Posts by John Lettice 172 publicly visible posts • joined 3 May 2007
Well, there's definitely a person-shaped entity in the SF office who calls himself Cade Metz, and he's quite convincing. Gives the impression of having been called that for quite a long time, does the work, so hey, why should I care?
But why am I responding to a post about Ashlee responding to posts about an article by Cade? And why am I responding to somebody with as obviously made-up a name as Solomon Grundy? It's a puzzle...
From the EU Commission stuff I've seen on mandatory ESC, the theory is that cheaper cars that aren't fitted with it tend to be the ones driven by young people. And young people tend to have more accidents due to them, for example, losing control when cornering. So if all cars are fitted with ESC, they won't lose control so much. Unless, er, they drive faster because they've got ESC.
Words adopted by the English language are frequently anglicised along the way, and these days it is common practice and permissible for the plural of forum to be rendered 'forums'. Which is Register house style (oh yes, we do have one). This is also the case with most newspapers.
Guy Herbert has asked me to post his reply to this and similar comments. I am of course happy to oblige, and personally remain perfectly happy to be sending No2ID my own pledge money, and maybe a bit more in consideration of the Government being even more irritating than they were two years ago. Here's Guy:
"Those who misunderstood my comment to John Lettice as meaning NO2ID would be conducting some sort of legal experimentation to amuse lawyers - and therefore they damn well won't be standing by their promise to contribute to our legal fund - may be doing so willfully. I cannot but be aware that we can never satisfy some people, and that we have more than our share of the downright suspicious.
"However, for those who are genuinely confused, probing the law is how a legal fund works. You don't do the enemy any damage by wrapping yourself in Magna Carta or ECHR (according to taste) and defying loudly. You find out where it is badly drafted, inconsistent or self-defeating and you fight prosecutions, penalties and so forth on those grounds. The point is to resist effectively; stop the law working as the Home Office intends; make it less easy for the IPS to trample ordinary people with its herd of white elephants.
"Those who are envious as well as suspicous will want to be reassured that we aren't going to waste money on "fat-cat lawyers". We couldn't afford them with only £100 grand in the kitty. Obviously we are hoping to have much more eventually, but it is still only likely to cover incidental expenses and maybe some hardship support for any brave guinea-pigs whose cases we take. Fortunately a number of distinguished lawyers have already shown an interest in working with us pro bono, even before we've got anything constructive for them to do."
It's worth considering the system that leads to the 'hounding' of firearms officers after a police shooting. Ordinarily it's the actions of the firearms officers in the last few minutes that are focussed on, and the command chain and circumstances that put them into that position aren't given any attention at all. This is actually pretty convenient for the management, because the 'problem' is isolated to a couple of guys, and whether or not they might have made a critical error of judgment. Their 'hounding' could therefore be seen as a necessary part of the process, to some extent caused by the police hierarchy's reluctance to have its own role put under the microscope.
The communications in the operation weren't recorded. According to the Stockwell report recommendations: "Particular attention should be paid to ensuring that key briefings, strategic and tactical decisions are fully recorded or documented and in any event capable of audit."
First, no one was doing anything as formal as calulating a risk. And second, if they were calculating a political risk, they would have to factor in the likely consequences of getting the wrong guy. That, if you were being cynical, would have to be in there too.
Furthermore, if they HAD come to the conclusion that the damage of getting the wrong guy was negligible, v the kudos for getting the right one, then they'd be feeling pretty sick right now, wouldn't they? What with the Met's high command on the edge of the precipice...
The bus problem was a consequence of CO19 being assigned to do the stopping under the plan, and Dick's failure to change the plan when it turned out CO19 weren't in place. CO12 could have done the stop after he came out of the flat (this was the plan for ALL people exiting the block), and they could have done it at several points, right up until he went into the station. Dick nearly let them in the last minutes, but then countermanded, as she heard CO19 were arriving. Then they shot him.
The communications systems and structures also contributed, as central control didn't get full information and made decisions based on Chinese whispers. That's a Met issue rather than a Dick one, IMO. A local commander could have reacted tactically, and could have let CO12 act when they realised the plan wasn't working because CO19 wasn't there.
It's certainly possible that decisions are made based on information we don't know about, but as I said in the article it seems odd that any such information never results in convictions beyond the primary offender and their immediate circles.
It also seems significant to me that so much of what we do get to hear about is demonstrably faulty. The police briefings to the press at the time of the Forest Gate raid for example described a device that was clearly impossible, the claims for the capabilities of the 21 July bombs were quite obviously skewed (as built, they could not have gone off, finish), and the limo bomb and liquid bombs were clearly ridiculous.
So if what I do see is guff, what do I deduce about what I don't see?
