Activists gatecrash Capita's AGM to protest GPS tracking contract We hear Privacy International and a few other campaign groups set up camp outside Capita's AGM in London yesterday protesting Capita's involvement as an outsourcer in a UK government GPS tracking contract. The groups, who drove a billboard van to the London shareholders meeting and were distributing leaflets outside, claim the …
"Under human rights law, children under 18 and pregnant women can't be tagged."
Don't worry, I'm sure that in the bowels of the Home Office someone is working on a plan to side-step such inconvenient laws and grab anyone they can and tag them.
I don't know what it is about being appointed Home Secretary, and it's not even as if the contagion is confined to the Conservatives. John Reid, Jack Straw and David Blunkett all called on their inner authoritarian when they were in office, so Suella Braverman is merely following in an appalling tradition.
Odd that only pregnant women and children qualify as as human in this human right.
So for all intents and purposes, all else are considered less than human...
human rights apply to All humans without regard for circumstance.
So this isn't being executed as a human right. Not by any competent measure anyway. This is executed as a privilege of children and pregnant women.
This is filed under the wrong category.
My irritation in this is akin to a librarian finding a book about reptiles misplaced in the automotive engineering section.
It seems quite inappropriate.
Companies have one principle : making money. It is the Prime Principle (yes, I'm thinking Prime Directive).
And, as soon as start to, they forget every other principle in direct correlation with how much money they make.
Once you get to Board status with more than a billion per month, the Singularity forms and everything is swallowed down to the Prime Principle.
No (known) force in the Universe can stop that.
Processing claims is massively underfunded.
Instead, the Home Office are burning billions upon billions of pounds on detaining more and more people as the backlog continues to grow.
The only viable explanations are that Braverman is getting some brown envelopes from these suppliers, or she is is so incompetent that she couldn't run a bath.
The fact that she is an evil monster intent on breaking the law is indisputable, of course.
OK, lets say we process all claims withing 24 hours (I know impossible but lets imagine it) and then the ones who have their claim refused quietly go home. Well, if you can imagine claims being processed within 24 hours you can imagine them going home quietly - I CAN'T!
Immigration is dealt with under criminal law, meaning someone accused of breaking the rules, even a person who has never committed a criminal offence, could be fitted with one.
Privacy International told us that "anyone without leave to remain can be tagged, whether they've committed a criminal offence or not."
Staying well away from the morals, rightness or wrongness of the law, but the above doesn't make sense within the context of the law as it stands. If you break the immigration rules or overstay, then that is currently a criminal offence so by definition they have committed a crime. The problem as I see it is not only the law as it stands, but the way it seems to be enforced without trial. Maybe the protesters would be better spending their time and money fighting against that rather than going after the "small fry" of the people operating the tagging system.
The trouble is that judicial review is incredibly expensive, slow, and fairly ineffective as the ministers in question have already announced that they intend to break the law.
Convincing suppliers not to supply has historically produced some results. Unlikely to work with Crapita because Government are their only customer. Everyone else contracts vaguely competent suppliers.
I find myself in a quandary. I like the idea of a fair trial but I have difficulty envisaging it.
Judge: You entered the country illegally
Illegal Immigrant: No your honour I've been here all along and here are 50 witnesses to prove it
Judge: Oh, that's ok then off you go and have a nice day....
OR
Judge: You entered the country illegally
Illegal Immigrant: No your honour II was playing cards with my mate Jim at his chippy at the time the Officer says I entered the country
Judge: Oh, that's ok then off you go and have a nice day....
errrr can anyone come up with a better scenario?
Kinda like trying to explain to the US (I genuinely forget what they're called right now, used to be INS) that the constitution absolutely DOES apply to people on US soil, and pretending that your holding cells are not on US soil is bullcrap, like gitmo.... they're all assholes
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2025
