|
04 Aug 18 - 04:23 AM (#3941446) Subject: BS: Winne the Pooh banned From: The Sandman China is attempting to increase censorship, and introduce 24 hour surveillance with CCTV, also showing a complete lack of sense of humour by banning winnie the pooh. while western europe is fussing about brexit China is still controlling Tibet, and is trying to control and censor its own population still further. |
|
04 Aug 18 - 04:56 AM (#3941454) Subject: RE: BS: Winne the Pooh banned From: Senoufou But what is it about Winnie the Pooh they object to? It's been a favourite in children's nurseries for decades! |
|
04 Aug 18 - 04:59 AM (#3941456) Subject: RE: BS: Winne the Pooh banned From: JennieG But - it's not Chinese. |
|
04 Aug 18 - 05:00 AM (#3941457) Subject: RE: BS: Winne the Pooh banned From: Keith A of Hertford Why are there no demonstrations here about the appalling Chinese leadership, and no demonstrations against the visit of Xi Jinping? |
|
04 Aug 18 - 05:02 AM (#3941459) Subject: RE: BS: Winne the Pooh banned From: Backwoodsman You tell us, O Wise One, tell us, do.... |
|
04 Aug 18 - 05:06 AM (#3941461) Subject: RE: BS: Winne the Pooh banned From: Iains why Winnie the Pooh is banned in China |
|
04 Aug 18 - 08:54 AM (#3941500) Subject: RE: BS: Winne the Pooh banned From: Senoufou Ah, I understand now, thank you Iains. |
|
04 Aug 18 - 08:57 AM (#3941502) Subject: RE: BS: Winne the Pooh banned From: Iains My pleasure Senoufou. |
|
04 Aug 18 - 09:13 AM (#3941508) Subject: RE: BS: Winne the Pooh banned From: Backwoodsman It had passed me by too, Sen! But it's very funny! |
|
04 Aug 18 - 09:26 AM (#3941511) Subject: RE: BS: Winne the Pooh banned From: Keith A of Hertford Not for the Chinese people. |
|
04 Aug 18 - 10:13 AM (#3941524) Subject: RE: BS: Winne the Pooh banned From: Backwoodsman Here we go again. Time to leave. |
|
04 Aug 18 - 11:55 AM (#3941539) Subject: RE: BS: Winne the Pooh banned From: Senoufou I suppose it's like golliwogs. Fun when we were children, and much loved, but offensive now and banned. Wonder what children's character resembles Trump? I did rather like that inflatable baby. Perhaps one of the Teletubbies, or Flop from the CBeebies show 'Bing'. Flop is the same colour as Trump! |
|
04 Aug 18 - 02:14 PM (#3941585) Subject: RE: BS: Winne the Pooh banned From: Keith A of Hertford Only considered offensive by one deeply offensive regime. Backwoodsman, whatever have I said that you could object to? |
|
04 Aug 18 - 02:58 PM (#3941593) Subject: RE: BS: Winne the Pooh banned From: The Sandman what is more sinister is the attempt to introduce CCTV throught the country |
|
04 Aug 18 - 03:36 PM (#3941609) Subject: RE: BS: Winne the Pooh banned From: Jim Carroll "what is more sinister is the attempt to introduce CCTV throught the country" You mean like all those traffic and security cameras that are a feature of modern British life Dick? This subject is being somewhat trivialised here - maybe for a good reason This is old news - the BBC reported it over a year ago when they pointed out that the cartoon ban was an attempt to prevent bloggers from breaking the censorship by using the cartoon characters to humiliating the Chinese leadership Meanwhile, back at the Little-Britain ranch, the Chinese are close friends with Russia, who are, in turn, close friends of Trump's America, who in their turn are friends with Britain... and so ad infinitum Britain has been seeking China to increase of orders for British weapons for several years and is now COSYING UP TO THEM in order to increase trade when Brexit begins to seriously affect or economy I'm sure this applalling behaviour on the part of our Government will outrage Keith and his ilk no end Jim Carroll |
|
04 Aug 18 - 04:53 PM (#3941627) Subject: RE: BS: Winne the Pooh banned From: The Sandman Jim it is irrelevant how old the news is this is reminscent of 1984 whichever country it is happening in. |
|
04 Aug 18 - 05:28 PM (#3941637) Subject: RE: BS: Winne the Pooh banned From: Jim Carroll You didn't respond to my traffic camera poing nor have you to my reasons for the ban and Britain's behaviour Nor will you |
|
04 Aug 18 - 05:28 PM (#3941638) Subject: RE: BS: Winne the Pooh banned From: Jim Carroll You didn't respond to my traffic camera poing nor have you to my reasons for the ban and Britain's behaviour Nor will you |
|
04 Aug 18 - 05:46 PM (#3941642) Subject: RE: BS: Winne the Pooh banned From: The Sandman I agree with you, Jimp, thqt does not Excuse Chinese CCTV SURVEILLANCE, or their lack of a sense of humour |
|
04 Aug 18 - 07:58 PM (#3941652) Subject: RE: BS: Winne the Pooh banned From: Jim Carroll How can you agree with me if you don't understand what I wrote Dick The ban is about suppressing criticism - it has nothing to do with humour The Chinese have the largest population on the planet - the idea that the establishment would even try to monitor the people with CCTV is utterly ludicrous. Britain and the U.S. monitors the population as much as any other country does - with cameras, among other methods - both reached the situation described in 1984 around 1980, I would guess A few years ago the Irish people were issued with a card enabling them to avail themselves to access State public health and numerous other benefits The chip on the card carries more data information on its holder than anywhere else on the planet. I have little doubt that our security services could tell you which hand you use to wipe your arse if you asked them nicely Do you think that that should be "excused"/ Give us a break - one government is no better than another in these matters Jim Carroll |
|
04 Aug 18 - 08:47 PM (#3941657) Subject: RE: BS: Winne the Pooh banned From: robomatic Unfortunately modern technology makes the Chinese one party state quite capable of dominating its population at a scale unknown in the west. The enormous capacity of data storage computer sophistication, the continuing development of biorecognition data and AI make this a real threat. But to claim that Britain and the U.S. monitors the population as much as any other country does - with cameras, among other methods - both reached the situation described in 1984 around 1980, I would guess is to be light on the facts and heavy on the presuppositions. It's true that it's a real issue. It's not true that it's being addressed the same everywhere. That is a fatuous statement. For instance, Winnie the Pooh is welcome in the West. We've even got a brand new movie coming out about him (Christopher Robin). |
|
