barjon
Legendary member
- Messages
- 10,752
- Likes
- 1,863
Why not? Same principle, surely.
Why not? Same principle, surely.
Pat494
Legendary member
- Messages
- 14,614
- Likes
- 1,588
AI may make inroads into the criminal and terrorist community.
Faception a start up Israeli company claims that its software can spot criminals/terrorists by just their photo. Will they be driven to wear make=up to avoid detection ? I wonder.
China is developing similar software and by their law all their citizens will be on file.
Faception a start up Israeli company claims that its software can spot criminals/terrorists by just their photo. Will they be driven to wear make=up to avoid detection ? I wonder.
China is developing similar software and by their law all their citizens will be on file.
trendie
Legendary member
- Messages
- 6,875
- Likes
- 1,433
Oh dear, oh dear, oh dear. And another "Oh dear", just for good measure.
Didn't the germans use a form of phrenology to deduce if people were jews?
Size of nose, and shape of ears, and certain skull shape "anomalies"?
Atilla
Legendary member
- Messages
- 20,775
- Likes
- 3,976
I think Pat is referring to biometric facial recognition technologies, not assessing potential criminality of peeps by how they look. :idea:
Some commentators are very concerned about police stop-and-search.
I've never been stopped and searched by police in the street but I have been stopped and searched multiple times - at airports, galleries, museums, concerts, and I think once at a train station.
Searches also liable to take place at entry to sporting events, festivals, prison visiting suites, nightclubs, law courts, Parliament, TV studios, miscellaneous tourist attractions, shops, shopping malls, certain private offices, Government Departments, etc. etc. It is easy to have just a regular day out in London and be searched 5 or 6 times.
Some employees in certain sectors are also liable for search.
The last time I was searched was at the Bank of England Museum - oddly that was a place where you're searched going in, but not at all going out........
No doubt other members will have been searched at other locations.
Has anyone ever been alienated by a search?
I've never been stopped and searched by police in the street but I have been stopped and searched multiple times - at airports, galleries, museums, concerts, and I think once at a train station.
Searches also liable to take place at entry to sporting events, festivals, prison visiting suites, nightclubs, law courts, Parliament, TV studios, miscellaneous tourist attractions, shops, shopping malls, certain private offices, Government Departments, etc. etc. It is easy to have just a regular day out in London and be searched 5 or 6 times.
Some employees in certain sectors are also liable for search.
The last time I was searched was at the Bank of England Museum - oddly that was a place where you're searched going in, but not at all going out........
No doubt other members will have been searched at other locations.
Has anyone ever been alienated by a search?
Pat494
Legendary member
- Messages
- 14,614
- Likes
- 1,588
Part of the fun of living outside a metropolis is never to be searched.
" No officer I am not on my way to rustle some manky sheep. I doubt they would fit in my pocket."
sminicooper
Experienced member
- Messages
- 1,148
- Likes
- 329
As a trader I do "stop and search" (aka scan) all the time so that I can pay particular attention to shares of interest while ignoring those likely to be unprofitable. It is a very worthwhile practice.
When police do this they are accused of racism. Lady Theresa when Home Secretary diluted these powers for the police because it was "unfair" and vociferous minorities objected. You only need look at the perpetrators & victims of London knife crime to know where the police should be concentrating their efforts. When will the politicians face up to their responsibilities? ......... probably never, because there are no votes in it.
Atilla
Legendary member
- Messages
- 20,775
- Likes
- 3,976
Depends on your skin colour, how you dress and talk.
Experiences not all the same wrt how people react.
Moreover, your responses may not be the same if you are stopped and searched for the 20th time down your local high street.
Yes, it can is the answer to your question. Most cases alright. A few stand out as not very pleasant. Humiliating even.
