Britons named world's biggest emitters

[ZenGum]

Originally Posted by Undertoad

An expanding economy will do that.

Only if the non-renewable sector is expanding faster than the renewable sector. Like I said, it bodes ill.

[Aliantha]

I think Australians fart the most and loudest in public because we're all uncouth and crass and descended from convicts.

[ZenGum]

Originally Posted by Aliantha

I think Australians fart the most and loudest in public because we're all uncouth and crass and descended from convicts.

And we give them scores out of ten, for technical difficulty and artistic merit.

I'm not so worried about being descended from convicts. What worries me is that quite a few of us must be descended from prison guards. Ughghghgh.

Better that than puritans.

[Sundae]

Well I'm probably the offspring of a traitorous wench who slept with an occupying force - be it Viking, Roman or Norman...

[TheMercenary]

Originally Posted by Aliantha

I think Australians fart the most and loudest in public because we're all uncouth and crass and descended from convicts.

Maybe that is why the Aussies seem to get along better with the Yanks than most of the previous colonials? :p

[ZenGum]

Originally Posted by Sundae Girl

Well I'm probably the offspring of a traitorous wench who slept with an occupying force - be it Viking, Roman or Norman...

Probably all three, over the generations.
Not all of those wenches were willing traitors.
And most Antipodeans share a similar heritage, with plenty of Irish and maybe a bit of German thrown in.

[Sundae]

Of course! I'm descended from a whole line of women who valued their life over their chastity. Makes sense

[Urbane Guerrilla]

Due yocks, ZenG.

[piercehawkeye45]

I'm a descendant of a puritan. *shivers violently*

[Cicero]

Most Watched as well?



Copy paste:
~Civil-rights groups speak out over Britons' long-accepted 'Orwellian' way of life
By Kim Murphy | Los Angeles Times

10/19/2007

GLOUCESTER, England — It used to be that troublemakers could lounge on the planters outside the McDonald's here and pick apart the geraniums to their hearts' content.

A Polish immigrant hamburger salesman might complain — as if! — or someone's grandma would tell the offending group of hoodlums to knock it off, if she dared.

But these days, Big Brother does the job.

The closed-circuit television camera lurking just down the street from the fast-food restaurant bellows menacingly at the first sign of danger to the flora or a cast-off cigarette butt or fast-food wrapper, for that matter. "Pick it up," commands a booming voice from ... where, exactly?

The CCTV cameras in Gloucester and several other British towns now come equipped with speakers, meaning Big Brother is not only watching, but he's telling you what to do.

"When people hear that, they tend to react. They pick up the litter and put it in the bin," said Mick Matthews, assistant chief police constable in this old cathedral city of 110,000 in the rolling Cotswold Hills.

For all the increased anti-terrorism security measures in the U.S., there is probably no society on Earth more watched than Britain. By some estimates, 4.2 million CCTV cameras, or one for every 15 people, quietly, and sometimes not so quietly, monitor the comings and goings of almost everyone — an average person is caught on camera up to 300 times a day.

Thanks in part to Britain's history of terrorist attacks by the Irish Republican Army, some early, high-profile law enforcement successes helped imprint the potential benefits of closed-circuit television on the popular imagination. With more than $200 million in funding since 1999, CCTV was a fixture in British cities long before attacks by Islamist militants began prompting other governments to step up surveillance of their populations.

Cameras are fixed on lampposts and on street corners, above sidewalks, in subways, on buses, in taxis, in the stores, over the parking lots, in mobile police vans and in some cities, even perched in the hats of police officers walking their beats. Surprisingly clear images of Britons engaged in apparently nefarious activities have become a staple on the evening news; few of the country's many terrorism trials unfold without the jury being presented with multiple images of the defendants carrying alleged backpack bombs or driving up to a storehouse of explosives.

Pub patrons in one town last year had their fingerprints scanned as they walked in (bringing up their criminal records on a computer screen); some cities are talking of putting electronic chips in household trash cans to measure output; a toll-free "smoke-free compliance line" takes snitch reports on violators of the new national ban on smoking in public places.

The DNA profile of every person ever arrested — even those briefly detained for, say, loitering and released without charge — is on file in what is believed to be, per capita, the largest such database in the world, with 3.9 million samples. It includes the genetic markings of an estimated 40 percent of Britain's black male population.

For the majority of Britons, polls show, there is nothing wrong with much of this monitoring.

"I didn't know the camera was even up there until it started talking," said Clive Anthony, who blinked and twirled for a moment one recent afternoon while shopping in downtown Gloucester when the CCTV camera started barking at something. "I haven't got a problem with it, basically. To my mind, if you're doing what you're supposed to be doing and going about your business, just because somebody's watching that, it's not taking anything away from me."

Public acceptance of closed-circuit television skyrocketed after the murder of toddler James Bulger near Liverpool in 1993. In CCTV footage that shocked the country, the killers, a pair of 10-year-old boys, were shown leading the trusting boy away from a shopping center.

"The last known sighting of this boy was on CCTV. And there was this kind of iconic image that was used to say, 'If we had more CCTV, we would be more likely to spot horrible crimes like this,' " said Kirstie Ball, an expert on surveillance systems at Open University Business School in Milton Keynes. "It got to a point where if you were opposing CCTV, you were in favor of child murder."

But a growing number of people, including some police officers and the country's information commissioner, are beginning to wonder if Britain isn't watching itself too closely.

"Local communities are pushing very powerfully for closed-circuit television. What they say is, I may live in this little village that has no history of violent crime, but I'll feel safer if I've got CCTV," said Ian Readhead, deputy chief constable of the Hampshire police, who recently warned that Britain risks "an Orwellian situation with cameras on every street corner."

