North Yorkshire now require GAR under the Prevention of Terrorism Act

[N***@easily.co.uk]

I have been in touch with a North Yorkshire military airport to get
PPR to land a light aircraft. Last year this was no problem but now
I'm informed I have to fill out a GAR (General Aviation Report) and a
copy of my licence.

Apparently North Yorkshire Police require a GAR under the Prevention
of Terrorism Act for aircraft landing at military airfields.

Considering the military have their own security I'd like to know why
the Police consider they need this information. I am flying from
Scotland but I'm assured it applies to all aircraft.

What is most ridiculous is there's no requirement at non-military
airfields... yet!

David

[Simon Hobson]

Post by N***@easily.co.uk
Apparently North Yorkshire Police require a GAR under the Prevention
of Terrorism Act for aircraft landing at military airfields.
Considering the military have their own security I'd like to know why
the Police consider they need this information.

Because they can ? Don't forget, this is for prevention of terrorism, you
can't argue against that.

Post by N***@easily.co.uk
I am flying from
Scotland but I'm assured it applies to all aircraft.
What is most ridiculous is there's no requirement at non-military
airfields... yet!

"Yet" is probably the right term :-(

[N***@easily.co.uk]

On Thu, 13 Jul 2006 23:54:43 +0100, Simon Hobson

Post by Simon Hobson

Post by N***@easily.co.uk
Apparently North Yorkshire Police require a GAR under the Prevention
of Terrorism Act for aircraft landing at military airfields.
Considering the military have their own security I'd like to know why
the Police consider they need this information.

Because they can ? Don't forget, this is for prevention of terrorism, you
can't argue against that.

Post by N***@easily.co.uk
I am flying from
Scotland but I'm assured it applies to all aircraft.
What is most ridiculous is there's no requirement at non-military
airfields... yet!

"Yet" is probably the right term :-(

Sad to say the following is the update - very worrying:

Following my visit to RAF Linton-on-Ouse, this weekend, I was met by a
member of North Yorkshire Police who said the government are bringing
in the requirement for all pilots to notify the local police, using
the form GAR (as required for NI, IOM etc.). I was told it would be
required for 'every' flight into 'every' airfield. Needless to say I
said they would be swamped and the whole idea was unworkable,
especially for small unlicensed airfields. The officer said it will
happen but said maybe it would only be licensed airfields.

I was told that at present any aircraft from Europe can travel into
the UK without formality and the government was concerned. That I can
understand but not for flights within the UK.

Whilst I filled out yet another form on arrival my wife filled out two
landing cards (one per person) which are virtually the same as those
use for trips to Northern Ireland and IOM etc.

Apparently the police will put the information on a database to keep
track of all movements of aircraft in the UK. The police say they
reserve the right to meet all flights but would not necessarily meet
them all.......!!!!!!

David

[Peter]

Post by N***@easily.co.uk
Apparently the police will put the information on a database to keep
track of all movements of aircraft in the UK. The police say they
reserve the right to meet all flights but would not necessarily meet
them all.......!!!!!!

They will get swamped if they implement this.

Presumably such a move would have to be accompanied by a prior-notice
period like the 12hr one for the terrorism act GAT form. Having to
give such a notice would make GA flying very hard.

It's worth looking at the job creation scheme currently running. At
present, you have to give a 12hr *notice* for the flights to Ireland /
IOM / CI but you do not need their *permission* to do the flight. The
faxing of the notice is sufficient. However the police much prefer to
call it a "permission" and they phone you, often in the early hours of
the morning, with a 3-digit "permission number".

And if your fax reaches them too late for the 12hr notice period to
expire then they will certainly call you and can stop you going. I
nearly got this once but the man said he was in a good mood...

Mandatory permission already exists in many 3rd world countries, where
a permission has to be obtained for all GA flights. Of course this
practically kills off all flying.

This sort of thing should be publicised within GA; might nip it in the
bud.

Does anybody know the penalty, if any, for faxing the notification and
then not going?

[Chris]

Post by Peter

Post by N***@easily.co.uk
Apparently the police will put the information on a database to keep
track of all movements of aircraft in the UK. The police say they
reserve the right to meet all flights but would not necessarily meet
them all.......!!!!!!

They will get swamped if they implement this.
Presumably such a move would have to be accompanied by a prior-notice
period like the 12hr one for the terrorism act GAT form. Having to
give such a notice would make GA flying very hard.
It's worth looking at the job creation scheme currently running. At
present, you have to give a 12hr *notice* for the flights to Ireland /
IOM / CI but you do not need their *permission* to do the flight. The
faxing of the notice is sufficient. However the police much prefer to
call it a "permission" and they phone you, often in the early hours of
the morning, with a 3-digit "permission number".
And if your fax reaches them too late for the 12hr notice period to
expire then they will certainly call you and can stop you going. I
nearly got this once but the man said he was in a good mood...
Mandatory permission already exists in many 3rd world countries, where
a permission has to be obtained for all GA flights. Of course this
practically kills off all flying.
This sort of thing should be publicised within GA; might nip it in the
bud.
Does anybody know the penalty, if any, for faxing the notification and
then not going?

The decision as to whether to go is the pilots in the end. It would against
all principles of safety if pilots felt obliged to take off just because
they have filed a GAR. At my airfield ATC log whether you left or not and
the plods I suppose might check up every now and then.

[Peter]

Post by Chris
The decision as to whether to go is the pilots in the end. It would against
all principles of safety if pilots felt obliged to take off just because
they have filed a GAR. At my airfield ATC log whether you left or not and
the plods I suppose might check up every now and then.

Of course that's right but what I meant to say is: is the pilot
obliged to notify Plod of the new arrival time?

Of course it will usually be impossible to issue a *new* 12-hour
notice. One could meet that requirement only if the flight was delayed
by more than 12 hours.

Personally I don't think Plod gives a damn. What he's after is the
notification so somebody can enter the details into the computer.

[N***@easily.co.uk]

On Wed, 19 Jul 2006 22:19:07 +0100, Peter

Post by Peter

Post by Chris
The decision as to whether to go is the pilots in the end. It would against
all principles of safety if pilots felt obliged to take off just because
they have filed a GAR. At my airfield ATC log whether you left or not and
the plods I suppose might check up every now and then.

Of course that's right but what I meant to say is: is the pilot
obliged to notify Plod of the new arrival time?
Of course it will usually be impossible to issue a *new* 12-hour
notice. One could meet that requirement only if the flight was delayed
by more than 12 hours.
Personally I don't think Plod gives a damn. What he's after is the
notification so somebody can enter the details into the computer.

When I fill out the form I note at the bottom that the flight and
times are weather dependent. Never had a "permission number" (2x
Ireland, 1x IOM) until this time but that was from the RAF and the
form was faxed to them and not the Police.

I did notify AOPA and I understand they are to investigate.

If it all goes ahead, as suggested, it would be easy to send a GAR for
flights to a number of airports and completely swamp the system on a
nice weekend when Police resources would likely be reduced.

I have only met the necessity for flight plans from places like
Malaga, Faro which are busy aerodromes. Surely PPR be enough
information? Even in the USA it is still not that bad, despite their
TFR's.

This really is bureaucracy gone mad.

David

[Peter]

Post by N***@easily.co.uk
Never had a "permission number" (2x
Ireland, 1x IOM) until this time but that was from the RAF and the
form was faxed to them and not the Police.

I get the permission # about 50% of the time.

[unknown]

Post by Peter

Post by N***@easily.co.uk
Never had a "permission number" (2x
Ireland, 1x IOM) until this time but that was from the RAF and the
form was faxed to them and not the Police.

I get the permission # about 50% of the time.

If they deliberately phone you up with this number (which you don't
even need), in the middle of the night before a long flight, aren't
they intentionally imperiling the safety of the aircraft?

Someone should show them the relevant sections of the human factors
course relating to proper rest requirements.

