Mr Prime Posted March 3, 2011 Share Posted March 3, 2011 Everyone on the sex offenders register should be tagged. Fascistic? Fairer than throwing away the key forever. Anyone who the Jobcentre has been seeing for years who they know is a timewaster on an individual basis should be tagged. When it keeps reporting their location as Wetherspoons then they can have their cash slashed. Outrageous! The muesli brigade will wail. Why? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kaimani Posted March 3, 2011 Share Posted March 3, 2011 Everyone on the sex offenders register should be tagged. Fascistic? Fairer than throwing away the key forever. Anyone who the Jobcentre has been seeing for years who they know is a timewaster on an individual basis should be tagged. When it keeps reporting their location as Wetherspoons then they can have their cash slashed. Outrageous! The muesli brigade will wail. Why? what if the tag doesn't report their location as wetherspoons all the time? does that mean they not drinking? what would tagging a sex offender acheive? you'd know where they are but not what they're doing. and, how much would it cost to keep an eye on someone just so we can 'slash' htheir cash by a few pounds? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
manofstrad Posted March 3, 2011 Author Share Posted March 3, 2011 Everyone on the sex offenders register should be tagged. Fascistic? Fairer than throwing away the key forever. Anyone who the Jobcentre has been seeing for years who they know is a timewaster on an individual basis should be tagged. When it keeps reporting their location as Wetherspoons then they can have their cash slashed. Outrageous! The muesli brigade will wail. Why? I like your way of thinking. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rupert_Baehr Posted March 3, 2011 Share Posted March 3, 2011 they'd know where you are ALL the time. and it'd need to send info to them too. pulse rate etc otherwise they might still be too late. so your pulse goes too high you might be having a heart attack or you might be, er, let's say jogging. but they'd know. Not quite - they would have the ability to find out where you are all of the time - which is slightly different from knowing where you are. (Actually, the device I'm thinking of already exists - and has done for some years. It's called SARBE and I carried one for many years. [They're a bit too expensive (for me) to consider for private use]) I can understand that people might be apprehensive about the fact that 'they' could find you at any time, but it's only not paranoia if they really are out to get you and given the number of people in Germany (where I am at the moment) they'd probably need a pretty good reason to bother looking, because - as you noted in the post below - 'how much would it cost to keep an eye on someone?' I was in Garmisch-Partenkirchen an hour ago [in a controlled area] and now I'm back in Oberau. I wonder whether 'they' (or anybody else, for that matter) would be at all interested in where I was? - I suspect not. If 'they' wanted to monitor the movements of everybody at all times, then you might find that at any one time, 20% of the people in any region/country would be employed watching the other 80%. what if the tag doesn't report their location as wetherspoons all the time? does that mean they not drinking? what would tagging a sex offender acheive? you'd know where they are but not what they're doing. and, how much would it cost to keep an eye on someone just so we can 'slash' htheir cash by a few pounds? I understand that the UK has more surveillance cameras (and more per mile) than any other country in the world. - That doesn't mean that the government knows where everybody is (Indeed, when they release security camera film, the quality of the (unprocessed) images is often so poor that you can't work out who the subject is. Tagging of offenders works (Some of the time, sometimes the tags send inaccurate data) because the operators can set up an area in which the tagged individual is supposed to be at any given time and set the program to send an alarm if (s)he leaves that area. Monitoring a whole population - most of whom can lawfully be nearly anywhere at any time - would be impractical. - You'd need constant surveillance by a human - and you'd need a lot of humans. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
manofstrad Posted March 3, 2011 Author Share Posted March 3, 2011 I was in Garmisch-Partenkirchen an hour ago [in a controlled area] and now I'm back in Oberau. I wonder whether 'they' (or anybody else, for that matter) would be at all interested in where I was? - I suspect not. That would depend on whether you are claiming benefits or not. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rupert_Baehr Posted March 3, 2011 Share Posted March 3, 2011 If the government was stupid enough to tag and track all the people who are on benefits, (people who were 'going about their lawful occasion') how much would the monitoring cost? Probably many times more than the benefits paid out. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
manofstrad Posted March 3, 2011 Author Share Posted March 3, 2011 If the government was stupid enough to tag and track all the people who are on benefits, (people who were 'going about their lawful occasion') how much would the monitoring cost? Probably many times more than the benefits paid out. The benefits paid out would be cut as the cheats were exposed. That is the point of the exercise. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kaimani Posted March 3, 2011 Share Posted March 3, 2011 If the government was stupid enough to tag and track all the people who are on benefits, (people who were 'going about their lawful occasion') how much would the monitoring cost? Probably many times more than the benefits paid out. true. and i think it's a bad idea coz you would get less and less people on benefits as it'd become too hard to stay on. that'd mean you'd gradually have to trim your surveillance workforce, i think so having to pay out redundancies etc. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kaimani Posted March 3, 2011 Share Posted March 3, 2011 The benefits paid out would be cut as the cheats were exposed. That is the point of the exercise. very expensive exercise, sir. too expensive, i'd say. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr Prime Posted March 3, 2011 Share Posted March 3, 2011 In your opinion if you are unemployed you become the slave of the job centre...? Really? Why not go the whole hog and tattoo numbers on their arms and make them live in camps, If you are unemployed for years and throw jobs away that you are given then yes. There is a difference between someone who uses the welfare state for welfare and someone who uses it as a lifestyle. Most people are intelligent enough to distinguish so references to death camps are meaningless. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.