Not all coppers are good demonstrating gentlemanly conduct. Some are real - see you next Tuesday specialists. Don't envy them as their job is very difficult. Some youths are really smart go to college or university but still hang out with street mates coz it's what you do innit. So police have to navigate way through all the different character types. Ability to connect and read young people of different cultures not something you can train for imo. Have to grow up in the neighbourhood. So I reckon neighbourhood policing is the way to go. Not the type who think they are hot and special brought in to clean up some sh!t they don't care about.
If you are referring to knife crime, I don't think the police care that much because it's mostly black killing black people. However, there is the danger it will spiral out of drug gang members protecting territory into just local youths who get involved simply out of proximity because they looked the wrong way.
Simple solution just to decriminalise and legalise all drugs. Best way to regulate, control and make money and everyone is happy.
Depends on your skin colour, how you dress and talk.
Experiences not all the same wrt how people react.
Moreover, your responses may not be the same if you are stopped and searched for the 20th time down your local high street.
Yes, it can is the answer to your question. Most cases alright. A few stand out as not very pleasant. Humiliating even.
Not all coppers are good demonstrating gentlemanly conduct. Some are real - see you next Tuesday specialists. Don't envy them as their job is very difficult. Some youths are really smart go to college or university but still hang out with street mates coz it's what you do innit. So police have to navigate way through all the different character types. Ability to connect and read young people of different cultures not something you can train for imo. Have to grow up in the neighbourhood. So I reckon neighbourhood policing is the way to go. Not the type who think they are hot and special brought in to clean up some sh!t they don't care about.
If you are referring to knife crime, I don't think the police care that much because it's mostly black killing black people. However, there is the danger it will spiral out of drug gang members protecting territory into just local youths who get involved simply out of proximity because they looked the wrong way.
Simple solution just to decriminalise and legalise all drugs. Best way to regulate, control and make money and everyone is happy.
Isn't there a bit of a contradiction in what you say? - that the police single out black youths for stop-and-search but don't really bother tackling knife crime because its mostly black-on-black. Which do you say it is really?
Atilla
Legendary member
- Messages
- 20,775
- Likes
- 3,976
Yes agree with you and the police do have an impossible job to do.
I don't believe the answer lies with the police, crime or punishment!
The root cause of the problem is people consuming drugs. Want to consume drugs. Desire to consume drugs. It is recreation. Much like travelling, dancing and partying.
You are also part of the problem with your moral judgements. Let the people be. :idea:
This postcode gang crime is a way for the suppliers to carve up territory. Increasingly affluent whites consuming stuff, where destitute people fill the void. Unemployed, young and driven bodies see easy money for a bit of risk taking. Drug use is growing in middle class suburbs. Problem is growing and has been now for a good many years, such that it is affecting those who are not in gangs get caught up because they live in the area.
The police know all this but don't have resources to build case. Even if they do, age of offenders so young, they go in for very short periods, mix with hardened criminals and come out even better trained with all the wrong skills.
Punishment for criminals is a training ground.
Personally, I think zero tolerance and a bit of money spent on communities is the way to go. And ofcourse liberalisation and decriminalisation of drugs such that they are regulated and controlled supplied by pharmacuticals and retail outlets.
As it happens what with capitalism, community centres are closed or sold off by councils to generate money. Post offices and libraries closed or run by volunteers.
Rents are so high people can only afford to live in slummie areas. Thus you have ghettos in gestation.
How on earth anyone can justify one person earning £15K and another £15m in the same organisation is beyond me. Look at numeration and bonus rates. Look at recent budget with more of the tax breaks given to top earners rather than the lower end.
Our policies are all wrong.
Can't teach an old dog new tricks, can ya?
Legalisation of soft drugs - we've already done that with alcohol, tobacco and effectively cannabis: the trend is definitely towards acceptance
Zero tolerance of crime - pie in the sky: UK police don't have the resources for this but they didn't apply it when they had them: the courts and politicians aren't convinced - you do point out that prison is a training ground for crime
Abolition of capitalism - this has been tried and almost universally found to be disastrous.