[Greg]

Post by N***@easily.co.uk
The officer said it will
happen but said maybe it would only be licensed airfields.

Of course the terrorists wouldn't use a non licensed airfield, or a farm
strip, that wouldn't be cricket 8-)

Post by N***@easily.co.uk
I was told that at present any aircraft from Europe can travel into
the UK without formality and the government was concerned. That I can
understand but not for flights within the UK.

Oh they're concerned alright, concerned about things like tax avoidance and
people having any freedom!.

If this had anything to do with terrorism they would have to apply it to
every airfield, licensed or not, every farm strip and every helipad. They
would have to track every flight on radar, match it to a flight plan and
launch interceptors against any that didn't match.

Clearly this isn't going to happen, and even if it did what's to stop a
potential suicide bomber training for a PPL and filling in every form?, or
are we to see Asians persecuted if they try to sign up for lessons?, what's
this country coming to 8-(.

Greg

[N***@easily.co.uk]

On Wed, 19 Jul 2006 22:57:32 +0100, "Greg"

Post by Greg

Post by N***@easily.co.uk
The officer said it will
happen but said maybe it would only be licensed airfields.

Of course the terrorists wouldn't use a non licensed airfield, or a farm
strip, that wouldn't be cricket 8-)

Post by N***@easily.co.uk
I was told that at present any aircraft from Europe can travel into
the UK without formality and the government was concerned. That I can
understand but not for flights within the UK.

Oh they're concerned alright, concerned about things like tax avoidance and
people having any freedom!.
If this had anything to do with terrorism they would have to apply it to
every airfield, licensed or not, every farm strip and every helipad. They
would have to track every flight on radar, match it to a flight plan and
launch interceptors against any that didn't match.
Clearly this isn't going to happen, and even if it did what's to stop a
potential suicide bomber training for a PPL and filling in every form?, or
are we to see Asians persecuted if they try to sign up for lessons?, what's
this country coming to 8-(.
Greg

The Yorkshire Police assured me that it is the government's intention
to bring it into operation. There was even a suggestion it would be in
a couple of weeks???

As for security it would be just as logical to insist that every car
owner files a form to notify where he was going. This would be
particularly important for larger vehicles which could cause major
damage. As for petrol tankers.. well how about a Police escort just in
case they become a bomb!!!!!

If I hadn't spoken directly to the RAF and Police myself I would have
said it was nonsense but...!

David

[Greg]

Post by N***@easily.co.uk
As for security it would be just as logical to insist that every car
owner files a form to notify where he was going.

Actually that's where the road charging schemes come in, the government
seems determined to have a black box in every car tracking it's movements,
do you think it's all about fair charging?, I don't 8-(.

Post by N***@easily.co.uk
If I hadn't spoken directly to the RAF and Police myself I would have
said it was nonsense but...!

Ahh, you clearly haven't had much to do with the police 8-), I'm a
councillor so get a bit of an insight and believe me most of them haven't a
clue what's going on, they will tell you that themselves. They get
reorganised and generally mucked about in the daftest ways, have pathetic
internal communication and rely on rumour and press releases. In one public
meeting we even had three ranks arguing what was happening and whose fault
it all was 8-). So I wouldn't take it as gospel.

Greg

[N***@easily.co.uk]

On Wed, 19 Jul 2006 23:29:36 +0100, "Greg"

Post by Greg

Post by N***@easily.co.uk
As for security it would be just as logical to insist that every car
owner files a form to notify where he was going.

Actually that's where the road charging schemes come in, the government
seems determined to have a black box in every car tracking it's movements,
do you think it's all about fair charging?, I don't 8-(.

Yes, I already thought about GPS and tracker devices already fitted.

Post by Greg

Post by N***@easily.co.uk
If I hadn't spoken directly to the RAF and Police myself I would have
said it was nonsense but...!

Ahh, you clearly haven't had much to do with the police 8-), I'm a
councillor so get a bit of an insight and believe me most of them haven't a
clue what's going on, they will tell you that themselves. They get
reorganised and generally mucked about in the daftest ways, have pathetic
internal communication and rely on rumour and press releases. In one public
meeting we even had three ranks arguing what was happening and whose fault
it all was 8-). So I wouldn't take it as gospel.
Greg

It was actually the RAF that first said it 'IS' coming soon, but they
may have been told by the Police!

By the time you plan a route, get the NOTAMS, get the weather, check
for Royal Flights and file a flight plan it's quicker to drive? But
nowhere near as much fun :-)

David

[Peter]

Post by N***@easily.co.uk
By the time you plan a route, get the NOTAMS, get the weather, check
for Royal Flights and file a flight plan it's quicker to drive? But
nowhere near as much fun :-)

The trick would be to have a laptop with GPRS and automatically fax
the GAR form to all 3 numbers, for every flight. That's what I do when
going abroad or coming back.

It would still swamp their system though if this was mandatory for
flights within the UK, and I don't think most pilots would go to the
trouble; most would just give up flying.

[Greg]

Post by Peter
and I don't think most pilots would go to the
trouble; most would just give up flying.

Which seems to be the general intention of the CAA in all matters
related to GA, I've put my plans to learn to fly on hold until there is
a significant improvement in the situation, but unfortunately it's just
getting steadily worse 8-(.

The only light is the suggestion that the whole thing will be taken out
of their hands and controlled from Europe, in my professional
experience this is usually far preferable to a traditional British
qango like the CAA.

Greg

[Peter]

Post by Greg

Post by Peter
and I don't think most pilots would go to the
trouble; most would just give up flying.

Which seems to be the general intention of the CAA in all matters
related to GA, I've put my plans to learn to fly on hold until there is
a significant improvement in the situation, but unfortunately it's just
getting steadily worse 8-(.
The only light is the suggestion that the whole thing will be taken out
of their hands and controlled from Europe, in my professional
experience this is usually far preferable to a traditional British
qango like the CAA.
Greg

I don't think the CAA is against GA; I think they genuinely do support
it but they are just inept. And powerless to tell the flight training
business what to do.

EASA has made encouraging noises about deregulating VFR flight in
Europe. What I do wonder is what meat will have to be thrown to the
dog to get that agreed; they might well screw the private IFR scene.

If you want to do some *relatively* low cost flying, have a look at
the PFA scene. Personally I would not do the NPPL (because you can't
go abroad with it) but the cost of PFA ownership and operation is a
lot less than the usual metal that you see flying. The cost of renting
a 30 year old Cessna/Piper will never go down in any significant way,
even if every regulatory body in Europe was shut down today.

[Greg]

Post by Peter
I don't think the CAA is against GA; I think they genuinely do support
it but they are just inept. And powerless to tell the flight training
business what to do.

Obviously I don't have personal experience of them, I can only go by what I
read and unfortunately I see nothing positive about their attitude to GA.
They seem to be puppets of the airlines, piling the costs onto GA to the
point that it is in terminal decline just so the airlines can save what to
them is chicken feed. They seem to prosecute GA pilots for sport, using all
their financial power to force a defendant to plead guilty what ever the
truth. They even fight against safety improvements like GPS and ballistic
chutes that other authorities are embracing, they're morons so the only
reason I can think of is to show who is boss!, they're a power mad qango.

But the final straw for me was not the CAA directly, it was the reports that
aviation insurers are now refusing to pay out on third party claims if they
can argue that the pilot failed to follow just one guideline, even if it's
connection with the claim is tenuous at best. This means my family could
lose everything because of a single mistake I make, and that's not an
acceptable risk. They should be made to pay regardless just as they are for
motor policies, but where's the incentive to change the law?, after all that
would encourage GA 8-(.

Post by Peter
EASA has made encouraging noises about deregulating VFR flight in
Europe. What I do wonder is what meat will have to be thrown to the
dog to get that agreed; they might well screw the private IFR scene.

