Privacy and the State

[ahinton]

A long prison sentence. Murder is murder. If there are grounds for leniency then the charge would almost certainly be manslaughter anyway.

Ah, so you do at least accept that murder and manslaughter are different phenomena and that they should each be treated accordingly, with possibly different sentences awarded for their respective commissions - but do you also accept that there should not be a set sentence for each? - and do you not see any possibility of "leniency" in the judgement of someone who has taken another person's life without that person's permission other than the diffeence that pertains between murder and manslaughter?

And what's your view on the death penalty?

[ahinton]

Every time somebody walks into a supermarket/shop and many other public places they are being observed by the 'security system'.

Of course. Does that make it wholly justifiable? If so, ought it not to be worthy of consideration that citizens of a "democratic" nation in which this kind of things happen be required by law to monitor themselves and submit audio/video records of all their activities 24/7? Assuming that your answer to this would be "no", where exactly would you like to see the line drawn and on what grounds?

Occasionally on a warm summer's day this year I have entered my local supermarket wearing a baseball cap, dark glasses and a large bag. On each occasion I have been aware of the close presence of a security officer and that the hidden cameras are firmly fixed on me (I worked for many years in retail!!). That is the job of security. To me, that's perfectly natural. I don't consider it odd or unfathomable. If I were currently involved in retail security I'd have been watching me, myself!

So how might you have expected such security staff to have regarded and treated you had you lawfully been wearing a male equivalent of the burqa so that you could not readily be identified merely by means of CCTV?

What is so difficult to understand for some of those posting in this thread about the need for constant vigilance and surveillance to combat internal crime or external attack?

See the above.

[scottycelt]

This meander is nothing to do with the Adam Curtis film to which Frances has linked.

The film is a hoot - several hoots in fact.

Hoots Mon ...

Yes, it's hilarious ... and he's making a 'political point' by using constant ridicule as a weapon. That's why Mr Curtis says he's primarily a film-maker. He seems a very honest guy.

He strongly denies he's 'a Lefty' as sometimes labelled but says he's nearer to a neo-conservative and libertarian. It's hardly surprising people confuse the two because both are highly suspicious and resentful of authority. Nothing much wrong with that (in fact that's sometimes healthy) as long as it doesn't become too obsessive and ends up believing all authority and security is bad and then develops into a monomania.

It is sometimes said that terrorists only need to get it right once. Alas, not being in a position to read terrorists' minds, security services will inevitably make decisions (many) which prove fruitless and later possibly seem very silly to the amateur outsider. That's just part of the job. Sometimes they may seem to 'over-reach' themselves at times but that is because they are playing safe with peoples' lives.

I too fervently wish we didn't need them but, for all their faults and 'hootish howlers', some of us are extremely grateful and relieved that they are around.

[scottycelt]

Of course. Does that make it wholly justifiable? If so, ought it not to be worthy of consideration that citizens of a "democratic" nation in which this kind of things happen be required by law to monitor themselves and submit audio/video records of all their activities 24/7? Assuming that your answer to this would be "no", where exactly would you like to see the line drawn and on what grounds?

Well, thankfully, I'm not a shoplifter but shop security staff doesn't actually know that, you see. Wearing a baseball cap and dark-glasses whilst carrying a roomy bag might look rather suspicious to shop-staff, don't you think?. I don't blame them for watching me so yes the surveillance was 'justified' if the suspicions proved rather less so ... and it certainly made damn certain I didn't leave the shop with any unpaid goods by mistake!!

So how might you have expected such security staff to have regarded and treated you had you lawfully been wearing a male equivalent of the burqa so that you could not readily be identifies merely by means of CCTV?

Well I prefer to live in the real world and I don't think there is actually a male equivalent of the burga in the real world, is there? Shockingly sexist, I know. So the situation is never likely to arise.

if your point is that any woman wearing a burga is more likely to be watched by shop security staff than those who do not that would be perfectly understandable, imv. A face-cover is a face-cover however innocent the reason. Security staff have a job to do and should not discriminate and make exceptions on the grounds of race, gender and religion. Enter again our sinisterly-hooded, white-skinned Papist monk, ahinton !

See the above.

Ditto!