Zero tolerance of crime - pie in the sky: UK police don't have the resources for this but they didn't apply it when they had them: the courts and politicians aren't convinced - you do point out that prison is a training ground for crime
Abolition of capitalism - this has been tried and almost universally found to be disastrous.
Last edited:
Atilla
Legendary member
- Messages
- 20,775
- Likes
- 3,976
Yes, we definitely need a new vision on drugs.
We definitely need more police officers as cutting back on numbers is creating bigger issues elsewhere.
Not suggesting abolishing capitalism. A fairer society where social service is valued a little more and people given a fair wage. We have excess pay at the top for poor performance and we have dismal wage at the bottom end.
Amazon drivers poop in the van because they don't have the time to take proper brakes. Some low earners keeping two jobs. Children growing up without mummy and daddy's hard at work. Not always because they are split.
As I say capitalism externalises social costs and where society contributes it privatises public profits. Look at utilities. Government finally looking at capping price increases. Where does that go if not to CEO bonus's and shareholders who are already wealthy enough to have spare cash diverted to investment.
It is clearly a redistribution of income away from poor people who need lighting and heating and food to those who have plenty.
It is simply just so horribly wrong imho. Government is there to look after all our interest not just the few top 5%.
You think its morally justified to confiscate the money I earned and already paid taxes on and give it to people you have identified as more deserving. I say its not. Despite the episode of Robin Hood, it seems English law is with me on this.
In any case, you might say you are not against capitalism, yet the places where your suggestion has been put into practice have been socialist or communist states. Its not like this is an untested idea, so where please did it work out well?
Atilla
Legendary member
- Messages
- 20,775
- Likes
- 3,976
I haven't mentioned your money at all. Talking about a fair and equitable system with a fairer distribution of income rewards against work ethic that's all.
FTSE company numeration and bonus has been well out of kilter with performance of companies for some time now.
Same goes for taxation policy. Consider recent tax give away.
A surprise £3bn income tax giveaway worth £860 a year to high earners was the centrepiece of Philip Hammond’s third budget, but tax experts said it would leave low earners with little or no gains.
The chancellor brought forward the Conservatives’ election pledge to increase the basic personal allowance to £12,500 while raising the threshold for the 40% higher-rate tax to £50,000.
The rises in personal allowances – which are the starting points for paying 20% and 40% income tax – translate into significant tax cuts further up the income scale. For someone on £12,500, the increase is worth £130, but for those on £50,000 salaries it is worth £860 a year, although this is reduced to £520 once national insurance is taken into account.
SO TORIES HAVE GIVEN THE TOP EARNERS 4 X AS MUCH AS THE BOTTOM EARNERS.
Fair-er society and a better distribution of income based on ethics would surely deem either a flat rate distribution say same % increase to all or an aggressive taxation where 4x should be given to low earners and 1x to the top end.
Who is taking who's money? It is purely a reallocation of resource taking away from those who need to giving it to those who don't.
DO YOU NOT SEE THIS
We are talking about a fair and equitable taxation policy that rewards work ethic.
Now there is a political rational behind this. Low end workers on balance will vote labour. Top earners will vote Tory. Tories simply ensuring they maintain power by rewarding their supporters. Has absolute FA to do with managing the the country.
Those same people on low incomes will then struggle to produce children or look after them. Those children from poor backgrounds will resort to get rich quick schemes. Society becomes more skewed and miserable.
Low earning incomes will tax council spending and social payments. Rich sods like in the good old Victorian era height of British Empire will look at under nourished children and bodies adn wonder why they are lazy unable to work 14-18 hour days.
It's difficult to relate to poverty unless one has been there. For a man to be out of work and destitute, coming from a harsh broken family. Mummy and daddy fights about money. Hungry people going to foodbanks. Why?
Perhaps you should go and work in soup kitchen and meet some people in need. Warm your heart up a little in this festive season.
