Slashdot Mirror

Actually there is a lot of sense to that. It has been proposed before that a government DNA database would virtually solve crime - obviously this is not true but it would be a very useful tool for detection and prevention.

But before you go off on one and start ranting lets look at the facts...

From the Home Office: http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/science-research/usin g-science/dna-database/

"Any intrusion on personal privacy is proportionate to the benefits that are gained.

By the end of 2005, about 200,000 samples had been retained that would have been destroyed before the 2001 change in legislation. 8,000 of these samples matched with DNA taken from crime scenes, involving nearly 14,000 offences, including murders and rapes.

In 2005-06 45,000 crimes were matched against records on the DNA Database; including 422 homicides (murders and manslaughters) and 645 rapes."

Thats 45 thousand crimes in one year. Think about that for a while.

And an anti database view: http://www.genewatch.org/HumanGen/Publications/Rep orts/NationalDNADatabase.pdf

"Errors and false DNA matches have led to miscarriages of justice, and these can create major difficulties for those wrongfully convicted because, like fingerprint evidence, DNA is widely regarded as absolutely conclusive, meaning that those without strong alibi evidence will tend to be presumed guilty. At the moment the DNA database itself can be viewed largely (but not entirely) as a growing suspect list that is mainly used to check samples from new and unsolved crime, but the existing data can be (and has been) used for broader purposes, and the UK practice of retaining the sample as well as the data allows it to be used for further testing for other purposes as the science develops.

We're seeing glimpses of what is possible with familial testing, which establishes links to family members where the suspect's DNA might not be on the database, and although the first instance of this was viewed as a coup, if used widely the procedure would find relatives you didn't know about, and reveal that people weren't related to the people they thought they were. So what have you got to hide? You don't know, and maybe you don't want to know."

--- I am *not* parroting a government line. Nor am I proposing GATACCA. I am simply stating that to dismiss this without thought on quaint and paranoid lines seems irrational and foolish. I realized that this viewpoint would run counter to many of the /. readers (yes thats a sweeping generalization) but it really is what I think.

http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/pdfs05/hors292.pd f

> All systems aimed to reduce crime, yet this study suggests that CCTV has generally failed to
> achieve this. Although police-recorded crime has decreased in six out of the 13 systems for
> which data were available, in only three cases might this decrease be attributable to CCTV,
> and in only two areas was there a significant decrease compared with the control.

and somewhat bizarrely

> Moreover, in some cases (although not many) an increase in crime was an indicator of success

(on the basis that CCTV led to the detection of crime that had previously been unreported)

more importantly in the context of continuing the expansion of our surveillance society, the Home Office conclude

> there was a lack of realism about what could be expected from CCTV. In short, it
> was oversold - by successive governments - as the answer (indeed the 'magic bullet', Ditton
> and Short, 1999) to crime problems. Few seeking a share of the available funding saw it as
> necessary to demonstrate CCTV's effectiveness. After all, why would the government be
> giving out money for this and not other measures if it did not work? Yet it was rarely obvious
> why CCTV was the best response to crime in particular circumstances.

Since 1998 number of people injured by firearms in England and Wales has more than doubled[24] from 2,378 in 1998/99 to 4,001 in 2005/06. "Injury" in this context means by being fired, used a blunt instrument, or as a threat. In 2005/06, 87% of such injuries were defined as "slight," which includes the use of firearms as a threat only. The number of homicides committed with firearms has remained between a range of 46 and 97 for the past decade, standing at 50 in 2005/06 (a fall from 75 the previous year). Between 1998/99 and 2005/06, there have been only two fatal shootings of police officers in England and Wales. Over the same period there were 107 non-fatal shootings of police officers - an average of just 9.7 per year.[25](PDF - Page 36)

We've already seen, in society, how CCTV has "generally failed" to reduce crime, or the fear of crime.

See http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/pdfs05/hors292.pd f

In particular, the end of section 3 "Does CCTV work?"

What do you want then? Do you dispute a wikipedia reference with a citation? Do you assume that because wikipedia isn't 100% accurate, everything on it must be wrong? Fine.

Do you trust The Register as a source? Because according to this article, "the police are allowed to retain DNA data on those arrested even if those arrested are not convicted of or even charged with any crime."

