So, no photo taken on the day of the knock then? Devices taken away but no arrest and no interview at the police station, prior to being charged?

It seems like another thing they're just running with, even though that ruling from the Ed Bridges case seems pretty clear.

"All deployments must be for a policing purpose and be necessary, proportionate, and fair. "

 They will of course mark their own homework when it comes to this, I presume?

My mugshot and fingerprint was taken about a year after sentencing. I was given a few weeks to show up to have it done, so I grew a beard and changed my hair for it, haha. I didn't have any DNA taken either.
Coincidentally, I did ask the officer who was dealing with me that day why I'd all of a sudden been hauled in to get the photo done and if it was anything to do with a facial recognition database. It was kind of in jest but there had been something in the news about FR not long before. He said no. Hmm.

=====
Fighting or Accepting - its difficult to know which is right and when.

There is info out there on the following pages.

https://bigbrotherwatch.org.uk/2023/08/a-guide-to-facial-recognition-at-protests/
https://www.libertyhumanrights.org.uk/issue/what-is-police-facial-recognition-and-how-do-we-stop-it/#page-section-4
https://www.college.police.uk/app/live-facial-recognition/watchlist
https://www.met.police.uk/advice/advice-and-information/fr/facial-recognition-technology/
https://homeofficemedia.blog.gov.uk/2023/10/29/police-use-of-facial-recognition-factsheet/

The watchlists appear to be compiled at relatively short notice, just 24 hrs before it is to be used, to ensure it contains current up to date images and so therefore it has a limited shelf life. After a while, the images on it become out of date and are no use anymore. As for whether they have to tell you, they have powers already to use your image on the PNC for any future investigations, along with your dna and fingerprints.

Labels providing a means to an end. Sigh.

As you’ve suggested the actual reality of this being followed through is unlikely. Especially with SHPOs, I don’t recall hearing any ‘don’t go to gigs’ clauses. Or shall we meander down the ‘what if’ pathway when it comes to ‘contact’.

"There's been a lot of misunderstanding thinking that images are captured and kept - they're not," he said. "The only image that is retained is of an individual who's identified as being one of the people you're looking for."

The point is you have to have a specific reason to be looking for someone. If someone is wanted, why would they go to a Beyonce gig?! The atrocity in Manchester happened after the concert had ended and he didn't 'go to the gig' as it were. The fact is MI5 / police were too slow to act on that specific rare case, that doesn't give them carte blanche to squeeze another little privacy off us.

If you’re looking for someone who is already being monitored, as we know, they can be visited at any time, go visit them?! This makes no sense. This 80-year-old PCC is just bolting on another label to then later say 'it's normal' to do this. No, it's not normal, at all, liar. What is going to be "normal" next?

What is ‘sensible’ are the rules that already exist about usually under 14/16 or whatever must have an adult with them. I’ve never even heard of any kids being groomed at a gig or whatever and I’ve been to a lot of gigs in my time. The mentioning of Ariana Grande gig is tangential at best, a softening for the general public to blindly agree, but there's no substance here for yet more surveillance.

Two Qs I have, 1) what were the results of the Beyonce gig? For the price of everyone's privacy being violated, what was actually found? Nothing?

2) If my database picture has been shared without my consent and looked at by others (crass irony there), will it be removed when my time is up?

PS. Has anyone actually been told that their photo has been transferred to this new database? Even out of courtesy? Or even asked? I know I haven't.

=====
Fighting or Accepting - its difficult to know which is right and when.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-67360696


A rather worrying development. At a recent Beyonce gig, the police used facial recognition tech to scan the crowd. The logic of doing this, after the Ariana Grande concert, would appear to make sense, but they have expanded the list of potential suspects to include people on the SOR, as well as terrorists.

The PCC, Alun Michael said this:

"The view beforehand was that a watchlist should consist of two sets of individuals," he told MPs."People known to be involved in extremism and terrorism in the light of the Manchester arena bombing - and secondly of paedophiles, because there would be very large numbers of young girls attending that concert."

It's worth noting that the scan does not include everyone on the PNC, it only includes people that are part of a predetermined watchlist. They did not scan the crowd for known drug dealers for example. So how did they select those people for the watchlist? Since its not possible to tell who is a P word and who isn't, because that info is not held anywhere on the police databases, then they must have been using a database of people selected from the PNC who met other criteria.

That raises some more questions. Was everyone on the SOR part of that watchlist, or was it certain offences only? Were they only seeking people who are wanted by the police, e.g. those who were on the SOR but have disappeared, or was it anyone with an SHPO, or was it anyone with an SHPO, who has contact restrictions in their SHPO?

My gut feeling is that they just searched for anyone on the SOR, because they think we are all the same, but would it be people who are currently on the SOR, or anyone who has ever been on the SOR, even if they have now come off it?

There are a lot of unanswered questions. The most concerning of which is what do they do, if they get a match? Do they go in to the gig and arrest the person, or do they wait til afterwards and visit them at home? Do they check the persons SHPO first, to see if they are in breach, because those with online offences only should not have any restrictions on going to gigs (although some will do).

The only comforting thing about this, is that only a handful of high profile gigs are currently being spied on, but the potential for this to be expanded does exist. It's not hard to imagine a time when all gigs will be routinely scanned for people on the SOR. Then they might expand it to include other places where young people congregate, such as cinemas. That will gradually lead to more social isolation, as people will be scared to go anywhere, just in case the venue is being secretly spied on by the police.