Big Brother Really Is Watching You

I have just come across an organisation that seems to be doing some very good work.

Big Brother Watch is researching and exposing the intrusion into our lives, and erosion of our civil liberties, by the state.

Big Brother Watch was founded by the founders of the Taxpayers' Alliance.

The worrying figures given below are taken from this research done by them:

There are currently at least 59,753 CCTV cameras controlled by 418 local authorities in Britain, up from 21,000 in 1999
This equates to 1 council owned CCTV camera for every 1000 people in the country
Portsmouth and Nottinghamshire Councils are in control of the most CCTV cameras with 1,454 each

Residents in the Outer Hebrides are the most watched people in the UK with 8.3 CCTV cameras controlled by the council for every 1000 people. Portsmouth has the second highest number of CCTV cameras per 1000 people with 7.8

The council controlling the highest number of CCTV cameras in Scotland is Fife with 1350 cameras
The council in Wales controlling the highest number of CCTV cameras is Swansea with 326 cameras
The council controlling the highest number of CCTV cameras in Northern Ireland is Belfast with 400 cameras
The total number of CCTV cameras controlled by councils in London is 8,815, which equals 1.3 CCTV cameras for every 1000 people living in the capital. Wandsworth is the most watched borough in London with 1113 CCTV cameras, or 4.3 cameras for every 1000 residents

In recent months I've become weary of meeting foreigners who comment on how intrusive the British state is, citing the worrying numbers of CCTV cameras spying on the public. It has been commented on by Americans, Australians and most recently by a Belgian, well a Fleming actually.

Make no mistake, Big Brother really is watching you.

Independent Safeguarding Authority

The Independent Safeguarding Authority is the government's latest tool in its imposition of a police state. It was set up in response to the Bichard inquiry into the Soham murders which means that the gullible will fall for it assuming it will protect children. It won't, but will further increase the surveillance/database state that is slowly imprisoning us.

To put it into some context here is an article in The Times by Chris Stevenson, a senior detective in the Soham investigation. He has a sense of perspective on the current paranoia that those of us fortunate enough to have never seen the things that he had to see, could learn a great deal from. Especially the 'nothing to hide nothing to fear' brigade.

It means that anybody wanting to work or volunteer with vulnerable people, children or adults, will have to be registered with the ISA as well as having a police check. Here is how the ISA website describes it:

The new Vetting and Barring Scheme will operate under the Safeguarding Vulnerable Groups Act 2006 and under Safeguarding Vulnerable Groups (Northern Ireland) Order 2007 in its application to Northern Ireland. It will replace the current List 99, PoCA, PoVA, POCVA, Unsuitable Persons and Disqualification Orders regimes.

Once the scheme is fully rolled out (there will be a phased introduction), it will be illegal to hire in regulated activity someone, who is not registered with the ISA. The new scheme will cover employees and volunteers in for example the education, care and health sectors who come into contact with children or vulnerable adults on a frequent or intensive basis and, when fully implemented, will affect some 11.3 million people.

This document is particularly worth looking at:

Guidance Notes for the Barring Decision Making Process

Even an acquittal in court can be ignored if the ISA decide they don't like the cut of your jib:

5.6. Acquittals

5.6.1.

There could be any number of reasons why a person charged with an offence is acquitted: perhaps the victim decided not to testify and the CPS (Public Prosecution Service (PPS) in Northern Ireland) had to withdraw the case; perhaps the acquittal was based on a technicality; and even where a jury has found someone not guilty of having done something, you must always remember that, at most, this means is that the court did not find that someone did something “beyond a reasonable doubt” (the criminal standard of proof). The test applied by the ISA in relation to barring considerations is ‘on the balance of probability’ (the civil standard of proof). Therefore, even if there has been an acquittal, the ISA must still consider the case for itself on the basis of the balance of probabilities. A barring decision can, therefore, be made, having regard to all the circumstances, if the ISA is satisfied that the events concerned happened, on the balance of probabilities, notwithstanding an acquittal at court. This could become even more relevant where the substance of the offence or the attendant circumstances give cause for concern.

There is also a facility for people to report others to the ISA if they think they may be 'a bit dodgy' and it will be investigated.

The problem is that under the scheme almost everybody is classed as 'vulnerable'.

Under the scheme anybody not registered with the ISA will not be allowed to even apply to work with 'vulnerable people'. That means doctors, nurses, youth workers, social workers, charity workers etc., etc.

Even if a school has organised an exchange visit, the school will have to ensure that at least one parent hosting a foreign pupil is registered with the ISA.

I suggest, if you value your freedom, or what's left of it, you support No2ID.

No2ID is an excellent campaign but there is also a political party fighting to restore our freedoms, the Libertarian Party.