London Police Deploy Facial Recognition at Protest for First Time

What you need is something like being able to search all of the cameras from a wide area which contain a bike and x color hoodie so you can follow the person back to some other location that identifies them further. This is the part that's missing in most cities. It could be done manually, and it would be if it was a very serious crime like terrorism, but for normal theft it isn't worth the time. The tech does exist now though.

1. The odds of the actual bike itself being covered by CCTV during the theft is pretty slim. Nearby? Sure, but probably not recording the offence. Then unless you're got a precise time window/know where the thief went, you're stuck watching hours of footage hoping to spot the right bike.

2. Even if you do get a clear, high quality facial picture of the thief, you have no magic way of figuring out who that is. You essentially email it to all the local cops and hope someone's recognises them.

The result is your bike theft turns into quite a big investigate, with a sub 5% likelihood of a position outcome.

well, I guess you can always try moving there. It's my suspicion that more people move from China to the UK than the other way around. Why is that? Maybe they haven't heard the news about it being a terrible place.

I get it though. As other posters have said, various British police forces seem to get ahead of themselves and then have to climb back off their hill when confronted with skeptical press [remind me, do you get much skeptical press in China?] and although I do not greatly care for the marchers who carry pictures of ultralights (because yeah! Kill civilians!!) I don't think the people who are nearby and telling us that bombing civilians is wrong (hint: bombing civilians is wrong) should be penalized for doing so. The courts and the electorate will have their say, and (slowly) grind any disagreeing gov't into a policy change. As it should be.

That said, while I would like to respectfully disagree with your statement, I can't because, well, because it's stupid. It's a stupid thing to say. You should reflect more before you type.

There's a reason you choose to do this during a political protest.

Also, you included a bunch of gambling and tax debts for some reason? Do you think that they are justified because he, and the people who join him, will be publicly avoiding taxes and bookies?

edit: It's also important to note that in the 15th year of future Reform rule, when a "reformed" Tommy Robinson is appointed Home Secretary, he will entirely support drones doing facial recognition during protests. How else are you supposed to catch the anti-Semites?

In the US, the constitutional amendment banning slavery makes an exception for people in prison; you can guess who gets imprisoned. I've read (can't confirm) that in the 1970s, Nixon's criminalization marijuana was intended for oppressing black people and left-wingers, who were the predominant users of it. Since then the US has used mass incarceration, partly a result of that War on Drugs policy. Also, long post-release probation periods are also used to control people; look up the rapper Meek Mill, for example. Most recently, authorities in many countries have found many reasons to arrest left-wing protestors such as pro-Palestinian activists, sometimes applying very serious charges.

I'm not writing here in favor of the causes Tommy Robinson, Reform UK, left-wingers, or pro-Palestinian protestors. I'm writing about freedom; we've long known that if you can take it from some, you can take it from anybody.

How do you allow the surveillance of the entire Tommy Robinson protest, or even just Robinson, and yet protect freedom? Are our freedoms lost forever if we are convicted once?

I don't think it is, for many reasons. One is most "violent convictions" are in fact bullshit; at least here in France it's very common to get condemned for violence against officers of the law (« violences sur PDAP ») despite ample video evidence of the contrary (i.e. being assaulted by the cops).

Another one is unlike protective measures against harassment and in-person violence, which are meant to keep a person's physical/mental peace, who do we protect by pre-preventing someone from protesting? If a person effectively assaults someone, then let them get condemned for that crime. How is it acceptable for an administration to decide that someone is going to commit a crime in the future?

Likewise, facial recognition is wrong for many reasons. Not only because it's many times wrong in its assessments, making innocent people face severe consequences. But also because in the cases when it's right, it's gonna be used against do-gooders, just like every power given to the State.

Two examples from here in France: the laws about dissolving non-profits were invented in the 30s against fascist militias, however in the next years (even before the war) they were used against anti-colonial/anti-racist leagues. They've been used again lately against ecological and antifascist groups. Likewise, the laws about "associations de malfaiteurs" designed to help combat the mafia have in fact been used and abused to imprison activist groups.

There's your answer.

That’s very common, yes.

The same one that threatening concentration camps in areas that don't vote for them? https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c362e9p385yo

Farage is not the most extreme in his party. Sadly.

If they turned violent, or deliberately intimidated people, then yes.

Under UK law if they said certain things that are considered hate speech laws, then again yes.

There are also laws around protests (where and when, legal mechanisms of bans, orders banning particular individuals from particular actions) so if anyone breached those, again, yes.

I assume the £5m did not come with similar strings attached.

The Green Party is now a lot more racist. Have you not read of the comments coming out of people withing the party, particularly its newly elected local councillors?

IMO Labour are more subtle, but are as racist as Reform. They use race to attack politicians in other parties - they portray non-white Conservatives as race traitors, for example. They have a white saviour outlook, and stereotype and condescend us poor inferior groups: remember the Labour MP who said James Cleverly was not properly black because his family are affluent.

https://www.met.police.uk/foi-ai/metropolitan-police/disclos...

His last protest was in september, it was pretty violent. 26 police officers were injured.

Tommy robison has the advantage here in that its not illegal to express public support for him and his march, unlike palestine action where its very much illegal to do so (hence why there are >2000 arrests)

> they have banned 11 people from getting visas because they were "agitators"

if this is a march for uniting the british realm why would he need foreigners to speak? Last time Musk incited violent overthrow of the UK government. Which is rich coming from a fucking Afrikaner.

> we have people turning up illegally who are carrying out terrorist attacks in the UK regularly...it is a very odd situation.

Nice I see what you did there. Everyone immigrant is a terrorist. Look, if people turn up illegally, then its fair to process them fairly and return. There is nothing wrong with that. What is wrong is changing the law so its impossible to do that, unless we pay £300k a year to send 4000 people to an african country. yes, just 4k people, not a year, total.

The biggest issue facing the UK is that we have not had a working government since 2007.

We also have foreigners people paying people £300 to fire bomb ambulance stations. Its almost like theres a vested interest in fomenting unrest...