But perhaps they're not all that reliable. So lets see what the Home office has to say. The law was changed in 2001 to remove this requirement, and changed again in 2004 so that DNA samples could be taken from anyone arrested for a recordable offence and detained in a police station.

Why do you consider Wikipedia to be totally invalid as a source? Can you show me something they've got completely wrong that hasn't been maliciously vandalised?

People in the UK may also be interested in this: http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/documents/cons-2007-d epiction-sex-abuse

'This consultation paper outlines the concerns about non-photographic visual depictions of child sexual abuse, i.e. computer generated images (CGIs), drawings, animation, etc, and seeks views on proposals to make its possession an offence.'

By a timely coincidence, here's part of the announcement for a forthcoming academic conference:

'Recent decades have seen philosophers devote considerable attention to depiction, that form of
representation characteristic of figurative paintings, drawings and photographs. Despite this
attention, there is as yet little agreement about what depiction involves. This conference aims to
help remedy this situation by bringing together philosophers working in this area to discuss topics
central to an adequate philosophical understanding of depiction...'

I expect the government to get its law, but goodness knows what the language will be or how the courts will deal with it...

In any case Homeland Security doesn't really want really secure devices...

It's OK, I had to look it up too:

http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/about-us/organisation /ministers/john-reid/

Sounds like something similar to the Dept of Homeland Security.

Make sure you respond to the consultation before 22 June, if you haven't already.

That and with all the cameras out there, crime still happens in the UK. Murders [including shootings] still happen. So what are the cameras really solving?

You're arguing against a strawman. Nobody believes the cameras prevent all crime. Most murders, including shootings, occur in areas where there are no cameras, so wouldn't be affected. According to this study, there is usually a reduction in reported crime, although their sample size was too small for it to be statistically significant.

Out of the 13 systems analysed, six showed a reduction in all relevant crime: City
Outskirts, Hawkeye, Northern Estate, City Hospital, South City and Shire Town. All except
South City had a relative effect size greater than one and there f o re showed a gre a t e r
reduction in the target than the control area, suggesting that CCTV could have played a role
in reducing crime in these areas. However, only two (City Outskirts and Hawkeye)
p e rf o rmed statistically significantly better than their respective control areas following the
introduction of CCTV.

It sounds to me as if the effect is too small to justify the cost (both in monetary terms and in liberty) of such programs, but that conclusion is arguable. Is a median crime reduction of 3% worth it? Probably not, but it isn't worthless.

And one has to wonder, on noting that this study was based on reported crimes, what the effects of CCTV on reporting are: I would expect a higher proportion of crimes to be reported in the areas with CCTV, because victims might reasonably expect a better outcome of reporting the crime in such an area.

Now-in England last year, they had fourteen deaths from handguns.

To be fair, there were 22 homicides involving handguns in England and Wales in 2005/06 (see http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/pdfs07/hosb0207.p df page 44). Based on a mid-2005 population of 50,431,700 for England and 2,958,600 for Wales (see http://www.statistics.gov.uk/cci/nugget.asp?ID=6), that's 0.41 hangun homicides per million people.

In the United States, there were 8,299 handgun homicides in 2004 (see http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/homicide/tables/weapo nstab.htm). Based on a mid-2004 population of 293,638,158 (see http://www.census.gov/popest/national/files/NST_ES T2006_ALLDATA.csv), that's 28.26 handgun homicides per million people.

Therefore, the per capita handgun homicide rate is about 69 times higher in the US compared to England and Wales.

These regulations already exist in Britain and France.

Britons are the biggest binge-drinkers in Europe. Binge-drinking basically means going out on the town to get blind drunk.

That's the generally accepted definition of binge drinking. If you look closer at government publications, however, you'll find they use a different one. See for instance this study which uses the definition "drinking enough to feel drunk at least once per month" to define a binge drinker.

The reason the government sees there being such a binge drinking problem is that they've defined it in such a way that it's actually hard to avoid being a binge drinker without completely abstaining.

After a bit of digging it appears there were 1,895,002 prosecutions and 1,484,424 convictions in 2005 (warning: large XLS file), of which roughly one fifth were for serious (indictable) offences. I'd be interested to know how many convictions involved wiretap evidence.

