Nanny state
04/07/2011
Government moves to reduce red tape around school field trips
In a sensible attempt to reduce the bureaucracy which makes school trips difficult to organise, the Government is attempting to simplify the guidelines, however teaching unions have criticised the move. The Department for Education is publishing new guidance for school staff, reducing the length of the guidelines from a staggering 150 pages to a more manageable 8.
Over recent years the guidelines have expanded again and again due to bureaucracy and a fear of civil litigation. Schools are loath to organise trips due to the complex nature of the paperwork involved and the risk of being sued if an accident occurs. Even the Health and Safety Executive itself is in favour of a change in the guidelines. They hope it will dispel some of the legal ‘myths’ which they are often accused of.
Chris Grayling, Employment minister, said:
“We've got a crazy situation at the moment where, very often, headteachers and teachers think that actually the rules are such that it's not a good idea to plan school trips.”
“There's too much bureaucracy, too many health and safety rules and a risk of prosecution if something goes wrong. There is no reason - and never was - why children should be prevented from going on school trips by over-enthusiastic misinterpretation of rules.”
General Secretary of the teaching union NASUWT, Chris Keates said:
“The decision to scrap over 140 pages of guidance is potentially reckless and could increase litigation against schools and teachers. There is no evidence demonstrating the need for the previous guidance to be abandoned, and no educational reason for doing so. The dilution of guidance for schools is likely to reduce rather than increase the number of educational visits.”
This move to introduce sensible changes and allow children to go on more school trips should be applauded rather than criticised. Only two legal cases have been brought against schools for a breach of health and safety law on a school trip in the last five years, so any measure which removes time-wasting bureaucracy and allows teachers to spend more time with their pupils should be commended.
01/07/2011
Links of the day Friday 1st July
Please note these are articles and opinions we found interesting, however they do not necessarily represent the views of Big Brother Watch
Background checking in the palm of the hand
Google faces 'wire tapping' case over Street View
Facebook crashes advertising industry party
Government refuses to keep DNA of innocent people
Does Johann Hari actually meet his interviewees?
Phishers switch focus to targeted attacks, warns Cisco
Use of RIPA to spy on individuals has increased in the last year
Under the previous government, legislation designed to combat terrorism and serious crime was utilised by local councils to spy on residents for trivial matters such as school catchment areas and putting rubbish bins out too early. In their coalition agreement, the two parties in power promised to roll back the unnecessary, intrusive use of these powers, but unfortunately the reality has been very different.
Last year, public bodies made 552,550 requests under the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act (RIPA) to request access to confidential communications data. This is a 5% increase from 2009 and a massive 10% increase from the 504,073 requests in 2008. Although the majority are from police and security services, 1,809 were made by local authorities, an increase from 1,756 requests last year.
As well as the rise in the use of the RIPA, the results revealed there were over 1,700 errors amongst the requests. This can lead to the monitoring of incorrect numbers or email addresses, affecting innocent people who are not connected to any investigation.
Conservative MP Dominic Raab, who is a staunch supporter of civil liberties, said:
“This disturbing data demonstrates the importance of the coalition's Freedom Bill – to reverse the legacy of Labour's surveillance society.”
Christopher Graham, the Information Commissioner, has already revealed that surveillance technology is advancing at such a rapid rate that regulators are finding it almost impossible to deal with the changes. He claimed that recent changes had seen snooping techniques “intensify and expand” to the point where watchdogs do not fully understand the methods utilised under the act.
The Coalition proposal to require all local council use of the RIPA to be sanctioned by a magistrate is currently going through Parliament, but the increasing use of the powers highlights the necessity to enforce tight regulation on these intrusive measures which should only ever have been used to combat terrorism and serious crime as they were intended.
30/06/2011
Councillor in Milton Keynes town tries to ban smoking
As if the recommendations from the BMA weren’t enough, a councillor in Stony Stratford with delusions of grandeur has proposed a bylaw to ban smoking in any public place in the Milton Keynes Borough. Councillor Pail Bartlett will attempt to get the plan approved by the town council, leading to on-the-spot fines for anyone found to be smoking in the town. Mr. Bartlett said:
“Stony Stratford is a historic town which is blighted by cigarette butts. The plan that I am trying to put forward is for smoking to be banned in public in the High Street, surrounding streets, and preferably elsewhere as well. Why should people be able to smoke in my face and spoil the environment?”
Apparently his inspiration is the recent ban on smoking in New York City’s parks and beaches. How he manages to draw parallel comparisons between an English town with a population of 12,000 and the biggest city in the United States with more than 8 million inhabitants is a mystery. He may also want to analyse the success of that ban considering only one fine has been issued during the first month of the rule, despite the ban covering 1,700 parks and 14 miles of coastline.
The most interesting element of this case is the legal situation. If it was possible to outlaw smoking in a localised area such as a town, why has it not been tried before? The implementation alone would be a logistical nightmare. Where would the outer points of the ban be?
Even if the council were able to find someway to create this bylaw and enforce it, cigarette sales are bound to drop in the area, hurting local shops and businesses. It could lead to a situation where people can smoke on one side of a road but not on the other. Residents of the area who smoke will be forced to either smoke at home or travel outside of the town. Supposedly it would be enforced by PCSOs, traffic wardens and residents themselves.
But the key issue must remain the personal freedom of residents and visitors to Stony Stratford. Ciggarettes are a legal product and smokers are already subject to numerous regulations and excessive taxation. Town-by-town bans spreading around the country would not be allowed by the government. If there was public and political support for it then it would be legislated for centrally, not by local councillors.
Big Brother Watch will be keeping an eye on this case as it develops, as it may have wide-reaching consequences for the towns and cities in Britain.
British Medical Association calls for yet more regulations on smoking, alcohol and food
The British Medical Association has called for even more draconian measures to restrict the freedoms of the general populace. At their annual conference, the union suggested a wide range of additional ways to stop people from living their lives how they wish to.
Firstly, they recommended the previously floated idea of a ban on smoking in cars. The justification for this is a piece of dubious research claiming toxicity from smoking in cars is 27 times higher than it is in a home. Research on smoking from self interested groups such as ASH has often been disingenuous, however it is a misleading statistic in any case as houses are far larger and more open than the inside of a car. People should have the freedom to smoke in their own vehicle as long as cigarettes are legal.
Secondly, the BMA suggested a combination of measures on the subject of alcohol, including a total ban on advertising, curtailing licensing hours and introducing a minimum price for each alcoholic unit. Considering the perilous state of the nation’s finances, banning alcohol advertising which contributes over £200 million per year to the British economy is absurd. Minimum pricing is a regressive policy which unfairly targets all drinkers, especially those on lower incomes, while doing nothing to stop hardened alcoholics for whom price has no effect on demand.
There was also the vague suggestion of outlawing the ‘unacceptable’ use of trans-fats in food. This seems unenforceable considering many trans-fats are naturally occurring in food. Besides this, why should people who generally eat healthily be restricted from eating certain foods simply because the BMA is concerned about others who consistently eat the wrong foods?
