Well UK, It must be fun living in a real life "V For Vandetta". Drones unleashed

Recommended Videos

Eekaida

New member
Jan 13, 2010
216
0
0
HA! I ain't worried. Remember those identity cards everyone was supposed to have years ago that had the country up in arms? A decade of labour and they're still no-where to be found.

Besides, our politicians aren't going to be wasting money on spyplanes - not while there are duck houses to be built and moats to be cleaned. Poloticians paying for their own damn stuff with the money they get in their own damn wages (SIX FIGURE NO LESS!) will save enough money to combat all the fly-tipping in England.
 

Chechosaurus

New member
Jul 20, 2008
841
0
0
Danny Ocean said:
Chech said:
Danny Ocean said:
Chech said:
Danny Ocean said:
Chech said:
How does this make ANY sense?
What? Global warming or spy planes?
The fact that our government rages on about global warming, jacks up the price of fuel, says we need to fly less and then decides that we should put loads of planes in the sly. It's kind of hypocritical really.
How is that hypocritical? All of those things go toward the same goal. Perhaps I don't understand your use of "In the sly".
Well done for noticing a typo.
Thank you, although it was genuine confusion. I thought you'd made a mistake of using "On the sly.".

Regardless, it is hypocritical because burning aviation fuel is REALLY bad for the planet. Now, if you hadn't guessed,[footnote]No need to condescend[/footnote] planes use aviation fuel to fly. The global warming issue is something that we get rammed down our throats constantly and now the government have decided that actually we're not running out of oil, global warming isn't a problem and it's fine to fly spy planes around at what
When did the government decide we're suddenly not running out of oil?
What makes you think these UAVs will use aviation fuel beyond the knowledge that most planes use it?

I can only assume will be a huge cost to the tax payers of an insanely indebted nation.
Correct, you can only assume. Unless you're prepared to present some reputable sources to back up your rants, they are nothing more than words and anger.
I'm just using basic knowledge tied in with a logic to reach a conclusion that I see most probable in relation to something that I find disagreeable. I doubt that these drones will use anything other than aviation fuel and even if they do, you can bet your arse that it's not going to "green". As for the cost, well, of course it's going to be expensive. Planes ARE expensive - unmanned or no- they cost a lot to build and they cost a lot to run. Can you honestly imagine them being cheap?
 

scornedbythenine

New member
Nov 26, 2009
81
0
0
Jamash said:
scornedbythenine said:
did you know the sun published this first (another unreliable paper who's first headline was "double decker bus found on moon")
Wow, the irony of that statement is staggering...

It wasn't the Sun who published that headline (it was the Sport), and the Sun's first headline was, unsurprisingly,
"GOOD MORNING! YES, IT'S TIME FOR A NEW NEWSPAPER".
oh well you get the general idea
 

Danny Ocean

Master Archivist
Jun 28, 2008
4,148
0
0
Chech said:
I doubt that these drones will use anything other than aviation fuel and even if they do, you can bet your arse that it's not going to "green".
Well yeah, unless they somehow make them solar powered or something there's no way they're going to be emissions free.

As for the cost, well, of course it's going to be expensive. Planes ARE expensive - unmanned or no- they cost a lot to build and they cost a lot to run. Can you honestly imagine them being cheap?
I highly doubt the government will be building things like these to monitor the population:

More likely to be something like this:

Since, as we all know, the government just loves to cut corners.
 

Zykon TheLich

Extra Heretical!
Legacy
Jun 6, 2008
3,506
850
118
Country
UK
Seriously people...just because it was from the Daily Mail doesn't mean it's not true, it's been reported by a number of other more reliable sources, and reading the quote in the OP, it's hardly sensationalist, it's just a reporting of fact, there's no hysterics involved on the part of the Daily Mail...although going by the threads title the OP him(?)self is a different story.

The police are planning to use umanned drones as a cheaper and more efficient alternative to police helicopters and the OP does a 'GRRRAAAAH you Brits 'aint got your FREEEDOMZZZ, sure glad I don't live in your sucky country'.

I'm guessing the title was designed to pull in views rather than the OP's rational, considered opinion (at least I hope that's the case, because if not the OP needs some serious help), but really that shit's hardly worth worrying about it's just evidence gathering, it's no different to having lots of cops out on the beat looking for suspicious activity. Most surveillance camera's in the UK aren't manned, they just record and are wiped after a week or two so that if a crime is reported in that areathe police might be able to find evidence on tape.

What does bear worrying about is restrictive and unfair laws being passed and enforced, for example ASBO's being totally ineffective at curbing antisocial behaviour but a really neat way of making a wide range of minor annoyances an imprisonable offence and various poorly worded anti terror laws that were rushed through that are now being (ab)used by the police in ways they were never intented to be.