05 Aug 18 - 03:28 AM (#3941692) Subject: RE: BS: Winnie the Pooh banned in China From: BobL At least it's not the real Winnie-the-Pooh who has, through no fault of his own, incurred the wrath of the Chinese establishment - it's Disney's travesty. Incidentally, am I right in thinking that W-t-P is the only book in children's (or any other) literature with no antagonist? |
|
05 Aug 18 - 04:10 AM (#3941702) Subject: RE: BS: Winnie the Pooh banned in China From: Senoufou Interesting question BobL. I can't at the moment think of any protagonist in the Noddy books (unless one includes Mr Plod or the goblins) I find it hard to come to terms with the 'Disneyism' of classic children's literature. The Peter Rabbit film has me grinding my teeth. But times have changed, and so have today's children. They need a screen in front of them apparently, so a Disney film is more interesting than a book I suppose. The leaders of China, N Korea (and USA, sadly) seem so obsessed with their image and 'dignity' (hah!) that any parody is met with incredible anger rather than a wry smile and a sense of humour. Gaddafi was the same. When I was passing through Libya, his image was everywhere, presented as a true tent-dwelling bedouin, and any mockery would have been met with instant death. |
|
05 Aug 18 - 04:21 AM (#3941705) Subject: RE: BS: Winnie the Pooh banned in China From: DMcG "Sylvie and Bruno" by Lewis Carroll springs to mind as a book without an antagonist. There are lots without a physical antagonist, just "nature" or "the system" or "society". Would you say "Little Women" had an antagonist? Illness, maybe... |
|
05 Aug 18 - 04:26 AM (#3941707) Subject: RE: BS: Winnie the Pooh banned in China From: Jim Carroll "The leaders of China, N Korea (and USA, sadly) seem so obsessed with their image and 'dignity' (hah!) I agree totally - though I could add a few more names to theirs It's frightening to think that theirs are the hands hovering over the button Jim |
|
05 Aug 18 - 04:42 AM (#3941708) Subject: RE: BS: Winnie the Pooh banned in China From: Iains "But to claim that Britain and the U.S. monitors the population as much as any other country does - with cameras, among other methods - both reached the situation described in 1984 around 1980, I would guess is to be light on the facts and heavy on the presuppositions." Yet many sources claim:"London is the most spied-on city in the world. Numerous CCTV cameras have been placed across the city to help reduce the crime rates in the city. Cameras are placed on lampposts, buildings, train stations, and on main roads. According to the estimation by the Big Brother Watch (BBW), there are approximately 51,000 cameras that are run by the police to help watch citizens in the capital. According to a civil rights group called Liberty, on average a Londoner is captured on camera about 300 times daily. According to BBW, 20% of the world’s CCTV cameras are found in Britain. |
|
05 Aug 18 - 05:24 AM (#3941717) Subject: RE: BS: Winnie the Pooh banned in China From: Jos A book without an antagonist? Wasn't there an incident involving bees - with Pooh s the antagonist? And who built the heffalump trap? It wasn't intended to hurt poor Pooh, but it certainly wasn't a friendly act. I wouldn't be surprised if some of the later concoctions produced by Disney have antagonists, but I make every effort to avoid anything involving Disney. |
|
05 Aug 18 - 05:29 AM (#3941720) Subject: RE: BS: Winnie the Pooh banned in China From: Jim Carroll China ort anywhere could claim exactly the same as you have Iains In fact, that was the argument put forward by Big NBrother Jim Carroll |
|
05 Aug 18 - 05:33 AM (#3941722) Subject: RE: BS: Winnie the Pooh banned in China From: Jim Carroll Now if your claims had been backed up by FACTS It's a little like the US making similar arguments for carrying guns of continuing Capital Punishment Jim Carroll |
|
05 Aug 18 - 05:55 AM (#3941727) Subject: RE: BS: Winnie the Pooh banned in China From: Iains "Now if your claims had been backed up by FACTS" You of course being a fine one to talk when it comes to facts! Your link is about as relevant as telling me what newspaper you read. There is ,as yet, no requirement to register surveillance cameras in the UK. Therefore there is no way to accurately establish true numbers. The British Security Industry Authority (BSIA) estimated there are up to 5.9 million closed-circuit television cameras in the country, including 750,000 in “sensitive locations” such as schools, hospitals and care homes. Another source: "UK has 1% of world's population but 20% of its CCTV cameras. Experts have called for a halt in the spread of CCTV cameras. Britain is now being watched by a staggering 4.2million - one for every 14 people and a fifth of the cameras in the entire world." Would you like an argument on angels on a pinhead? Britain has had security cameras in sensitive locations since the late 70's. Trials with ANPR occurred decades ago. As far back as 2006 the Severn Bridge was targeted by the police, social services and other organisations, in order to fight crime. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/wales/south_east/6906891.stm |
|
05 Aug 18 - 06:08 AM (#3941728) Subject: RE: BS: Winnie the Pooh banned in China From: Jim Carroll "You of course being a fine one to talk when it comes to facts!" My "facts" have nothing to do with it - you want to dispute the claims, do so with evidence - so far youu have just ignored it British towns and cities are satrurated with surveillance equipment - China will have to run fast to catch up with that one Jim Carroll |
|
05 Aug 18 - 06:40 AM (#3941734) Subject: RE: BS: Winnie the Pooh banned in China From: Senoufou The prisoners I worked with would have been utterly overjoyed if there had been fewer CCTV cameras in action while they went about their nefarious deeds. From all the Police programmes I watch on TV, it would appear that CCTV is essential in crime prevention and crime solving. We don't go out at night, but if we did, I'd feel much more secure knowing we were in sight of surveillance teams. If one is doing nothing illegal or anti-social in nature, why would one be wary of surveillance? It isn't sinister at all, it's protective. |
|
05 Aug 18 - 07:05 AM (#3941743) Subject: RE: BS: Winnie the Pooh banned in China From: Jim Carroll Cameras are claimed to dissuade people from committing crimes, the figures show they are not working - especially those on the sharp increase in street crimes Allowing any establishment to monitor your activities is disturbing, unless you believe establishments themselves are above suspicion - I cant think of any who are Jim |
|