As I recall the French Resistance nearly did get banned as part of the Blair knee-jerk reaction to the July bombings. There was a bizarre consultation document with a very short consultation period (Blair goes on holiday for August, Charlie Clarke gets to clear up the crap).
This proposed several wacko things. The net effects of the early proposals would have included the outlawing of all resistance movements in modern history and, as far as I could see, would have accidentally categorised the attack on Iraq as terrorism. I'm afraid I've mislaid the document, but I'm sure it outlawed any attempt to overthrow a government by violence. The American War of Independence came well before the cut-off date though, so George Washington was cool.
You've lost your native pessimism, then? (-: No.
You're only exempt from whatever it is they'll get up to with the GRO records for as long as IPS doesn't get its hands on the General Registry Office for Scotland. You're not exempt from biometric passports anyway, and in the event of them carrying on with the whole scheme as originally planned, passport renewal beyond the date when they make ID cards compulsory will automatically get you onto the ID Register and hand you a passport.
It is, as I recall, three months. As far as I can see even that's a pretty big loophole, as you could survive indefinitely just by nipping out of the country every now and again. If they know how they're going to handle that one, they have yet to share the information with the rest of us. Rebuilding Hadrian's Wall would be interesting, as it would involve the English giving us back Berwick. Took their time about that one - can we have the Isle of Man back too, then? (-:
I suppose there IS a way, in a future black helicopter world, where the e-petitions could provide a clear list of dissenters. Say they finally figure out an effective way to verify ID for electronic voting (no, I don't know how you do that either), and then they argued that the weight of the views e-petitions would be substantially increased if this system were used there as well. Then the signatures could be associated with actual IDs and addresses, and personal files could be tagged accordingly. If you ever get an effective way to verify ID for electronic voting, of course, you could do some of that anyway; Should it turn out that our masters are evil Stasi bastards, rather than the upright and well-meaning people they protest they are.
But to do anything that has an effect beyond semi-random buggeration (current state of the nation), you need to be able to build databases that work, so IMO we're perfectly safe, apart from the semi-random buggeration.
BTW, spelling: site = sight. Gotcha. (-:
I have a non-conspiracy theory regarding the bulky jacket. Listening to R5 on the morning of the shooting, I'm fairly sure I heard one of the early reports describe the victim as wearing a "bomber jacket". This used to be a useful and specific description for an item of clothing, frequently a denim jacket, but for obvious reasons it's not one people use much any more. And if it was used in this particular instance, the reporter almost certainly clapped their hand over their mouth the instant the words came out, and the description was hurriedly rewritten. Just a theory.
I fear the Graun may not be feeling particularly guilty. There is currently a substantial amount of advertising spend available in the 'green' publishing sector, and even the most altruistic of publishers will have difficulty avoiding having fivers pressed on them whenever they say the G word. So I expect it's feeling ambivalent, at least. (-:
Happy biker Rich had maybe better enjoy himself while he can, because the intentions of the EU Justice & Home Affairs Council are clear, not least in its own documentation. For internal flights within the Schengen area, some biographical information is already gathered by the airline, and as the EU's own PNR system is implemented and extended, more information will be collected and will, by law, be passed on to the authorities. If and when Europe implements its version of the US ETA system, this will extend (if it follows the US model closely) to 'clear to fly' permission being granted by the authorities prior to departure.
There is no need for a passport in any of that, and it is all being planned fro implementation within the Schengen area. An EU standard machine readable ID card might play a part in subsequent systems, but that's probably some way off yet.
Whatever, don't go kidding yourself it's all cool freedom of movement in Schengen and Stasi City in the UK. Mind you, I accept it may take them a while longer to start keeping track of the bikers. Anybody for satellite vehicle tracking and ID?
John Lettice
PS Martin - They are doing checks on passports on Eurostar now. Last time I came through Paris the UK team stationed there was even giving non-EU passport holders a hard time. Don't know if that was an isolated attack of zeal or the new standard approach to encouraging tourism...
For those of you who're puzzled by the large quantity of kit the police dealt with - these were as I understand it computers, phones etc which were investigated in association with the investigation. They'd have come from more places than just the one house. Three other people, including two relations, were arrested and then released in April 2006. They'd have owned some of the gear.
John Lettice
Historically voting in the UK has been functionally, but not technically, anonymous. The number on the ballot paper, as Jon points out, can be linked to the details of the voter. However, because all of the records have been paper it would in the past have been entirely impractical to snoop on large numbers of people's voting habits, and a bit silly to go to the effort of finding out the preferences of small numbers of selected individuals.
So the record could be used to investigate allegations of fraudulent voting, but had no real worth for doing anything more sinister. Note however that as voting goes electronic the logistical impediments to snooping cease to apply. Ideas-wise, maybe you could call Jon an early adopter. (-:
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2024