Luckily, not all in attendance agreed with these excessive methods. One medical student, Charlie Bell said:
“We are the BMA not the BNA - the British Nannying Association.”
The Department of Health has released the following response:
“This government believes that if we are to find new ways of supporting people to change their behaviour we need to work in a broad partnership with public health, voluntary and commercial organisations.”
“Government alone cannot improve public health. Everyone has a role to play in improving the public's health.”
The BMA will never stop trying to enforce more regulations. Of course it is in their interest, and society in generals, for people to be healthier and live longer. However, this should not be at the expense of losing our freedom to enjoy perfectly legal products.
23/06/2011
Welsh Assembly Member suggests fingerprinting every single schoolchild in Wales
The sage of the school playground, Welsh Assembly Member Joyce Watson, has decided the process of getting lunch at schools in Wales is far too simple and it therefore requires fingerprint technology in every school canteen around the country. Her justification stems from the potential for embarrassment for children from poorer backgrounds in Welsh schools.
Supposedly some children from families with financial difficulties had previously felt stigmatised as their peers knew they were receiving free meals due to a ticketing system. Her solution to this problem simply beggars belief.
Ms Watson has suggested installing a fingerprinting system at every school in Wales, at a cost of at least £30,000 per school plus annual maintenance costs of £2,000.
In the middle of the largest international financial crisis seen for decades, it is absolutely shocking that an elected Assembly Member could consider this an effective use of taxpayers’ money.
Stephen Jones, the head teacher of Ysgol Glan-y-Mor in Burry Port, Carmarthenshire came out with this outlandish comment:
“The children like it. It's almost a fun element to having their lunch, the fingerprints. It's much quicker so they're happy about that.”
“The offshoot, I suppose, would be that parents can actually have computerised printouts of all the food and drink that their children consume and they can keep an eye on whether they're having a healthy diet or not.”
An alternative way of viewing it would be an effective method of brainwashing children into volunteering their biometric data without a second thought. Parents are also invited to spy on the diets of their children, an odd concept which many people may find intrusive and offensive.
The pernicious accumulation of biometric data in schools around Britain seems to continue despite constant complaints from parents and children. Pupils from poorer families should not be bullied for their financial circumstances, but there are a variety of other ways this problem could be solved.
A simple, cheap key card system would serve the same role without the excessive cost of £30,000 per school and the invasive use of fingerprint technology. Alternatively, an effective policy of dealing with bullying would remove the need for any kind of technology in school canteens.
There will be a debate in Cardiff bay on Tuesday 28th June about the introduction of these systems, Big Brother Watch has received a number of complaints from concerned parents in Wales and a petition is currently circulating to raise awareness and express concerns about this ludicrously disproportionate method of providing children with lunch.
22/06/2011
Links of the day 22nd June 2011
Please note these are articles and opinions we found interesting, however they do not necessarily represent the views of Big Brother Watch
Ed Miliband and David Cameron clash over DNA legislation
UK banks unaffected by European data breach crackdown
Police database to tackle intelligence failings
US plan to hold EU passenger data for 15 yrs 'unlawful'
Commissioner orders disclosure of names of public sector workers earning over £150,000
Alleged LulzSec hacker still inside
MP calls for limited in-car smoking ban
LulzSec disavows alleged Census hack
20/06/2011
Links of the day Monday 20th June 2011
Please note these are articles and opinions we found interesting, however they do not necessarily represent the views of Big Brother Watch
How to keep your privacy online
New DNA profiling technology could tell police who suspects are in under an hour
Banks told to improve data protection measures
Got a website? Pay attention, Cookie Law will come
NHS laptop loss could put millions of records at risk
15/06/2011
Education Bill sparks human rights controversy
The Education Bill, which started its Second Reading in the House of Lords on Tuesday, could possibly fall foul of human rights laws due to some rather intrusive measures. Currently school staff in England are only able to search a pupil if they believe they have a ‘prohibited item’ on their person or in their belongings. These can include weapons, alcohol or drugs.
But in a controversial move the Education Bill will extend this to “any…items which the school rules identify as an item for which a search may be made.” Without any specified items in the bill, this could theoretically include anything. The bill even allows teachers to view the messages and photos on the mobile phones of children, in an effort to crack down on bullying and cyber-bullying.
In addition, a shortage of male teachers in primary schools has led to new measures to allow teachers to search pupils of the opposite sex, although only when they believe there is a risk of serious harm. However, civil liberties groups have inquired why this also applies to secondary schools and sixth-formers.
A spokesman for the Department for Education said:
“We are determined to give teachers the powers they need to tackle bad behaviour in classrooms and keep children safe. Orderly classrooms enhance the rights of all children to learn. We are confident the bill is compatible with Convention Rights.”
It is the responsibility of teachers and other school staff to look after their pupils and attempt to eliminate all types of bullying, but they must be careful not to abuse these new powers. They should only be used when there is a strong suspicion that a child has dangerous prohibited items or is the victim of bullying, not as a general measure to search all pupils as a matter of routine.
13/06/2011
Links of the day Monday 13th June 2011
Daniel Hamilton: It’s time to defend our freedom and lift this ban
Toxic Plankton feeds on Android Market for two months
Royston's ANPR surveillo-plan goes to ICO
Labour and liberty: Do the rights thing
Taxman recruits tax-collecting robots
Turkey arrests Anonymous suspects after DDoS protest
Facebooking juror heads for trial
Hacker criminals plant fake news to discredit security researchers
Sainsbury's introduces scheme to look out for unusual purchasing patterns
Sainsbury’s are trialling a strange new method of training for their staff to spot odd patterns of shopping. The scheme comes with government backing and is designed to determine if shoppers are carers who do not realise they are entitled to financial support from the state. Some critics have called it state-sponsored spying into people’s private lives.
Staff will be taught to look out for unusual shopping habits which indicate the purchasing of food for a dependent, such as using two baskets and paying for them separately. Customers picking up prescriptions for others will also be quizzed on their situation. If they reveal they are caring for someone they will be directed to a stand in the store by a carers’ charity. A pilot scheme in Torbay, Devon lasted for two months and led to 140 people asking for help.
This seems to be a rather peculiar way of letting people know about the support they are entitled to. Firstly because it will only affect the customers of Sainsbury’s rather than all the other large supermarkets. Secondly, people in general do not like the idea of being judged on their purchases. As everyone buys different things when shopping, it can be very hard to determine what constitutes ‘unusual’ purchases.
Daniel Hamilton, Director of Big Brother Watch, said:
“It strikes me as something that will make a lot of people uncomfortable. They are trying to do the right thing but they have to be careful about how they do it.”
Jacki Connor, Sainsbury’s ‘colleague engagement director’, said:
“Research shows that around 6.4million people in the UK care for sick or disabled love ones but many are not receiving the help and support they need.”