05 Aug 18 - 07:09 AM (#3941745) Subject: RE: BS: Winnie the Pooh banned in China From: Iains Of course video surveillance is only part of the story. GCHG hoovers up electronic traffic, aided by Menwith Hill. Project Phoenix was a very recent upgrade at Menwith Hill enabling US surveillance programmes Prism and Upstream to run with gay abandon and I suspect precious little oversight. In 2012 £48million was spent on generator plant to keep the base running. |
|
05 Aug 18 - 07:32 AM (#3941752) Subject: RE: BS: Winnie the Pooh banned in China From: Jim Carroll If you had been the victim of surveillance as my family was (in a big way) you would think twice about allowing it to be used indiscriminately When my father returned from Spain in 1930 he was put under surveillance, the result being he could not obtain work and me and my sister were deprived of a father for 15 years As things stand at present, anybody filmed on an Anti-Israeli demonstration would be registered as antisemitic - on a pro-Palestinian demo they would be linked to Islamic terrorism Demonstrations of all shapes and forms are regarded as undesirable by the establishment and by the security services, that is why they are monitored closely (where they are allowed) - that is why Thatcher labeled demonstrators in support of the rights of workers in Britain's most important industry, "The Enemy Within" The people who think like this are those who are freely given access to information captured by security cameras "If they come for me in the morning they'll come for you in the afternoon" if you let 'em, is a very wise saying Jim Carroll |
|
05 Aug 18 - 07:58 AM (#3941754) Subject: RE: BS: Winnie the Pooh banned in China From: The Sandman Jim, I agree. my family were also under surveillance ,my father did 30. days hard labour in prison for left wing activities |
|
05 Aug 18 - 03:44 PM (#3941862) Subject: RE: BS: Winnie the Pooh banned in China From: Iains All suspected subversives are monitored and have been for decades. Jolly good job too. They might be embryonic terrorists. |
|
06 Aug 18 - 01:34 AM (#3941916) Subject: RE: BS: Winnie the Pooh banned in China From: The Sandman "If one is doing nothing illegal or anti-social in nature, why would one be wary of surveillance?" that is, if you have total confidence in the police, while there are dedicated good police officers ,there are also some who abuse their power. check out Du Plantier murder. |
|
06 Aug 18 - 04:22 AM (#3941934) Subject: RE: BS: Winnie the Pooh banned in China From: Iains The argument as to whether all this surveillance is a good thing or a bad is not something the British Public has had discussion on. In 50 years we have gone from essentially no video surveillance to one on every street corner. The public was not offered any choice, it happened. Coupled with facial recognition, and images constantly being captured, I find it intrusive. ANPR enables journeys to be plotted, and number plate knowledge enables car ownership, license details,social security details, and no doubt medical and bank account details. This is besides grabbing all your internet and phone details along with positional data. Crime is being used as an excuse, but should push come to shove, it is all about control. The system comes riddled with flaws,largely legislation free, and a woeful lack of oversight. We seem to have made a quantum leap from the monitoring of suspected criminals to monitoring everyone and no one seems to care. https://www.wired.co.uk/article/uk-collect-data-unlawful |
|
06 Aug 18 - 09:56 AM (#3942003) Subject: RE: BS: Winnie the Pooh banned in China From: Jim Carroll "They might be embryonic terrorists." Why might they? It is not yet illegal to speak out against a government or a system When we live in a society where it is we have made Thatchers quantum leap into fascism. I woder why you make such a statement and then go on to make one full of common sense which totally contradicts it Jim Carroll |
|
06 Aug 18 - 11:20 AM (#3942021) Subject: RE: BS: Winnie the Pooh banned in China From: Jim Carroll EMBRYONIC TERRORISTS Jim Carroll |
|
06 Aug 18 - 03:16 PM (#3942062) Subject: RE: BS: Winnie the Pooh banned in China From: olddude I completely understand because he is so sexually attractive |
|
06 Aug 18 - 04:54 PM (#3942072) Subject: RE: BS: Winnie the Pooh banned in China From: olddude Winnie that is |
|
06 Aug 18 - 05:05 PM (#3942073) Subject: RE: BS: Winnie the Pooh banned in China From: robomatic As to "Disnification". It is a valid subject. I can't speak to 'Disney' W-t-P as I think I got a whiff of Pooh's voice in one of the original films and decided I would not accept it and just ignored 'em. My bit of memory was that Winnie sounded like a wispy old man and it just didn't go with my image of a young stuffed bear. And Tigger was too like a cartoon tiger and not like a cartoon stuffed tiger. But Disney taketh and Disney giveth. I love the original Dumbo. I think Disney is not a guarantee of either a perfect capture of the essence of a novel or children's book, but it has had some gifted animators who did (and maybe still do) their best to do so. As an example, take a look at the original Fantasia. First and foremost, it was an attempt to do something novel and edifying. And advance the art of animation. In fact, it had some elements which were hilariously brilliant (hippo ballerinas, dancing crocodiles), horribly embarassing and, if you catch some of the original work, racist depictions of cavorting centaurs, and effing inspirational, dinosaurs acting out their lives with Stravinsky in the background, Mickey misbehaving with magic. Disney the man was brilliantly imperfect. And I do agree about the off-putting adverts for the very recent animation of Peter Rabbit. Peter looks like a wise-ass and on that alone I have no desire to see the picture. Charm has turned to snark. BUT, it isn't a Disney pic. It's marketed by Columbia Pictures and Sony Pictures Animation. I'm sure the producers think they're geniuses and there's already a sequel in the planning stages. Beatrix wept. |
|
06 Aug 18 - 07:43 PM (#3942082) Subject: RE: BS: Winnie the Pooh banned in China From: Steve Shaw I don't give a flying shite whether China bans Winnie the Pooh. I'd rather worry about what countries are doing to damage children. Discuss... Grandad took his little granddaughter for a special treat ride on the puffer train. The little girl looked out of the window and said "Oh look, grandad, baa lambs!" "Yes, very nice," said grandad, "but that isn't very grown up, is it? Next time, call them "sheep!" "Sorry, grandad." A little while later the little girl said, "Oh look, grandad - moo cows!" "Yes, very nice, but don't be such a baby - next time just call them 'cows,' OK?" "Sorry, grandad." A little while later grandad turned to the little girl and said, "That looks like a very nice book you're reading there. What is it?" "Winnie the Shit, grandad..." |