I seriously hope the dog gets put down, or at least becomes nothing more
than a puppet, and encouragingly that's happened in the case of other
British qangos.

Post by Peter
If you want to do some *relatively* low cost flying, have a look at
the PFA scene.

It's not so much the cost, though it's obviously a factor, and yes I've seri
ously considered building a kit plane as I love constructing things and have
a fair range of engineering skills. It's notable, however, that the PFA seem
to have become the CAA's most bitter critic lately.

Post by Peter
Personally I would not do the NPPL (because you can't
go abroad with it) but the cost of PFA ownership and operation is a
lot less than the usual metal that you see flying.

Yes I'd already ruled out the NPPL unless I had a problem with the medical
which I don't envisage. From everything I've read it seems a fairly
pointless exercise, mainly designed to give the CAA some independence from
Europe and justification for it's existance.

Post by Peter
The cost of renting
a 30 year old Cessna/Piper will never go down in any significant way,
even if every regulatory body in Europe was shut down today.

No but it might not go up as fast 8-), apparently the number of hours being
flown is falling rapidly so it seems inevitable that clubs will have to
increase their charges as their aircraft are less utilised, a vicious
circle.

Anyway, sorry to be so pessimistic but I've seen one of my big ambitions in
life go out of the window for the foreseeable future, and I'm not getting
any younger!.

Greg

[Peter]

Post by Greg
But the final straw for me was not the CAA directly, it was the reports that
aviation insurers are now refusing to pay out on third party claims if they
can argue that the pilot failed to follow just one guideline, even if it's
connection with the claim is tenuous at best. This means my family could
lose everything because of a single mistake I make, and that's not an
acceptable risk. They should be made to pay regardless just as they are for
motor policies, but where's the incentive to change the law?, after all that
would encourage GA 8-(.

You should ask for details of what actually happened. I had one large
claim a few years ago (ground incident) and got paid out without a
question. I have not heard of insurers being unreasonable.

What does happen is rumours, plenty of them in GA, and they spread at
a great speed on the various aviation forums. A lot of the stuff
written on these forums is bollocks. You need to get the details. Then
you might find that the pilot actually had an expired medical, or some
other "small detail" like that.

You are right the cover isn't unconditional 3rd party like motor
insurance is. One has to be careful to have the paperwork in order.
For example airworthiness can be clobbered by any one of a number of
documents not being in order. But this is not rocket science.

Post by Greg
Yes I'd already ruled out the NPPL unless I had a problem with the medical
which I don't envisage. From everything I've read it seems a fairly
pointless exercise, mainly designed to give the CAA some independence from
Europe and justification for it's existance.

The NPPL was, IIRC, pushed by the flight training business, in what I
believe was a cynical move to obtain a "PPL" which looks cheaper on
their price list.

In the end, most NPPL applicants are existing/previous PPL holders who
cannot now pass the CAA Class 2 medical. I think that's fair enough
though; the Class 2 is too strict IMHO. The State has no right to tell
you how to manage risk to yourself, it is not reasonable for
passengers to expect an airliner standard of safety, and ground
damage/injuries are extremely rare.

Post by Greg
No but it might not go up as fast 8-), apparently the number of hours being
flown is falling rapidly so it seems inevitable that clubs will have to
increase their charges as their aircraft are less utilised, a vicious
circle.
Anyway, sorry to be so pessimistic but I've seen one of my big ambitions in
life go out of the window for the foreseeable future, and I'm not getting
any younger!.

I don't think one can blame the CAA or even JAA for the decline in new
PPLs.

I think the decline is due to the widening gap between the
expectations of "modern people", and the product/service which most of
the flight training business thinks it is OK to deliver. At home, you
have a nice car (perhaps with a GPS), a nice fridge, a nice microwave,
etc etc. Then you walk into a flying school and what do you get
(usually)? A crap airplane which rattles and stinks, an instructor who
is just passing through on his way to an ATP job, and you have to
learn to navigate with a compass and a stopwatch and that stupid
circular slide rule which Isaac Newton would have been immediately
familiar with. Most "modern people" just politely smile and walk back
out again. Most of what is left are the poor buggers who are really
keen to fly but are too skint to do much flying anyway.

The whole GA scene is living back in the glorious days of Hillman
Hunters, Morris 1100s, Norton/Triumph motorbikes, when the slow lane
of the M1 was packed with beaten up old wrecks held together with
Plastic Padding. But times have moved on.

The CAA, with its ageing ex RAF navigators etc, doesn't help. When it
comes to GA, they live in the past and will continue to do so.

If you get yourself a PPL, then buy something half reasonable which
you can operate and maintain to your own standard, you will never look
back. That's what I did and I have never regretted it for a moment.
And I haven't had the slightest reason to use the slide rule since,
either :)

In GA, there is always a potential cloud on the horizon. The only
things in life that are assured are Big Brother, sex, cereal,
football. Everything else will eventually be eliminated as British
society drifts towards the lowest common denominator. But it's worth
it because when you get airborne, you can forget all the crap :)

[unknown]

Post by Peter

Post by N***@easily.co.uk
By the time you plan a route, get the NOTAMS, get the weather, check
for Royal Flights and file a flight plan it's quicker to drive? But
nowhere near as much fun :-)

The trick would be to have a laptop with GPRS and automatically fax
the GAR form to all 3 numbers, for every flight. That's what I do when
going abroad or coming back.
It would still swamp their system though if this was mandatory for
flights within the UK, and I don't think most pilots would go to the
trouble; most would just give up flying.

That, surely, is the intention.

Better for all licenced pilots to routinely fax details of every
flight they MIGHT make in the next few days, on a regular basis.

There are any number of perfectly reasonable explanations for why the
majority of those flights never took place, and it would expose the
"system" as unworkable, unenforceable, unreasonable, and probably (in
european law on freedom of movement) illegal.

[N***@easily.co.uk]

On Thu, 20 Jul 2006 22:51:47 +0100, Phil W Lee

Post by unknown

Post by Peter

Post by N***@easily.co.uk
By the time you plan a route, get the NOTAMS, get the weather, check
for Royal Flights and file a flight plan it's quicker to drive? But
nowhere near as much fun :-)

The trick would be to have a laptop with GPRS and automatically fax
the GAR form to all 3 numbers, for every flight. That's what I do when
going abroad or coming back.
It would still swamp their system though if this was mandatory for
flights within the UK, and I don't think most pilots would go to the
trouble; most would just give up flying.

That, surely, is the intention.
Better for all licenced pilots to routinely fax details of every
flight they MIGHT make in the next few days, on a regular basis.
There are any number of perfectly reasonable explanations for why the
majority of those flights never took place, and it would expose the
"system" as unworkable, unenforceable, unreasonable, and probably (in
european law on freedom of movement) illegal.

The analogy being used is that all passengers on a commercial flight
are already being logged!!!

David

[unknown]

Post by N***@easily.co.uk
On Thu, 20 Jul 2006 22:51:47 +0100, Phil W Lee

Post by unknown

Post by Peter

Post by N***@easily.co.uk
By the time you plan a route, get the NOTAMS, get the weather, check
for Royal Flights and file a flight plan it's quicker to drive? But
nowhere near as much fun :-)

The trick would be to have a laptop with GPRS and automatically fax
the GAR form to all 3 numbers, for every flight. That's what I do when
going abroad or coming back.
It would still swamp their system though if this was mandatory for
flights within the UK, and I don't think most pilots would go to the
trouble; most would just give up flying.

That, surely, is the intention.
Better for all licenced pilots to routinely fax details of every
flight they MIGHT make in the next few days, on a regular basis.
There are any number of perfectly reasonable explanations for why the
majority of those flights never took place, and it would expose the
"system" as unworkable, unenforceable, unreasonable, and probably (in
european law on freedom of movement) illegal.

The analogy being used is that all passengers on a commercial flight
are already being logged!!!