As far as I know these numbers are much higher in the USA as elswhere, I can't come up with a lot of numbers now, but some interesting ones are:
http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/pdfs2/r188.pdf

This has a significant impact on criminals ... It took several months for people's behavior to change ( which was odd...I expected it to change almost overnight ) But now all we have is an occasional vagrant.

If you had access UK TV, you would have been treated to the "awesome" spectacle of the recently appointed Home Secretary John Reid making a doom laden statement about the massive terror plot that had just been foiled where the threat to many aircraft was immense.

I have never seen a UK broadcast like it before, just Reid and the Transport Minister Douglas Alexander sitting there intoning the scale of the threat and the highly restrictive measures being implemented immediately at airports. No interviewer or presenter just the government talking heads.

Of course the context within the UK was that the Home Office was in terrible trouble for releasing foreign prisoners (over 1000) back into the community without deporting them and trying to foist the ridiculous ID card scheme on the UK and John Reid had been brought in to "sort it out".

This was PR manna from heaven and the UK press lapped it up. I wasn't aware of any of the mainstream media outlets questioning the "liquid bomb" idea.

actually there are many tools like this already in existence... modern probation work has been scientificalised and statisticalised to the extent that you can't do anything with an offender until you know what their various scores are. In the UK the risk of general reconviction is calculated statistically in the OGRS programme based on age, conviction, prison sentences etc. (http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/probation1.html) . This also produces a level of risk that that person will commit a violent offence. There are other specialist tools for domestic violence - the Spousal Assault Risk Assessment which is a 20 item checklist. Also, for sex offenders their risk of reconviction is assessed by using the Thornton Risk Matrix 2000. Every offender who comes into the probation system also has an OASys assessment completed on them - which asks the assessor to score factors from 14 different areas such as accommodation, lifestyle, substance misuse etc. (http://www.probation.homeoffice.gov.uk/files/pdf/ Info%20for%20sentencers%203.pdf).

actually there are many tools like this already in existence... modern probation work has been scientificalised and statisticalised to the extent that you can't do anything with an offender until you know what their various scores are. In the UK the risk of general reconviction is calculated statistically in the OGRS programme based on age, conviction, prison sentences etc. (http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/probation1.html) . This also produces a level of risk that that person will commit a violent offence. There are other specialist tools for domestic violence - the Spousal Assault Risk Assessment which is a 20 item checklist. Also, for sex offenders their risk of reconviction is assessed by using the Thornton Risk Matrix 2000. Every offender who comes into the probation system also has an OASys assessment completed on them - which asks the assessor to score factors from 14 different areas such as accommodation, lifestyle, substance misuse etc. (http://www.probation.homeoffice.gov.uk/files/pdf/ Info%20for%20sentencers%203.pdf).

I can say first and foremost the biggest obstacle to emmigrating to England/UK are your immigration policies. You all are apparently okay with letting practically the whole world into England __EXCEPT__ for Americans. They're good for Yankee tourist dollars and then they're supposed to go home. I'd like very much to live and work in England. Maybe not for the rest of my life perhaps, but definitely for 5-10 years.

From the British Embassy website: http://www.britainusa.com/sections/articles_show_n t1.asp?i=41118&L1=41011&L2=41124&a=28578&d=4

These guidelines are intended for US citizens wishing to work in the United Kingdom.

Employment Requiring Work Permits
Before entering Britain to take up employment, American citizens must have a work permit. The Immigration & Nationality Directorate administers the Work Permit Scheme. Exceptions are made only for the categories of permit-free employment outlined below.

Application for the work permit must be made by the prospective employer in Britain. Individuals cannot apply for a work permit on their own behalf. Applications must be made by the Britain-based employer.

Here are the immigration rules from Immigration and Nationality Directorate: http://www.ind.homeoffice.gov.uk/lawandpolicy/immi grationrules/

Well, the UK has always had new crazy, privacy-destroying laws and powers. I find the English completely irrational considering how they go apeshit at the thought of a national ID card, but let things pass like continuous camera surveillance

Just by way of reference, according to this pdf :"Firearms are used in a very small proportion of all recorded crimes. Including air weapons, firearms were used in 0.40 per cent of all recorded crimes in 2001/02. Firearms other than air weapons were used in 0.18 per cent of all recorded crimes."

