The latest plan was to expand the use of live facial recognition vans in 7 areas. Greater Manchester, West Yorkshire, Bedfordshire, Surrey, Sussex, Thames Valley and Hampshire

At the moment. I suspect they might try insisting on access to council-owned CCTV, or at least float the idea, before they give up as it is not sustainable for the time being, but at least they tried, so they're not being soft on crime. Or criminals.

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

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 what I can see, the proposal is just to take out the word relevant, leaving the judge free to impose whatever they want. The enforcibility would be done mainly by GPS tags. Realistically, there is no way to link facial recognition tech to all CCTV cameras in the country. Most cameras are privately owned, either by councils, or business owners. 

One problem with the current guidance is that it can be changed. If a government decides to take it out of the hands of the courts and apply a restriction across the board, they can do that.The question remains of how enforceable it would be. Of course, a side-effect of that would be allowing the police to use facial recognition on CCTV in public places....

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

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)

Their most silly suggestion, is to drug test people who have no history of substance abuse. Currently they can only use one of these so called ancillary orders if it is "relevant" to the offence. The proposed change means they could be used where its not relevant too, although the guidance actually says they should only be used where "appropriate".

I can't see any court imposing such an order where its not relevant, because they would be open to challenge on the grounds of it being disproportionate. We already have this with SHPOs and things like travel bans. It is an option the court could use, but since most offences do not involve travelling abroad, hardly anyone is banned from doing so.

The media love this kind of story, just like the other one about chemical castration recently, which got the tabloids foaming at the mouth. The readers of these papers get a kick from imagining people being punished and the politicians know that.

Rehabilitation: "Rehabilitation is a matter of restoring the offender's social or moral standing in society or his social or moral relations with others, or fostering the capacities needed for such restoration..."

Nothing says "restoring social standing in society" than ostracising them and banning them from areas to potentially form support groups to help prevent them from re-offending. 

I'm not even sure how they would even begin to police this. I'm very much of the persuasion that if someone is deemed that much of a threat to public that they're not allowed in public spaces like this then they should surely be in prison as opposed to this weird policing setup. 

By all means if someone did something in a specific venue then ban them from that specific venue and possibly that venue chain if it exists (like Wetherspoons for example) but banning all pubs or concerts if they're not related to their offence is stupid and dumb.

Trailed widely in the last couple of days e.g. this report from BBC News, Govt plans to make laws enabling "criminals" to be banned from pubs, concerts, football matches and also create "inclusion zones" i.e. areas within which they will be confined rather than the current exclusion zones).

Common sense would suggest "criminals" will cover those serving community sentences or currently out on licence, but common sense and criminal justice being rare bedfellows, hands up who thinks the  measures will soon enough be extended to anyone with an unspent conviction?