That's obviously a false analogy - I don't know any other means of
transport that would require me to log my movement from (say) Bourn to
Fenland & back, and if the government tried to implement such a scheme
for any other form of transport, there would be a an outcry, an
election, and a new government.
If parliament refused to pass a "no confidence" vote and force a
general election under those circumstances, I doubt if any of the
dissenting incumbents would be returned at the next opportunity.

Maybe Bliar should remember what happened to the last person who
refused to recognise the authority of parliament?

[No-one]

Post by unknown
That's obviously a false analogy - I don't know any other means of
transport that would require me to log my movement from (say) Bourn to
Fenland & back, and if the government tried to implement such a scheme
for any other form of transport, there would be a an outcry, an
election, and a new government.

Well, London's congestion charging is effectively one such scheme
and this could/will expand to logging your car movements everywhere
and everywhen:

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2005/11/15/vehicle_movement_database/

When's that outcry coming, Phil?

[Peter]

Post by No-one
Well, London's congestion charging is effectively one such scheme
and this could/will expand to logging your car movements everywhere
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2005/11/15/vehicle_movement_database/
When's that outcry coming, Phil?

I don't think anybody particularly cares if a national real time
database of car movements is built up. The number plate reading
cameras have been around a while and it's easy to stuff the data into
a database.

Universal road charging would be a different thing, but harder to
operate because (since they are obviously not going to have cameras
everywhere) it would have to use GPS and it will always be easy to
cover up the aerial...

[Greg]

Post by Peter
Universal road charging would be a different thing, but harder to
operate because (since they are obviously not going to have cameras
everywhere) it would have to use GPS and it will always be easy to
cover up the aerial...

If you're caught driving with a covered number plate to beat the speed
cameras you get fined, the same will have to apply to disabling the black
box and will be much easier to detect because it will be in constant
communication with big brother. So disable it and you'll get an automatic
fine unless you can prove it's a genuine fault, and no the old 'innocent
until proved guilty' defence won't work as it's effectively been wiped from
the statute books.

Greg

[Peter]

Post by Greg
If you're caught driving with a covered number plate to beat the speed
cameras you get fined, the same will have to apply to disabling the black
box and will be much easier to detect because it will be in constant
communication with big brother. So disable it and you'll get an automatic
fine unless you can prove it's a genuine fault, and no the old 'innocent
until proved guilty' defence won't work as it's effectively been wiped from
the statute books.

I don't think so. There is fundamentally no way to tell if the car is
on the road somewhere, with the GPRS /GPS aerials covered up, or the
system simply disconnected within the vehicle, or sitting in the
garage.

This subject has been looked at, because one of the applications
mentioned for the Galileo system is just that. And there is really no
*practical* way to prevent people fiddling it.

[Greg]

Post by Peter
I don't think so. There is fundamentally no way to tell if the car is
on the road somewhere, with the GPRS /GPS aerials covered up, or the
system simply disconnected within the vehicle, or sitting in the
garage.
This subject has been looked at, because one of the applications
mentioned for the Galileo system is just that. And there is really no
*practical* way to prevent people fiddling it.

It's piss easy for so long as you throw out the concept of innocent until
proven guilty, just look at the SORN system. If you choose to take your
vehicle off the roads and so fail to renew the tax disc it's up to you to
tell them by declaring SORN, if they don't RECEIVE the form before your tax
expires you get an automatic fine and it's up to you to prove you're
innocent, you can try 'lost in the post' but you've still got to notify them
OR pay the fine promptly so the result is that they get their way.

The same would apply to the black boxes, if big brother loses track of your
box for more time than is reasonable for tunnels, gaps in GSM etc and they
haven't received notification you get an automatic fine and it's up you to
prove you're innocent. For example if the equipment was faulty you would
have to take it to an MOT test station who would, as part of the MOT, have a
test set and be able to verify your story. Anyone who was going to work on a
vehicle in such a way as to disable the box would notify them first, which
would be as simple as a phone call to an automated line. Of course if any of
the thousands of number plate reading cameras saw it on a road while
notified that it was off then you would automatically get fined with little
hope of reprieve.

Now there will always be one who claims he can avoid all the cameras by
using back roads, but around here at least the cameras are carefully placed
so you can't get far that way, and lets face it the vast majority of us
can't avoid them so it's good enough to make it work. Of course there's
always one of those 'invisible' number plates you can pay a fortune for,
isn't it funny how so many people are caught speeding if it's that easy 8-).

So, how are people going to fiddle that system in enough numbers to defeat
it? The simple fact is that it will become a standard feature of the ECUs of
new cars in the not too distant future, and have to be retrofitted to old
ones, if only so they can catch EVERY speeding offence and make a fortune in
fines 8-(.

Greg

[Richard Herring]

Post by Greg
The same would apply to the black boxes, if big brother loses track of your
box for more time than is reasonable for tunnels, gaps in GSM etc

That's a lot of "etc". The way you're writing, anyone would think that
GPS/Galileo (never mind GSM) was 100% effective at ground level. Believe
me, it ain't.

[Greg]

Post by Richard Herring
That's a lot of "etc". The way you're writing, anyone would think that
GPS/Galileo (never mind GSM) was 100% effective at ground level. Believe
me, it ain't.

I know they aren't, and they don't need to be, it's a fallacious argument
that something can't be done simply because it won't be 100% perfect.
Presumably people won't buy sat-nav for their cars or mobile phones because
there are gaps in the coverage?.

The gaps in GSM are totally irrelevant as the box will simply log data until
it can upload the next time it's within coverage.
Gaps in GPS will be augmented by inertial navigation which is becoming very
cheap due to piezo gyroscopes and micro-machined accelerometers.
And anyway, big brother will be very happy if it knows where 95% of cars are
95% of the time!.

Greg

[Richard Herring]

Post by Greg

Post by Richard Herring
That's a lot of "etc". The way you're writing, anyone would think that
GPS/Galileo (never mind GSM) was 100% effective at ground level. Believe
me, it ain't.

I know they aren't, and they don't need to be, it's a fallacious argument
that something can't be done simply because it won't be 100% perfect.

The fallacious argument here is the one that says that you can find a
technological solution for a social or political problem.

Post by Greg
Presumably people won't buy sat-nav for their cars or mobile phones because
there are gaps in the coverage?.

Different consequences. In one case the government issues millions of
spurious road tax evasion fines, in the other case an individual gets
lost and has to dig out a paper map or ask the way.

Post by Greg
The gaps in GSM are totally irrelevant as the box will simply log data until
it can upload the next time it's within coverage.
Gaps in GPS will be augmented by inertial navigation which is becoming very
cheap due to piezo gyroscopes and micro-machined accelerometers.
And anyway, big brother will be very happy if it knows where 95% of cars are
95% of the time!.

Again, 5% false negatives and 5% false positives have completely
different consequences.

[Greg]

Post by Richard Herring
The fallacious argument here is the one that says that you can find a
technological solution for a social or political problem.

The bottom line to all this is that the government have stated they are
going to do it...

Greg

[Peter]

Post by Greg

Post by Richard Herring
That's a lot of "etc". The way you're writing, anyone would think that
GPS/Galileo (never mind GSM) was 100% effective at ground level. Believe
me, it ain't.

I know they aren't, and they don't need to be, it's a fallacious argument
that something can't be done simply because it won't be 100% perfect.
Presumably people won't buy sat-nav for their cars or mobile phones because
there are gaps in the coverage?.
The gaps in GSM are totally irrelevant as the box will simply log data until
it can upload the next time it's within coverage.
Gaps in GPS will be augmented by inertial navigation which is becoming very
cheap due to piezo gyroscopes and micro-machined accelerometers.
And anyway, big brother will be very happy if it knows where 95% of cars are
95% of the time!.
Greg

It's true there are technological solution to all these things, but
there is very little evidence that the powers to be have ever bothered
to make use of them.

