RugbyRebels

What is the purpose of this even?
http://www.theguardian.com/politics/201 ... sian-berry

The cops exist to keep the establishment safe from the common folk. It's their job to disrupt any popular movement.

Can't have democracy rearing its head and infringing on the privilege of the rich and fatuous.

Zhivago wrote:What is the purpose of this even?
http://www.theguardian.com/politics/201 ... sian-berry

It's not very secretive if they're telling people.

But it does seem a bit of a waste (couldn't be bothered reading whole article so I may have missed the part that said she's got an IED making kit in her garage).

OptimisticJock wrote:

Zhivago wrote:What is the purpose of this even?
http://www.theguardian.com/politics/201 ... sian-berry

It's not very secretive if they're telling people.

But it does seem a bit of a waste (couldn't be bothered reading whole article so I may have missed the part that said she's got an IED making kit in her garage).

Of course it's not secretive, you can't intimidate people from taking up democratic political activity if you keep such police activities secret

Zhivago wrote:

OptimisticJock wrote:

Zhivago wrote:What is the purpose of this even?
http://www.theguardian.com/politics/201 ... sian-berry

It's not very secretive if they're telling people.

But it does seem a bit of a waste (couldn't be bothered reading whole article so I may have missed the part that said she's got an IED making kit in her garage).

Of course it's not secretive, you can't intimidate people from taking up democratic political activity if you keep such police activities secret

Then why is the guardian claiming it is?

It's not very intimidating either.

Bloody greenies, with their woolly hats, armpit hair and offensive pubic drift.

OptimisticJock wrote:

Zhivago wrote:

OptimisticJock wrote: It's not very secretive if they're telling people.

But it does seem a bit of a waste (couldn't be bothered reading whole article so I may have missed the part that said she's got an IED making kit in her garage).

Of course it's not secretive, you can't intimidate people from taking up democratic political activity if you keep such police activities secret

Then why is the guardian claiming it is?

It's not very intimidating either.

So you don't think it might put some people off taking part in protests?

Zhivago wrote:What is the purpose of this even?
http://www.theguardian.com/politics/201 ... sian-berry

This sort of activity really should be a criminal offence.

Zhivago wrote:

OptimisticJock wrote:

Zhivago wrote:
Of course it's not secretive, you can't intimidate people from taking up democratic political activity if you keep such police activities secret

Then why is the guardian claiming it is?

It's not very intimidating either.

So you don't think it might put some people off taking part in protests?

No.

UKHamlet wrote:

Zhivago wrote:What is the purpose of this even?
http://www.theguardian.com/politics/201 ... sian-berry

This sort of activity really should be a criminal offence.

Activity of the Green politicians or the police?

Zhivago wrote:

UKHamlet wrote:

Zhivago wrote:What is the purpose of this even?
http://www.theguardian.com/politics/201 ... sian-berry

This sort of activity really should be a criminal offence.

Activity of the Green politicians or the police?

Both

Zhivago wrote:

UKHamlet wrote:

Zhivago wrote:What is the purpose of this even?
http://www.theguardian.com/politics/201 ... sian-berry

This sort of activity really should be a criminal offence.

Activity of the Green politicians or the police?

Tempted as I am to agree with "Both", I actually meant the Roz.

UKHamlet wrote:

Zhivago wrote:

UKHamlet wrote:
This sort of activity really should be a criminal offence.

Activity of the Green politicians or the police?

Tempted as I am to agree with "Both", I actually meant the Roz.

I find it mutually exclusive. If there is criminal activity then surveillance of that criminality is surely acceptable.

Zhivago wrote:

UKHamlet wrote:

Zhivago wrote:
Activity of the Green politicians or the police?

Tempted as I am to agree with "Both", I actually meant the Roz.

I find it mutually exclusive. If there is criminal activity then surveillance of that criminality is surely acceptable.

Agreed, but where no criminal activity has taken place and there isn't even a hint of criminal activity...

Zhivago wrote:

UKHamlet wrote:

Zhivago wrote:
Activity of the Green politicians or the police?

Tempted as I am to agree with "Both", I actually meant the Roz.

I find it mutually exclusive. If there is criminal activity then surveillance of that criminality is surely acceptable.

How do you know whether there's criminal activity if you don't monitor the activity?

The real problem is if they are ONLY monitoring the Greens. I'd be very concerned if people who might become Privy Councillors didn't have a file somewhere. However if they are only monitoring the Greens - monitoring only in the sense of logging public activity - and not potential Privy Councillors of other parties I'd be more than annoyed.