There may be a variety of reasons for customers to purchase items separately, or to pick up a prescription for someone else. If they are constantly directed to charity groups they may become offended. Even if staff are trained to try and be as tactful as possible, it is very likely that some customers will find the scheme intrusive.
Although few would argue that the reasoning behind this idea is anything but good intentions, it seems like there are more obvious ways to let carers know about how to get the support they need. Posters and leaflets would do the same job without putting people in embarrassing situations. Asking checkout staff to make decisions on the domestic situations of customers based on the contents of their trolley and some basic training seems ill-judged.
Sainsbury’s are trialling a strange new method of training for their staff to spot odd patterns of shopping. The scheme comes with government backing and is designed to determine if shoppers are carers who do not realise they are entitled to financial support from the state. Some critics have called it state-sponsored spying into people’s private lives.
Staff will be taught to look out for unusual shopping habits which indicate the purchasing of food for a dependent, such as using two baskets and paying for them separately. Customers picking up prescriptions for others will also be quizzed on their situation. If they reveal they are caring for someone they will be directed to a stand in the store by a carers’ charity. A pilot scheme in Torbay, Devon lasted for two months and led to 140 people asking for help.
This seems to be a rather peculiar way of letting people know about the support they are entitled to. Firstly because it will only affect the customers of Sainsbury’s rather than all the other large supermarkets. Secondly, people in general do not like the idea of being judged on their purchases. As everyone buys different things when shopping, it can be very hard to determine what constitutes ‘unusual’ purchases.
Daniel Hamilton, Director of Big Brother Watch, said:
“It strikes me as something that will make a lot of people uncomfortable. They are trying to do the right thing but they have to be careful about how they do it.”
Jacki Connor, Sainsbury’s ‘colleague engagement director’, said:
“Research shows that around 6.4million people in the UK care for sick or disabled love ones but many are not receiving the help and support they need.”
There may be a variety of reasons for customers to purchase items separately, or to pick up a prescription for someone else. If they are constantly directed to charity groups they may become offended. Even if staff are trained to try and be as tactful as possible, it is very likely that some customers will find the scheme intrusive.
Although few would argue that the reasoning behind this idea is anything but good intentions, it seems like there are more obvious ways to let carers know about how to get the support they need. Posters and leaflets would do the same job without putting people in embarrassing situations. Asking checkout staff to make decisions on the domestic situations of customers based on the contents of their trolley and some basic training seems ill-judged.
10/06/2011
Links of the day Friday 10th June 2011
Please note these are articles and opinions we found interesting, however they do not necessarily represent the views of Big Brother Watch
Council CCTV award win criticised
Hackers warn NHS over security
Cabinet Office talks to Facebook & co about new ID system
Personal data stolen from UK developer Codemasters
Facebook facial recognition tool probed by UK regulator over 'obvious' privacy issues
Two fined for mobile data breaches
CCTV car plans approved
Big Brother Watch submits complaint to ICO over ANPR camera ring of steel in Royston, Hertfordshire
Big Brother Watch has teamed up with other civil liberties groups to challenge the right of the police in Royston, Hertfordshire to install a so-called ring of steel made-up of Automatic Number Plate Recognition (ANPR) Cameras. We have submitted a complaint, available to view here, to the Information Commissioner, explaining that we view it to be not just an invasion of privacy but also illegal.
We hope that with mainstream media such as the Guardian now picking up this campaign, we can put real pressure on the government to have a full and frank public debate about the use of CCTV cameras in Britain, especially these ANPR cameras which monitor the movement of millions of vehicles everyday while accumulating a database of journeys which can be stored for years without consent.
We have campaigned for months on this project now, ever since rumours of its existence first appeared. There is no justification for a system such as this in a small town like Royston with a population under 15,000 people. There is no history of organised crime or serious drug distribution in the area, and no public consultation was carried out prior to the installation of the cameras. The recent dismantling of ‘Project Champion’ in Birmingham proves that with enough publicity and public anger, intrusive projects such as this can be scraped.
There are now more than 4,200 ANPR cameras yet the public still remain relatively unaware of their existence. Big Brother Watch, No CCTV and Privacy International hope this complaint will open up a debate about their use and justification.
09/06/2011
Links of the day Thursday 9th June
Please note these are articles and opinions we found interesting, however they do not necessarily represent the views of Big Brother Watch
School surveillance: how big brother spies on pupils
Apple iCloud: Same old cage, new height
Judge rules against firm that lost $345k to bank trojan
Please explain the monkey business
Don't lose this chance for better prisons
Will Facebook facial recognition tool invade our privacy?
US school district hit with new Mac spying lawsuit
ICO fines Surrey County Council £120,000 for multiple email privacy failures
Stoke-on-Trent Council want to raise even more revenue from their CCTV car
Stock-on-Trent Council are planning to upgrade their CCTV car in an effort to rake in even more fines from unsuspecting motorists. The car has already earned the council well over £120,000 by pulling up near bus lanes and catching motorists out. Now it will be fitted with new technology to photograph people parking their vehicles.
The justification for the upgrade seems rather peculiar. Councillor Janine Bridges, cabinet member for city services, said:
“An enforcement officer turning up often prompts people to move and come back later when they have gone.”
Roy Naylor, a former councillor who is now governor at Newstead Primary School, considers the enforcement necessary as a result of the congestion around local primary schools during the school run. These areas will be prime sites for fines.
Mr Naylor said:
“The problem with wardens is that the parents move elsewhere on the day that they are there and then go back to normal the day after. With the car they won't know when it is coming.”
In other words, traffic wardens stop people parking where they shouldn’t, which is surely the intended aim of traffic enforcement. Instead of this, they prefer CCTV cars which covertly take photographs of drivers without their knowledge.
Pam Harrison was one of the 3,500 motorists hit with a £60 fine since last October. She believes the car is little more than a revenue raiser:
“They will get the money in however they can. Motorists in the city seem to be being hit with everything. I don't agree with people parking wherever they like, and the school run can be a nightmare if people block driveways, but I'd like to see the money raised by the car actually spent on keeping services open.”
Once again councils looking to raise money quickly decide to pick on motorists using intrusive cameras and disconnected enforcement officers. These officials are in an office miles away determining whether any infringements have occurred, then sending out penalty notices which are almost impossible to appeal as motorists do not know they have been photographed.
Not for the first time, an eagle-eyed local resident has spotted the car parked on double yellow lines near a junction contravening parking rules. They took this picture:
08/06/2011
Links of the day Wednsday 8th June
Please note these are articles and opinions we found interesting, however they do not necessarily represent the views of Big Brother Watch
Is this just ‘ID cards without the cards’?
