Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

Spy-in-the-sky drones to patrol Britain's shores for terrorists, smugglers and illegal immigrants

page: 1
3
<<   2 >>

log in

join

posted on Aug, 12 2012 @ 04:55 AM
link   

Spy-in-the-sky drones to patrol Britain's shores for terrorists, smugglers and illegal immigrants


www.dailymail.c o.uk

Unmanned spy drones could patrol Britain’s shores looking for illegal immigrants and smugglers after a series of high-level meetings in Brussels, The Mail on Sunday has learned.

The European Commission aims to spend £260 million on its ‘Eurosur’ project, which includes a plan for surveillance drones to patrol the Mediterranean coast.

At the same time, several schemes are under way in Britain, aiming to develop civilian roles for aircraft based on the killer drones hunting Al Qaeda terrorists
(visit the link for the full news article)


Related News Links:
www.rt.com
www.globalpost.com




posted on Aug, 12 2012 @ 04:55 AM
link   
It seems they are finally admitting their plans to have spy drones over the towns and cities of Britain. What makes this more disgusting is that it is an EU plan, being forced upon the states held hostage by this German financial empire.

The article claims it is to target smugglers and illegals, I wonder what they will REALLY be used for. I have a feeling they will be used to target the inevitable dissent that will occur once the EU collapses and takes entire nation states with it.



www.dailymail.c o.uk
(visit the link for the full news article)



posted on Aug, 12 2012 @ 05:06 AM
link   
reply to post by binkman
 


How is it any different to the plethora of RAF maritime patrol aircraft, police helicopters, coastguard aircraft, vessels and radar, the Navy and other devices we've had for years?

It isn't, just Daily Mail hype coupled with a good dose of ATS paranoia.

If anything, it's cheaper..



posted on Aug, 12 2012 @ 05:24 AM
link   

Originally posted by binkman

The article claims it is to target smugglers and illegals, I wonder what they will REALLY be used for.



Targeting smugglers and illegals, probably.



posted on Aug, 12 2012 @ 05:26 AM
link   
We already have roaming sea patrols and more cameras in our town and cities than we know what to do with adding a few drones to the mix wouldn't really make much of a difference. Plus as the post above mentions.... it's the daily mail... i wouldnt be suprised if they announced that watching the olymipcs causes cancer.



posted on Aug, 12 2012 @ 05:27 AM
link   
If you don´t like the daily mail, use one of the other news links. Ignoring the topic because of one link is absolutely stupid and outrageous.



posted on Aug, 12 2012 @ 05:36 AM
link   
had to laugh at the to find illegals bit.even when they catch them at present they set them free again on the condition they report to a police station once a week.then they disappear again.if they do hold them they claim it's their human rights to live here due to having pets,family etc.this is all payed for by us right down to filling their belly.I doubt this has anything to do with smuggling either.



posted on Aug, 12 2012 @ 05:57 AM
link   
reply to post by binkman
 


It isn't the Mail I have an issue with, but your spin.

Explain how these drones are any different than the myriad of other "surveillance" systems we have had for years. When you do, also explain why we haven't been plunged into a Police state already...



posted on Aug, 12 2012 @ 05:59 AM
link   

Originally posted by stumason
reply to post by binkman
 


It isn't the Mail I have an issue with, but your spin.

Explain how these drones are any different than the myriad of other "surveillance" systems we have had for years. When you do, also explain why we haven't been plunged into a Police state already...


Yeah OK whatever you say.

Mods close this topic down, clearly people don´t want a constructive discussion/



posted on Aug, 12 2012 @ 06:02 AM
link   
There's a few problems with this. Firstly, 'function creep' is a serious and genuine concern in British politics. Look how various terrorism measures were hijacked and misused by various councils (of all political creeds) under New Labour*. Powers aimed at preventing terrorists were used to spy on parents applying for school places &c. If a politician sees a new 'toy', the first things they want to do know is can they also do 'x, y and z' with it.

Whilst the majority of CCTV is privately owned (shopping centres and the like - although there's an important argument to be made about the horror that is the 'privatisation of public spaces', which is worth googling if you're not familiar with it) and not state-generated like many on here think, these new drones above what is meant to be public spaces are only a hop, skip and a jump away from what we've already been conditioned to accept as 'normal'. Where I live, there are mobile police camera units (mounted on vans) as an almost daily occurrence. Drones are the next branch on this particular 'technology tree' and will be a replacement for both police helicopters as well as the aforementioned vans. Why fix CCTV to walls and roofs when a drone can follow people up streets and go where vans can't go and get lower than a helicopter?