Eugene Wrayburn wrote:

Zhivago wrote:

UKHamlet wrote:
Tempted as I am to agree with "Both", I actually meant the Roz.

I find it mutually exclusive. If there is criminal activity then surveillance of that criminality is surely acceptable.

How do you know whether there's criminal activity if you don't monitor the activity?

The real problem is if they are ONLY monitoring the Greens. I'd be very concerned if people who might become Privy Councillors didn't have a file somewhere. However if they are only monitoring the Greens - monitoring only in the sense of logging public activity - and not potential Privy Councillors of other parties I'd be more than annoyed.

Are you being followed by the filth? If not how do we know you are not involved in done crminal activity?

canta_brian wrote:

Eugene Wrayburn wrote:

Zhivago wrote:
I find it mutually exclusive. If there is criminal activity then surveillance of that criminality is surely acceptable.

How do you know whether there's criminal activity if you don't monitor the activity?

The real problem is if they are ONLY monitoring the Greens. I'd be very concerned if people who might become Privy Councillors didn't have a file somewhere. However if they are only monitoring the Greens - monitoring only in the sense of logging public activity - and not potential Privy Councillors of other parties I'd be more than annoyed.

Are you being filled by the filth? If not how do we know you are not involved in done crminal activity?

You don't. I'd be surprised if there haven't been some basic security checks on me for various reasons, and I'm entirely comfortable with that. I don't even have access to high level security information unlike a Privy Councillor.

ETA I only skimmed it, but there didn't appear to be anything in the article which suggests that people were being followed. Most MPs tweet or facebook where they'll be and what they are doing. It doesn't require following someone to work that out. Also large demonstrations almost always have police spotters with cameras now so identifying people in that is likely to cover some MPs.

Eugene Wrayburn wrote:

canta_brian wrote:

Eugene Wrayburn wrote: How do you know whether there's criminal activity if you don't monitor the activity?

The real problem is if they are ONLY monitoring the Greens. I'd be very concerned if people who might become Privy Councillors didn't have a file somewhere. However if they are only monitoring the Greens - monitoring only in the sense of logging public activity - and not potential Privy Councillors of other parties I'd be more than annoyed.

Are you being filled by the filth? If not how do we know you are not involved in done crminal activity?

You don't. I'd be surprised if there haven't been some basic security checks on me for various reasons, and I'm entirely comfortable with that. I don't even have access to high level security information unlike a Privy Councillor.

Sounds like an awfully expensive way to police the country. I would think some suspicion of wrongdoing would be required before deploying resources

canta_brian wrote:

Eugene Wrayburn wrote:

canta_brian wrote: Are you being filled by the filth? If not how do we know you are not involved in done crminal activity?

You don't. I'd be surprised if there haven't been some basic security checks on me for various reasons, and I'm entirely comfortable with that. I don't even have access to high level security information unlike a Privy Councillor.

Sounds like an awfully expensive way to police the country. I would think some suspicion of wrongdoing would be required before deploying resources

The police need to look in everyone's undie drawer now because the world is so scary. Be scared Brian, clean your undies.

canta_brian wrote:

Eugene Wrayburn wrote:

canta_brian wrote: Are you being filled by the filth? If not how do we know you are not involved in done crminal activity?

You don't. I'd be surprised if there haven't been some basic security checks on me for various reasons, and I'm entirely comfortable with that. I don't even have access to high level security information unlike a Privy Councillor.

Sounds like an awfully expensive way to police the country. I would think some suspicion of wrongdoing would be required before deploying resources

Being enirely reactive strikes me as being a whole lot more expensive.

canta_brian wrote:

Eugene Wrayburn wrote: Are you being followed by the filth? If not how do we know you are not involved in done crminal activity?

Back in the seventies, I used to sell the Morning Star in Brick Lane on a Saturday. So every Saturday morning, I'd head down to King Square, pick up my allocation and then go back to Brick Lane, spend the rest of the morning selling the Star and take the money back to King Square. Every time, without fail, as I entered and exited the Morning Star offices, I would be photographed by some bloke sitting in a car opposite the entrance. He didn't even bother to hide.

Meanwhile, living ten doors away from me in Whitechapel were Rob Puttick and Astrid Proll. No sign of plod.

Around the corner were Taff Ladd and Trevor Dawton. I was friends with Trevor, although I had no idea of his activities. No sign of plod.