Signalcalc
Veteren member
- Messages
- 4,670
- Likes
- 1,031
I haven't mentioned your money at all. Talking about a fair and equitable system with a fairer distribution of income rewards against work ethic that's all.
FTSE company numeration and bonus has been well out of kilter with performance of companies for some time now.
Same goes for taxation policy. Consider recent tax give away.
A surprise £3bn income tax giveaway worth £860 a year to high earners was the centrepiece of Philip Hammond’s third budget, but tax experts said it would leave low earners with little or no gains.
The chancellor brought forward the Conservatives’ election pledge to increase the basic personal allowance to £12,500 while raising the threshold for the 40% higher-rate tax to £50,000.
The rises in personal allowances – which are the starting points for paying 20% and 40% income tax – translate into significant tax cuts further up the income scale. For someone on £12,500, the increase is worth £130, but for those on £50,000 salaries it is worth £860 a year, although this is reduced to £520 once national insurance is taken into account.
SO TORIES HAVE GIVEN THE TOP EARNERS 4 X AS MUCH AS THE BOTTOM EARNERS.
Fair-er society and a better distribution of income based on ethics would surely deem either a flat rate distribution say same % increase to all or an aggressive taxation where 4x should be given to low earners and 1x to the top end.
Who is taking who's money? It is purely a reallocation of resource taking away from those who need to giving it to those who don't.
DO YOU NOT SEE THIS
We are talking about a fair and equitable taxation policy that rewards work ethic.
Now there is a political rational behind this. Low end workers on balance will vote labour. Top earners will vote Tory. Tories simply ensuring they maintain power by rewarding their supporters. Has absolute FA to do with managing the the country.
Those same people on low incomes will then struggle to produce children or look after them. Those children from poor backgrounds will resort to get rich quick schemes. Society becomes more skewed and miserable.
Low earning incomes will tax council spending and social payments. Rich sods like in the good old Victorian era height of British Empire will look at under nourished children and bodies adn wonder why they are lazy unable to work 14-18 hour days.
It's difficult to relate to poverty unless one has been there. For a man to be out of work and destitute, coming from a harsh broken family. Mummy and daddy fights about money. Hungry people going to foodbanks. Why?
Perhaps you should go and work in soup kitchen and meet some people in need. Warm your heart up a little in this festive season.
Media influence plays a big part impressing young minds. Rappers in Bentlys, flashing dollars around, half naked women around a pool, gangsta music, self promotion on social media, gun worship, death or glory, gang culture.
It's not all just gubberment policy, regardless how poorly conceived or implemented, not everything comes down to economics, otherwise the age demographic for drug gangs and murders would be much more even. It's not, it's skewed towards testosterone fuelled, drug fuelled, impressionable, young males.
I haven't mentioned your money at all. Talking about a fair and equitable system with a fairer distribution of income rewards against work ethic that's all.
FTSE company numeration and bonus has been well out of kilter with performance of companies for some time now.
Same goes for taxation policy. Consider recent tax give away.
A surprise £3bn income tax giveaway worth £860 a year to high earners was the centrepiece of Philip Hammond’s third budget, but tax experts said it would leave low earners with little or no gains.
The chancellor brought forward the Conservatives’ election pledge to increase the basic personal allowance to £12,500 while raising the threshold for the 40% higher-rate tax to £50,000.
The rises in personal allowances – which are the starting points for paying 20% and 40% income tax – translate into significant tax cuts further up the income scale. For someone on £12,500, the increase is worth £130, but for those on £50,000 salaries it is worth £860 a year, although this is reduced to £520 once national insurance is taken into account.
SO TORIES HAVE GIVEN THE TOP EARNERS 4 X AS MUCH AS THE BOTTOM EARNERS.
Fair-er society and a better distribution of income based on ethics would surely deem either a flat rate distribution say same % increase to all or an aggressive taxation where 4x should be given to low earners and 1x to the top end.
Who is taking who's money? It is purely a reallocation of resource taking away from those who need to giving it to those who don't.
