Council workers, charity staff and doctors will be required to tip off police
about anyone whom they believe could commit a violent crime, under secret
Home Office plans.
Civil liberties campaigners last night said that the proposal raised the
prospect of people being placed under surveillance and detained even though
they have committed no offence.
And a senior Whitehall official, who leaked the plans to The Times,
said that it would entail a mass of personal information, including
sensitive medical records, being passed around many different agencies —
even if there was no firm evidence of any potential risk from an individual.
The draft set of proposals on “multi-agency information sharing” was
circulated around Whitehall by Simon King, head of the violent crime unit at
the Home Office. The document states: “Public bodies will have access to
valuable information about people at risk of becoming either perpetrators or
victims of serious violence. Professionals will obviously alert police or
other relevant authority if they have good reason to believe [an] act of
serious violence is about to be committed. However, our proposal goes beyond
that, and is that, when they become sufficiently concerned about an
individual, they must consider initial risk assessment of risk to/from that
person, and refer [the] case to [a] multi-agency body.”
It suggests that two new agencies — one for potential criminals, the other for
potential victims — might be created to collate reports from the front line
and carry out “full risk assessments”. But the draft does not spell out what
action could then be taken to head off violent attacks.
Mr King admits that a number of issues need to be resolved, including what
should trigger an initial report and what should count as a serious violent
crime. He also says that laws would have to be created to place frontline
staff under a statutory duty to alert police to the potentially violent.
Currently those working with the public do not have such a duty, even if
they believe that a crime is imminent.
Jago Russell, Policy Officer at the Liberty campaign group, said: “These
proposals leave too many questions unanswered. What does the Home Office
propose to do with the people who have committed no crime but who fit a
worrying profile? How far are we willing to go in pursuit of the unrealistic
promise of a ‘risk-free society’?”
Danger signs used to identify an individual as a potential perpetrator might
include a violent family background, heavy drinking or mental health
problems. A potential victim might come to the attention of the monitoring
agency on seeking treatment for stress-related conditions from a GP.
Supporters of the plans say that they would build on existing local
arrangements that are already helping to head off domestic violence before
it happens. It is claimed that better information-sharing might have
prevented the Soham murders.
Ian Huntley had been the subject of complaints of violence, a fact that had
not been passed on to the authorities in Cambridgeshire, where he became a
school caretaker.
Both the Huntley case and the death of Victoria Climbié, 9, who was killed
despite repeated warnings to social service staff, kick-started efforts to
pool personal information held across different agencies.
However, the latest plan goes beyond anything so far proposed. It would
require primary legislation to make local authorities, police, GPs and other
frontline workers share information on potential perpetrators or victims of
serious violence among themselves.
The leaked draft suggests that existing Crime and Disorder Reduction
Partnerships “could be well placed to manage and co-ordinate this work”.
However, some senior Whitehall officials are concerned at what they consider
to be a significant extension of information-gathering which will, in any
case, be ineffective. There are concerns too, that the system could be used
to spread malicious smears.
More controversial still are the issues of where information on members of the
public judged “at risk” should be kept and for how long.
David Davis, the Shadow Home Secretary, said: “Do our police not already have
a difficult enough administrative burden without requiring them to wade
through file after file of speculation and guess-work? And do we not already
have enough of a surveillance society without recruiting council staff and
charity volunteers to snoop on their customers?”
Dominic Grieve, the shadow Attorney General, said that he could see little
benefit in the scheme. “The proposals look as if they would set up a system
of great complexity with abso-lutely no evidence that it could deliver
results.”
A Home Office spokesman said last night: “It is not our general practice to
comment on leaked documents. However, the Home Office has its duty of public
protection as its top priority. These proposals are still in development and
no decisions have been made.”
This is already happening, i used to work for a company that was subcontracted out from the council. They used to big brother me, i was arrested for two very serious crimes that i didnt do, i was imprisoned for four months till they dropped the chargers
RJ , northamptonshire,
Turn the spotlight around, all government workers should be subject to complete surveillance when they are working for us. Not the other way round.
Every phonecall taped, every visit videotaped,every click on the web monitored and every entry to a government database should have their name on it. and then published immediately in a search friendly format.
Obviously some sensitive ongoing cases would need some protection,but even they should be made available when they are complete. Any information hidden should have an assigned administrator who controls access to the information and writes a reason why the information is hidden, a detailed reason not a general term like national security.
mark hearne, leicester, England
Lindsay - I have to say I disagree with you. I can't think of anything in these proposals that would make a single difference to your actual safety - The police don't care as it is unless it's a) a murder or b) someone famous.