UK watchdog looking into Facebook face-tech row
Scottish Licensed Trade Association have called for huge increases in the price of alcohol
Maximum fine raised to £2m for telcos that don't cough up network data
Facebook sorry over face tagging launch
Prison rejects ACLU backlash by refusing to back down on porn for inmates
Prisoners in Thailand kept 'shackled and cramped'
Newcastle University invent ludicrous system of CCTV bins to spy on you
A number of councils previously entertained the idea of putting microchips in rubbish bins in order to create a pay-as-you-throw system of rubbish collection. After a substantial public outcry this was largely disbanded although not before a substantial amount of taxpayers’ money was expended purchasing chipped bins.
Considering this, it is surprising to hear that Newcastle University have come up with a new idea to install cameras into rubbish bins. The system, nicknamed ‘BinCam’, takes a picture every time rubbish is deposited and uploads it to a social networking site. The pictures can then be viewed by neighbours or friends, allowing them to comment on the recycling habits of the householder. The system has received widespread condemnation from all areas of the political spectrum, including environmentalists.
Anja Thieme, a researcher from the university, said:
“There is a naming and shaming element to the experiment although it's fun rather than humiliating. Waste has a massive environmental impact. By taking a photograph and uploading it to Facebook, the idea is that we create a platform for self-reflection, a permanent reminder.”
“It's a bit like having your conscience sat on your shoulder niggling away at you. And on top of that you know that other people are also judging you.”
Daniel Hamilton, Director of Big Brother Watch, had this to say on the matter:
“This sounds like an elaborate joke – except it isn’t. It beggars belief to think that people could be photographed and placed on US-style 'most wanted' lists for putting rubbish in the wrong bin. Encouraging recycling is fine but publically humiliating those who choose not to is outrageous.”
“Have Newcastle dons really got nothing better to do than waste their time and our tax money on preposterous ideas like this? They put microchips in the bins ready for pay-as-you-throw bin taxes, and that died a death. I hope councils realise that this sinister idea is taking things too far.”
The dons at Newcastle University may think this is “a bit of fun” but really it is a ludicrous idea which will never get public support. People may throw away confidential documents which will end up on the internet, and it may encourage more fly tipping to avoid the intended ‘judging’ of neighbours. The simplest way to encourage recycling is by making it easier to do, not by humiliating people or charging punitive fines. The Government’s forthcoming waste review will hopefully attempt to restore weekly refuse collection and abolish ‘waste reduction’ schemes which use a variety of measures to punish people for any infringement of the complicated waste schemes in certain councils.
06/06/2011
Links of the day Monday 6th June 2011
Please note these are articles and opinions we found interesting, however they do not necessarily represent the views of Big Brother Watch
Top websites leaking our data to third party players
European Union "cookie" regulations are criticised
Airport security misery
Gov fails to have knowledge of itself on websites
Apple hit by new competition complaint as iCloud launches
Google acting as a 'political tool', says China
New Android app allows automated WiFi cookie intercepts
Eden's CCTV cameras switched off to save money
Students at De Montfort University could be placed under constant surveillance
Students at the De Montfort University in Leicester have raised concerns about a new chip being placed in their ID cards which monitors the attendance at lectures and tutorials.
The system works by using the Wi-Fi network around the campus to track the location of all students with a chipped ID card, the network will then log who is attending classes and who is not. The plan was discussed and subsequently approved at a meeting of the university’s executive board, and a further consultation will now occur.
Although many universities use cards to swipe in and out of lectures for security reasons, this represents a worrying deviation, with all students effectively monitored at all times when on campus. This could potentially be used to track the movements of those involved in protest groups or minority groups wrongly suspected of being involved in terrorism.
English language and media student Manisha Hellan, 19, said:
“You come to university to be treated like an adult, not a child. As long as you get your work done, whether you go to lectures or not should be your choice. I understand the reasoning behind it but my concern is what else it could be used for – it's a bit Big Brother.”
Aaron Porter, the outgoing president of the National Union of Students, believes the system is open to abuse. He said:
“Those who stand to pay increasing fees for the privilege of studying will baulk at the prospect of being treated like inmates under surveillance. Software allowing universities to keep constant tabs on students has the potential to be abused.”
“Any university seeking to teach such a practical lesson in Orwell studies has its work cut out in seeking to convince students that forced exposure to round-the-clock monitoring will not infringe on their privacy or dignity.”
A DMU spokeswoman responded:
"We are currently exploring whether or not to use an electronic student attendance monitoring system. No decision has yet been made."
Considering De Montfort University have opted to charge the maximum £9,000 fees from 2012, some students may feel that this is a high price to pay to be under constant surveillance. A simple swipe card is sufficient to monitor attendance if there are serious concerns about security, but this is a step too far and Big Brother Watch would like to see it cancelled before it comes into effect. The system is hardly fool proof in any case, as one person could take 10 cards into a lecture hall to give the impression that all 10 students are present.
02/06/2011
Divisive CCTV project in Birmingham finally dismantled
One of the longest running campaigns of Big Brother Watch came to a conclusion this week as the final camera of the ill-fated ‘Project Champion’ was removed in Birmingham. Big Brother Watch have been following this story for over a year now, ever since the 218 camera network was installed in Washwood Heath and Sparkbrook, predominantly Muslim areas of the city. There were constant suspicions that the project was based on racial profiling and the financial backing came from the counter-terrorism unit.
There was an almost instantaneous response from local residents, who had understandable concerns about this system which tracked the movements of every resident entering or leaving the area. It was later revealed that there were an additional 72 covert cameras in the same location. A local campaign, Birmingham Against Spy Cameras, was set up to challenge the project.
After a public outcry, a farcical situation developed where the police were forced to cover every camera with plastic bags while they decided what to do with them. It was finally decided in May that the local community were fervently against the project and it would be dismantled. Now that they have been removed, it is thought they will be utilised at the London Olympics next year.
Here at Big Brother Watch we hope this terribly flawed exercise will serve as an example to police forces around the country of how not to utilise CCTV. It should not be used to target specific elements of society in this way, especially when there is no evidence of terrorist activity. This proves that pressure from the public can have a real effect on the use of CCTV. The fallacy that people are more than happy to be under permanent surveillance simply doesn’t stand up.
Former Big Brother Watch Director Alex Deane gave a very well received speech to a packed Birmingham hall last year, which can be seen here.
01/06/2011
School to enforce baggy uniform to deter paedophiles
A school in Glasgow has provoked derision and disbelief after sending a letter to all parents demanding pupils wear baggy clothes in an effort to deter paedophiles. The King’s Park Secondary School sent the following note:
“We believe an appropriate school uniform protects children from being targeted by sexual predators. There is recent evidence in south Glasgow of adults photographing schoolgirls in short skirts and schoolgirls/boys in tight trousers, then grooming them through the internet. We must do all we can to keep our children safe. A modest school uniform is more appropriate than fashion skirts, trousers or tops.”
Despite local police confirming there have been no incidents of schoolchildren in the area being targeting by predators, the school are concerned about the case of Barry McClusky, who pretended to be a schoolgirl online and successfully contacted 49 girls between 2007 and 2010.