It's happening in both the UK and US (and probably elsewhere too, I don't pay too much attention outside my country's borders) to a similar degree. But don't the politicians on either side of the Atlantic just love it when the home media points out all the draconain laws those idiots in the UK/US keep passing and how oppressed they are, keeps everyone pointing and laughing at their neighbours while ignoring the problems in their own back yard.
 

benylor

New member
May 30, 2009
276
0
0
I am rather concerned about this. At the moment, I don't believe the situation is such that one such as myself is at risk from this scheme (only crime I really commit is recreational drug use) but it just makes it easier to get closer to 100% surveillance coverage. Assuming nothing else is done after the drones are released, then I think it's not too serious. Supposing the main agenda was to implement a police state? Then these drones will be an invaluable tool.

I'm actually going to start looking at counter-measures before it gets to that point. I hope I won't need to use them.
 

Ed.

New member
Jan 14, 2010
138
0
0
madmatt said:
i was worried until i saw
"By Daily Mail Reporter"
most people in the uk know just how reliable this source is. Which is a good thing, because if it were true I would have a fit
It is true the telegraph times and beeb are all reporting it
 

Apache2142

New member
Aug 25, 2009
165
0
0
If you take everything seriously which the Daily Mail says you'd be surrounded by white people, in bunkers fearing from gays and terrible weather. Its just terrible-i get the news myself, dont need some tit's spin on it!
 

Superbeast

Bound up the dead triumphantly!
Jan 7, 2009
669
0
0
Danny Ocean said:
Chech said:
I doubt that these drones will use anything other than aviation fuel and even if they do, you can bet your arse that it's not going to "green".
Well yeah, unless they somehow make them solar powered or something there's no way they're going to be emissions free.

As for the cost, well, of course it's going to be expensive. Planes ARE expensive - unmanned or no- they cost a lot to build and they cost a lot to run. Can you honestly imagine them being cheap?
I highly doubt the government will be building things like these to monitor the population:

More likely to be something like this:

Since, as we all know, the government just loves to cut corners.
I thought Drones tended to be electric, because there isn't room to mount a fuel tank?

@ Chech

You are making it sound like they're using spy planes - which is the exact phrase you used - not the little robot-things the guy I have quoted shows.

These things will be a damn sight cheaper to run than the police helicopters - and burn less fuel if they are petrochemically powered. They'll also be cheaper to produce than the helicopters are (drones are expensive but police helicopters are really expensive).

Therefore in the long run it'll save the country a lot of money - and will boost the economy too, especially if we become an exporter of "civilian drones".

++EDIT++

In fact, here's our super-developed, military-rip off stealth drone fighter/bombing crime fighter commando that everyone is so paranoid about:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/merseyside/6676809.stm

really threatening and Orwellian that is.
 

jadias

New member
Dec 12, 2007
26
0
0
As per the above few posts, this has also been reported by The Telegraph (on the right) and both the BBC and The Guardian (on the left), to name but a few sources.

For about last 5 years I've been becoming increadingly incensed at the way the country is heading, but over the last month or so, I've hit my breaking point. I've had enough. Long story, but I experienced first-hand around New Year how our civil liberties are being removed under the guise of 'protecting the populace', when there are far more suitable approaches that could be taken which would impact crime far more and yet leave the general populace to go about their business.

Why does anyone seem to think this is a good idea? Looking down on EVERYONE, invading EVERYONE's privacy, instead of targeting the actual criminals. The cops know who most of the troublemakers are, where they are, and what they do... so why not target them? Why not put them under surveillance? Why have drones and CCTV cameras watching all of us, when we aren't the ones causing the trouble? Why randomly stop and search people on the street, in the vague hope of reducing violent crime, when you could just mop up the well-known street gangs?

I'm through with the UK. There's a reason I left to go travelling in my gap year, there's a reason I'm enrolled on a study abroad scheme for my second year of university (I can carry a decent, useful folding knife on my person in Iceland, and as long as I don't cause trouble, no-one minds. Isn't that better than assuming I'm guilty because I have an interest in/use for knives? And I'm not constantly being observed under the assumption of guilt, and not having my privacy and liberties invaded almost constantly. It's quite refreshing.), and there's a reason I shall be doing my PhD abroad in a couple of years.

I want a way out of this country. It's in a downward spiral, and unfortunately the populace have become such a gigantic bunch of pussies that they either don't see it, or won't do anything about it.