I had my car stolen. The police opened a file. 3 weeks later, _I_ found my car - when I told the police, I was told "Oh, great! we'll close the file" - nobody cared in the slightest. Certainly not enough to investigate anything. I was brought up to respect the police and the gov't but it's getting harder and harder with all these ridiculous policies.
And for the record, if I thought my doctor was "informing" I'd be less likely to confide in him - and so will others. Including those who may have mental issues that could've been addressed. Of course, I'm probably on the list already by typing this...
(Oh, and I'm sick of being pushed around by airport security. - it's a bottle of water, not a bomb...)
Simon, Bristol, UK
Excuse me -- why on earth did the Berlin Wall come down?
This is one crazy world, no question...
Roger, Bellmere QLD, Australia
Anybody else see the scary similarities here with the book 1984? How long before the 'Thought Police' are established?
David, Warrington, England
Lindsay, you still haven't told us how to identify these 'knife wielding maniacs, hiding behind every bush' . Of course, there aren't any, which is why the Rachel Nickel case is still rmembered. Murder by a stranger is far rarer than murder by soembody you know. However, I, as a member of the public sector, am quite happy to come along and accuse you of subversive activities, as you want to restrict the freedom of vast swathes of the general public. I do this, knowing that you would not be able to prove that you weren't a subversive (you can't prove a negative) and, of course, as in all the best police states (we wouldn't want to be a second rate one) I, as the informer, would remain anonymous. From your lonely cell, in splendid isolation, you could then reflect on the folly of the situation that you supported.
David Leslie, Perth, Scotland
Except Lindsay, the number of abuses is likely to be greater than the number of attacks and whilst when an attack occurs the results are severe, statistically the risk is low unlike the high risk of potential abuses - This is without working out as they have yet to do how to assess and act on the information given.
A tendancy to do something is not the same as actually doing it, besides whatever happened to innocent until proven guilty? Nevermind concepts like patient confidentiality? Besides in the case of something like patient confidentiality provision already exists if the risk is seen as severe enough to warrant breaking it.
Dave, Bristol, UK
"...suggests that two new agencies — one for potential criminals, the other for potential victims — might be created to collate reports from..."
The tentacles of the state are ever expanding and
multiplying. Where will it all end? Perhaps the whole
country will end up working for the government.
John, LONDON, ENGLAND
Yep, think this Government have covered just about everything from 1984 right down to the thought police. Don't remember them saying their election manifesto was the complete works of George Orwell. From fiction to frightening fact, pass me a bottle of Victory Gin, oops, sorry was forgetting, in New Labours 2007 revised versions this could be used as evidence of intent to commit a crime against the State.
Don, Leeds, U.K.
another New Labour & Blair example of imposing current EU standards of STASI style "grassing" and snitching on your neighbour behaviour,.. by Stealth.
The constant erosion of liberties to bring us into line with the rest of well-controlled servile European partner states.
A sly means of implying guilt by association and slow introduction of a Napoleonic style justice system
Destroy Magna Carta, destroy Jury's, destroy the right to Habeous Corpus, destroy the very fabric which founded Britain etc,..
The Totalitarian EU-Nazi State imposed by Stealth by cowards
The death of Britain by a thousand cuts,... by traitors and treacherous scroats who dress themselves in the Union Flag
AB, uk,
I fear that we are moving forward into the Dark Ages. Nulabour are anti the majority, anti freedom, anti free speech, anti the countryside and anti Britain. What price fighting a war for freedom and democracy abroad, when we at home are denied these very things. God help us.
Justin Case, Preston, Uk
George Orwell was a true genius. He didn't foresee big brother in the former stronghold communist world, but here in good ole Blighty where we have been numbed to the point of near submission by Big Tony Brother and his cronies as we gorge ourselves greedily on mass borrowed wealth, mass military hysteria based on false premises and mass idiocy of the sort that has turned our once generally intelligent society into one that sits on the cusp of its own doom. The simple fact that this state of affairs is convenient to a tiny minority who wish for absolute control seems to wash over the majority ever more speedily. Will they be monitorig each word in these comments to spot potential troublemakers who may inconvenience them? Have we actually come to this?