Firearms (including air weapons) were reported to have been used in 22,789 recorded crimes in 2004/05. This is five per cent down on the previous year, and the first fall since 1997. ((source: Violent Crime Overview, Homicide and Gun Crime 2004/2005, Office of National Statistics)

Yes, I can see that this sort of thing goes on in the US. I am, after all, from the UK, and view such things with a mixture of horror and pity.

Er, why? I'm from the UK too and under no illusions that we are some paragon of virtue when it comes to free flows of information. Shall I quote from a story recently published in the Telegraph?

Managers from [Dounreay nuclear power plant] assured him that the event was a one-off. But since then, 66 more particles have been found. The latest comes from rods that Dounreay's workers call "bone seekers". They pose a danger to anyone who comes in contact with them.

Mr Minter has carried out his own investigations and says he has uncovered numerous cases of incompetence and errors, including serious accidents covered up by the Official Secrets Act.

In other words, the fuckups of the nuclear industry were being suppressed by the government as nuclear power and energy generation is a political hot potato right now.

Want another example?

This [act] makes it a criminal offence to directly or indirectly incite or encourage others to commit acts of terrorism. This will include the glorification of terrorism, where this may be understood as encouraging the emulation of terrorism.

From the Terrorism Act 2006.

Now, I guess you could argue there's a world of difference between this and making it illegal to "endanger China's national security" or "violate China's religious policies or preach evil cults or superstition" or "incite hatred and discrimination", but I'm not seeing it. Seems like a minor difference in wording to me.

Don't get me wrong. I think what the XNA is doing is a very bad thing indeed, but then, I am not going to claim we have some moral high ground here. Let's just recognise that it's wrong whoever does it and get off our high horse about it.

Another case of the OP really not R'ing TFA. They have not yet banned it, they've just said they plan to, and have done a consultation exercise. The report for that is available on http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/documents/cons-extrem e-porn-3008051/ (pdf link on page.) From that report, most of the concerns either seem to be free speech related, or down to the overly broad definitions they used in their initial proposals.

I repeat: None of this is currently close to becoming law yet.

Heres a link to the PDF of the paper this article arises from. It's very vaugue as to how the law will be applied and surprisingly actually shows that the majority of respondents were against the proposal. This is not law yet, no by a long way, the govenment is leaving itself plenty of wiggle room to drop this if it becomes unpopular or difficult.

To be honest, the (not yet implemented) law is less extreme than you might think. This is the relevant part:

We have concluded that the offence should apply to images of acts that appear to be life threatening or are likely to result in serious, disabling injury. Again, it would be for the prosecution to show that the material fell into this category

Source.

• critical - an attack is expected imminently
• severe - an attack is highly likely
• substantial - an attack is a strong possibility
• moderate - an attack is possible but not likely
• low - an attack is unlikely

1. The article summary is misleading in that it gives the impression that ASBOs (anti-social behaviour orders) will be used. It is in fact a new proposed power called a Serious Crime Prevention Order. 2. The article itself is wrong on a point of law about the standard of proof required for ASBOs (note, I'm not a lawyer here, but I'm capable of reading the actual government proposal). It is correct in that they are civil offenses, but the standard of proof is higher than that usually required by civil offenses (due to the McMann judgement) which ruled that as the word "proof" was used in the legislation a standard of proof for section 1(1)(a) of the Crime and Disorder Act 1998 (partly referring to ASBOs) is that of the criminal standard. For section 1(1)(b) civil standards apply. As I understand it, both sections must be met for an ASBO to be granted. Section 1(1)(a) essentially requires proof of past acts of anti-social behaviour, and section 1(1)(b) refers to intent of future acts. The government is currently proposing a standard of proof somewhere between the criminal and the civil. 3. The government appears to acknowledge that the powers are wide ranging, and as such proposes only allowing the orders to be applied for (yes, they still need to go via the courts) via the High Court, and be appealable to the Court of Appeal. 4. It is up to the UK courts themselves to determine if any such powers legislated are compatible with the Human Rights Act 1998. In theory I believe this could probably be heard all the way up to the European Court of Human Rights (High Court -> Court of Appeal -> House of Lords -> EU) but its judgements are non-binding. Disclaimers: I'm a Brit. I'm not a lawyer but consider myself fairly well informed. I'm due to start work in a UK non-departmental public body. I haven't made my mind up on these proposals yet. Useful links: Government's proposals (also linked in article): http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/documents/new-powers- paper.pdf?view=Binary Home Office information about ASBOs: http://www.crimereduction.gov.uk/asbos9.pdf

"As financial transactions are completed ever more quickly .. this problem should be largely addressed by the ID cards programme."