"Suppose Mr. Brand is seen walking down the local street with Mrs. Wight. 'What's that about?' someone will ask. And in a village environment, it begins to cause a rumor; it begins to cause intrigue," he said in an interview. "You really only want to deploy this kind of equipment when you have clear knowledge of an identifiable situation, and when you've achieved your objectives, you want to take it down."

In a round-the-world survey conducted by Privacy International, a London-based civil-rights group set up to monitor government infringement on privacy, Britain was roughly keeping company with Russia and China near the bottom, colored in black on a world map, with the U.S. not far behind, in red. Britain has no written constitution, no bill of rights and no privacy act. Its privacy protections are enforced mainly through the European Convention on Human Rights and a limited data protection law passed in 1998.

"In the area of visual surveillance, we are so far ahead of the field that it's beyond measurement," said Simon Davies, the group's director.

Britain's information commissioner, Richard Thomas, has warned that the country is "waking up in a surveillance society" and has called for greater public discussion of what it really means to make one's life a virtual open book.

"The U.K. has more CCTV cameras per head of population than any other country in the world, but it's not only that," Thomas said. "Every time we use mobile telephones, every time we use credit cards, every time we use the Internet for shopping or a search, every time we interact with the government for social security or taxes or passport checks, every time we go to our doctors or hospitals now, we are leaving an electronic footprint. And this of course is not just a U.K. issue; it is an international issue."

Government authorities say their new surveillance tools not only guard against terrorists but also against welfare cheating, illegal immigration and the juvenile delinquents who plague many of Britain's cities.

"The public don't have a problem with being protected from thugs or having CCTV cameras that catch murderers or DNA that solves horrendous crimes that left victims and families without justice for 20 years," former Prime Minister Tony Blair said, responding to growing concerns before leaving office. "But there must always be safeguards."

Although studies have shown the CCTV cameras have had a negligible effect on crime in most areas where they're placed — other than parking lots, where they help prevent thefts — police say they are an invaluable tool in catching suspects after the fact, helping track missing children or the elderly and directing police to potential problem situations before they escalate.

In Gloucester, the CCTV cameras not only talk, they can be linked to software that scans vehicle registration plates to track suspects even before they have committed crimes.

"If there's a criminal we're interested in, not necessarily in a position to arrest him, but if you're trying to track this criminal, learn his lifestyle, his movements, his vehicle number will be put into the system, and any time he comes into the city, his movements will be tracked," said Roger Clayton, chief inspector of Gloucester.

Sometimes, these days, the wrongdoer is merely someone who gets caught riding a bicycle in the downtown pedestrians-only zone.

"Please dismount from the bicycle," the offender is told, by someone, somewhere. They're never sure who.~


I thought this was pretty creepy. No.....more like....scares the shit out of me.

[DanaC]

Yeah. We are the most watched nation in Europe.

A Polish immigrant hamburger salesman might complain — as if! — or someone's grandma would tell the offending group of hoodlums to knock it off, if she dared.

But these days, Big Brother does the job.

If a grandma dared to tackle a group of youngsters in this way she could quite possibly be beaten to death by said group. It's happened a few times now, that an adult has tried to tell a gang of kids to stop being destructive/noisy and they've turned on him like a pack of wild things. Police advice now is,do not attempt to intervene with a group of teenagers. Is it any wonder many people feel safer with cameras around?

"Local communities are pushing very powerfully for closed-circuit television. What they say is, I may live in this little village that has no history of violent crime, but I'll feel safer if I've got CCTV," said Ian Readhead, deputy chief constable of the Hampshire police

This is a very important point, and one I tried making to rk on the issue of cctv and the 'Big Brother' effect. The concept of the Big Brother state, in Orwell's novel, is top-down. Much of the surveillance in my country is there because the people have asked for it, in many cases actively campaigning to persuade councils and police forces to install more. This is far from top-down. This is what happens when a democratic government and its agencies respond to the urgings of the populace.

[xoxoxoBruce]

From here;

By some estimates, 4.2 million CCTV cameras, or one for every 15 people, quietly, and sometimes not so quietly, monitor the comings and goings of almost everyone -- an average person is caught on camera up to 300 times a day.

Surprisingly clear images of Britons engaged in apparently nefarious activities have become a staple on the evening news; few of the country's many terrorism trials unfold without the jury being presented with multiple images of the defendants purportedly carrying backpack bombs or driving up to a storehouse of explosives.

Pub patrons in one town last year had their fingerprints scanned as they walked in (bringing up their criminal records on a computer screen); some cities are considering putting electronic chips in household trash cans to measure output; a toll-free "smoke-free compliance line" takes snitch reports on violators of the new national ban on smoking in public places.

The DNA profile of every person arrested -- even those briefly detained for, say, loitering, and released without charge -- is on file in what is believed to be, per capita, the largest such database in the world, with 3.9 million samples. It includes the genetic markings of an estimated 40% of Britain's black male population.

For the majority of Britons, polls show, there is nothing at all wrong with much of this monitoring.

And that's the bottom line, is it not?

[DanaC]

I might point out that despite our acceptance of such monitoring there is huge unease and opposition to the proposals for both ID cards and a National DNA database.

[xoxoxoBruce]

So the general attitude is something along the line of, the police are only taking DNA samples from criminals and n'er do wells, but they shouldn't sample everyone?

[Sundae]

We are well trained in double-think here. Like all the mobile phone users want universal coverage, but no-one wants a phone mast within 10 miles of their home, workplace, child's school, playground etc etc.

So we want anyone vaguely suspect on a database, so they can be locked up indefinitely, but the idea that Mrs Smith down the road should have her cheek swabbed is ludicrous.