Boys will be forced to wear loose-fitting trousers while girls must wear knee-length pleated skirts in a measure which one parent described as “paranoid in the extreme”. The items must be bought from a pre-approved collection at Marks and Spencer, and failure to comply may mean being banned from going on school trips. Parents have responded with disdain:
“There is no way an ugly uniform is going to deter a predator and determined sex offender.”
“This is just paranoid in the extreme. There are better ways to safeguard children than spreading needless panic.”
"It is laughable to think the uniform can act as some sort of paedophile-repellent.”
Despite the lack of support for the idea, a spokesman for Glasgow City Council claimed there had been extensive consultation on the idea before it was decided upon. Eileen Prior, Chief executive of the Scottish Parent Teacher Council said:
“Creating a link between school uniform and paedophilia seems to be a dangerous and unhelpful one for everyone involved. It implies that young people are in some way responsible for the activities of paedophiles, which is an extremely dangerous argument and one which has echoes of the comments sometimes made around rapists and women's dress."
"If there is evidence of activity by a paedophile in the area, then police and parents should be informed and involved. Many parents - and indeed young people themselves - are keen to have a dress code in school which requires everyone in the school community to dress in a way which is appropriate for a working environment.”
There are so many things wrong with this draconian measure it is difficult to know where to start. At the most basic level is it simply absurd to think looser trousers will change the behaviour of predatory adults. This sort of measure is also very dangerous for local communities. It has never been necessary before, so the impression given to parents is that there are suddenly a lot more paedophiles in the area, creating an environment of fear. Finally, from a purely financial point of view, expecting all parents to go out and immediately buy new uniform items in the midst of a financial crisis is unfair.
If the police are concerned about the activity of paedophiles in the area they should deal with it directly, it is not the role of schools to come up with ludicrous ideas to deter predators.
31/05/2011
Scottish Government consider under-21 booze ban
In the United Kingdom, we have long viewed America's stringent alcohol laws with a sense of both mild amusement and confusion. It would see, to any sensible person, chopped-logic in the extreme for someone to be able to get married, drive a vehicle and serve their country in a theatre of war yet not be able to have a beer legally until they reached the age of 21.
Astonishingly, however, Nicola Sturgeon, the Scottish Health Minister and the country's Deputy First Minister has announced she is considering imposing US-style alcohol laws.
According to reports in the Scottish Herald today, local authorities are to be given the power to restrict sales of alcohol to those over the age of 21 in areas where underage drinking has proved to be a problem.
You can view the story here.
The proposed ban on under 21s buying booze follows a previous attempt by former Minister Cathy Jamieson who, back in 2005, attempted to introduce a ban on off-licences selling Buckfast Tonic Wine.
While Jamieson's plans were widely ridiculed, Sturgeon's plan may not prove to easy to stop - largely as a result of the outright majority her party has in the Scottish Parliament.
Have we really got to the point in this country where our devolved administrations feel the only way to tackle binge and underage drinking is to ban adults from consuming a perfectly legal product? Regrettably, that's exactly what appears to have happening.
If you live in Scotland, please contact your local and regional list MSPs to voice your opposition to Nicola Sturgeon's plans. You can find their details here.
Alternatively, if you'd like to make your views clear to Nicola Sturgeon herself you can reach her by e-mail at [email protected] or by phone on 0131 556 8400..
27/05/2011
Links of the day Friday 27th May 2011
Dominique Lazanski: How the EU 'cookie' directive is impacting the UK
Patriot Act surveillance provisions extended in nick of time
Kenneth Clarke data protection speech
Civil rights group calls for standardised European copyright laws
Google wants you to leave your wallet at home to get LBS discounts while you shop
Ratko Mladic arrested: Europe's most wanted man seized in Serbia
Dan Hodges - Creating a landslide
Shane Greer – Lock 'em up
Devizes' CCTV cameras face funding shortfall
26/05/2011
Links of the day Thursday 26th May
Russia's occupation of Georgian territory must end
Instant View: Mladic's arrest is a historic moment for Serbia and for Europe
Thieves paint over CCTV cameras to steal eight tonnes of clothing from Fenland compound
Co-op error as 82,000 clients' data published online
UK banks breaching data protection rules - Which?
Ken Clarke raises data protection fears
Cookie law set to shake up UK websites, but won't be enforced for a year
US to hold details of British air passengers for 15 years
Fife police defend use of CCTV after high 'Big Brother' ranking
24/05/2011
Police hand over details of 30,000 people a month for costly ‘customer satisfaction’ surveys
This story slipped in under the radar recently, but it is important that it gets more exposure. Freedom of Information requests recently revealed that police departments in Britain are routinely paying marketing companies huge fees to carry out ‘customer satisfaction’ surveys. The cost of these surveys is around £1,000,000 per year.
Beyond the obvious complaints about taxpayers’ money being used for this rather than frontline policing, more concerning is the fact that the police are handing over the contact details of approximately 30,000 people per month who have been in touch with the police.
The practice was revealed after Jonathan Hall received an unsolicited phone call six weeks after calling 999 to report a violent altercation in Guildford. He was angry to discover that police had passed on his details to Bostock Marketing Group without his consent. Mr Hall, 24, from Hove in Sussex, said:
“A man who spoke very poor English rang me six weeks after the incident and asked how I had been treated by the police. I was stunned and wanted to know how he had got my details. He told me they had come from Surrey Police.”
After the call, he decided to submit FOI requests to fifteen police forces, and was shocked by the results. Surrey Police spent £108,000 on the surveys, only topped by the Metropolitan Police who spent £176,000.
A Surrey Police spokesman said:
“The Home Office requires us to carry out customer satisfaction surveys. Satisfaction levels have risen to 85 percent because we listen to feedback and act on it.”
While it may be beneficial for police to receive feedback on their performance, it is unacceptable for them to pass on the details of 30,000 innocent people every month to market research companies without their express permission. This needs to stop now.
Latest nannying nonsense from the NHS: quacks to get paid for telling people they're fat
The Telegraph had fun over the weekend with this story: from next year, GPs will receive a payment for every patient they advise to lose weight. This is planned even despite the fact that doctors already get money for keeping lists of those who weigh too much.
Time for some basic, blunt truths. In a free society, the number of adults who are fat closely corresponds with the number of adults who choose to be fat. Granted, there are some - very few - who have genuine, medical conditions which mean they gain weight despite their own actions. But almost all people gain weight because of their own actions. We know that alcohol and fatty foods make us fat, but we still eat them, because we like them.
But here we are being "educated" by the state once again. Does the NHS (which isn't free; we pay for it involuntarily through the tax taken from us) really think that people don't know that burgers and fries are fattening?
Yet another bit of "nudging", eh - just like hiding the salt, or banning advertising of certain foods at certain times. Your snack of choice will have a warning on it like ciggies before you know it, at this rate.
