Is this the stuff of Stasi Britain?

This morning on BBC Breakfast there was a discussion about Sharon Shoesmith, ex-head of children's services at Haringey Council, who has been speaking to the Guardian about the government's handling of the Baby P case and her own role as the alleged victim of a press "witch-hunt".

Implying that the blame may lie elsewhere, a guest on the programme asked (I paraphrase): "What were the neighbours doing?"

The neighbours?! What have the neighbours got to do with it? Oh, I geddit. In today's Britain "the neighbours" are expected to double up as the eyes and ears of the state, whether that be the police or social services.

My worry is this. Unlike Neighbourhood Watch, which is concerned with general security, "What were the neighbours doing?" suggests a society in which people are peering round curtains, looking over garden walls, listening to conversations and generally poking their noses into other people's private business.

The Baby P case is (I hope) exceptional. If the neighbours had become aware of what was going on I agree they should have reported it. But it was not their job to be looking out for Baby P. There's a difference. And if social services - and the baby's GP - hadn't noticed anything seriously untoward (despite having direct access to the child), why should the neighbours have presumed otherwise?

If we accept that "the neighbours" are partially to blame for what happened to Baby P, what is the next logical step? Will "the neighbours" be asked to snitch on every Tom, Dick and Harry who smokes in front of his children, arrives home "drunk" from the pub, exceeds the speed limit, or expresses politically incorrect views in public bars or, God forbid, his own home?

Stasi Britain. Coming soon to a neighbourhood near you.

Update on Saturday, February 7, 2009 by Simon Clark

Mark Lawson has THIS to say about surveillance and snitches in today's Guardian.

Thanks, but no thanks

Is it just me or is there something rather spooky about this email which (I think) is trying to sell me a mobile phone:

Dear Simon,

I hope you don't mind, but I wanted to send you this e-mail regarding a brand new product we've developed that could be of massive benefit to the Freedom Organisation for the Right to Enjoy Smoking Tobacco.

Via our secure website you can view the live location and history of your people's movements, minute by minute across the UK & Europe. Other benefits of the phone are:

• The time your employee spent at a customer's site
• Whether they went to site at all
• What time they arrived
• General visibility of your vehicles and people
• Validating overtime claims
• Monitoring vehicle speed
• Performance monitoring

Our customers think our product is fantastic! It operates just like vehicle tracking but without most of the downsides and a lot more on top. It's a communication and navigation tool for your staff, with covert live tracking built in.

"Covert live tracking"? I think I'll give it a miss.

Just fancy that!

"CCTV boom has failed to slash crime ... Massive investment in CCTV cameras to prevent crime in the UK has failed to have a significant impact, despite billions of pounds spent on the new technology."

According to Detective Chief Inspector Mick Neville, who runs the Visual Images, Idenitifcations and Detections Office, CCTV has been an "utter fiasco" and only three per cent of crimes have been solved by CCTV.

Full story HERE in today's Guardian.

Speaking honestly

One of the great pleasures of Saturday morning is reading the papers, in the conservatory, with a mug of coffee in one hand and a Belgian bun in the other. I particularly enjoy the Daily Telegraph's Motoring section, especially Honest John ("the dealer you can trust") whose views on speed cameras, speed bumps and other motoring issues mirror my own.

Today, in response to a reader's query, HJ writes:

With a security camera for every 14 people, ours is the most watched nation on earth. Town-centre security cameras, allegedly installed for our protection, are now being used to extract penalty payments for the most minor transgressions. And in relation to vehicle owners, the Data Protection Act has been torn up so that anyone can get hold of our personal details to impose and enforce civil penalties. Britain has become a really nasty country.

Honest John's personal website can be found HERE. Warmly recommended.

A very British disease

If you think surveillance cameras, listening devices and so on are a worldwide phenomenon, read today's main feature on The Free Society blog. Last weekend Dr Eamonn Butler, director of the Adam Smith Institute,  took some American relatives to Ely Cathedral. On the way, he writes, they passed through an ‘average speed check’ system.

Our car was photographed at the beginning and the end, and our registration number logged by number-recognition software ... So the authorities knew exactly where we all were, and when. And we would not have escaped scrutiny by going on the train or by bus, because they all have surveillance cameras too. And if we had walked, we would probably have shown up on at least two dozen of the four million CCTV cameras around Britain.

Once inside the cathedral they were asked, quite reasonably, for a donation. Eamonn was asked if he would like it to qualify for gift aid.

I gave my postcode and house number, and in an instant my name and those of my family flashed up on the teller’s screen. My US relatives were shocked that we should be so minutely catalogued and easily accessible. Given the incongruity of this high-tech intrusion happening in an eleventh-century stone vaulted cathedral porch, I must say I was surprised too.

Full article HERE. Comments welcome.

Watching them watching us

The Daily Telegraph has an interesting leader today on the subject of surveillance cameras (click HERE). It quotes the Information Commissioner Richard Thomas who spoke with great eloquence on Radio Five Live yesterday before giving evidence to the Home Affairs Select Committee. According to Thomas, Britain is sleepwalking into a "surveillance society". I couldn't agree more. Our concern puts us in a small minority however because - as the Telegraph points out - CCTV cameras (many of which may soon be fitted with microphones so small you won't be able to see them) are largely popular with the general public which sees them as a reassuring presence rather than a threat to our civil liberties.

The usual response - "If you've done nothing wrong you've nothing to worry about" - won't do. I am not against the use of surveillance cameras in moderation but I object strongly to the idea that there may come a day when I won't even be able to pick my nose (not yet a criminal offence) without being monitored by an eye in the sky. As with speed cameras, there must be a limit to the number of CCTV cameras and local authorities must be forced to justify their installation without taking our support for granted.

Meanwhile it is our job to convince a compliant public that excessive use of rules, regulations and technology to control and monitor our behaviour is fundamentally wrong. Freedom has its limits - as does Big Government. Where to draw the line is a thorny issue, but draw a line we must.

Freedom and its (speed) limits

"Speeding is endemic in Britain with around half the country's motorists regularly flouting the limit, according to figures released by the Department for Transport yesterday" (Daily Telegraph, April 6th). Only half? That beggars belief. Drive on any motorway in Britain and most drivers exceed the limit on a regular basis. And why not? Many of our current speed limits were set in the 1960s when the average family saloon struggled to go much faster than 70mph. (Even in the 80s my first 'proper' car, a sky blue Mini Metro, felt as if it was about to take off if I put my foot down and went anywhere above 80.) Braking distances are much improved too.

Now, I don't condone speeding in built up areas. On motorways, however, the national speed limit (70mph) is frankly ridiculous. Speed limits should be set in accordance with road conditions. Just as I expect to reduce my speed significantly through contraflows and roadworks, or in driving rain and fog, why can't I drive my Porsche (just joking!) at 100mph or more through Cumbria on a dry, deserted M6 at two o'clock in the morning?

These days we are bombarded with all sorts of electronic messages on overhead gantries: 'Long delays ahead', 'Don't drink and drive' etc etc. Why can't the same message boards be used to advise us of changes to the speed limit? The London Orbital (aka the M25) does this. However their definition of flexible is always down, never up. Instead of using technology to liberate us, it is used to restrict our freedoms.

There was talk, before the last election, that the Tories would increase the speed limit on motorways to 80mph. At least one police force was said to be in favour. Sadly, in Dave Cameron's brave new world, the idea has disappeared without trace. Most people understand the need for restrictions in a small, crowded island, but there has to be a great deal more give and take. In their eagerness to legislate and dictate, politicians have forgotten the need to treat the majority of us in accordance with what we are - responsible adults.