Unless a lot of technology was employed, the scheme would not work
well without there being a large number of roadside number plate
reading cameras, and they are always going to be very expensive to
install and maintain.

Also GPRS is not free. No matter how you do it, somebody is going to
have to pay some network provider for the data transfer. And (even
today) loads of people live in bits of countryside where the GSM
signal is so poor that mobile phone calls are almost impossible. So
somebody doing their driving in the local area would never end up
uploading their driving data.

There is also no precedent for mandatory retrofit of this sort of
thing in older cars. And how long do cars last these days? My last one
(a Toyota) lasted 15 years from new and was still good for another 20,
with a bit of welding. My current one (a Toyota) is 11 years old and
as good as new. The basic point here is that unless people are forced
to install the equipment in older cars (which would be politically
very difficult) people can hang onto their cars for a period of time
which is way longer than the lifetime of any parliament.

Also currently the incentive for carrying faked number plates is very
low. Most people don't get done by the cameras. Many use radar
detectors, which are good enough to pick up the fixed cameras. I have
not been done for anything since 1985, despite driving at least 20%
over the speed limit almost everywhere where it is safe. But if
putting on fake plates saved you a few hundred quid a year in route
charges, a lot of people would be doing it. They can't buy bogus
plates from Halfords but there are countless websites in N Ireland and
elsewhere abroad which will make them up.

And who would implement the scheme? Look at the absolute cockup at the
CSA, where a relatively straightforward system (of the sort that were
routinely being implemented since the 1970s, and on much slower
hardware back then) has been virtually abandoned because they can't
get it to work. This government has a very poor record of making
complex nationwide IT projects work. It's not that it cannot be done;
the problem is that they can't even write a spec for what it should
do, and when they do manage it, they keep changing it, so the
contractor (EDS etc) makes a pile of money along the way from the
changes but the end product is never finished.

Finally, unless strong crypto is used, together with seriously
tamper-proof technology, with such a huge user base it will be only a
matter of time before hacks are developed. The market will be massive.

I think Greg you are being overly paranoid. It's far easier to just
raise road tax than do implement such a massive piece of technology.

[Greg]

Post by Peter
It's true there are technological solution to all these things, but
there is very little evidence that the powers to be have ever bothered
to make use of them.

I presume people said that about the congestion charge...

Post by Peter
Unless a lot of technology was employed, the scheme would not work
well without there being a large number of roadside number plate
reading cameras, and they are always going to be very expensive to
install and maintain.

But there are already a large number of roadside number plate reading
cameras, thousands and thousands of them, they're supposedly only used to
monitor traffic flow but it only takes a bit of software to feed that data
somewhere else.

Post by Peter
Also GPRS is not free. No matter how you do it, somebody is going to
have to pay some network provider for the data transfer.

Yes, the motorist is going to pay, I think the government's track record
makes that abundently clear 8-(

Post by Peter
And (even
today) loads of people live in bits of countryside where the GSM
signal is so poor that mobile phone calls are almost impossible. So
somebody doing their driving in the local area would never end up
uploading their driving data.

There won't be many people who can keep their vehicle out of a cell for
long, but it's not hard to deal with ones who do, it only takes a meter
reading van to drive around rural areas uploading the data automatically,
after all meter readers visit almost every house in the land to read utility
meters.

Post by Peter
There is also no precedent for mandatory retrofit of this sort of
thing in older cars.

Why does the government need a precedent?

Post by Peter
Also currently the incentive for carrying faked number plates is very
low. Most people don't get done by the cameras. Many use radar
detectors, which are good enough to pick up the fixed cameras.

The plate reading cameras don't use radar, they just look at your plate,
these same cameras will soon be used to measure your average speed through a
section and issue automatic fines.

Post by Peter
I have
not been done for anything since 1985, despite driving at least 20%
over the speed limit almost everywhere where it is safe. But if
putting on fake plates saved you a few hundred quid a year in route
charges, a lot of people would be doing it. They can't buy bogus
plates from Halfords but there are countless websites in N Ireland and
elsewhere abroad which will make them up.

The police currently have unmarked vans with plate reading cameras that they
park on bridges etc which make a fortune, when they see a fake plate they
can simply radio down the road and stop you. If the problem increased so
would the number of vans.

Post by Peter
And who would implement the scheme? Look at the absolute cockup at the
CSA

Very true, but since when did the government learn from it's mistakes, or
shy away from a money making scheme?

Post by Peter
Finally, unless strong crypto is used, together with seriously
tamper-proof technology, with such a huge user base it will be only a
matter of time before hacks are developed. The market will be massive.

Strong encryption is now routine and virtually free.

Post by Peter
I think Greg you are being overly paranoid. It's far easier to just
raise road tax than do implement such a massive piece of technology.

I'm not making this up, the government have stated they want to do it:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4610755.stm

"Every vehicle would have a black box to allow a satellite system to track
their journey..."

And the new transport secretary has said they government is still planning
to do it.

Greg

[Peter]

Post by Greg
I presume people said that about the congestion charge...

The size of the London system is about 0.1% of what would be needed
nationally. And they can't just do it on say "A" roads because that
would drive most private traffic onto the "B" roads.

Post by Greg
But there are already a large number of roadside number plate reading
cameras, thousands and thousands of them, they're supposedly only used to
monitor traffic flow but it only takes a bit of software to feed that data
somewhere else.

That's Trafficmaster - they are in relatively few places, in the
context of a national road charging system with enough coverage to not
drive traffic onto B roads.

Post by Greg
Why does the government need a precedent?

Politics. A lot of Lords drive old/antique cars, for example. As does
most of the landed gentry, and they hold the real keys to power in the
UK (especially when it comes to veto-ing certain things).

Post by Greg
The plate reading cameras don't use radar, they just look at your plate,
these same cameras will soon be used to measure your average speed through a
section and issue automatic fines.

The GPS based systems will warn about any cameras equally well.

Post by Greg
Very true, but since when did the government learn from it's mistakes, or
shy away from a money making scheme?

Yes, but the system fails to work at the end and that's what matters.

[Greg]

So let me get your argument straight Peter, you think the government will
abandon it's stated plans for black boxes in cars because sufficient people
will evade the technology?

Lets follow that through:
You would have to declare your car off the road to explain why it's box did
not appear on the system after you had disabled it, otherwise you would be
fined automatically.
You would then have to drive around avoiding all cameras, pass just one and
you've had it, unless you use a false plate in which case you risk even more
serious consequences if caught by a mobile patrol.
Contrary to popular belief these cameras are all over the place, I live in
the back of beyond but all A roads around here are covered by several of
them and there aren't enough B roads here to actually get to any town,
supermarket or petrol station.
You would not be able to drive into a petrol station anyway as many of them
have cameras that record number plates.
You could not have an MOT as the station would test the box.
You could not have insurance for a vehicle declared off the road.
If caught you would be done for avoiding the road taxation, no insurance and
no MOT, resulting in a fine of thousands and probably loss of license.

Do you really think enough people are going to go through all this to worry
the government?

Greg

[Andrew998]

Post by Greg
So let me get your argument straight Peter, you think the government will
abandon it's stated plans for black boxes in cars because sufficient people
will evade the technology?
You would have to declare your car off the road to explain why it's box did
not appear on the system after you had disabled it, otherwise you would be
fined automatically.
You would then have to drive around avoiding all cameras, pass just one and
you've had it, unless you use a false plate in which case you risk even more
serious consequences if caught by a mobile patrol.
Contrary to popular belief these cameras are all over the place, I live in
the back of beyond but all A roads around here are covered by several of
them and there aren't enough B roads here to actually get to any town,
supermarket or petrol station.
You would not be able to drive into a petrol station anyway as many of them
have cameras that record number plates.
You could not have an MOT as the station would test the box.
You could not have insurance for a vehicle declared off the road.
If caught you would be done for avoiding the road taxation, no insurance and
no MOT, resulting in a fine of thousands and probably loss of license.