Of course, doctors have never seen a cash cow they've turned down. Under this plan, they will boost their income by giving “weight management advice” to obese patients, or offer them a free place on a diet club, which the NHS (AKA you and I) would pay for.
I'm not arguing that obesity is good. I'm just pointing out that it's not the state's role to nanny us about it, or to force some of us to pay for others to receive diet club memberships - or, worse, force us to pay for quacks to spout the bleeding obviuos.
By Alex Deane
20/05/2011
NoToMob send a message to Bexley Council "We are watching you"
Big Brother Watch previously covered the story of Martin Peaple of Bexley, who was harrassed by the police on the orders of Bexley Council after attempting to warn motorists about CCTV cars operating in the area.
Thankfully, co-conspirators at NoToMob have come to his aid. Big Brother Watch would like to congratulate them on their sterling work in the community.
European Commission aims to ban plastic shopping bags
In their infinite wisdom, the European Union risked further alienating people in Britain last night by calling for a ban on plastic shopping bags. The move, designed to benefit the environment, will mean imposing an expensive tax on shopping bags or banning them altogether.
Retailers have reacted angrily to the suggestion, claiming it will damage the already precarious state of the economy by putting people off shopping. It could dramatically reduce impulse purchases, or force people into buying expensive semi-permanent bags instead. Richard Dodd, spokesman of the British Retail Consortium said yesterday:
“A Europe-wide ban on bags is unnecessary. It is likely to alienate customers from the green agenda, which is the opposite of what the European Union is trying to do. It is not appropriate for the EU to get involved.”
“Retailers have been very successful already at working with customers on reducing the number of bags handed out. This has been achieved on a voluntary basis and is the best way. Many people already carry their own bags around with them – but because they want to, not because they are being forced to.”
“Climate change is important, but these bags are the wrong focus and should not be demonised. They are not the major issue. Food waste, for example, is a far more important issue.”
But the European Commission are keen to make the case for the environment. EU Environment Commissioner Janez Potocnik said:
“Fifty years ago, the single-use plastic bag was almost unheard of. Now we use them for a few minutes and they pollute our environment for decades. That’s why we are looking at all the options, including a Europe-wide ban on plastic carrier bags.”
“Social attitudes are evolving and there is a widespread desire for change. We need the views of as many people as possible to complement our scientific analyses and help drive policy on this issue, which is suffocating our environment.”
Efforts to move consumers from disposable plastic bags to reusable, more durable bags have resulted in every home in the country having dozens of these ‘bags-for-life’ which are summarily forgotten virtually every time anyone goes shopping, leading to the purchase of yet more. While they have various uses around the home such as rubbish bags and storage, this is not solving an environmental issue.
To change habits which are so entrenched in Britain requires a step change in behaviour. Many supermarkets are leading the way with loyalty incentives for re-using bags, which is more likely to work as a subtle way of influencing people. We do not need the E.U. to legislate a solution to this problem.
UPDATE:
Previous research by the Government-funded Waste Resources Action Programme (WRAP) (reported in The Telegraph) found that a levy on plastic bags in Ireland only made matters worse. They revealed that plastic bags make up less than 1 percent of litter, which is highly efficient compared to other forms of packaging. Industry bodies claimed Ireland's levy led to a fivefold increase in the use of plastic. Although WRAP doubted this figure, they were certain more plastic would be used as thicker, heavier rubbish bags would be used instead. They warned that local authorities may end up paying more in administration for the tax than they would receive from implementing it.
18/05/2011
Supreme Court determines chief constables refusing to delete DNA of innocent people are acting unlawfully
Finally, three years after the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) came to the conclusion that holding the DNA of innocent people is unlawful, the Supreme Court have reached a similar verdict. The ruling, made today, declares that the existing policy of keeping DNA profiles of people in England and Wales who have been arrested but never convicted of a crime is excessive and violates privacy rights.
Since the ruling by the ECHR (in the case known as S & Marper v. United Kingdom) in February 2008 more than 200,000 additional innocent people have been added to the DNA register, bringing the total to over 1.1 million. The guidelines of the Association of Chief Police Officers (ACPO) state that chief constables can order the deletion of DNA profiles and fingerprints only when there are “exceptional circumstances.” One infamous example is the immigration minister Damian Green who was arrested in 2008 on suspicion of misconduct. He subsequently asked for his DNA to be deleted, which the Met agreed to do.
Lord Dyson said in the Supreme Court ruling:
"It is appropriate to grant a declaration that the present ACPO guidelines ... are unlawful because, as clearly demonstrated by Marper, they are incompatible with the ECHR.”
"It is important that, in such an important and sensitive area as the retention of biometric data by the police, the court reflects its decision by making a formal order to declare what it considers to be the true legal position. But it is not necessary to go further."
However, unfortunately the judges have still failed to make any immediate changes to the situation, or set out a timeline for the eventual deletion of the date. The government have previously signalled their intentions to bring the legislation into force later this year as part of the protection of freedoms bill as proposed by the home secretary Theresa May.
It is scandalous that even after three years these 1.1 million innocent people still have their DNA on the national database. The government must ensure the protection of freedoms bill currently going through parliament does not get watered down or challenged, these people must be given back the security of their biometric data.
The choices are simple, either all convicted criminals have their DNA on the database, or every British citizen has their DNA on the database. It is grossly unfair for this many innocent people who have never been convicted of any crime to suffer the same indignity of criminals for no legitimate reason.
20/04/2011
Survey of school staff reveals banned playground games
In recent years there have been numerous stories in the press regarding the madness of health and safety regulations, but with so much denial and buck-passing, it can be hard to tell what is true and what is made up. However, recent research into traditional school games has given quantifiable evidence that bureaucracy and fear of litigation is depriving children of exercise, entertainment and competitive spirit.
653 heads, teachers and support staff were questioned by the Association of Teachers and Lecturers (ATL), and the results were fairly dispiriting. The majority (57%) said they felt schools were becoming increasingly risk averse, with more than a quarter of them having banned the game British bulldog. One sixth of playgrounds have banned playing with conkers while 5% have even prevented kids from using marbles. Ironically some teacher claimed that conkers are banned due to an increase in nut allergies, caused by children lacking the necessary immunity gained by playing outside more.
Tim Gill, former director of the Children’s Play Council at the National Children’s Bureau, said:
“Schools have forgotten how to give children a good childhood. Bumps and scrapes and dealing with life’s trials are part and parcel of growing into a confident and resilient person. You can only learn through experience.”
The banning of playground games has coincided with a drop in field trips due to teachers concerns about form filling, safety fears and being sued in the unlikely event of an accident occurring. Despite a massive 92% of staff believing school trips and activities are important to enhance learning, 31% said the number of school trips was in permanent decline. One teacher even explained that a week-long trip overseas had needed around 100 hours worth of planning before it was allowed to go ahead.
ATL general secretary, Mary Bousted, said:
"Teachers, lecturers, support staff and school leaders all recognise that children need to be safe, however, without encountering risk it is difficult for them to learn their own limitations."