"a person .. can be liable if he .. is capable of encouraging or assisting another person .. in relation to [an] offence he believes will be committed"

"would be liable where his conduct has the capacity to provide ..encouragement .. and .. believes .. offences .. will be committed .. but he is unclear which offence it will be [and] he is indifferent as to whether it is committed"

"we also need to ensure that those .. could not escape prosecution by arguing that they were not absolutely certain that the offence would take place."

"The decision as to what level of belief should be required for this offence will need to be carefully thought through."

"the powers provided by the .. Act, should .. lead to a greater number of convictions .. as .. those on the periphery should be persuaded to testify against their bosses in return for discounted sentences"

That is how ASBOs work, but TFA isn't about them: it's about the proposals in a Home Office green paper to introduce legislation allowing a new kind of order called a "Serious Crime Prevention Order". I reckon HMG is spinning these as being "similar to ASBOs" because that way people think it's no worse than banning some 14 year old shoplifter from a town centre, but if you read the article, or even better [PDF warning] the green paper, you'll find this is very different in scope and implementation. The mention of ASBOs in relation to this is a red herring which has done a very effective job of throwing the ZDnet journalist off the scent.

There are obvious issues about data collection and definition (which are acknowledged and addressed in the report, but spread across too many places to really note in a message board posting - you'll have to skim the whole 132 pages for yourself!), particularly given the nature of the offence and the fact that the British Crime Survey is a self-complete questionnaire; but the BCS is generally held to be the most authoritative of the several different statistical measures of crime in the UK.

Ok, so 3 million may seem shockinly large for you americans, but thats only 0.5% of your population, move to the UK, and you get a larger database, ok so only 3.4+ million DNA samples, covering 5% of the population.
Take a look at this:
http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/science-research/usin g-science/dna-database/

I would agree that it makes sense for advocacy groups like the "Pirate Party" to limit themselves to the domain of IP law. However, I also think you should do some more reading about the war on drugs and its consequences. America isn't the global leader in incarcerating people for no reason. It's OK to oppose drugs -- there are different strategies of decriminalization -- but I hope you will agree that locking up thousands and thousands of people is not the way to deal with the drug problem. And let me not even go into the whole tobacco+alcohol vs. marijuana issue. There is no excuse for ignorance of the facts, however.

You've missed the point. It's a deeply symbolic right that we hold very dear due to the very nature of the reason that it was added to the Constitution to begin with.

Understand that being so young, the founding of the country is still quite prominent in the minds of at least some of the citizens of the United States. It's an ongoing reminder that freedom is never free, and has and always will cost the lives of those willing to stand for it.

Besides, the argument of legal guns killing other Americans is baseless. Some 98% of gun related crimes are committed with unregistered, illegal firearms. Taking away a citizen's right to own legal firearms will not stem the flow of illegally obtained firearms that are used to commit crimes.

To pretend that it's better in the UK is rediculous. From your own government website, gun crimes are linked to gangs and drug trade, and citizens being restricted from owning firearms have done little to stem the flow or use of illegal firearms in gun crime. Source. Yes, gun crime is low compared to the overall level of crime in the UK, but "Despite these figures, the number of overall offences involving firearms has been increasing each year since 1997/98. And crime involving imitation weapons was up 55% in 2004-05 compared to the previous year." Illegalizing guns is hardly a deterant to those ready to commit crimes.

Back to the right to keep and bear arms - crimes that are committed with guns will be committed with guns - whether the general citizenry is prohibited from owning guns or not.

Further, restricting citizen's use of guns is a thinly veiled effort to further control the populace. When only the government is allowed to defend with force, the citizen loses the ability to defend themselves at all.

So in the US, it's very symbolic in nature (not to mention the size of the UK vs the US, the available hunting area in the US, etc.) But the removal of this constitutional right, given very explicity by the men who founded the country and belived strongly in the need to have such a right, is yet another step on the rights of the citizens of the US - which is why this is such a hot-button issue.

