It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

NEWS: National Database For Violent And Sex Offenders

page: 1
7

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 18 2005 @ 08:20 PM
link   
A £10 million (US$17.9 million) national police database is to be implemented next year. The database will initially hold the personal details of 47,000 violent and sex offenders including their addresses, photos and distinguishing marks. The database controversially contains people who have not been convicted of any crime but are considered a danger to the public. The database is still being updated and is expected to expand past 200,000 records according to the Home Office.
 



news.bbc.co.uk
A computer system allowing police to share details of dangerous offenders is to be unveiled by the Home Office.

The £10m Violent and Sex Offenders Register (Visor) is intended to help reduce re-offending and contains information on 47,000 people.

It controversially includes details on people who have not been convicted, but are still considered a public danger.

Minister Fiona Mactaggart said Visor could help reduce crime and was "a step change in public protection".


Please visit the link provided for the complete story.


All well and good until the bit about containing the records of people who are not convicted of a crime. Doesnt that raise any eyebrows? Just what exactly constitutes a "danger to the public"? Could anti-war protestors be classed as a danger to the public? I fear that a lack of oversight in this database will allow it to be abused as a wide ranging surveilance tool aimed at all civilians under the auspices of combatting those bereft of sympathy and civil rights denied individuals - pedophiles.

[edit on 18/8/05 by subz]




posted on Aug, 18 2005 @ 08:23 PM
link   
...this worried me.

I place money on the Law Lords removing it, before they allow it to get a strong foot-hold.

You can't keep information on innocent people, in this way. It breaks basic rights we have and especailly if we were proven to be innocent.



posted on Aug, 18 2005 @ 10:07 PM
link   


All well and good until the bit about containing the records of people who are not convicted of a crime. Doesnt that raise any eyebrows? Just what exactly constitutes a "danger to the public"? Could anti-war protestors be classed as a danger to the public?


Everyone here who argued that the government wasn't targeting civilians needs to open their eyes and take a good look around......really now.

We have allowed and tolerated ambiguous terms to head the application and legislation of social 'guidelines' and look what has happened..

...Sexual Offenders?

Sure. Rapists and pedophiles are a social disgrace and there isn't a citizen alive that is disgusted and put out by the thought of those who have demonstrated their deviancy from what we generally hold as acceptable behaviour. Despite my liberal tendency, I would even suggest that this is a positive move.....after all, church mothers and 'decent' folk should be made aware of a 'potential threat'.....

...Violent Offenders?

Potentially valid as well. Who wants to be around someone who is prone to a physical outburst? Who wants to worry about having to keep the peace when all you want to do is get on with a peaceful life?

Well....maybe bartenders for one. Hell, all they are doing is minding their own business pouring drinks that are well known to cause violent behaviour in some of our less controlled citizens. Just because they clean up after the messy drawls of yet another barfight, doesn't mean that they shouldn't have the capacity to know exactly when a 'flagged' offender walks through their door....or better yet....they should know when a so-called 'flagged' individual resides in proximity to their stead..

..just in case.

But let's not stop at bars.....everyone should know where every potential deviant is on the off chance that they have to keep an eye out.....to be a good citizen, you know?

The worst part of this database is the inclusion of those who have not been convicted of a crime, but are considered a "threat."

How do these individuals come under the radar in the first place? Word of mouth? A certain economic class? Certain 'gruff' physical charachteristics? Really......intelligence spotting and classifing an alleged terrorist is all well and good, but what of people who vocalize their opposition to government logic? As defined by the ambiguous parameters, these folks could be construed as having the potential for violence......where does it end?

Probably won't. And consider this....they now have admitted the capacity to compile a database.......and they have admitted to the desire of keeping one. Who's to say that they don't already have one....credit reports aren't the only thing interesting about the everyday joe.....

I'm willing to place money, a sizable bet, that there is a file on yours truly........and not for the two reasons suggested above....