Drones really aren't the solution for the problem they'll be sold as solving. We're seeing massive cuts in police, coast guards, immigration services etc., and these will be proffered as a cheap way of addressing various needs and shortfalls. However, unmanned drones, by their very definition are unmanned: there's no people there. Smugglers? Illegal immigrants? A drone on its own is as good as an old woman in air-balloon. Drones will always need men on the ground as back up or to act on what the drones are reporting. As such drones will never match the savings politicians and private companies will inevitably claim.

Also, what's the point anyway? What are the drones meant to prevent? Any group effort with France is pointless as they rely on pushing immigrants through France into Britain. Immigration and asylum policies in Britain are a joke to begin with and certainly not helped by the EU. So an expensive EU joint-operation to (superficially) rectify problems partially caused by the EU in the first place seems madness from where I'm standing.

A radical over-haul of immigration policies would stop a lot of this. Building super-prisons for people/drug traffickers (with 'life means life' sentences) would 'sort' out what the immigration policies couldn't. No need for drones recording public protests or filming you walking home at night (you know, 'just in case', what with you dressing a bit funny or having the 'wrong' colour skin).




*like most sane people, I was against all of New Labour's authoritarian measures. However, before this gets into partisan 'ZaNuLieBore' territory, it's important to point out that Tory protestations about New Labour Big Brother schemes were a sham and they're intent on going down that same path themselves.



posted on Aug, 12 2012 @ 06:10 AM
link   

Originally posted by stumason
reply to post by binkman
 


It isn't the Mail I have an issue with, but your spin.

Explain how these drones are any different than the myriad of other "surveillance" systems we have had for years. When you do, also explain why we haven't been plunged into a Police state already...


Stu, you appear to be basing your view point that the kind of surveillance we've had for years is acceptable or even has a point to it. When most of the press (on all political compass points) have said that CCTV doesn't really work (in terms of prevention) then something is wrong. There may be an argument that CCTV provides evidence to make arrests and prosecutions but even that's a bit wonky.



posted on Aug, 12 2012 @ 06:16 AM
link   
reply to post by Merriman Weir
 


totally agree,I said it in a thread the other day that whether you vote Labour,Liberal or Conservative,you get the same.The young generation think this is normal(cameras,spying etc.)makes sure the future population raise no objections,almost like brainwashing for the masses.



posted on Aug, 12 2012 @ 06:20 AM
link   
reply to post by binkman
 


How come if anyone dissents with an opinion, people get shirty?

I asked a constructive question.. You dismissed it out of hand, but Merriman actually went into some detail with his/her response.. That's a constructive "debate", not you getting you panties in a bunch...



posted on Aug, 12 2012 @ 06:24 AM
link   
reply to post by Merriman Weir
 


I'd agree that CCTV has little impact on crime prevention, but it has a huge impact on evidence after the fact, so it is an awesome tool in crime detection and prosecution.

Jamie Bulger is a good case to look at. Without CCTV, those sick little buggers may never have been caught. There are plenty of others I could rattle off, many street murders are solved by a combination of eye witnesses and CCTV evidence. There was only a case in court last week where the defendant was up on a stabbing charge and despite him pleading not guilty, the CCTV proved beyond a doubt it was him. Same with the riots etc...

It has a use, but I do agree with your premise of "feature creep".



posted on Aug, 12 2012 @ 07:05 AM
link   

Originally posted by binkman


It seems they are finally admitting their plans to have spy drones over the towns and cities of Britain.


Shore, it says SHORES. Not that it matters london is pretty much covered with cameras i doubt that a drone would really make a difference.


What makes this more disgusting is that it is an EU plan, being forced upon the states held hostage by this German financial empire.

Wait wut? They have been crazy with security over there for a while.



The article claims it is to target smugglers and illegals, I wonder what they will REALLY be used for. I have a feeling they will be used to target the inevitable dissent that will occur once the EU collapses and takes entire nation states with it.

smugglers and illegals? Or the giant uprising of angry citizens from the sea?



www.dailymail.c o.uk
(visit the link for the full news article)



posted on Aug, 12 2012 @ 07:13 AM
link   

Originally posted by stumason
reply to post by Merriman Weir
 


I'd agree that CCTV has little impact on crime prevention, but it has a huge impact on evidence after the fact, so it is an awesome tool in crime detection and prosecution.