|
07 Aug 18 - 02:29 AM (#3942103) Subject: RE: BS: Winnie the Pooh banned in China From: BobL "number plate knowledge enables […] social security details" Unfortunately, when you extrapolate from fact to utter fiction, your argument breaks down, and I personally am left with a feeling of "why should we believe anything else you might say?" |
|
07 Aug 18 - 02:43 AM (#3942107) Subject: RE: BS: Winnie the Pooh banned in China From: The Sandman Was Winnie The Pooh a terrorist? |
|
07 Aug 18 - 03:28 AM (#3942117) Subject: RE: BS: Winnie the Pooh banned in China From: Senoufou Pwaaaaaghaaaaaaagh Steve!!!! I hadn't heard that one!! True story:- My sister was on the bus into Dundee and a small girl, about 5yrs old, boarded with her dad. They sat behind my sister, and she heard the child say, (strong Dundonian accent) "I want to sit next to the bloody window!" Father said, "Weesht! Don't swear!" The child replied rather loudly, "Och, that's no swearing dad! FUCK is swearing!" Everyone on the bus shook with suppressed giggles. |
|
07 Aug 18 - 05:06 AM (#3942148) Subject: RE: BS: Winnie the Pooh banned in China From: Iains "number plate knowledge enables […] social security details" Unfortunately, when you extrapolate from fact to utter fiction, your argument breaks down, and I personally am left with a feeling of "why should we believe anything else you might say?" I admire your confidence in the above statement, I only wish it were true. ANPR gives access to the MOT data, car tax data, insurance data, and car ownership data. Discrepancies in the above ping the vehicle with a high degree of accuracy(that is ever increasing) Persons of interest can also have their number plate tagged to register a hit when captured. Assuming this leads to a roadside stop other databases can be interrogated. Facial recognition of driver licences was trialed in 2015, in order to verify identity. Ident1 allows roadside checking of fingerprints against a database of 5.5million. and of course Central government routinely gathers information when registering people or carrying out transactions, or for record keeping – usually when delivering a service. Such data can include: social security payment records educational attainment records health records court records tax records The single uniting feature of all this data is the individual's address. Do you seriously think such collections of data cannot be interrogated? If Administrative Data Research Network offers a bespoke service, negotiating with government departments to make these data available to researchers on a case-by-case basis, do you not think official bodies cannot do the same to the Nth degree? I did not state such information was immediately available, but for those being investigated such information can be acquired rapidly. If you believe such procedures and outcomes are pure fiction, then continue to be oblivious to the 21st century realities. When Australia is trialing roadside cameras to capture in car phone usage, where do you think the process of surveillance is going? |
|
07 Aug 18 - 05:33 AM (#3942155) Subject: RE: BS: Winnie the Pooh banned in China From: Steve Shaw As a law-abiding sort of chap I care not a jot about any of that. Apart from the fact that it soaks up some of my tax money it can't possibly disadvantage me. I do keep a weather eye open for speed cameras on the M5 and M6 though. I don't object to any measure at all that might deter drivers from using hand-held phones in cars. The police in the UK are now using unmarked tall vehicles to nab people doing it on motorways. Good. |
|
07 Aug 18 - 05:41 AM (#3942156) Subject: RE: BS: Winnie the Pooh banned in China From: Iains "As a law-abiding sort of chap I care not a jot about any of that." Even though there are documented cases data collection, data baeses and data mining breaching EU legislation on human rights? |
|
07 Aug 18 - 05:49 AM (#3942161) Subject: RE: BS: Winnie the Pooh banned in China From: Senoufou One doesn't have 'human rights' if one is breaking the law and putting others at risk of accident or death on the roads. I have no problems at all with 'them' looking into details about my car insurance, driving licence, possibility of a criminal record (not that I have one!) or any other facts about me. I'm not ashamed of anything in my life and have nothing I want to be kept a secret. I do feel more secure however, that miscreants, illegal drivers, closet terrorists, street muggers, ram raiders, drug dealers etc etc are under surveillance by CCTV cameras, and that 'they' have tabs on all those type of people. Nothing to hide - nothing to fear. |
|
07 Aug 18 - 06:21 AM (#3942172) Subject: RE: BS: Winnie the Pooh banned in China From: Iains “if you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to fear”. The origin of the phrase is unclear but it is most famously associated with Goebbels who is believed to have used it in 1933. The phrase is often used in defence of spying and intelligence services. |
|
07 Aug 18 - 06:33 AM (#3942181) Subject: RE: BS: Winnie the Pooh banned in China From: Iains Food for thought! https://www.independent.co.uk/voices/leftie-movements-inflitrated-by-mi5-police-officers-jeremy-corbyn-bernie-sanders-labour-par https://golem.ph.utexas.edu/category/2014/08/why_it_matters.html http://classic.austlii.edu.au/au/journals/CICrimJust/2001/16.pdf https://www.amnesty.org.uk/press-releases/uk-leading-europe-wide-race-bottom-orwellian-counter-terrorism-laws-new-report WHO POLICES THE POLICEMEN? |
|
07 Aug 18 - 06:42 AM (#3942187) Subject: RE: BS: Winnie the Pooh banned in China From: Jim Carroll Interesting links apart from the Indi which "CANNOT BE FOUND" "closet terrorists" Sen!! A terrorist becomes a terrorist when he/she commits or tries to commit an act of terrorism (unless you mean someone who goes around blowing up closets, of course) Giving the state the right to decide that someone is likely to become a criminal or a terrorist is the stuff of Fahrenheit 451 and 'Minority Report' Jim |
|
07 Aug 18 - 06:50 AM (#3942190) Subject: RE: BS: Winnie the Pooh banned in China From: Iains Do all those subjected to extraordinary rendition from uk airfields and subjected to waterboarding and incarceration under inhuman conditions at Guantanamo Bay not have human rights? Or how about using weaponised drones to track and smack "Suspected terrorists" Judge, jury, executioner sitting in a container thousands of miles away. |
|
