den Otter [firstname.lastname@example.org] wrote:
>"In 1996 more than 3 million child abuse reports were made [3.1 million].
>The actual incidence of abuse and neglect is estimated to be 3
>times greater the number reported to authorities."
Now, what definition of "child abuse" are they using there? Is that three million cases of violent abuse, or three million cases of causing psychological damage by refusing to buy Johny an ice cream? Child abuse is notorious for false charges brought to harass innocent people.
And note, of course, that that's only reports. How many of them are actually true? Someone's already pointed out Janet "Butcher of Waco's" early career in faking child abuse cases, before she decided it was easier to just burn them.
>Let's put it this way: in the hands of a more or less "democratic" regime
>(as we have in the Western world) better surveillance and stricter
>sentencing (based on surveillance evidence) pose no real threat.
Nonsense. We have so many pointless "crimes" today that almost anyone would be put in jail if we had universal surveillance. My life would be hell if the laws were actually enforced; it's bad enough having to crawl along the drive home from work because the cops seem to set up speed-traps there every week or so. Even if only speed-limit laws were universally enforced, we'd see a massive drop in Western economies.
>If the police are forced to wear cameras that beam their data directly
>to a publically accessible database (for legal purposes only, btw), than
>their power is greatly reduced.
Oh bullshit. I know cops who have no desire to enforce drug laws, and if they search someone and find a bit of dope they just confiscate it and let the user walk. Were they carrying cameras all the time they would have no choice but to take the guy back to the station because otherwise their boss would have taped evidence that the cop wasn't enforcing the law. Do you have any idea what the world would be like if all those laws were enforced?
>In recent years, the number of (police operated) surveillance cams
>in the UK has risen dramatically. Now, can you honestly say that
>this has brought the country to the brink of dictatorship?
Yes. Absolutely. Britain is becoming a fascist police state and I for one will be leaving here within a couple of years unless the year-2000 crash takes the whole thing down. Just today I see that the head of the chief police officer's organisation is pushing for ISPs to store all email just in case the cops want to read it to look for evidence of a crime. That is an obscene police state tactic. That's your wonderful surveillance society, and as we keep pointing out, IT'S ENTIRELY ONE-SIDED. Don't you get it yet? You think that I'll be able to read Tony Blair's email as easily as he can read mine? You think Tony will have to hand over his encryption keys the way that the government want me to? What planet are you on?
>Yes, but it *has* been abolished, hasn't it? Besides, this anomaly
>doesn't degrade the value of electronic monitoring in any way. The
>net gain is still massively positive, and that's what counts.
So why is it that despite more and more and more monitoring, the quality of life in Britain is deteriorating rapidly? Why is it that I hate the way it's going so much that I'm going to leave for good before too long? Why don't you come over here and live in your wonderful surveillance paradise?
>And obviously this should be stopped too. However, these things
>mostly occur because the justice system is doing a bloody awful
>job. That is relatively easy to fix.
Ok, so come over here and fix it. If it's that easy, get going. Or do you just have no idea what you're talking about?
Den, you're living in a fantasy world. Stop trying to pull the rest of us into it with you.