Jamie Bulger is a good case to look at. Without CCTV, those sick little buggers may never have been caught. There are plenty of others I could rattle off, many street murders are solved by a combination of eye witnesses and CCTV evidence. There was only a case in court last week where the defendant was up on a stabbing charge and despite him pleading not guilty, the CCTV proved beyond a doubt it was him. Same with the riots etc...

It has a use, but I do agree with your premise of "feature creep".


CCTV doesn't work in preventing crime. Crime still happens and I'm not convinced that they make anyone feel 'safer' from crime - if anything, the latter, particularly in city/town centres where there's a concentration of surveillance. Yeah, it's nice to know that it might help your rapist get caught, but most people would rather they weren't raped in the first place and any conviction is, by very definition, a bit of a wooden spoon prize.

Again, CCTV didn't stop riots, even after years of people growing accustomed to them watching them on the streets. Securing convictions? How much of it relies on real people as eye witness to back it up.

One of the big issues with CCTV is that in many cases (think of the % of offences committed under the influence of drink/drugs) people under influence (and maybe this includes influenced by adrenalin or 'mob frenzy') don't really care about being seen at all. They're not thinking straight or rationally to begin with and CCTV is no real deterrent.

You know the adverts on TV for kitchen roll? How they're good at mopping-up mess? That's CCTV, that is.



posted on Aug, 12 2012 @ 07:14 AM
link   

Originally posted by Superhans
Or the giant uprising of angry citizens from the sea?


Single best sentence I've read on ATS in a long time.



posted on Aug, 12 2012 @ 07:37 AM
link   
reply to post by Merriman Weir
 


Totally agree with the bulk of what you're saying, but I'd rather a rapist/murderer be caught than not. Without the CCTV or what have you, the rape/murder etc would still happen but no-one would know anything about it, aside from eye witnesses which are somewhat unreliable...

Unless you can come up with a foolproof way to stop crime happening at all (Justice field, anyone? :lol
it will always happen. I'd rather the buggers be caught than not.

I suppose I have a personal bias towards this as I was bottled once outside a club, didn't see who specifically did it, then got into a scrap with the group of them and they legged it. I had no idea who attacked me, but on reviewing CCTV inside and outside the club, the perps were caught.



posted on Aug, 12 2012 @ 08:00 AM
link   

Originally posted by stumason
reply to post by Merriman Weir
 


Totally agree with the bulk of what you're saying, but I'd rather a rapist/murderer be caught than not. Without the CCTV or what have you, the rape/murder etc would still happen but no-one would know anything about it, aside from eye witnesses which are somewhat unreliable...

Unless you can come up with a foolproof way to stop crime happening at all (Justice field, anyone? :lol
it will always happen. I'd rather the buggers be caught than not.

I suppose I have a personal bias towards this as I was bottled once outside a club, didn't see who specifically did it, then got into a scrap with the group of them and they legged it. I had no idea who attacked me, but on reviewing CCTV inside and outside the club, the perps were caught.


Many people are attacked on camera, Stu. Even with CCTV they're not necessarily caught. Even with CCTV (and mobile phone cameras, eye witnesses &c.) it doesn't mean there'll be a conviction. Something like 1 in 7 or 1 in 8 crimes committed on camera end up on prosecution.

To add my own personal bias, purely out of balance, my girlfriend was assaulted 3 times in as many years less than 200 yards from my flat. Each time it happened on CCTV.

It really make me question the cost of CCTV, both literal and metaphorical.



posted on Aug, 12 2012 @ 08:09 AM
link   
reply to post by Merriman Weir
 


I think this is one where we could back and forth for quite some time without reaching a clear cut answer. I agree, in an ideal world, I'd do away with such devices. Thing is, we don't and it's hard to quantify prosecution rates as we all know there is always more than just CCTV evidence in most trials, it's just another tool in the box.

Anyhoo, I fear we may have strayed somewhat OT... Maritime patrol aircraft, helicopters and boats have, for a long time, been very useful in catching smugglers. If these are used in the same manner as manned aircraft are in that role, I see no issue. There is a "need" for it and it works.

I understand what you're saying about feature creep though, but the Police already float about in there choppers looking for anyone with a slightly warmer than usual roof..






top topics



 
3
<<   2 >>

log in

join