DO YOU NOT SEE THIS
We are talking about a fair and equitable taxation policy that rewards work ethic.
Now there is a political rational behind this. Low end workers on balance will vote labour. Top earners will vote Tory. Tories simply ensuring they maintain power by rewarding their supporters. Has absolute FA to do with managing the the country.
Those same people on low incomes will then struggle to produce children or look after them. Those children from poor backgrounds will resort to get rich quick schemes. Society becomes more skewed and miserable.
Low earning incomes will tax council spending and social payments. Rich sods like in the good old Victorian era height of British Empire will look at under nourished children and bodies adn wonder why they are lazy unable to work 14-18 hour days.
It's difficult to relate to poverty unless one has been there. For a man to be out of work and destitute, coming from a harsh broken family. Mummy and daddy fights about money. Hungry people going to foodbanks. Why?
Perhaps you should go and work in soup kitchen and meet some people in need. Warm your heart up a little in this festive season.
It just seems a tiny tad unfair that I should work and work to earn money and pay income tax on it, only to find that some of what's left will be confiscated to give to some other bloke, simply because he has a lower income than I do. I'm not saying I've done anything laudable for society to be where I am, I'm not saying he's a slacker or a criminal to be where he is, I'm simply saying that just because a system produces unequal outcomes, that doesn't mean the system is broke and it certainly doesn't justify a re-distribution of wealth.
What is far more important and of greater benefit to everybody in the long run is that he gets the same opportunities that I do through a good universal education and health system, fair opportunity employee policies, access to social housing as needed, equal pay policies, etc. Your old-fashioned Marxist ideas continue to focus on outcomes, wealth and an artificial class adversarialism.
I do ask for maybe just a few examples of where your discredited blinkered world view has worked out well.
Atilla
Legendary member
- Messages
- 20,775
- Likes
- 3,976
There are many mixed command type economies and Northern European countries are ones I admire the most.
Min wage has worked out well since it was introduced. Don't see Tories reversing that decision do you?
You thinking Venezuela but that's the worst scenario. We need balance, fairness and equitable distribution.
I am not a socialist or a communist or a marxist. I don't really have much empathy to my fellow man either. It's simply about a fair and equitable system to me.
Anyhow, issue is crime and punishment. So many big cheese CEO's have swindled and cheated pensioners out of money and Government gets the tab. How many CEO's or top level management have ever been convicted of stealing pension money?
How about the big accountancy firms? They are just looking at breaking off consultancy divisions from auditing due to conflict of interest.
NO SH!T SHERLOCK. Is that the best they can do. Why aren't they sued for damages suffered by employees and pensioners?
Virgin trains got handed back to Government management wiht massive debts but still managed to pay 50 or 500m in dividends despite losing money. WTF is that all about. Company in debt effectively going into receivership, loss of Franchise fees and Government accepts it. TORY government that is.
It's BLEEDING THEFT of tax payer, public funds. Where are the forking POLICE? Too busy chasing little kids pushing drugs instead of looking at who is stealing millions and billions.
You carry on with your moral high ground. From where I stand the system is bent and run by a bunch of crooks and I seldom here you speak out against such acts of ill conduct. This isn't something new. It's been like this for yonks.
Never forgot the Blue Arrow fraud affair. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-26178868
Didn't the big cheese plead poor health and got released from prison after couple of months so he gets to spend his zillions.
Here is another... https://www.theguardian.com/society/2001/dec/13/localgovernment.politics
These people never get locked up no matter how much they steal. If I recall correctly Dame Shirley purchased some council estate or bunhc of homes for £1 from Westminster or some other council. Absolute fecking theft that is and I have no idea what else they can call it.
Poor peeps steal a bit cotton and the police bring the world crashing on their heads. How is it that the police are powerless to bring these to55ers to court.
Nuff said. It's a sad sick world we live in. Greed is good. Integrity is in short supply.
Rant over
Similar threads