Chendu, Hertfordshire,
Lyndsay, in answer to your second posting, "How would YOU protect the public from "knife wielding maniacs"?" the only sure answer is - lobotomise everyone. As an ex-psychiatric nurse, I know it is the only sure-fire way of making everyone as docile as lambs. Alternatively, you can accept that life is risk, liberty has a price, and put things in perspective - most people never have any contact with violence, and the chances of coming up against a "knife-wielding maniac" are vanishingly small.
In return for may answer, let me ask a question of you - at what level of perceived risk would you pre-emptively remove someone's liberty, and what safe-guards would you put in the system?
Jeremy Wickins MA, LLB, Sheffield, UK
The scheme will run very well until someone finds out who reported them in the Council Department and instead of "getting them" uses the legal rules of slander, gets a big fat payout, the person who did the reporting then gets fired for "embarrassing" their employer but making them look like a department of little snitches. Then the people who worked in these departments would become social pariahs devoid of any social status. It must be remembered that even durign the nazie years in germany most of the denouncements made were done out of malice and were promptly disposed of in the bin - as will most of the denouncements made under these proposals.
After all how long would it be before a person would have to make a signed declaration of of demouncement before the cpolice would act on it, and then present it as evidence
Martin Wright, Birmingham, England
Lindsay, Bristol,
you say:
"Am I the only one who wants to go for a walk in the local park on my own in broad daylight without having to worry if some knife wielding maniac rapist is hiding in a bush"
If you think that a list of allegedly dengerous people kept somewhere in a draw of local police station will make you safer on that walk through the park than I am glad you are the ONLY ONE who thinks it will work.
Steve, London,
The horns of the dilemma are that you can be free, or you can be safe (sort of), but you cannot be both at the same time.
Right now, safety is driving the public agenda, as liberty did a generation ago. Proposals like this one are showing us where that concern can lead.
In this post-9/11 age, I still stand with Benjamin Franklin's observation that "Any people who will give up an essential liberty for some temporary safety deserve neither, and will lose both."
Ben Hoff, NJ, USA
QUOTE
Am I the only one who wants to go for a walk in the local park on my own in broad daylight without having to worry if some knife wielding maniac rapist is hiding in a bush (see Rachel Nickell case).
Lindsay, Bristol,
Perhaps this paranoia that behind each bush is a knife weilding rapist is a symptom that the "healthcare" professionals should investigate...
This system will be used solely for abuse and persecution of people that don't fit the state ideal - I drink etc, and have never once had a fight with anyone. This is a worrying extension of the nanny state - "Enjoy yourselves, but do it our way. Stupefy yourself with TV, drink red wine occasionally, work hard, play sport. Do things we approve of. Otherwise we'll lock you up."
The logic is simple - make everyone a criminal, then you can lock up anyone you want.
John Best, Sheffield, UK
I am one of the charity workers who would presumably be obliged to 'inform' on my clients. My main concern (other than that the whole idea sets a very dangerous precedent) is that those who need help will be very unlikely to ask for it or accept it when offered if they cannot be sure of confidentiality. How could we build trust with our clients?
'Sorry, just have to break off our chat to call the state police.'
Carolyn Sutton, Glastonbury, UK
Truly frightening, but wonderful that at last others are beginning to see the light. What with the proto-totalitarian EU regime (totally unelected) we are all forced to live under and now the informer society, it feels more and more like Germany in the '30s.
Peter Jones, Oxford,
I agree with Lindsay.
elizabeth campbell, camberley, UK
"could be used to spread malicious smears"!? -In fact, this is not a mere possibility. It is a dead certainty. This fact needs to be recongnised, so that the evils which will undoubtedly result can be weighed against the benifits.
DaveW, London,
"Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both." more and more we are being restricted freedom for the sake of safety we are sleep walking into a police state. schemes such as the proposed ID cards track our every move and there are CCTV cameras everywhere from buses, shops, roads. when will this obsession with tracking us 24/7 stop.
Suleyman, ealing/london, UK
So what do you do when you`ve identified such people.
With the introduction of ID cards the Home Secretary can limit an individuals freedom by imposing restrictions on where the card can be used and without recourse to the courts.
As I thought the whole point of ID cards is control.
Andrew , Llanelli, UK
In a free society...crime happens
In a totalitarian society...crime happens
There is no evidence that it happens less in a totalitarian society. I think that we have to accept that people will choose to commit crimes and they cannot always be stopped...
My test of a law is...if the government decided to persecute an ethnic group - would it be possible for me to hide (protect) a member of that ethnic group? And the answer (since CCTV, the Terrorism Act and now encouraged informants) is increasingly no.