Trafficmaster cameras are privately owned and nothing to do with the
government. They took a very deliberate decision to design the system so it
only uses the middle part of the plate rather than the whole plate to avoid
any possiblity of it being used to track cars.

Now it is possible that the government could nationalise them but it isn't
likely.

None of this means they can't do something and I certainly wouldn't put it
past them to try, but the fact remains that the government are spectacularly
unsuccessful at implementing any large scale computer system. The companies
owned by their friends will get very rich and they will all get well paid
directorships once they leave politics but the chances of a working system
tracking everybody is remote in the extreme.

[Greg]

Post by Andrew998
Trafficmaster cameras are privately owned and nothing to do with the
government. They took a very deliberate decision to design the system so it
only uses the middle part of the plate rather than the whole plate to avoid
any possiblity of it being used to track cars.

A few years ago when they were appearing I happened to talk professionally
to a rep from the firm that supplied the hardware. Apparently each camera is
based around an off the shelf single board industrial PC (that he was trying
to sell to us) with the ability to download new firmware through it's comms
link back to headquarters, so the entire network can be updated to do
anything they want at the push of a button. The decision to use only a
partial plate was purely to answer complaints about civil liberties, and can
be changed with a few lines of code... There is no reason to believe the
latest cameras are any less flexible.

Post by Andrew998
Now it is possible that the government could nationalise them but it isn't
likely.

No they certainly wouldn't nationalise anything, too close to being Labour,
but they are very fond of Public Private Partnerships and I very much doubt
traffic master would say no if enough reddies were dangled infront of their
nose 8-).

Post by Andrew998
None of this means they can't do something and I certainly wouldn't put it
past them to try, but the fact remains that the government are

spectacularly

Post by Andrew998
unsuccessful at implementing any large scale computer system. The companies
owned by their friends will get very rich and they will all get well paid
directorships once they leave politics but the chances of a working system
tracking everybody is remote in the extreme.

Yes they are famously good at cocking up such things, not that it's actually
the elected government or course, it's the whitehall wallers. But have you
noticed that they rarely fail to collect taxes?, the CSA may fail single
mums, the tax credit system may fail parents, NATS may fail the aviation
industry, but the exchequer still gets all the funds they decide to collect.
Death and taxes are the only certainties 8-).

The governmant's proposed scheme has three real purposes if you ignore the
spin the politicians give it, firstly to collect yet more tax from
motorists, secondly to help combat crime against the state like tax and duty
evasion and yes maybe even terrorism if they get lucky!, and as a bonus it
will let them keep tabs on us far better than before. The first one alone is
incentive enough for them to not only implement it but to make it work.

Anyway we'll have to wait and see, though we will probably see the
compulsary tracking of mobile phones first...

Greg

[Peter]

Post by Greg
Anyway we'll have to wait and see, though we will probably see the
compulsary tracking of mobile phones first...

That's been around for years; the position gets logged constantly, and
the data is kept for ever.

This has been in the public domain since (AFAIK) the U.S. Time
magazine ran an article on how some bomb gang was captured.

They used to log positions only when the phone was used; now they log
it every time it makes a contact i.e. every 10 mins or so.

[Greg]

Post by Peter
That's been around for years; the position gets logged constantly, and
the data is kept for ever.
This has been in the public domain since (AFAIK) the U.S. Time
magazine ran an article on how some bomb gang was captured.
They used to log positions only when the phone was used; now they log
it every time it makes a contact i.e. every 10 mins or so.

Yes they log which cell you're in, but they're going to log where
exactly you are, some countries have already mandated thet new phones
will have to have GPS built in so that "the emergency services can get
to accidents"...

Greg

[Peter]

Post by Greg
Yes they log which cell you're in, but they're going to log where
exactly you are, some countries have already mandated thet new phones
will have to have GPS built in so that "the emergency services can get
to accidents"...

The triangulated *position* gets logged already, together with the
phone numbers at each end, the phone IMEI, etc. The database can be
searched by any of these parameters.

The GPS thingy is primarily an American thing, where there is a new
requirement for position information to within x hundred yards, for
emergency calls. It's all on google. I don't know if existing GSM
triangulation is capable of meeting this requirement (and anyway they
don't use GSM much out there) which is why GPS is going in. There are
some amazing Motorola phones out there, with GPS, and
waterproof/rugged types, like I have never seen anywhere before, but
they are not made in GSM versions (otherwise I would have bought one).

[Peter]

Post by Andrew998
They took a very deliberate decision to design the system so it
only uses the middle part of the plate rather than the whole plate to avoid
any possiblity of it being used to track cars.

My recollection is that they do read the whole plate, but encode it
(as a hash) in the camera, so neither the plate data itself nor any
representation from which the data could be recovered is transmitted
out of the camera.

It's possible to get collisions with any hash scheme (more than one
plate encoding onto the same hash) but this can be made extremely
unlikely with a decent hash, and in any case the system is about
working out the average traffic speed so they can discard silly
results like 700mph.

Lots of people have wondered if Trafficmaster will one day be used as
a speed camera system.

[Greg]

Post by Peter
Lots of people have wondered if Trafficmaster will one day be used as
a speed camera system.

I suspect it was always their long term business plan, after all
they've spend a huge amount of money on the infrastructure and made it
general purpose enough to do anything the politicians could ask for,
when the political climate is right of course.

Greg

[Peter]

Post by Greg

Post by Peter
Lots of people have wondered if Trafficmaster will one day be used as
a speed camera system.

I suspect it was always their long term business plan, after all
they've spend a huge amount of money on the infrastructure and made it
general purpose enough to do anything the politicians could ask for,
when the political climate is right of course.

This is fun speculation, but any road charging scheme will need a
camera coverage vastly more complete than Trafficmaster provides.

Retrofitting the vehicle tracking equipment into old cars would be a
hugely unpopular task. I've just paid £600 for a basic alarm system
"required" by the insurance company. This is 20% of the value of the
vehicle. Many very nice cars are worth a lot less than this. Yet I
can't see a vehicle tracker going in for any less than this amount,
and probably more given the labour involved in installing GPS/GPRS
aerials. Existing vehicle trackers (admittedly sold in small numbers)
cost far more than this.

Politically impossible to do this with fixed tracking equipment and
retrospective mandatory installation, IMHO.

[Greg]

Post by Peter
This is fun speculation, but any road charging scheme will need a
camera coverage vastly more complete than Trafficmaster provides.
Retrofitting the vehicle tracking equipment into old cars would be a
hugely unpopular task.

Yes it's all speculation, we probably won't really find out until after
the next election or course, not that it matters who gets in it's just
not the sort of thing they want to talk about when electioneering 8-).

As to the problem of getting older cars updated, what they tend to do
in such matters is phase things in and provide incentives so people
feel they are making their own decision, that's far more popular than
compulsion but has the same outcome.

In this case my guess is they will first force new cars to have it "to
help the emergency services to find accidents", it will not appear on
the cost of the car, a £9950 car will still cost £9950 but have one
or two less features as standard. It won't even be used for charging
initially so won't be so contraversial.

Then they will encourage us to upgrade existing cars, possibly with
some subsidy to the cost which they will claw back else where.

Then the boxes will become the easy way to pay for congestion charges
in cities, which is being extended to other cities of course.

Then they will be used to pay for parking fees, saving all that
fiddling with change and tickets.

Then the MOT will require them to be working and disabling them will be
criminalised.

Then the road tax will start to be based on the mileage the boxes
report, with higher tax for cars without them.

Then there will be more toll motorways, one by one, possibly selling
off existing motorways to private companies to maintain, again the
boxes will be the simple way to pay. Yes this will push some traffic
onto back roads but lets be honest about it, most people on motorways
can't afford to tripple the length of their journey so it will quickly
settle back down after each new one is introduced, and carefull
selection of the first ones will make sure people haven't much choice
but to use them.

