Update' was produced by them but claimed it was 'poorly worded'. 'Activism is not a crime and the desire to participate in democratic decision-making should not be a cause for concern for the police in any free society.' said an Occupy London representative.

Previous advertising campaigns by other law enforcement bodies in London educated the public that behavior such as paying with cash, keeping curtains closed, or minding your own business were all signs of potential terrorism.

One radio commercial, produced by the The Association of Chief Police Officers (Acpo), was later banned because it smeared law-abiding citizens and could 'encourage people to harass or victimise their neighbours and was appealing to people’s fear.'

'Occupy' demonstrators in Portland, USA staged a march to protest the passage of the National Defense Authorization Act, which under Section 1031 could lead to demonstrators being carted off to detention camps and held without trial.

The US Department of Defense is now training its personnel that protest amounts to 'low-level terrorism” t'rough tests that Department of Defense staff are required to take on a yearly basis.

Whether you agree with the grievances of the 'Occupy' movement or not, the fact that protest groups are now being designated as domestic terrorists underscores the fact that governments now treat dissent and the exercise of freedoms as a suspicious activity.