The UK has an amazing law which allows its citizens - (sorry, subjects of Her Gracious Majesty Elizabeth II von Battenberg Saxe Coburg Gotha usw)

There's a lot of differences between being a British citizen and a British subject (except, iirc, for British Subjects born before 1948) - the Home Office has some info on the matter here. And anyone who is still a British subject can't pass on subject status to thier children, so the status of "British Subject" will eventually die out anyway.

Seriously though, what are you on about? Too many tabloids? Crime is at an all time low in the UK. Granted, some places have gotten worse, but the overall averages for both non-violent and violent crime are much lower than before "Tony Blair's England" (See http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/)

And it must always be noted that, in the end, the (elected) house of Commons can force a bill through Parliament (using the Parliament Act) regardless of what the Lords think.

Yes, sorry, you're right. I was thinking of course of the Salisbury Convention.

The House of Lords should remain, and should continue to be permitted Parliamentary scrutiny precisely because they act as checks-and-balances, because they are less susceptible to lobbying and the whips, aren't out to win cheap votes/laughs, and actually take the time to consider the ramifications of any bill, which most MPs don't have the time to do (as they have other constituency duties, which often require a lot of travelling).

If you're being generous... Frankly, I think it really is a case of lobby fodder in the Commons - principled objections are so rare as to be newsworthy. And if you live in the constituency of a member of the current ruling party, well, look at your MP's record. Mine has rebelled in less than 1% of divisions since 1997.

A case in point is the Identity Cards Bill
Lords warn over ID cards scheme

To summarise the exchange:

* Commons originally set out a bill that makes ID cards mandatory (and that you have to pay for)
* Lords comes back with amendment making ID cards voluntary
* Commons counter with, yes they are voluntary, unless you want a passport...

Which is hardly voluntary, particularly if your job requires you to travel (mine does - where's my opt-out..?). And the manifesto commitment was to a voluntary scheme. If HMG believes it's so good and has such support in the country, why don't they allow people to choose it..?

It's worth noting that the ID card as proposed

* will set you back £93 (over US$150) if you want a 10-year passport

...if you believe the Home Office figures, which no-one not affiliated to HMG does. £300 is the current estimate. Oh, and that's just set-up costs, and doesn't count actually installing readers in every doctor's surgery, every hospital, every school, every local and central government office, every bank, every Post Office, every police car, every sensitive building, every employer and so on, which it'll need to achieve its stated benefits (which are also a pile of donkey droppings, but that's another discussion).

Costs for this (per the Immigration, Asylum and Nationality Bill Regulatory Impact Assessment (Annex A, page 42) which uses the same setup):

Reader: £3000-£5000 (each reader)
PC for reader: £1000 (each reader)
plus £21,000 for cabling at each location (derived from a estimate of £1 million for 47 airports and ports).

* Has your
o biometric data (incl. fingerprints and photo),
o a full record of all your addresses, ever,
o is linked to your NI number (think social security number),
o has your immigration details, work permit details, visa details, etc.
o is linked to both your passport number and driving licence number
* The data will all be stored on a central database

...which per the Bill (Clause 4(i)), may also contain:

the numbe

More of a travesty? I don't know. China usually isn't a standard I go by (that was the other point I was trying to make with my post, in case you missed it).

Jackass.

Well, for that I'll give a bonus statistic that also includes absolute figures.

UK citizens have the right to self protection. Just not with guns.

What good is having the right to self protection and then banning all of the tools needed to protect oneself?

That would be like saying "You have the right to remain silent" and then turning around and saying "...but we have the right to torture you, your children, and rape your wife until you talk." What kind of rights are those?

In this perspective, just have a look there:
The United States has the highest prison population rate in the world, some 686 per 100,000 of the national population, followed by the Cayman Islands (664), Russia (638), Belarus (554), Kazakhstan (522), Turkmenistan (489), Belize (459), Bahamas (447), Suriname (437) and Dominica (420).

However, more than three-fifths of countries (62.5%) have rates below 150 per 100,000. (The United Kingdom's rate of 139 per 100,000 of the national population places it above the midpoint in the World List; it is now the highest among countries of the European Union.)