We should bear in mind that Hitler rose to power democratically, using accepted legislation (the enabling act), and that noone could have predicted it 20 years previous.
Emile, London,
Will priests be required to report what they hear in the confessional if they believe the person confessing could one day commit a violent crime?
Like, say, fighting in an illegal war, or in one condemned by the Pope?
E Thomson, London, England
So doctors will have to breach their duty of confidentiality towards their patients, on the suspicion that the patient may commit a violent crime? Is there not a danger that faced with the knowledge that this GP will have to report him, a patient who may have otherwise gone to seek treatment that would help him in not carrying out a violent act would not come forward, and his violent tendencies remain untreated, thereby posing an even greater threat?
Toby, Sheffield, UK
Lindsay,
You can't protect the world from knife weilding maniacs!
If you or I decided to step out of my front door and stab someone right now, I imagine we would both be able to cause some serious damage before being caught (although of course we would never do that, I'm just trying to illustrate a point).
My point is that a maniac is a maniac! An anomaly. You can't protect people from anomalies. Sometimes you just have to accept that things are out of your control.
Emile, London,
This measure will of course not prevent any crimes - they do not investigate most actual crimes already, let alone prospective ones - but it will have two significant and most damaging effects. First it will become easier to lock up those out of favour with authority "in order to protect the public", and secondly it will lead to distrust of anyone who comes to your home to visit - doctor, health visitor, council official, etc.
This must be the craziest government notion since the idea of making us all flytippers by taxing us on the rubbish we produce.
Tony Orme, Corfu, Greece
Don't read Labour's Manifesto - Read 1984. It's a far better predictor of Labour's deeds than their spurious claims.
Cynosarges, London, UK
In my experience, many of the people commiting serious violent offences are already well known to the police. The issue is more often about getting the police to do something about it.
John, Leicester, England
Why do the English so love the Nazi and Communist way of doing things. How about a gauleiter/block warden on each street. How about investigating and locking up people who may think violence. How about disgruntled employees/neighbours/ditched lovers stitching up their "enemies" with "I think he/she may be violent/intending to commit". Lock the Home official up. The Nazi. Come on don't you know what freedom actually means?
Richard, London,
Now we can see where Labour gets its ideas from and what they are really up to. Stalin in Russia and the East German Stasi have laid the foundation to have total surveillance of the population and look what happened to their societies.
Its time for people to stand up and enforce their human rights before its too late.Already the UK is the most surveilled society in terms of CCTV and now have neighbors, doctors,shopkeepers(why not) spy on us.
Where will it end?When everybody is on a database or even locked up,just in case they might do something wrong?I can see 'Gullag' on the horizon.
Pete, Birmingham, UK
Well this reminds me of Nazi germany and Stalins Russia. I think the free world is not so free. This is just another step to a iron fist rule without freedom and any kind. Building a society thats paranoid and without soul. Not the world I would like my kids to grow up in.
Arthur, middlesbrough, UK
We've reached a stage of degenerative development where the political mafia controlling this country are too young to have benefited from the errors of Nazi Germany and those of the post-war totalitarian state of East Germany. If only they became educated by reading history or even asking for advice of those that lived in those dark and shameful days. Orwellian behaviour existed before GO wrote about it. Think of the Stalin era and those countries that still operate secret police. Are we heading there?
The obsession to gain control and achieve a new world order by sacrificing young lives is a hallmark of our inexperienced political leaders whose shallowness and ignorance lead to an inability to learn from the past mistakes of their parents' and grandparents' generations.
We may be heading for a revolution more quickly than we think!
Maxadolf, Epsom, UK
I really fear for us all in the UK.
Isn't it ironic that the very same people who fought so long and hard to preserve liberty and oppose totalitarian regimes in the last century now have a government who are progressively attacking and depriving us of each of our freedoms.
It is very sad, but interesting to watch totalitarian regimes in the making when they are in other countries - but when it is your own country that exhibits the traits of a totalitarian regime, it is alarming to say the least.
Removal of the right to trial by jury; roadside fingerprinting; DNA collection from people never convicted nor charged with any crime; ID cards; 1% of the world's population, but 20% of the world's surveillance cameras; etc.; etc; etc;
And now, an attack on the presumption of innocence - we are all now apparently presumed guilty.
Mark John, London,
A POLICE STATE IN THE MAKING
Anyone who lived in East Germany before the wall came down would recognise where this idea is going.