-----------------------------

EDIT: As for the poster directly above, who claims we could become an exporter of drones, I believe the one being most seriously considered is a modified version of one already produced in the US. So that's unlikely. And even if we did begin to export them (and assuming they actually, y'know, work this time...), is the tiny amount of income generated by exporting a niche product going to balance the loss of freedom? Not in my mind.

Also, the one you linked to isn't the one being discussed at all. I believe those have been around for a few years now (see the publishing date - May 2007). These new ones will fly at approximately 20,000ft and are therefore almost invisible from the ground, and are much more similar to the ones employed in Iraq and Afghanistan right now.
 

OrenjiJusu

New member
Mar 24, 2009
296
0
0
All this will do is mean that if people hear a light buzzing noise they'll start dancing just in case it gets on youtube.
 

Doug

New member
Apr 23, 2008
5,205
0
0
Foggy_Fishburne said:
Doug said:
Foggy_Fishburne said:
Scary shit. Hopefully it's all just hoax. Or else I'm staying the fuck away from Britain. Don't like the idea of Big Brother watching me. And all these security measures is just barely tackling the symptoms but it's not fixing the root of the problem.
Its the Daily Mail. Its not real news unless you read it elsewhere.
I'm not familiar with "The Daily Mail" at all. I live in Sweden and have never heard of it. I'm glad that it's bullshit then
Well...

Imagine Fox News in news paper form.
Then remove the shiny graphics.
Then increase the amount of shit stirring.

Thats pretty much the Daily Mail.
 

Superbeast

Bound up the dead triumphantly!
Jan 7, 2009
669
0
0
jadias said:
EDIT: As for the poster directly above, who claims we could become an exporter of drones, I believe the one being most seriously considered is a modified version of one already produced in the US. So that's unlikely. And even if we did begin to export them (and assuming they actually, y'know, work this time...), is the tiny amount of income generated by exporting a niche product going to balance the loss of freedom? Not in my mind.

Also, the one you linked to isn't the one being discussed at all. I believe those have been around for a few years now (see the publishing date - May 2007). These new ones will fly at approximately 20,000ft and are therefore almost invisible from the ground, and are much more similar to the ones employed in Iraq and Afghanistan right now.
Given that there's next to nothing on what the new drones being considered are actually *like* then I find it unlikely that it'll be nearer a "predator" type and not a "remote controlled helicopter" type. The article I cited was from 2007, but it does mention it was an early (3 month long) test to see if that sort of thing was viable or not. It makes sense that 3 years on that idea has been refined, but is still similar in core principle.

The claims that we're modifying the American one, so we couldn't export are...dodgy at best. As far as I have read (and I've done a bit of looking on this subject) the American ones are military-only, that then would require extensive modification for civilian usage, and as such is only *one option of several* that is being considered. The UK could sell "civilian models" - or even come up with their own design that doesn't involve a large amount of foreign import ones a prototype has been established.

And it's not like it's a reduction in freedoms anyway. The drones would just replace a common, time-consuming job that police helicopters currently fulfil at a far greater cost to the taxpayer - and this kind of surveillance is only common over large cities. It's not like there will be a UK-wide network of 24/7 drones watching every inch, it's just a little extra security for the cities that is *already being done* just done on a far cheaper level.
 

Doug

New member
Apr 23, 2008
5,205
0
0
Foggy_Fishburne said:
Doug said:
Foggy_Fishburne said:
Doug said:
Foggy_Fishburne said:
Scary shit. Hopefully it's all just hoax. Or else I'm staying the fuck away from Britain. Don't like the idea of Big Brother watching me. And all these security measures is just barely tackling the symptoms but it's not fixing the root of the problem.
Its the Daily Mail. Its not real news unless you read it elsewhere.
I'm not familiar with "The Daily Mail" at all. I live in Sweden and have never heard of it. I'm glad that it's bullshit then
Well...

Imagine Fox News in news paper form.
Then remove the shiny graphics.
Then increase the amount of shit stirring.

Thats pretty much the Daily Mail.
Oh ok. That pretty much sums it up. I can't believe those kind of "news" are even legal. Fucking indoctrniating assholes
Indeedie - and I did a news search for the story - the daily mail seems to be the only one's running it, so I'm prepared to call it bullshit.
 

Zykon TheLich

Extra Heretical!
Legacy
Jun 6, 2008
3,506
850
118
Country
UK
Doug said:
Indeedie - and I did a news search for the story - the daily mail seems to be the only one's running it, so I'm prepared to call it bullshit.
Nope:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2010/jan/23/cctv-sky-police-plan-drones
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/crime/article6999840.ece
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/crime/7057094/Motorists-and-fly-tippers-could-be-targeted-by-police-spy-planes.html
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/england/8380796.stm

It's not bullshit. OP's over reaction is though.