See Wikipedia entries on Jonathan Aitken and Jeffrey Archer, both well known political figures.
Both brought actions for libel against newspapers which had uncovered unsavoury behavior, and both perjured themselves in doing so.
Aitken's case, about corrupt involvment with Saudi arms dealers while he was a Minister of State for Defence Procurement, unravelled at the time. He was subsequently tried for perjury and perverting the course of justice and sentenced to 18 months, serving 7.
Archers libel case against the newspaper, about his use of a prostitute, was won at the time. His perjury was exposed much later when he stood as a candidate for election as London Mayor. He was convicted of perjury and perverting the course of justice and sentenced to 4 years, serving 2.
Paper ballots and public oversight
on
Who won?
·
· Score: 1
That's how it's done in the UK. Not with an internet camera but the press and television can be present and frequently are for close or controversial constituencys. Independent observers too. Watch a British election and you'll see live coverage of the counts.
I work in a Marina in London which has CCTV for security.
The area is fairly smart but but has an estate ( projects to Americans ) down the road housing a number of lowlifes. Crime is not endemic but happens fairly often. Two Women were mugged 50 yards from the Marina office a couple of weeks ago, unfortunately not where we have cameras.
I've seen that cameras combined with loudspeakers can be very effective in crime prevention
There is a lifting road bridge controlled by the Marina which has a loudspeaker to warn when the road barriers are to be closed. Late at night this can be very effective for crime prevention. The startled reaction and swift exit I've seen from thieves attempting to break into a car when a very loud voice from 30 ft up and only 40 ft away announces "Smile, you're on camera" is highly amusing. I call it " The Voice of God ".(Though I'm agnostic.)
I am as worried as anyone about government snooping. But cameras are put up by local authorities and organisations to prevent crime so why not blame the criminals for the invasion of our privacy?
From A British Taxpayer. The British government has been taken for a ride so many times by IT companies promising the earth but building systems which don't work properly. The taxpayer generally picks up the additional costs of getting it right.
With this new round of major NHS projects someone in government - don't know who - was inspired. They employed Richard Granger to oversee the process. The man's a rottweiller.
At the start of the bidding round he told the consortia that thing would be different now. They would not get paid for failure, the NHS would not pay for systems until they were proven in practice. If they didn't like the new terms of trade they should get out.
Already one consortium has dropped out of bidding, whining that they would have to pay large penalty payments if their systems did not work. What did they expect? Did they have no confidence in their abilities? They screamed that it was not a proper partnership, they would have to take the risk of failure. Of course it is not a partnership. The company bids to supply a product or service; if that service fails it should be entirely at their own risk. That's what capitalism is all about; not the taxpayer subsidising their development work.
Granger's obviously going to give Microsoft a hard time, he's got his teeth into their ankles and frankly I hope he bites their leg off. It would be of great benefit to the NHS and the British taxpayer in the long run. It would also demonstrate an alternative to the many in the British Government -Tony Blair are you listening - who think the sun shines out of Bill Gates arse (sorry-brit spelling).
Slashdot Mirror
See Wikipedia entries on Jonathan Aitken and Jeffrey Archer, both well known political figures. Both brought actions for libel against newspapers which had uncovered unsavoury behavior, and both perjured themselves in doing so. Aitken's case, about corrupt involvment with Saudi arms dealers while he was a Minister of State for Defence Procurement, unravelled at the time. He was subsequently tried for perjury and perverting the course of justice and sentenced to 18 months, serving 7. Archers libel case against the newspaper, about his use of a prostitute, was won at the time. His perjury was exposed much later when he stood as a candidate for election as London Mayor. He was convicted of perjury and perverting the course of justice and sentenced to 4 years, serving 2.
That's how it's done in the UK. Not with an internet camera but the press and television can be present and frequently are for close or controversial constituencys. Independent observers too.
Watch a British election and you'll see live coverage of the counts.
I work in a Marina in London which has CCTV for security. The area is fairly smart but but has an estate ( projects to Americans ) down the road housing a number of lowlifes. Crime is not endemic but happens fairly often. Two Women were mugged 50 yards from the Marina office a couple of weeks ago, unfortunately not where we have cameras.
I've seen that cameras combined with loudspeakers can be very effective in crime prevention
There is a lifting road bridge controlled by the Marina which has a loudspeaker to warn when the road barriers are to be closed. Late at night this can be very effective for crime prevention. The startled reaction and swift exit I've seen from thieves attempting to break into a car when a very loud voice from 30 ft up and only 40 ft away announces "Smile, you're on camera" is highly amusing. I call it " The Voice of God ".(Though I'm agnostic.)
I am as worried as anyone about government snooping. But cameras are put up by local authorities and organisations to prevent crime so why not blame the criminals for the invasion of our privacy?
This is superb summation of the problem. I've copied it to show to others. May I license (and sub-license) it from you?
Perhaps this method of protection is not used at present in Europe because Sony suspect it would be illegal under European law.
From A British Taxpayer. The British government has been taken for a ride so many times by IT companies promising the earth but building systems which don't work properly. The taxpayer generally picks up the additional costs of getting it right. With this new round of major NHS projects someone in government - don't know who - was inspired. They employed Richard Granger to oversee the process. The man's a rottweiller. At the start of the bidding round he told the consortia that thing would be different now. They would not get paid for failure, the NHS would not pay for systems until they were proven in practice. If they didn't like the new terms of trade they should get out. Already one consortium has dropped out of bidding, whining that they would have to pay large penalty payments if their systems did not work. What did they expect? Did they have no confidence in their abilities? They screamed that it was not a proper partnership, they would have to take the risk of failure. Of course it is not a partnership. The company bids to supply a product or service; if that service fails it should be entirely at their own risk. That's what capitalism is all about; not the taxpayer subsidising their development work. Granger's obviously going to give Microsoft a hard time, he's got his teeth into their ankles and frankly I hope he bites their leg off. It would be of great benefit to the NHS and the British taxpayer in the long run. It would also demonstrate an alternative to the many in the British Government -Tony Blair are you listening - who think the sun shines out of Bill Gates arse (sorry-brit spelling).