Quote:
Originally Posted by kernow
So if you were in charge of law and order, am I to presume by your post, you wouldn't use the latest technology available to fight crime?
|
For god sake kernow, when have the government ever been interested in "fighting crime" ?
If they wanted to restore law and order they would move their resources away from fining motorists for traffic offences and into solving burglaries and other serious crimes.
Try phoning up the police when you're burgled and see how long it takes them to respond.
Then do the same for a "potential terrorist" or traffic offender and they'll be there within minutes.
Also if CCTV is not reducing crime(see supporting article on this forum) then why is there a push to implement even more surveillence ?
The answer is obvious - it's not about keeping down crime as people are being victimized for petty crimes more than ever before.
It's about surveillance of the civil popluation - you may want to think of why that is.
But if you think the powers that be would spend a fortune to tackle petty crime you need a big reality check.
As the article says it is "to counter terrorism".
What does that mean ?
it's not Al CIAda they're after because terrorism is a hugely overhyped con used to make the public accept the removal of their liberties.
It's about keeping track of "terrorists"(i.e. everyone including you and me) within the civil population.
Why do you think 1/2 million innocent people have been placed on the DNA database at an ever increasing rate ?
Why do you think they're racing to shut down the internet ?
It's about
control of the population, so when the **** hits the proverbial fan(and it will but I hope I'm wrong), they will have the necessary control grid in place to counter the backlash from the population.