The fear of accidents has even affected sports, with some schools now using a soft ball for football and banning tackles from rugby. Apart from changing the basic elements of the game, this stops children from ever learning how to play the actual sport in later life. We are hardly likely to find the football and rugby stars of the future if children are playing watered down versions of these sports.
Without experience of risk and competition at a young age, children enter the real world lacking a variety of vital skills. One solution would be for the government to support head teachers in restoring these traditional games. The fear of litigation and bureaucracy is forcing schools to remove necessary elements of childhood; they must feel like the government is on their side.
14/04/2011
Anti-smoking lobby recommends drug linked to numerous deaths
The anti-smoking lobby ASH have controversially suggested that smokers should be placed on the dangerous chemical Varenicline, which is sold under the trade name Champix or Chantix. This drug has been linked to more than 100 reports of suicides, more than 400 reports of violence, and more than 11,000 other cases of severe side effects. Users were also associated with 18 times the number of cases of violence than an average person. Out of a study of 484 pharmaceutical drugs it was found to have the largest number of violent cases. Due to these reports Pfizer, the drugs producer, were required by the U.S. Food & Drug Administration (FDA) to place a “black box” warning label on the medication, ironically similar to cigarette packs.
According to the FDA:
“Chantix has been linked to serious neuro-psychiatric problems including changes in behaviour, agitation, depressed moods, suicidal ideation and suicide. The drug can cause an existing psychiatric illness to worsen or an old psychiatric illness to recur and the symptoms can recur even after the drug is discontinued.”
Big Brother Watch have previously commented on the dubious record of ASH and its links to pharmaceutical companies. While maintaining financial connections with Pfizer and GlaxoSmithKline, they talk of shadowy ‘influence’ from tobacco companies encouraging people to smoke.
It is difficult to determine where this influence is coming from considering the total ban on tobacco advertising, not to mention the forthcoming ban on cigarette displays and the planned legislation on plain packagingIt is wildly dangerous to suggest smokers use a drug connected to so many instances of potentially fatal side effects.
Those who wish to smoke, a perfectly legal activity, should be allowed to do so, while those who wish to quit should be provided support from groups such as NHS Smokefree, but to suggest dangerous drugs is an abuse of power for lobbying firms such as ASH which have a financial conflict of interest. They should cease promoting Varenicline and its branded versions immediately.
01/04/2011
Police investigate dangerous use of marshmallows
The case of police time being wasted ‘investigating’ damage to daffodils the other week seemed like it couldn’t be beaten for ludicrousness, but Devon & Cornwall Constabulary have managed it. They are currently investigating a common assault after a 13 year old from Torpoint Community College allegedly threw a marshmallow at another pupil. The boy called his parents to tell them, who decided the issue was serious enough to ring the police about. The group involved were taken out of their lessons and asked to give statements on the incident.
This news comes in the wake of the revelation that Devon and Cornwall Police has the lowest proportion of officers on frontline duty in the country. With resources already tight you would think someone at the constabulary would realise when a case like this is not worth investigating. Police said they were dealing with an ‘incident’ which happened near the school, and ‘further inquiries are being made.’ We can only hope they manage to solve this heinous crime as soon as possible.
30/03/2011
Hide the salt!
Following on from the decision to ban cigarette displays in newsagents and supermarkets, the busybodies of Stockport Council have come up with a health drive to hide salt in restaurants and takeaways. Proprietors have been asked to remove salt shakers from counters and table-tops, and only supply them to customers if they specifically ask for it. The idea is part of the wider ‘ASK’ campaign, which sets out the following modus operandi:
“ASK is a unique Greater Manchester initiative to reduce the amount of salt added to food by customers in restaurants, cafes and other catering establishments. Participating businesses display the ASK logo in their windows and use tent cards on table surfaces to demonstrate their support.”
This is the natural progression from the ruling on cigarettes. People are no longer allowed to make a decision for themselves on how much salt to consume. Instead they must be treated like children and have anything which might be bad for them hidden away behind counters. Not to mention the hassle of staff being constantly asked where the salt is. Perhaps sweets will soon be placed on the highest shelves in supermarkets so children cannot reach them.
Whoever is being paid out of taxpayers’ money to come up with ideas like this should be the first to go when the cuts start to hit.
09/03/2011
Happy No Smoking Day!
Against the backdrop of revolution in Libya and the imposition of a United Nations "no fly" zone in the region, it may have escaped your attention that it is National No Smoking Day.
Unsurprisingly, the Health Secretary Andrew Lansley has found his own special way of marking this occasion...
Not content with increasing taxes on tobacco to sky-high levels, it appears the Health Secretary now wants to go one step further and impose plain packaging on tobacco products. Under the proposed regulations, packets would no longer be able to display the logos of their manufacturers and would not be able to include any other graphics or colours of their choice. The packaging would be standardised in terms of size, rendering one pack of cigarettes indistinguishable from another.
This would be just the latest move by the government to demonise smokers, a group of people who voluntarily choose to consume a perfectly legal product.
The government likes to talk about "freedom" - how about respecting the rights of smokers? Under Andrew Lansley, it appears the nanny state is alive and well.
08/02/2011
Trust your 14 year old child? Watch out...
The latest installment in an occasional series, "Stories you Wished Weren' t True but Predictably and Woefully Are": over at The Daily Express Vanessa Feltz writes:
WHAT’S that weird noise? It’s the sound of jaws dropping nationwide as we attempt to digest the news that a married mother in her 40s has been suspended from work because she now has a criminal record after being cautioned by police for leaving her 14-year-old son in charge of his three-year-old brother while she nipped to the shops for 30 minutes. No disaster occurred. Yet the woman’s valuable work as a healthcare assistant is indefinitely in abeyance and the rest of us are sitting slumped in stupefied shock.
Read the whole thing, but let's try to do the Naming and the Shaming... BBW will be looking into which Constabulary thought it proper to prosecute this absurdity, and would love to hear from you if you know...
By Alex Deane
07/02/2011
Why do we oppose the Nanny State..?
A good piece on this topic over at the Adam Smith Institute blog rebutting the recent pro-nannyism-as-nudge argument from everyone's favourite schlock thinker, Alain de Botton. All I'd add is that I also think that there's something rather more insidious about this nudging guff than the straightforward bullying government usually prefers, since...
"Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its vi...ctims may be the most oppressive. It would be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end, for they do so with the approval of their own conscience." C.S. Lewis
And, contrary to near-universal trendy opinion, I find de Botton a dreadfully tiresome old booby.
By Alex Deane
04/02/2011
Let them eat cake!
In a bid to curb obesity in Britain, a local council in Oldham is about to introduce a ‘fat tax’ against takeaway restaurants and fast food outlets. The idea is to be pioneered in Oldham, and will target fish and chip shops, kebab shops, fried chicken outlets and fast food chains such as McDonald’s.