Then finally all roads will be toll, and anyone without a box will have
to pay a much increased road tax instead to push them into
retrofitting, though by then new cars will have been fitted with them
for 5-8 years and the number without will be fairly small.

They are great manipulators and getting better all the time, new Labour
is far smarter than old Thatcher ever was and won't intentianally
engineer a huge rebellion, but they will get their way, as they always
do.

Greg

[Richard Herring]

Post by Greg
Do you really think enough people are going to go through all this to worry
the government?

Do you remember the poll tax?

[Greg]

Post by Richard Herring
Do you remember the poll tax?

Do you remember the fuel protests?, has fuel tax been cut?
Do you remember the Iraq protests?, have we stopped interfering in
other countries?

Greg

[Richard Herring]

Post by Greg

Post by Richard Herring
Do you remember the poll tax?

Do you remember the fuel protests?, has fuel tax been cut?
Do you remember the Iraq protests?, have we stopped interfering in
other countries?

Protests? I'm talking about hitting a government where it hurts. Did
either of those events involve *18 million* people [1] refusing to pay?

[1] if we can believe this, of course:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poll_tax#United_Kingdom

[Greg]

Post by Richard Herring
Protests? I'm talking about hitting a government where it hurts. Did
either of those events involve *18 million* people [1] refusing to pay?

The poll tax rebellion was far more a protest against Thatcher and her
ways which had found a focus, than genuine rebellion against taxation,
after all it was replaced by not only a council tax that all families
had to pay, but also a 2.5% hike in VAT that every single one of us had
to pay, not exactly a victory 8-).

It's not unlike the recent announcement that the CSA has been scrapped,
then the much quieter announcement that all the 330,000 outstanding
cases will continue to be investigated by another organisation formed
from the remnants of the CSA and new cases will be investigated by a
new organisation, you guessed it, formed from the remnants of the CSA!.
So in reality we have nothing more than a rebadging or the existing
organisation into two parts with a slightly different focus.

In short, the government never really gets defeated, individual
politicians get sacrificed and things get re-spun in more palitable
ways, but in the end they get their way.

Greg

[Peter]

Post by unknown
There are any number of perfectly reasonable explanations for why the
majority of those flights never took place, and it would expose the
"system" as unworkable, unenforceable, unreasonable, and probably (in
european law on freedom of movement) illegal.

I think the last bit above could well be right - IF Plod actually
required a "permission" rather than a "notification". I don't see how
the police can stop somebody travelling - short of an arrest and for
that they need evidence. (well perhaps they don't need evidence to
arrest you but they will need to dig out some evidence eventually
otherwise they have to release you)

[Greg]

Post by Peter
I don't see how
the police can stop somebody travelling - short of an arrest and for
that they need evidence. (well perhaps they don't need evidence to
arrest you but they will need to dig out some evidence eventually
otherwise they have to release you)

Oh so naive 8-), the police can stop anyone moving around the country
if it suits them, they had draconian powers long before 9/11 and can
now lock up anyone without trial for the rest of their lives if they
wish.

Greg

[Richard Herring]

Post by N***@easily.co.uk
On Thu, 13 Jul 2006 23:54:43 +0100, Simon Hobson

Post by Simon Hobson

Post by N***@easily.co.uk
Apparently North Yorkshire Police require a GAR under the Prevention
of Terrorism Act for aircraft landing at military airfields.
Considering the military have their own security I'd like to know why
the Police consider they need this information.

Because they can ? Don't forget, this is for prevention of terrorism, you
can't argue against that.

Post by N***@easily.co.uk
I am flying from
Scotland but I'm assured it applies to all aircraft.
What is most ridiculous is there's no requirement at non-military
airfields... yet!

"Yet" is probably the right term :-(

Following my visit to RAF Linton-on-Ouse, this weekend, I was met by a
member of North Yorkshire Police who said the government are bringing
in the requirement for all pilots to notify the local police, using
the form GAR (as required for NI, IOM etc.). I was told it would be
required for 'every' flight into 'every' airfield. Needless to say I
said they would be swamped and the whole idea was unworkable,
especially for small unlicensed airfields. The officer said it will
happen but said maybe it would only be licensed airfields.

Did he provide any concrete evidence -- like the relevant Act of
Parliament or statutory instrument -- to substantiate what is otherwise,
as pointed out elsethread, merely rumour?

[Greg]

Post by Richard Herring
Did he provide any concrete evidence -- like the relevant Act of
Parliament or statutory instrument -- to substantiate what is otherwise,
as pointed out elsethread, merely rumour?

That's not how things work I'm afraid, enabling laws are passed that
effectively give ministers the power to make their own laws. The latest
anti-terrorism laws are a case in point, they can lock you up without
trial for anything that THEY say is related to terrorism, they can
literally lock you up for Googling "bomb making", so if they choose to
implement a monitoring scheme and you refuse...

Greg

[Richard Herring]

Post by Greg

Post by Richard Herring
Did he provide any concrete evidence -- like the relevant Act of
Parliament or statutory instrument -- to substantiate what is otherwise,
as pointed out elsethread, merely rumour?

That's not how things work I'm afraid, enabling laws are passed that
effectively give ministers the power to make their own laws.

... which are the statutory instruments I referred to, and nobody seems
willing to cite.

Post by Greg
The latest
anti-terrorism laws are a case in point, they can lock you up without
trial for anything that THEY say is related to terrorism, they can
literally lock you up for Googling "bomb making", so if they choose to
implement a monitoring scheme and you refuse...

... the liberal press, your MP, and lots of others have a field day
pointing out how silly it is.

[Greg]

Post by Richard Herring
... the liberal press, your MP, and lots of others have a field day
pointing out how silly it is.

Or maybe the headline goes "weekend pilots flouting terror laws"...

it's all a matter of how they choose to spin it, but you could still be
prosecuted.


Greg

[N***@easily.co.uk]

On Fri, 21 Jul 2006 00:21:13 +0100, Richard Herring

Post by Richard Herring
Did he provide any concrete evidence -- like the relevant Act of
Parliament or statutory instrument -- to substantiate what is otherwise,
as pointed out elsethread, merely rumour?

No it was only word of mouth but I was met by a Military Police and
N.Yorks Police Offricer, both requiring paperwork filling out and
signing.

I think it was the The Station Officer (Ops.) that said it was a trial
in N. Yorks but would likely be introduced in a couple of weeks. It
was made very clear it WOULD happen.

I can't see any difference between aircraft and any other form of
transport (car, bus, train) regarding bureaucratic paperwork.

I am assured by somebody who designed a container for nuclear content
that it is tested to extreme. There is no way GA would have any
effect. As for buildings etc. the damage is little worse than cars,
lorries so why the problems with GA? After all the 9/11 problem was
not even flown by 'qualified' pilots.

David

[Greg]

Post by N***@easily.co.uk
I am assured by somebody who designed a container for nuclear content
that it is tested to extreme. There is no way GA would have any
effect. As for buildings etc. the damage is little worse than cars,
lorries so why the problems with GA? After all the 9/11 problem was
not even flown by 'qualified' pilots.

Which all goes to support my view that this has little or nothing to do with
terrorism, it doesn't even have much propaganda value, it's far more to do
with reducing civil liberties than anything else.

Greg

[Richard Herring]

Post by N***@easily.co.uk
On Fri, 21 Jul 2006 00:21:13 +0100, Richard Herring

Post by Richard Herring
Did he provide any concrete evidence -- like the relevant Act of
Parliament or statutory instrument -- to substantiate what is otherwise,
as pointed out elsethread, merely rumour?

No it was only word of mouth but I was met by a Military Police and
N.Yorks Police Offricer, both requiring paperwork filling out and
signing.
I think it was the The Station Officer (Ops.) that said it was a trial
in N. Yorks but would likely be introduced in a couple of weeks. It
was made very clear it WOULD happen.