Well. I am not positively impressed by the US of A in this case, to say the least. No, I am not impressed by China either. Is capital punishment an attempt to somewhat empty those jails in both cases?

What?

How can the country with the highest prison population per capita be the country where "freedom is the core of the belief"? Sorry, doesn't work out.

http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/pdfs2/r188.pdf

Probably explains why there are about 35 fatal shootings each year in the UK, and 11,000 in the US.

This is just plain wrong. Where did you get this information? This following information is just England and Wales, too. I have just noticed that there are no statistics available to show homicides as a result of firearms being shot. These are homicides involving firearms, but they include being beaten to death with one. There are statistics for shootings, but these also include shootings from crossbows, etc. Anyway, the two sets are very similar, differing by 1 or 2 per year, so I assume 90%+ of these homicides are shootings, and 90%+ of the shootings involve firearms. Just to nip you pedants in the bud ;)

Crimes recorded by the police in England and Wales in which firearms (including air
weapons) were reported to have been used, by offence group.

Homicide:

1992 56
1993 74
1994 66
1995 70
1996 49
1997 59
1997/98 54
1998/99 49
1999/00 62
2000/01 73
2001/02 97
2002/03 81

The following information I find particularly interesting. Bear in mind that hand guns were outlawed (to all intents and purposes) in 1997.

Crimes recorded by the police in England and Wales in which firearms were reported
to have caused injury by type of principal weapon

All weapons excluding air weapon

1992 597
1993 770
1994 650
1995 646
1996 769
1997 778
1997/98 804
1998/99 864
1999/00 1,195
2000/01 1,382
2001/02 1,877
2002/03 2,179

Handguns

1992 290
1993 393
1994 317
1995 299
1996 279
1997 314
1997/98 317
1998/99 239
1999/00 352
2000/01 400
2001/02 648
2002/03 640

Anyway, make of these statistics what you will. They are official government statistics, from http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/pdfs2/hosb0104.pd f (pdf). I can't seem to find more recent ones with year by year comparisons, there are probably some about. I don't think the situation's got much better over the past couple of years though. Also, I am English, and I do support gun control of some kind, I don't think a blanket ban of handguns is the way to go though. I learnt a couple of other things looking this up. Firstly there are more guns in the UK than I thought there were, almost 2 million legally owned IIRC. Secondly, the gun controls of the UK mean that some Olympic sports are outlawed. There will be special dispensation for 2012. However, our competitors are not getting any dispensation to practise, so apparently many of them have now moved to Switzerland so that they can practise regularly.

The most positive numbers are here, 895 arrests, 138 charges under the terrorism act.

http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/security/terrorism-an d-the-law/terrorism-act/

Now, that's not too bad, what's more worring is the stop-and-search misuse, 2003-2004

http://www.theyworkforyou.com/wrans/?id=2004-12-21 .205366.h&s=search+terrorism+section#g205366.r0

Roughly, 33000 searches under the terrorism act *that year* leading to 373 arrests.

More worryingly, the record against protestors at the american nuclear air base.

http://www.theyworkforyou.com/wrans/?id=2004-12-13 .199416.h&s=fairford+terrorism#g199416.q0

2254 stop-searches were conducted.

How many people were charged and prosecuted?

http://www.theyworkforyou.com/wrans/?id=2003-11-20 .139088.h&s=fairford+terrorism#g139088.q0

"I will write to my hon. Friend and place a copy of my letter in the Library.", translation "There's no chance I want the public to know."

Fortunately this question gets asked every few months, and once the government made the mistake of answering it.

http://www.theyworkforyou.com/wrans/?id=2004-09-01 .183826.h&s=raf+fairford#g183826.q0

Over a period of seven weeks, of the people searched under suspicion of being a terrorist six people were arrested for *drug* related offences, one for breach of the peace and one for criminal damage.

You'll note the lack of terrorism related activity there.