[ahinton]

Well, thankfully, I'm not a shoplifter but shop security staff doesn't actually know that, you see. Wearing a baseball cap and dark-glasses whilst carrying a roomy bag might look rather suspicious to shop-staff, don't you think?. I don't blame them for watching me so yes the surveillance was 'justified' if the suspicions proved rather less so ... and it certainly made damn certain I didn't leave the shop with any unpaid goods by mistake!!

I'm not suggesting for a moment that no security measures should be taken in retail premises - that would indeed be absurd - but it's a matter of balance, in tgerms of just how much data is collected on everyone who enters such premises and whether some of this data collection oversteps the mark unreasonably. Some might interpret what you've written as an implied invitgiation to encourage everyone who entgers shop premises to dress is such ways as to arouse as much suspicion as possible and cause as much security disruption as possible without actually stealoing anything or otherwise behaving inappropriately!

Well I prefer to live in the real world and I don't think there is actually a male equivalent of the burga in the real world, is there? Shockingly sexist, I know. So the situation is never likely to arise.

if your point is that any woman wearing a burga is more likely to be watched by shop security staff than those who do not that would be perfectly understandable, imv. A face-cover is a face-cover however innocent the reason. Security staff have a job to do and should not discriminate and make exceptions on the grounds of race, gender and religion. Enter again our sinisterly-hooded, white-skinned Papist monk, ahinton !

What I refer to here, by my euphemistic reference to the burqa, is the idea that some people might (again, see above) see fit to dress is ways that make data collection more onerous or indeed barely possible, simply to be disruptive; it's rather tlike having mud and stuff on one's number plates...

[scottycelt]

Some might interpret what you've written as an implied ...

Indeed 'some' might 'interpret' an 'implication' for all sorts of unnecessarily complicated or even mischievous reasons ...

Others, correctly, might simply read and understand the plain, "unhinton-like" English on the page. :winkeye:

[zoomy]

Women are alway being pushed and pulled into all sorts of garments either from coomercial interests or religion or just male chauvanisism.

[ahinton]

Indeed 'some' might 'interpret' an 'implication' for all sorts of unnecessarily complicated or even mischievous reasons ...

Others, correctly, might simply read and understand the plain, "unhinton-like" English on the page. :winkeye:

Or not - and in any case I never claimed to be English, scotty; perish the thought!

[Pabmusic]

...But in the case of murder- and in the absence of the death penalty- a long prison sentence should be the only option.

And that's exactly what the law is. The only possible penalty for murder is life imprisonment (or detention at Her Majesty's pleasure for those under 18). For manslaughter, any sentence is available, from life imprisonment to an absolute discharge.

[Mr Pee]

And that's exactly what the law is. The only possible penalty for murder is life imprisonment (or detention at Her Majesty's pleasure for those under 18). For manslaughter, any sentence is available, from life imprisonment to an absolute discharge.

Precisely the point I have been making. Thank you.

[french frank]

Precisely the point I have been making. Thank you.

Yes, except that when you said, "If another dysfunctional individual had a moment of madness and murdered his neighbour, do think leniency should apply?" it wasn't clear that you had already prejudged the circumstances as 'murder', whereas the dysfunctional/'moment of madness' possibly suggested to others that it wouldn't necessarily be 'murder' but perhaps 'manslaughter'. But, of course, you knew what you meant.

[ferneyhoughgeliebte]

Precisely the point I have been making. Thank you.

Well you did say "If another dysfunctional individual had a moment of madness and murdered his neighbour" - the point I was trying to get you to clarify (out of interest, not as a "trap") is whether you consider "a moment of madness" to be sufficient grounds for the offense to be described as "murder"? Would it not be fairer that a "dysfunctional individual" having "had a moment of madness" and killed his neighbour should more appropriately be tried for manslaughter?

[french frank]

Great minds .....

[ferneyhoughgeliebte]

There's an echo in here!

My point being, Mr Pee, that my "simplistic" reply to your hypothesis was based around the word "madness": "leniency" should always be shown, IMO, if an individual's rational self-control was impaired when they committed an offense. And (I would add) in those cases when the committing of an offense causes a dysfunction of reason. "Leniency" is not "letting someone off": it is finding the most appropriate (fairest, most Just) way of reparation.

[zoomy]

Great minds .....