07 Aug 18 - 07:04 AM (#3942197) Subject: RE: BS: Winnie the Pooh banned in China From: Iains https://www.independent.co.uk/voices/leftie-movements-inflitrated-by-mi5-police-officers-jeremy-corbyn-bernie-sanders-labour-party-a7156241.html "Giving the state the right to decide that someone is likely to become a criminal or a terrorist is the stuff of Fahrenheit 451 and 'Minority Report'" Well if the state does not decide, who does? and predictive policing is in the works. https://rusi.org/sites/default/files/201709_rusi_big_data_and_policing_babuta_web.pdf |
|
07 Aug 18 - 07:26 AM (#3942204) Subject: RE: BS: Winnie the Pooh banned in China From: Iains By way of another perspective of surveillance, the following is interesting. Police histories make much of the violence of the mob. But between the Porteous riots of 1736 and the chartist demonstration of1848 in london, there were around 20 major riots. Thecrowds caused adozen deaths The courts hanged 118 Troops shot dead 630. By contrast, the capitalist system of violence against workers went unpunished. Between 1850 and 1920 8500 miners were killed (1/3 in Wales) The state has always been scared of the bourgeoisie especially in that earlier period where only capitalists had the vote and the majority were disenfranchised and had little to be happy about. The establishment will fight to maintain the status quo and use all its powers to maintain supremacy over all that might question its role too vociferously, or pose any kind of threat. |
|
07 Aug 18 - 08:20 AM (#3942210) Subject: RE: BS: Winnie the Pooh banned in China From: Nigel Parsons But, Back to "Winnie The Pooh". I see the new film co-stars Hayley Atwell. She looked great in "Marvel's Agent Carter", (and played the part well) and this is set in a similar era. I'm looking forward to this one, even if it is Disney. |
|
07 Aug 18 - 11:01 AM (#3942247) Subject: RE: BS: Winnie the Pooh banned in China From: EBarnacle Censorship of this sort is a weapon of those who consider "face" more important than freedom. Consider what the Orange One would do if it were not for the First Amendment. Any time anyone questions him in public, he attempts to restrict their access to information, often without success, fortunately. |
|
07 Aug 18 - 11:19 AM (#3942250) Subject: RE: BS: Winnie the Pooh banned in China From: Jim Carroll "Well if the state does not decide, who does?" Nobody can - without a crystal ball If they could, we wouldn't need a justice system I sometime think there are two people posting under your name Iains, - one minute you make perfect sense, the next minute Are you doing a Bozo and pulling our chain? Jim Carroll |
|
07 Aug 18 - 01:51 PM (#3942286) Subject: RE: BS: Winnie the Pooh banned in China From: Iains Jim already the police use predictive software to determine crime spots, in order to optimise limited resources. The problem the police have at the moment is lack of relational databases, and lack of suitable software to efficiently query and datamine what records they already have. To an extent human rights legislation from the EU rather cramps their style but the events in Northern Ireland during the troubles meant that the army/security forces/police had tags on virtually everyone. While life is quiet the police have control, any whiff of insurgency and policing devolves to the army with the police as an ancillary force. May be uncomfortable reading for some but you can rest assured it is actively planned for and wargamed. All those emergency planning officers in various uk council offices are not there purely to deal with to deal with weather extremes. Government protects itself, people come a very poor second. There may be a reluctance to mobilise troops but if the situation warrants it, it will happen. https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/644968/UK_National_Risk_Register https://www.nam.ac.uk/explore/civil-enforcement |
|
07 Aug 18 - 03:55 PM (#3942315) Subject: RE: BS: Winnie the Pooh banned in China From: Jim Carroll "Jim already the police use predictive software to determine crime spots, in order to optimise limited resources." We are not talking about crime spots - we are talking about closet terrorists There is no terrorist "hot spot" in these islands THis is a ploy to keep an eye on all of us for future reference Jim Carroll |
|
08 Aug 18 - 04:00 AM (#3942388) Subject: RE: BS: Winnie the Pooh banned in China From: Nigel Parsons "Jim already the police use predictive software to determine crime spots, in order to optimise limited resources." We are not talking about crime spots - we are talking about closet terrorists There is no terrorist "hot spot" in these islands THis is a ploy to keep an eye on all of us for future reference Jim Carroll The amazing claim that "There is no terrorist "hot spot" in these islands" is obviously impossible to prove. Without identifying such a hotspot it is also impossible to disprove. But the fact that there have previously been 'hotspots' in the past means that there are likely to be such hotspots at present. It is just that they're unknown to the public at large. |
|
08 Aug 18 - 04:21 AM (#3942391) Subject: RE: BS: Winnie the Pooh banned in China From: Senoufou When you've finished laughing at me for mentioning 'closet terrorists', perhaps you'd reflect that there are many radicalised groups around UK, (and some mosques have been complicit in encouraging/indoctrinating them) which present a very real danger to our safety and security. Several young Muslim people (male and female) have taken themselves off to Syria for 'training'. A young British woman was convicted only last week for planning a bomb attack after going off to be with an Isis chap. She removed her hijab for the trial and tried to maintain she'd 'given up' Islam. (as if!) but the court convicted her nonetheless. I'm grateful that there are agents monitoring these folk. Their activities need watching. If you find this sinister, I suggest you have a look at the accounts of the Manchester bombing. If such atrocities can be prevented by keeping an eye on certain suspects, I'm all for it. |
|
08 Aug 18 - 06:31 AM (#3942420) Subject: RE: BS: Winnie the Pooh banned in China From: Iains Current threat from international terrorism UK Goverbnment sources. The current threat level for international terrorism in the UK is SEVERE. The current threat level for Northern Ireland-related terrorism in Northern Ireland is SEVERE. The current threat level for Northern Ireland-related terrorism in Britain is MODERATE. There are also returning jihadis from the middle east who pose an unquantified threat, those that have not been executed by drone track and splat operations. To say there are no terrorist hotspots in the UK is either wishful thinking, an ostrich impersonation, or simply a refusal to accept reality. https://www.albawaba.com/news/how-britain-living-its-isis-returnees-part-iii-1167690 |