Great Britain and the British people fought a world war to save the world from living under such a regime.
How very sad it is that a once great nation should now seek to adopt the same strategies as tyrants and dictators. How feeble your actions have become.
Judith, Berlin, GERMANY
To all those who responded to my views: How would YOU protect the public from "knife wielding maniacs"?
No matter how many 1984s, minority reports or communist nazi big brother conspiracy theories you can conjure up, I don't honestly think our country will become anything like it. The government just aren't that organised....
The UK is more likely to drown in a sea of reality TV, beer bellies and trashy celeb magazines than become a totalitarian regime.....
Come on there must be a few more folk who don't think this "spy on the maniacs" is all bad?
Lindsay, Bristol,
Well I guess I had better hand myself in. I am Human and therefore quite capable of creating violence. Yep I have great potential for that. I also look like some of those guys that used to create mayhem etc back in the days of lore.
Okay you've got me bang to rights lock me up and save me from myself!!
Besides a majority of violent crime is spontaneous and can be as simple as being in the wrong place at the wrong time
John, london,
Lindsay, Bristol. You mean that you would be happy leading your life, knowing that everybody in the public sector was spying on you, and that suspicion by one person could lead to a police raid at 6 in the morning? We have a system in this country of innocent until proven guilty, not arrest on suspicion that you may commit an offence at an unspecified time in the future.
David Leslie, Perth, Scotland
"Am I the only one who thinks this is a good idea? Why must we wait until some crazy person rapes and murders another person or child before acting against them?..." Lindsay, Bristol
You're right Lyndsay as long as these civil servants etc are given the correct training. Of course they would also need the correct telepathic and/or psychic powers to know if the crime is going to take place. Even then, under current law, the crime actually has to take place before you can get a conviction. So, if they dont get the right training and they dont have any special powers then anyone, even you Lyndsay, could be accused of something a) they haven't done, b) they will never do and c) they have no intention of doing. For more information see the fictional book/film Minority Report!
Rod Munch, Northampton, UK
Under nulabor, pupils have been asked to report on teachers, teachers report on each other, children to report their parents, window cleaners to report on their clients, refuse collectors on their customers, and so on.
What is being increasingly requested is exactly the same as what was done in Germany during the entrenchment of the Third Reich.
The principle is always the same - information is power, and power must be imposed upon every citizen.
As with the Third Reich, the FUD method was used - Fear Uncertainty Doubt - such that citizens were being asked to perform a public 'duty' by not only allowing intrusive and oppressive surveillance upon themselves, but to do so on the basis of their state-manipulated perceptions.
A person would be branded a criminal, and treated as if a real criminal by the state, on the grounds that the person has been arbitrarily deemed to be a potential threat. This, in fact, is what nulabor has already been doing for the past ten years.
martin brighton, sheffield,
Lindsay, Bristol seems very passionate about this subject (comment above).
I am concerned that this passion may eventually take another form and wonder if we should perhaps report her as a potenetial offender.....
Nick, Sutton, London
So who is to protect individuals from the dangerous excesses of the state ?
This is a charter for busibodies to ruin the lives of those they don't like or feel affronted by. What checks and balances exist to protect people from the arbitrary use of power by these pathetic "community saftey partnerships "and other nuisance busibodies.
angus brown, bristol, uk
If it's not their policy to comment on leaked documents, why the comment on a leaked document?, leaked by who?, i smell the usual tactic used by this Government of a trial run to see the reaction, trouble is, on past performance the more public opprobrium that's heaped on these witless and repressive policies the more likely they are to proceed with them.
simon, LEEDS, U.K.
Encouraging the individual to take on the values of the state is a very dangerous precedent, and smacks of totalitarianism. Report your neighbour for being a freethinker that refuses to get with the state-sponsored programme. And the notion under debate is essentially the propensity to commit an act the state considers a crime. This gives the police carte blanche to raid the home or workplace of someone whose blogging has rubbed Authority up the wrong way. The longer serious protest is held back the more bloody and elemental it will be.
That, "Reasons to Emigrate" list just keeps getting longer.
Andrew Milner, Karuizawa, Nagano
Am I the only one who thinks this is a good idea? Why must we wait until some crazy person rapes and murders another person or child before acting against them? Of course there will be the odd abuse of the system but why put the rights of a potentially violent individual above the rights of the general public to feel safe in their cities.
Why wait until "they"claim one victim and then try to prevent others - prevent that one victim from becoming a victim in the first place!