Big chains like McDonald’s will of course be able to afford the one-off £1,000 tax, however many smaller chains already competing against much bigger chains, fighting the recession and generally cheaper food prices in supermarkets will be hamstrung. Healthy restaurants and takeaways such as smoothie bars however, shall be exempt if they can prove their menu is healthy. The government has no right or jurisdiction to interfere in such a manner.
This would be bad enough if it was merely another example of government encroaching into the free market, but it is also an affront to individual freedom. Nobody should be able to dictate what another person should or should not eat. They may advise, but they may not legislate. In principle, the agenda to promote healthy eating through culture and raising awareness is fine. There is an argument to be made for calorific and dietary information to be available to individuals before they buy the product, like on many packaged food labels or chocolate bars. However, this is a step too far, and government should not be able to meddle in the diets of its citizen in such an intrusive manner.
Oldham Councillors say this will reduce costs to the NHS, and that people should be directed away from harmful life choices. If this becomes a precedent then how and where will it mutate? Will rugby eventually be deemed to too pricey for the NHS as waiting rooms across the land are filled with injury laden schoolboys on a Wednesday afternoon? As outdoor adventurers, skateboarders and even skiers in Scotland ‘know the risks’ they face before partaking in their activities, they should therefore not expect NHS help when they need it. This is what this precedent is seeking to do. The state should not be allowed to interfere in people’s food choices like this in order to save costs to the NHS in the long run.
Many, especially those on the left, do not mind and in fact encourage state intervention in order to make our lives better. They see themselves as society’s saviours and believe it is their moral duty to tell us mere uneducated peasants how to run our lives so that we can be happier. They do this with the best intentions at heart. However, they overlook and ignore the ridiculous idea that people do not need their help and do not want their help. How dare they tell us what we should or should not ingest? It is a bold and worrying attempt to micromanage our personal food choices and perhaps worst of all it is patronising to the point of offence.
If people want to lose weight and become healthier, then good luck to them. Just don’t force me to do it too.
Guest post by Danny McMahon, an intern for the Freedom Association.
28/01/2011
I hear cries of "we must do more..."
At the time of the introduction of the ban on smoking in public spaces, anti-tobacco zealots frequently championed the claim that the new law would lead to a dramatic reduction the amount of people smoking.
Such claims were made with such evangelical zeal that one could have been forgiven for thinking they were backed up with a detailed scientific study - or at least some basis of fact. Not so. Indeed, now such research has been carried out it has proved their claims to be totally bogus.
According to statistics released in the National Statistics Office's annual general lifestyle survey 21% of the public describe themselves as smokers today - the same proportion as in 2007.
The Financial Times carries a quote today from Amanda Sandford, the research manager at Ash, the anti-smoking campaign charity was understandably upset that this sliver of nanny-statism had failed to have the desired effect of controlling people's personal habits.
“It’s a bit disappointing to see that the overall rates of smoking appear to be stagnating. We know how extremely hard it is for people to quit”
Ms Sandford's response was sadly predictable:
"She called for Andrew Lansley, the health secretary, to help reduce the impact of branding by allowing cigarettes to be sold only in plain packets carrying a health warning and to ban their open display in shops to deter children from smoking"
Big Brother Watch have outlined the folly of this position before; most recently with a post from Mahendra Jadeja, a successful independent retailer and a former president of the National Federation of Retailers and Newsagents. You can view Mahendra's post here.
The mantra of the anti-free choice, anti-smoking lobby is increasingly predicable: "if at first regulation doesn't succeed, regulate and regulate again".
18/01/2011
The Coalition's plans to introduce minimum prices for alcohol
As I write over at ConservativeHome, the government has announced plans to introduce minimum prices for alcohol - an aspect of a wider debate about bullying consenting adults on alcohol, a subject we've discussed in various guises on this blog.
Make no mistake, this policy is a u-turn. In June last year, Andrew Lansley said of plans to introduce minimum alcohol pricing:
"Regarding NICE's recommendations on minimum pricing for units of alcohol, it is not clear that the research examines specifically the regressive effect on low income families, or proves conclusively that it is the best way to impact price in order to impact demand.
"Supply and price are far from the only factors in driving alcohol misuse. Demand and attitudes are crucial. We need to understand much better the psychology behind why different groups of people drink alcohol in excess. The root causes of social problems lie not just in government policies... but in social norms and peer influence."
He was right then, and wrong now.
Similarly, both parties in the Coalition opposed minimum alcohol pricing in Scotland when SNP attempted to introduce it there. They were right then, and wrong now.
We oppose minimum pricing for alcohol, because we believe in freedom of choice for the vendor and for the consumer, and we don't believe that the state should try to act as parent to free-willed adults who wish to buy a legal product. People should be free to choose to eat or drink whatever they want, without interference from a nannying government. And it will become ever-more nannying with time if we allow this to happen. We're assured - with all the subtlety of a credit card provider offering 0% rates on introduction, and higher rates thereafter - that this policy will not make a significant difference to prices in the shops. Who genuinely believes that that will remain the case over years to come once this policy is introduced, when the nannyists tell us once again that higher prices on alcohol will have all manner of miraculous effects?
So that deals with the principle. But pragmatically, it's absurd too (this matters particularly because public debate in the United Kingdom is perennially only about the applicability of the precautionary principle, "if it saves one life," "better safe than sorry," rather than about real principle). When the policy was discussed on the Today programme this morning, of course there was no thought given at all to the diminution of freedom it constitutes: the only criticism of it was that as far as "health campaigners" are concerned it "didn't go far enough". A woman whose well-deserved blushes I shall spare by avoiding mentioning her name claimed with admirably spurious specificity and hilariously po-faced seriousness that her "research" showed that this policy would "save 21 lives a year." Garbage. Nice work if you can get some mug to pay for your non-research to deliver results which claims specific benefits will apply to dozens of lives in a society of sixty million, but garbage nevertheless (and on this occasion, the mugs are thee and me, fellow taxpayer).
In any case, the NHS doesn't treat us as a favour; in a society with a level of tax as high as ours, we're entitled to a service from it just like the service we receive from any other kind of provider. People don't "throw themselves on the mercy of the NHS for treatment" - they get it because they've paid for it. That's especially so for drinkers and smokers, who've paid through the nose on taxes on tobacco and alcohol.
There's a reason that this policy hasn't been tried anywhere in the world. Those with the largest problems with alcohol are those least likely to be affected by pricing. Our response to "sin taxes" is, generally, to sigh and pay them - the result isn't to drive down consumption, but to increase the tax take. Similarly, people will simply pay higher prices on booze under this plan. Elasticity characterises consumption of alcohol and tobacco - that's why it's so popular for the Exchequer.
A government elected on a platform of widening freedom should not give way to authoritarian nanny statists. They've u-turned on this subject once already. They should turn again.
By Alex Deane
**UPDATE** An excellent piece on this topic over at Stumbling and Mumbling - hat tip MS
Recent Comments