Re: Government Noses

[Brian Beesley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>]

On Friday 05 September 2003 17:02, Watkin Simon wrote:
>
> > It is a disgraceful campaign,
>
> Do you mean this?
> http://www.targetingbenefitfraud.gov.uk/on_to_you_adverts.html
>
> > and it uses exactly the fear
> > you ridicule as
> > an implicit threat against anybody who might one day come up
> > against the
> > government.
>
> If you do mean the DWP campaign, where's the threat against "anybody" as
> opposed to the threat against those cheating the benefit system?

Well, for a start, there's the "evil Mysteron" travelling circle of light 
symbology. Secondly, the adverts are targeted at "you" even if you aren't 
claiming benefits & therefore can't possibly be a benefit cheat. Thirdly, 
there is an _implication_ that at least one Government agency is already 
actively monitoring the movements & activities of a fairly large section of 
the population (all those who are in fact claiming state benefit). 
>
> Not individuals.  But where you have organised groups it amounts to serious
> crime.

Sure. But my guess is that organised crime groups aren't going to be swayed 
much by advertising targeted at the general public.
>
> > but they are all made to feel
> > cheap and of
> > nil-value by your employer's advertising.
>
> Not sure why.  The campaign is very clearly about those who defraud and
> cheat the benefit system.  There might be a much more difficult issue there
> about the most disadvantaged in society for whom working and claiming
> benefit is a fact of life.

Umm. Whilst it is clearly a problem if someone is working full time & also 
claiming benefits to which they are not entitled, I think the _majority_ of 
the population would not be concerned about a benefits claimant who "works" a 
few hours a week mowing neighbours' lawns, washing windows etc. In fact I 
think this is actually a plus point, as it proves that the individual 
concerned _is_ prepared to try to better themselves - an attitude which the 
current legislation (and advertising campaign) actively discourages.
>
> > The paranoia you ridicule is exactly encouraged and fostered
> > by the civil
> > servant who implemented the campaign.
>
> This takes us back to Brian Beesley's comment about the person mowing lawns
> and claiming benefit.  Government agencies are not, as he put it
> "overhearing all private conversations" 

Echelon?

> and whilst the benefit claimant
> "might be worried about the Government overhearing a conversation about a
> lawnmower extension lead", he/she ought not to be as that isn't going to
> happen.  My job is to work towards convincing the likes those reading this
> list of that.  And, yes some of that is around more openness about what
> sort of private conversations are being lawfully intercepted, and how few
> conversations out of all conversations are lawfully intercepted.

Go on then. Assure us that eavesdropping is done legally only under warrant; 
that the warrants issued are targetted very specifically, are issued for 
short periods only and that a register of all current warrants is available 
for public inspection. Furthermore assure us that eavesdropping done outside 
the scope of these warrants by Government agents (official or otherwise) will 
be punished severely with the full cooperation of law enforcement agencies.

Brian Beesley