Am I the only one who wants to go for a walk in the local park on my own in broad daylight without having to worry if some knife wielding maniac rapist is hiding in a bush (see Rachel Nickell case).
Lindsay, Bristol,
Looks like another step to get rid of an independent judiciary. Eventually all sentences will be imposed by fiat by Labour party tribunals. The lack of due process is stiffling- immediately after Mr Brown's 'election' (which would have shamed the Soviet Union at its worst) with the Brownite bully boys intimidating any possible candidates, we see this kind of thing being proposed. Makes you wonder when the concentration camps for those judged politically incorrect will open.
Doug, Glasgow,
"...the proposal raised the prospect..."
"...the leaked draft suggests..."
"...it is claimed..."
I find it very hypocritical that Francis Elliott write an article on what these proposals may or may not mean, based on supposition and assumption. Can we have a few more facts and a little less surmising please...?
Rod Munch, Northampton, UK
Perhaps the Home Office should engage the services of the Stasi.
Any mileage in prenology, surely those predisposed to commiting criminal offences, must have recognisable charateristics.
Having then identified potential offenders, then they can be monitored, CCTV. stop & search, DNA sampling, ID cards, 28 day dentention, ASBO's, all then registered on a computer data base.
'Nothing to hide, nothing to fear' not unlike MP's expenses versus freedom of information.
MF, Newcastle,
I have had family run away from this East German style State Communist oppression which infact was run throughout all of Eastern Europe. People spied on people for the sake of the state knowing everything about everyone else. The UK is now stupid enough to accept any idiotic law New Labour pass, whilst around the world people are dying for freedom and democracy, New Labour steal it. I wish I could read through my families secret files and find out which neighbours had axes to grind and reporting rubbish for the state spies, but the Communists in Europe are stopping the release of the documents. My family feel they have come from one oppressive regime straight into another.
Andzej, London,
I don't know why they bother making new laws, they ignore the old ones.
Try asking for a trial by jury when you get one of the tens of thousands of fixed penalty fines by council officials. They don't know the Magna Carta from a hole in the ground.
Brian Gilbert, HAMPTON, Middx
Watch the film "Brazil" - does it provoke any recognition?
Derrick, MK, UK
Isn't this how the STASI and KGB operated?
David Leslie, Perth, Scotland
Communist Eastern Europe amalgam with Nazi Germany,
well done New Labour!
Michael, Bridgwater,, UK
Obviously this lot have been taking tips from Mr Blair, or should I say George Orwell. This is all so '1984'.
I think you may be having thoughts against the state therefore i declare you a terrorist and will bang you up.
xpatjock, Aktau, Kz
Good comments. I already thought informers existed on one level, but this proposed legislation would be turning this country more obviously into a police state. The police are failing to solve existing crimes and the jails are full. Meanwhile the government is busily exacerbating the situation with the lottery mentality, and failing to get to grips with the drugs problem and properly dealing with offenders. Someone needs to reform the governance not the governed.
Henry Percy, London, UK
First, 'violent crimes' ... next, 'thought crimes'.
Romania is currently dragging up the Securitate files. They are not pleasant reading for those named or their victims.
Edwin Thornber, Bucharest, Romania
Obviously the people will have no choice as to whether this new concept is introduced. It borders breaches in human rights. These are the rights which we are born unto this earth with. As this will inevitably be introduced, it should be made law that whoever the informant is must be named publicly, and the person being monitered must be notified. This could prevent them from actually commiting crime and would also prevent false claims of potential attackers.
Pad Dioland, London, England
No, really, this is a great idea. For more like it, we can go to the Stasi Museum in what used to be East Berlin.
ROJ, London, UK
I thought the Labour Party was Socialist?
It has introduced more Fascist laws and ideas in the last ten years than any right-wing government in Europe has since Hitler in his heyday!
Bill, Suzhou, China
Maybe it's a little radical but how about catching the people who have already committed a violent crime first and worrying about those who might later??
Maybe the potential victims could be given a crime number which will become valid immediately on their assault??
Pu Li, Guangxi,
Basing laws on "if only .." is stupid and dangerous. This kind of policy, which punishes people because they might become criminals, is the sort of law beloved of totalitarian regimes.
kathleen bell, Nottingham, England
How ridiculous! At this moment in the UK you can make a report to the relevant authorites, regarding a seen or experienced, direct crime and you are lucky if you even get an acknowledgement that the 'crime' ever took place!
Darnthesafetynet, London, W11 1NR