Well, IANAL but having now located it, I can't see anything in the
Terrorism Act 2000
(http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2000/ukpga_20000011_en.pdf) that could
require prior notification for any kind of internal flight

Post by N***@easily.co.uk
I can't see any difference between aircraft and any other form of
transport (car, bus, train) regarding bureaucratic paperwork.

... or indeed a journey by any other means.

[Andy_R]

Post by Richard Herring

Post by N***@easily.co.uk
On Fri, 21 Jul 2006 00:21:13 +0100, Richard Herring

Post by Richard Herring
Did he provide any concrete evidence -- like the relevant Act of
Parliament or statutory instrument -- to substantiate what is otherwise,
as pointed out elsethread, merely rumour?

No it was only word of mouth but I was met by a Military Police and
N.Yorks Police Offricer, both requiring paperwork filling out and
signing.
I think it was the The Station Officer (Ops.) that said it was a trial
in N. Yorks but would likely be introduced in a couple of weeks. It
was made very clear it WOULD happen.

Well, IANAL but having now located it, I can't see anything in the
Terrorism Act 2000
(http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2000/ukpga_20000011_en.pdf) that could
require prior notification for any kind of internal flight

Post by N***@easily.co.uk
I can't see any difference between aircraft and any other form of
transport (car, bus, train) regarding bureaucratic paperwork.

... or indeed a journey by any other means.

From Sussex Police's website:

Schedule 7 of the Terrorism Act 2000 provides that:
An examining officer may question a person whom he believes is entering or
leaving Great
Britain, or Northern Ireland, or is travelling by air within Great Britain,
for the purpose of
determining whether that person is or has been concerned in the commission,
preparation or
instigation of acts of terrorism.
He may for the same purpose question a person on a ship or aircraft which
has arrived at any
place in Great Britain or Northern Ireland (whether from within or outside
Great Britain or
Northern Ireland).
(para 2)
Any person who is questioned under this power must:
(a) give the examining officer any information in his possession which the
officer requests,
(b) give the officer on request either a valid passport which includes a
photograph or
another document which establishes his identity,
(c) disclose whether he has with him any documents of a kind specified by
the examining
officer,
(d) give the examining officer on request any document which he has with him
which is
specified by the officer.
(para 5)
A person commits an offence if he:
(a) wilfully fails to comply with a duty imposed under or by virtue of this
Schedule,
(b) wilfully contravenes a prohibition imposed under or by virtue of this
Schedule, or
(c) wilfully obstructs, or seeks to frustrate, a search or examination under
or by virtue of
this Schedule.

What I noted in particular was that it applies to anybody travelling by air
within GB (regardless of start/end point) and they must give the examining
officer any information he requests.

I'd have thought therefore if plod says 'I want all the information on one
of these forms filled in before you take off from anywhere' then you commit
an offence under the act if you don't fill it in.

It may not literally be a prior notification of flight but if it looks like
a duck.....

Bearing in mind that the Terrorism act has been used against all and sundry
from old men disagreeing with President Blair at Nu Labor conferences to 12
year old girls on their way to school who argue with plod then I suspect
you'll get a heavy handed response if you do not assimilate, sorry, comply.

Rgds

Andy R

[Richard Herring]

Post by Andy_R

Post by Richard Herring

Post by N***@easily.co.uk
On Fri, 21 Jul 2006 00:21:13 +0100, Richard Herring

Post by Richard Herring
Did he provide any concrete evidence -- like the relevant Act of
Parliament or statutory instrument -- to substantiate what is otherwise,
as pointed out elsethread, merely rumour?

No it was only word of mouth but I was met by a Military Police and
N.Yorks Police Offricer, both requiring paperwork filling out and
signing.
I think it was the The Station Officer (Ops.) that said it was a trial
in N. Yorks but would likely be introduced in a couple of weeks. It
was made very clear it WOULD happen.

Well, IANAL but having now located it, I can't see anything in the
Terrorism Act 2000
(http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2000/ukpga_20000011_en.pdf) that could
require prior notification for any kind of internal flight

Post by N***@easily.co.uk
I can't see any difference between aircraft and any other form of
transport (car, bus, train) regarding bureaucratic paperwork.

... or indeed a journey by any other means.

An examining officer may question a person whom he believes is entering or
leaving Great
Britain, or Northern Ireland, or is travelling by air within Great Britain,

Then the Sussex Police appear to be making up interpretations to suit
themselves. The only authoritative statement of the Terrorism Act 2000
is at the URL I cited, and it doesn't say anything about "within Great
Britain".. On the contrary, Schedule 7 goes into enormous amounts of
detail about exactly what "Northern Ireland" means.

[snip Sussex Police's wisdom...]

Post by Andy_R
What I noted in particular was that it applies to anybody travelling by air
within GB (regardless of start/end point) and they must give the examining
officer any information he requests.

At the time, maybe. It says nothing about giving notice 12 hours
beforehand.

Post by Andy_R
I'd have thought therefore if plod says 'I want all the information on one
of these forms filled in before you take off from anywhere' then you commit
an offence under the act if you don't fill it in.

I don't see how anyone could reasonably infer that from the Act. The
constabulary may be entitled to question someone who _is travelling_
(and even that's questionable unless they can reasonably assume he's
crossed a border) -- that doesn't entitle them to require him to have
told them he intended to travel.

Post by Andy_R
It may not literally be a prior notification of flight but if it looks like
a duck.....

AFAICS it doesn't.

Post by Andy_R
Bearing in mind that the Terrorism act has been used against all and sundry
from old men disagreeing with President Blair at Nu Labor conferences to 12
year old girls on their way to school who argue with plod then I suspect
you'll get a heavy handed response if you do not assimilate, sorry, comply.

Quite possibly.

[Greg]

Post by Richard Herring
Then the Sussex Police appear to be making up interpretations to suit
themselves.

Isn't it amazing how often the government, with it's virtually unlimited
budget and legal resources, still manages to pass laws that are more often
than not worded so at to be wide open to interpretation 8-)

Greg

[Richard Herring]

Post by Greg

Post by Richard Herring
Then the Sussex Police appear to be making up interpretations to suit
themselves.

Isn't it amazing how often the government, with it's virtually unlimited
budget and legal resources, still manages to pass laws that are more often
than not worded so at to be wide open to interpretation 8-)

"Interpretation" was a polite way of putting it. As such things go, it's
pretty clear.

Moral: If you want to know what a law says, look it up, don't ask a
policeman.

(if you want to know what it _means_, hire three lawyers ;-)

[Mike Lindsay]

In article <A-***@pipex.net>, Greg <***@SPAM
123voyager2.nildram.co.uk> writes

Post by Greg
Isn't it amazing how often the government, with it's virtually unlimited
budget and legal resources, still manages to pass laws that are more often
than not worded so at to be wide open to interpretation 8-)
Greg

Not really, seeing as how there are so many lawyer who turn to politics.
[G]

[Greg]

Post by Mike Lindsay
Not really, seeing as how there are so many lawyer who turn to politics.
[G]

I think someone said something along the lines that an unambiguous law is a
mill stone around the neck of government, and about as likely as an
unambiguous election promise 8-)
Greg

[Greg]

Post by Richard Herring
Well, IANAL but having now located it, I can't see anything in the
Terrorism Act 2000
(http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2000/ukpga_20000011_en.pdf) that could
require prior notification for any kind of internal flight

And the bottom line here is that if the authorities ask you to do something
to prevent terrorism, and you refuse to cooperate, they can arrest you...

Greg

[Greg]

Post by Greg
And the bottom line here is that if the authorities ask you to do something
to prevent terrorism, and you refuse to cooperate, they can arrest you...

Oh and if you argue with an officer who is arresting you, even if it wasn't
justified, then you can be charged with resisting arrest for which there is
effectively no defence. If you think you can beat the system you really need
to wake up and smell the coffee 8-)

Greg