Fortunately, our now ex-home secretary, confirmed that there has been no abuse of the law.

http://www.theyworkforyou.com/wrans/?id=2003-03-21 .103483.h&s=fairford+terrorism#g103483.q0

"The Terrorism Act 2000 is not being applied in the prevention of protests at RAF Fairford. Powers under this legislation are applied solely for the prevention and investigation of acts of terrorism."

http://www.theyworkforyou.com/wrans/?id=2003-05-13 .111793.h&s=fairford+terrorism#g111793.q0
"We do not comment on operational counter-terrorist measures, but the Chief Constable, Gloucestershire Constabulary, has informed me that powers of stop and search under the Terrorism Act were used, for the purpose of searching for articles of a kind that could be used in connection with terrorism."

http://www.theyworkforyou.com/wrans/?id=2003-10-06 .130339.h&s=fairford+terrorism#g130339.q0

"Lawful protests were not prevented at RAF Fairford during the recent conflict in Iraq as a result of use of the Terrorism Act 2000.

The use of the stop and search powers under section 44 was authorised and confirmed according to statutory procedure for a designated area which included Fairford. They were therefore available to officers during the policing of the protests. Such powers are confirmed solely to enable officers to search for articles that could be used in connection with terrorism."

Just for no UK citizens who aren't up to date on UK politics, David Blunkett is our ex-home secretary, who was sacked from the cabinet for fast tracking passpo

Face it, most US corporations treat employees and stockholders like serfs. Everything for upper management and to hell with everyone else. The sale of a couple of GulfStreams could keep thousands on the payroll.

see
http://www.theinquirer.net/?article=11542

And before people start yelling about Europe's high unemployment I would like to point out:

1) US unemployment rates only count actively registered unemployed. Once the unemployment runs out most people don't bother showing up to register anymore. In Europe they have 'the dole' for which you get paid to show up and so they record larger numbers of unemployed. In the US the official numbers are skewed.

2) Oh, and while on the dole you still get some minimum of health care.

3) Oh, and there are 1.9 million US citizens in prison in the US who are not counted as unemployed. Contrast that to China with about 1.4 million in prison (see this pdf for an eye opener http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/pdfs2/r188.pdf a report developed by the UK government no less!). Did I mention China has about 3 times the US populations AND is a Communist regiem?

What they need to do is get rid of some overpriced C*Os and sell a couple of airplanes.

I hope the French stick it to them.

(no, no rant here, move along, nothing to see... )

The United States has the highest prison population rate in the world, some 686 per 100,000 of the national population, followed by the Cayman Islands (664), Russia (638), Belarus (554), Kazakhstan (522), Turkmenistan (489), Belize (459), Bahamas (447), Suriname (437) and Dominica (420).

However, more than three-fifths of countries (62.5%) have rates below 150 per 100,000. (The United Kingdom's rate of 139 per 100,000 of the national population places it above the midpoint in the World List; it is now the highest among countries of the European Union.)

Yeah, that was my immediate thought also. The RIP act was actually past in 2000.

One interesting point I remember from it was that if you were no longer in possession of the key then you had to prove you didn't have it. In other words proving a negative! Besides, I'm sure any criminal wouldn't disclose the keys and take a shorter prison sentence if what they were encrypting was more damaging.

I'd advise anybody working in the computing profession, in the U.K., to be aware of this law and others.

"Meanwhile, QinetiQ, the privatised former Defence Evaluation and Research Agency, and London Underground have rejected claims made in the Times newspaper that body scanners are to be used on the Tube."

Technically, and legally, yes. But the term has become demonised in the media: "Asylum seeker" in the poor quality press is often mentioned in stories about thefts, fraud, fake visa applications and so on, the implication being that most if not all asylum seekers are criminals looking for a soft country on which to prey. I am concerned that the neutral term "asylum seeker" - simply somebody seeking sanctuary, is being degraded and criminalised: e.g. the Daily Mail's statement that "we resent the scroungers, beggars and crooks who are prepared to cross every country in Europe to reach our generous benefits system" (2001). An interesting report is here: http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/pdfs2/hors243.pdf (Home Office study). IMHO, if somebody who is penniless and being raped and tortured in their home country somehow manages to get half way across the planet they at least deserve a break and a chance to plead their case. After all the UK has an aging population - we *need* more young people here.

I think "wardriving" fits into the same category, a term that could easily become criminalised, except the criminalisation could be self inflicted because of the emotive expression itself. Dumb geeks wear it with pride, I think because it feels macho, even though no testerone or physical ability (well not much) is required to walk or drive around with a laptop and a bit of software. I think a more neutral expression would be a reallllly good idea.... :-)