|
08 Aug 18 - 06:46 AM (#3942426) Subject: RE: BS: Winnie the Pooh banned in China From: Jim Carroll "The amazing claim that "There is no terrorist "hot spot" in these islands" is obviously impossible to prove." The burden of proof lies with the accuser Nigel If there are "hot spots" it would be possible to prove there were - that's what "hot spots" are Nobody argues that there aren't potential terrorists. The suggestion that there are identifiable areas or communities is disconcerting nonsense - much used by racists, anti-immigrationists and Little Englanders Jim Carroll |
|
08 Aug 18 - 06:56 AM (#3942427) Subject: RE: BS: Winnie the Pooh banned in China From: Iains From Kent County Council counter terrorism strategy Kent has unique characteristics, such as its ports, the Channel Tunnel and its proximity to France. The county remains relatively safe and doesn't have terrorist hotspots that other parts of the UK have. We are working hard to maintain this situation for the people of Kent. Fink they know a tad more than our garrulous exile https://www.kent.gov.uk/about-the-council/strategies-and-policies/community-safety-and-crime-policies/contest# |
|
08 Aug 18 - 07:05 AM (#3942430) Subject: RE: BS: Winnie the Pooh banned in China From: Nigel Parsons "The amazing claim that "There is no terrorist "hot spot" in these islands" is obviously impossible to prove." The burden of proof lies with the accuser Nigel If there are "hot spots" it would be possible to prove there were - that's what "hot spots" are Nobody argues that there aren't potential terrorists. The suggestion that there are identifiable areas or communities is disconcerting nonsense - much used by racists, anti-immigrationists and Little Englanders Jim Carroll Until the removal of Abu Hamza the Finsbury Park Mosque was a 'hotspot' for radicalisation, and I expect the necessary forces kept close tabs on it. Since that time, it has, unfortunately, become a target for others. If you believe there are currently no 'hot spots' I believe you are deluding yourself. |
|
08 Aug 18 - 08:50 AM (#3942472) Subject: RE: BS: Winnie the Pooh banned in China From: Jim Carroll So you are suggesting that his Mosque should be covered by security cameras? WE are discussing the proliferation of cameras and other tracing devices all over urban Britain - it is in this context 'Hot Spots' arose You might claim that the front room of the home of someone who has gone off to fight for Isis is a "hot spot" - it would be Islamophobic to claim that the streets of Clapham, or Southall or Merton are. You've mentioned a Mosque - care to expand on that Nigel? There are no hot spots (as referred to in this thread) in these islands - none whatever If there are, it is your responsibility as the accuser to say where they are Jim Carroll |
|
08 Aug 18 - 09:52 AM (#3942488) Subject: RE: BS: Winnie the Pooh banned in China From: Jim Carroll You do know about your tendency to becomee abusive when your argumentis slipping away from you I assume Jim Carroll |
|
08 Aug 18 - 09:53 AM (#3942489) Subject: RE: BS: Winnie the Pooh banned in China From: Nigel Parsons There are no hot spots (as referred to in this thread) in these islands - none whatever If there are, it is your responsibility as the accuser to say where they are Jim Carroll If I were a member of the security services I might know where such hot spots would be. But I would still not be able (or permitted) to say. The fact that I cannot say where such hot spots are does not support your insistence that there are none. |
|
08 Aug 18 - 11:04 AM (#3942498) Subject: RE: BS: Winnie the Pooh banned in China From: Keith A of Hertford Birmingham Mail. "Hannah Stuart, Senior Research Fellow at The Henry Jackson Society and the report’s author, said: “Birmingham has become the country’s second major terrorism hotspot. Such a high concentration of offenders in Hall Green and Hodge Hill will focus the minds of policy makers and the police when it comes to deciding where to target our counter-terrorism efforts." https://www.birminghammail.co.uk/news/midlands-news/birmingham-major-terrorism-hotspot-problem-12688808 |
|
08 Aug 18 - 11:49 AM (#3942504) Subject: RE: BS: Winnie the Pooh banned in China From: Jim Carroll Hannah Shory is a Government adviser with links to the Henry Jackson Society "a neoconservative British foreign policy think tank.[1][2][3][4] It has been described as right-wing, but positions itself as cross-partisan, with support from some left-leaning politicians.[5][6][7] The former think tank Centre for Social Cohesion has been a part of HJS since 2011. It is named after the American politician Henry M. Jackson, the late Democratic Senator, civil rights advocate, and anticommunist liberal hawk.[8][9] Presumably there is evidence to back up this claim in the form of arrests of terrorists or proven terrorist activities Or maybe it's because Birmingham has a large immigrant population "If I were a member of the security services I might know where such hot spots would be. " Then, until you have, you have no grounds in claiming that there are any Hiding behind the very secrecy of the security measures we are discussing There must be hotspots because the spooks can't or won't tell us where they are A somewhat circular discussion, don't you think There have been at least two 'terrorist hot-spot' maps featured in the press recently - Britain features on neither - not a blip Jim Carroll |
|
08 Aug 18 - 12:03 PM (#3942508) Subject: RE: BS: Winnie the Pooh banned in China From: Iains "There have been at least two 'terrorist hot-spot' maps featured in the press recently - Britain features on neither - not a blip" And the British Government states the threat of terrorism in the UK is severe. If no hot spots, this must mean no terrorists. I know who I believe! Funny we employ The Counter Terrorism Command (CTC) or SO15 to keep tabs on terrorists and a lone person in the west of Ireland is presumptuous enough to believe he knows better. |
|
08 Aug 18 - 12:22 PM (#3942511) Subject: RE: BS: Winnie the Pooh banned in China From: Jim Carroll "nd the British Government states the threat of terrorism in the UK is severe." Then they have to specify where they are The Government is in the process of preventing emigrants and refugees from entering Britain based on a populist decision to do so pushed though on a racist ticket What else are they going to say? Jim Carroll |