[edit on 18-8-2005 by MemoryShock]



posted on Aug, 19 2005 @ 12:13 AM
link   
I found it interesting that someone states information will be available on those who have not yet been convicted. I guess this is a list of who to work on convicting then sort of like a hit list for the police. The police probably will think this is ok in my opinion because I believe some police already make up their own hit lists of people they want to go after. Too bad the police are going to be busy looking for non violent sexual people instead of going after terrorists who might be planning on killing and maiming us.



posted on Aug, 19 2005 @ 05:46 AM
link   
Big Brother rears its ugly little head again. The news today said that experts can't really decide what to do with those names that come up 'accidently' on the system. This apparantly seems to be a major drawback. For anyone who has ever been on the wrong side of a computerised list this could be a nightmare.



posted on Aug, 19 2005 @ 07:24 AM
link   
Its a receipe for disaster if you ask me.

What I cant get my head around is why police consider people risks but allow them out of jail. The very nature of prison isnt just to "punish" criminals its to remove dangers to society.

Lock them up indefinately if they are such a danger to us.

As regarding the people not convicted of any crime, well thats just a reflection of the pale under belly of this sophisticated police state that Britain has become.

[edit on 19/8/05 by subz]



posted on Aug, 19 2005 @ 10:39 AM
link   

All well and good until the bit about containing the records of people who are not convicted of a crime. Doesnt that raise any eyebrows? Just what exactly constitutes a "danger to the public"? Could anti-war protestors be classed as a danger to the public

Only if they are molesting children or raping people. This is a sex offender list. People who are charged with a good amount of evidence, but make a plea to a serve time to a lessor charge or turn evidence against another rapist/molestor/sex offender and avoid a sentence, would still be put on the list.



posted on Aug, 19 2005 @ 12:12 PM
link   
And you know this how Nygdan? It says people who have not been charged with a crime are still on it. Hot button phrases shouldnt be used to justify taking rights away from people who have not been convicted of ANY wrong-doing. This list includes violent offenders, not just sex offenders. That includes bar-room brawls or even the suspicion of having been involved in a fight.

How people find this acceptable is beyond me.



posted on Aug, 20 2005 @ 12:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by Ngydan
Only if they are molesting children or raping people. This is a sex offender list. People who are charged with a good amount of evidence, but make a plea to a serve time to a lessor charge or turn evidence against another rapist/molestor/sex offender and avoid a sentence, would still be put on the list.


That is a fairly lucid account of what would consititute a "not convicted of a crime" inclusion, Nygdan, but I imagine that those who drew up the specs for this were not solely concerned with the connotative list of sex and violence offenders.....

The very amibiguity could extend the definition to all spectrums of society and even include the possibility for 'he said, she said" cases......

Those involved even suggested that there was no immediate recourse for those 'accidentally included'.....

a) How would one accidentally get included?

and

b) How would the inclusion affect the life of someone who doesn't deserve to be there?

Once the damage is done, it can't be undone........who gets to decide what constitutes inclusion under these broad parameters? Someone concerned with the status-quo or someone who is academically aware of the many variables involved......my immediate guess is that of the former......which doesn't neccassarily make for a fair and just system, beyond that of these initial admissions of inequality....

[edit on 20-8-2005 by MemoryShock]



posted on Aug, 20 2005 @ 01:42 PM
link   
I remember it being;
"Innocent until proven guilty" with the burden of proof being upon the state.

When did this change?



posted on Aug, 20 2005 @ 01:49 PM
link   
I understand the need to try and track sex offenders to hopefully prevent futher abuses. However, a database like this that has unconvicted folks seems a bit too far and must violate many rights. People can also be wrongly accused thus it is unknow if once you are in the base if you ever come out should the case be overturned. I think the powers at be need to really be careful with such a thing.



posted on Aug, 20 2005 @ 01:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by subz


What I cant get my head around is why police consider people risks but allow them out of jail. The very nature of prison isnt just to "punish" criminals its to remove dangers to society.



[edit on 19/8/05 by subz]


Yup ... and don't forget the correctional aspect a la "Clockwork Orange".



new topics

top topics



 
7

log in

join