The Government Press release

Lots of emotive language used - which you would expect of a government failing in the polls! It is mostly focussed around criminal justice and what I would term 'clickbait' terms.
Key points being:
- 'Horrific murderers' or a murder containing sadistic or sexual conduct will likely be a whole of life term
- Those who conduct rape or sexual crimes will no longer be eligible for early release
- Longer sentences for certain crimes (not based on risk)
- Amending the 'Investigatory Powers Bill'

So, ultimately they are going to lock up more people for longer although the prisons are full. There is almost no mention of what they will do to drive down the causes of crime. And no mention of what they will do to rehabilitate and support ex-criminals post sentence. I'm not surprised.

I've also had a quick look around the amending of the Investigatory Powers Bill and there isn't much I could find. I worry that this may mean perpetual monitoring of certain people for relatively innocuous reasons.

Anyway, it will be intresting to see how this pans out moving forward. In this form the Speech certainly seems to have been targeted at a certain voting demographic 

I believe it's what some parts of the media call "dog whistle" politics.

=========================================================================================================

If you are to punish a man retributively you must injure him. If you are to reform him you must improve him. And men are not improved by injuries. (George Bernard Shaw)

It's unlikely that there will be more monitoring, because the police don't have the resources. The other thing that received less attention, is the presumption in favor of all sentences of under one year being suspended. That might actually bring the numbers of low risk people in prison down, making room for the high risk ones to be held for longer.

Maybe not direct monitoring. I believe monitoring software is used under the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act. It probably wouldn't need much of a change to allow monitoring software to remain after the SHPO and even SOR notification have ended. I doubt there would be much public interest in opposing it, and I certainly can't see His Majesty's Opposition opposing it, either.

=========================================================================================================

If you are to punish a man retributively you must injure him. If you are to reform him you must improve him. And men are not improved by injuries. (George Bernard Shaw)

From my understanding, the idea is to put an emphasis on Tech & Telecoms companies to monitor. If this is the case it would raise questions regarding what data will be shared and with whom. Also, from a moral point of view, will everyone be monitored and what information will be shared and what will trigger the sharing of such information. 

For example, I use a VPN as I use public hotspots (and to watch overseas TV)- would this be reported? Equally, if I was doing some research on a  subject such as the war in Ukraine, or Hamas - would that be required to be passed on? 

Lots of question, but no answers or details.

We know that the internet service providers log all the websites that you visit and they have list of dodgy urls which will trigger a report to the police, if you visit them. So everybody's internet use is already being monitored. VPNs should have a no logs policy, which means they don't keep any records and ideally you should use a VPN that is based in another country, not the UK, because then they cannot be ordered to hand over details of your VPN use to the UK police. 

Also GCHQ monitors all unencrypted email communication for certain keywords. So using words such as 'Hamas' will attract attention. On top of this, other "safeguards" are in place to monitor you, but they tend to be app specific. For example, if you upload a file to dropbox, or snapchat, it will be scanned for anything illegal.

Hi

There is a lot of focus on the "monitoring of ex and current offenders at the moment; one possible reason is that the chances of an election next year are high and all parties want to appear tough!

I think those that do not wish/intend to re-offend should step back and consider how much all the "noise" will affect them. If our control mechanisms are in place, we organize and are aware of potential dangerous scenarios, then why increase our stress levels more.

No one likes restrictions being placed on them but, to endure and so have them not affect us we have to review what we want (wish) and what we need to improve /maintain a quality of life.

I can only hope that the report attached (originally uploaded by Punter99 if memory serves me) and its actions are not ignored in all this. My hope is that the actions can be put into law in the same manner Gove amended Planning Laws recently; very quietly.

My view is that there is possibly only one thing I cannot control (besides death) and that is "societies perception of SO's"




Society suggests I must let go of all my expectations but I disagree, as whilst I have a voice, I have hope.

Learn from yesterday, live for today, hope is for tomorrow else what is left if you remove a mans hope.
------------------------------

This forum supports these words, thank you Unlock and your contributors.