|
08 Aug 18 - 12:41 PM (#3942514) Subject: RE: BS: Winnie the Pooh banned in China From: Keith A of Hertford Birmingham Post, "Birmingham City Council will be asked to work closely with police and the MI5 to fight terrorism, Home Secretary Sajid Javid has announced. The West Midlands will create one of three new anti-terror partnerships designed to step up the fight against violent extremism. The others are in London and Greater Manchester. It follows warnings that parts of the West Midlands, and the Birmingham wards of Springfield, Sparkhill, Hall Green and Hodge Hill in particular, have been home to a high proportion of convicted terrorists." https://www.birminghampost.co.uk/news/regional-affairs/home-secretary-wants-birmingham-city-14740462 |
|
08 Aug 18 - 12:58 PM (#3942516) Subject: RE: BS: Winnie the Pooh banned in China From: Jim Carroll "have been home to a high proportion of convicted terrorists."" So the whole "hot spot" is guilty by association "Now that makes sense" as the red M and M says in the ad Youve just been given the reason why tha Government should be anxious to create "hot spots" were there are none In order to probe "hot spots" you have to give examples of terrorism and arrests The crazy sodding thing about all of this is the Muslim communities in Britain remain the most trouble-free and law abiding in Britain Slanders like this stand to alienate those communities big-time and drive young people into the arms of terrorists, just as they did with Isis The young jihadists who went to fill the gap left br Britain and the U.N. and went off to fight Assad are living examples of the radicalisation of young British Muslims The rednecks never learn, do they? Jim Carroll |
|
08 Aug 18 - 01:38 PM (#3942519) Subject: RE: BS: Winnie the Pooh banned in China From: Keith A of Hertford So the whole "hot spot" is guilty by association No. A hotspot is an area with an exceptional number of terrorists, as indicated by an exceptional number of convictions of terrorists from that area. |
|
08 Aug 18 - 02:17 PM (#3942533) Subject: RE: BS: Winnie the Pooh banned in China From: Iains "The young jihadists who went to fill the gap left br Britain and the U.N. and went off to fight Assad are living examples of the radicalisation of young British Muslims The rednecks never learn, do they?" What totally asinine statements Tell me, is your day job being a contortionist?! |
|
08 Aug 18 - 02:23 PM (#3942536) Subject: RE: BS: Winnie the Pooh banned in China From: Jim Carroll No. A hotspot is an area with an exceptional number of terrorists," You referred to a high proportion of convicted terrorists who are apparently banged up otrr have been deported Thos those left behind are guilty by living where they do You've done this consistently - making Muslims 'the Enemy within' The real 'Enemy within' are the rednecks who apparently deliberately set out to alienate a peaceful, law- abiding community by branding them 'potential terrorists' The whole "terrorist" thing is crazy Britain takes so serious th atrocities committed by the Assad Regime that it takes a vote as to whether we should intervene - we decide not to The young Muslims are so incensed by what's happening in Syria that they volunteer to fight there - for doing what Britain just voted on they are branded "terrorists" Now, when they are imprisoned or deported, the communities they left to go and do Britain's and the UN's job for them become "terrorist hot-beds" The parallels of this and what happened to my father's generation is spooky Britain decided not to intervene in the rise of Fascism in Germany Young men decide to take up the slack and go off to fight in Spain - they retuern to be branded "premature anti-fascists" and are punished for going to fight the same fascists Britain was then fighting - at the same time as "premature anti-fascist" records were being handed out. You couldn't make this shit up The chances of young Jihadists being radicalised in their own communities were virtually non existent yet these communities are being branded by the rednecks as "terrorist hot-spots" Feckin' barmy - and dangerous Jim Carroll |
|
08 Aug 18 - 02:25 PM (#3942538) Subject: RE: BS: Winnie the Pooh banned in China From: Jim Carroll ""What totally asinine statements Tell me, is your day job being a contortionist?!" There goes you inability to come up with a rational response again - you could set you watch by it Jim Carroll |
|
08 Aug 18 - 03:09 PM (#3942549) Subject: RE: BS: Winnie the Pooh banned in China From: Iains Today, the government defines extremism as "vocal or active opposition to fundamental British values, including democracy, the rule of law, individual liberty and mutual respect and tolerance of different faiths and beliefs". It goes on to say that Islamist extremism is an ideology that accuses the West of perpetrating a war on Islam. "The chances of young Jihadists being radicalised in their own communities were virtually non existent yet these communities are being branded by the rednecks as "terrorist hot-spots" and to re-arrange your post into a well known phrase or saying, "You couldn't make this shit up" Jim if you post nonsense expect to be treated as a fool. "The young Muslims are so incensed by what's happening in Syria that they volunteer to fight there" Rubbish Have they been radicalised by a bunch of mad mullahs we have not had the sense to deport? Yes they most certainly have. "Britain takes so serious th atrocities committed by the Assad Regime that it takes a vote as to whether we should intervene - we decide not to" More jimmy rubbish. Has the RAF not carried out bombing missions in Syria? (Without UN sanction and therefore totally illegally as in Iraq, Libya, Yemen) Do you ever check anything that pops into your head? Obviously not, and you wonder why no one takes you seriously? |
|
08 Aug 18 - 03:17 PM (#3942550) Subject: RE: BS: Winnie the Pooh banned in China From: Iains An unusually neutral review by the BBC, a recap of how we got to where we are in defining radicalism and jihadism. https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-27777892 |
|
08 Aug 18 - 04:29 PM (#3942561) Subject: RE: BS: Winnie the Pooh banned in China From: Jim Carroll Not bad except it predates the present manifestation of terrorism Jim Carroll |
|
09 Aug 18 - 06:16 AM (#3942644) Subject: RE: BS: Winnie the Pooh banned in China From: Steve Shaw Well I'm not very wary of surveillance, though I am wary of the police wasting their precious resources. I suppose that a couple of blokes selling CND badges and car stickers from a little trestle table in Loughton High Road on a Saturday morning desperately required all the clandestine photographing, videoing and phone-tapping we were subjected to in case we were embryonic terrorists. Why, the chairman of Loughton CND had his allotment right next to mine. Very dangerous, as we could so easily slip away from the High Road to plot the downfall of capitalism over a bit of tomato pinching-out and spud earthing-up... "Plots on the plots." Heh, just spotted that one! |
|
09 Aug 18 - 06:44 AM (#3942651) Subject: RE: BS: Winnie the Pooh banned in China From: Iains "Well I'm not very wary of surveillance, though I am wary of the police wasting their precious resources." Rather misses the point. If the perceived threat is low,the surveillance remains, but superficial. Resources are concentrated where the threat is felt to be highest. This means threats from all sources must to be studied before they can be categorized as hi, lo, or zero. You may feel it clever to trivialise the activities of those monitoring you, perhaps you feel the same about the sharp end of surveillance. For example in the last four years UK reaper drones have carried out 2604 surveillance missions. Weapons have been released on 880 occasions during these missions. Collateral damage is normally an estimate, but undoubtedly innocent children and civilians have been killed. |
|
09 Aug 18 - 07:16 AM (#3942656) Subject: RE: BS: Winnie the Pooh banned in China From: Jim Carroll "Resources are concentrated where the threat is felt to be highest." Do you have any evidence of this? Mass surveilance has been a major part of British life for several decades, long before terrorism, or even serious street crime was an issue. As an establishment view that the British people need to be watched, it goes back for well over a century. A BRIEF HISTORY You have totally failed to establish that there are any "terrorist hot sopts" (other than right-wing tabloid rhetoric) yet you are claiming a spohistcated approach to people-watching, where no such insight is apparent "can be categorized as hi, lo, or zero." When I asked, Nigel makes the point that we don't know what they are doing - it's protected under the Official Secrets Act" How do you know - do you have somebody o he inside surveying the surveillers? This really is make-it-up-as=you-go-along nonsense Iains Jim Carroll |
|
09 Aug 18 - 08:21 AM (#3942683) Subject: RE: BS: Winnie the Pooh banned in China From: Jim Carroll UNDOUBTEDLY Jim Carroll |
|
09 Aug 18 - 03:57 PM (#3942765) Subject: RE: BS: Winnie the Pooh banned in China From: Iains "This really is make-it-up-as=you-go-along nonsense Iains" Well you can believe whatever you want to believe. If intelligence sources are clever enough to track terrorists from thousands of miles away and subsequently obliterate them, then I am quite sure they can track likely lads in their own back yard. On the one hand you provide a link giving a cursory breakdown of the electronic surveillance tools enshrined in recent legislation in the UK, and yet in the same breath deny the security services keep tabs on persons of interest. Is the dichotomy real or some figment of your imagination? Security services in the Uk have been monitoring people at least since the days of Peter the painter, in fact it started earlier with Germans taking an interest in the fleet immediately prior to WW1. Do you not think their techniques have improved somewhat over the last 100 years? Having worked in a few dodgy places where daily intelligence briefings were the norm, you might be amazed at the level of detail private contractors can hoover up. A government with far greater resources in people, money, technique and technical backup can unsurprisingly accomplish far, far more. It comes as no surprise to a person with any kind of savvy that such data as may be gathered will not be plastered over the 6 o'clock news each day. "can be categorized as hi, lo, or zero." Your happy clappy deluded view of the world is not born out by the statistics. The greatest threat is from Islamic Jihadis. If the government issues threat warnings at different levels it stands to reason the threat, when assessed, is labelled at escalating levels. It would be stupid to deal with the situation in any other way. low - an attack is unlikely. moderate - an attack is possible but not likely. substantial - an attack is a strong possibility. severe - an attack is highly likely. critical - an attack is expected imminently. The above threat levels used by the UK government rather suggesst a pecking order of threat is established. If everything was as hunkydory as you would have us believe perhaps you would care to explain what the government saw fit to produce the publication below: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/recognising-the-terrorist-threat/recognising-the-terrorist-threat |
|
09 Aug 18 - 04:10 PM (#3942766) Subject: RE: BS: Winnie the Pooh banned in China From: Steve Shaw "Your happy clappy deluded view of the world is not born out by the statistics. The greatest threat is from Islamic Jihadis." The greatest threat is from American foreign policy and has been for decades. And, in the interests of balance, the UK (with the honourable exception of Harold Wilson, who refused to be bullied into the Vietnam war by Lyndon Johnson) has been serially complicit. This is not to excuse in the slightest the depredations of Islamic jihadists, but let's face it: without those foreign policy interventions, in the Middle East especially, there wouldn't BE any Islamic jihadists. |
|
09 Aug 18 - 04:30 PM (#3942771) Subject: RE: BS: Winnie the Pooh banned in China From: Iains It is rare that you and I agree Mr Shaw, but in this case you are largely correct. |
|
09 Aug 18 - 05:31 PM (#3942778) Subject: RE: BS: Winnie the Pooh banned in China From: Iains When the USSR invaded Afghanistan it was the British that first trained the Mujahideen to use sophisticated weaponry against the Russians. It has gone downhill ever since. "Whatsoever a man soweth, that shall he also reap." |
|
10 Aug 18 - 11:30 AM (#3942935) Subject: RE: BS: Winnie the Pooh banned in China From: Nigel Parsons Christopher Robin trailer (from YouTube) Pooh & president Xi - Google search Bringing us back where we started |
|
16 Aug 18 - 04:31 AM (#3944286) Subject: RE: BS: Winnie the Pooh banned in China From: FreddyHeadey "one on every street corner. " To any historians reading this in 2118 .... find a better source than mudcat for FACTS. |
|
16 Aug 18 - 06:32 PM (#3944479) Subject: RE: BS: Winnie the Pooh banned in China From: robomatic "One on every street corner." At first I thought you meant Starbucks! |