Sunday, April 08, 2007

The Governator to Address Tory Conference

CCHQ announced this morning that Arnold Schwarzenegger, the Governor of California, is to address the Conservative Party Conference in October. David Cameron said...
"I am delighted that Governor Schwarzenegger has accepted my invitation to
address our Party Conference this year. Governor Schwarzenegger led a dramatic
revival of his party's fortunes in California and as Governor he has shown
tremendous leadership - above all in pioneering measures to protect the
environment, reaching out to political opponents in doing so. It's great he's
coming to our Party Conference, and I very much look forward to welcoming him
there."

Well, there's one thing for sure. As the conference is in Blackpool, he won't be uttering his famous catchphrase 'I'll be back'!

40 comments:

Charlotte Corday said...

In view of the past allegations of groping made against Arnie, I'm not sure that the quote about "reaching out to political opponents" is a wise one.

norman wisdom for president said...

Has the worlde gone totally mad? Why is the Tory party entertaining(!) a totally vacuous twat septic?

What the f**k do we have to learn from an Austrian body builder elected by a bunch of deluded, self-obsessed morons?

American society is utterly loathesome at every level and if I ever came across a climate change cheerleader like 'arnie' i thinjkt would induce vomitting.

where ahve all the real people gone?

Conservative Direction said...

What can the Conservatives learn? Maybe how to get elected and present a policy package that makes the best policies for the state/country rather than just using the same old policies

Anonymous said...

It is great that he is coming, but will he enjoy the conference enough to say "I'll be back"

Info even Michael Caine wouldn't bore you with said...

He did live for a while in Romford Road, Manor Park en route from Austria to the USA.

seasider said...

Blackpool might be a bit rough round the edges these days but it's still a damn sight better than Sarfend!!

JessicaB said...

Hmmm, a media creation who stood under the banner of a right-wing party but governs from the left. A believer in high tax and signed up to the Great Man-Made Climate Change Lie.

I wonder why on earth would Cameron think that they have anything in common with each other?

I despair of the Party I once worked hard for, but will only vote for next time out of lack of somewhere else credible on the Right to go to.

Anonymous said...

Nor, thank God, will this ex-terminator, be back:

www.youtube.com/labourvision

Did you ever see a more miserable excuse for a blog or a more uncomfortable and evasive looking Prime Minister anywhere? Blair gives bloggers a bad name.

Now we know why all of those concrete barriers really went up at Westminster, why Downing Street was blocked off and why us ordinary, non-nulab bods were always kept miles away from shifty Blair.

The sleaziest snake oil salesman of them all is terrified of us, he avoids any form of eye contact, or non-salaried human contact and so clearly squirms when he's forced to look his own species in the eye. Seems it's not only Gordon who prefers bunkers.

Auntie Flo'

Another Ed said...

I pledge here and now to donate a five-figure sum to the party if somebody can get footage of Arnie and William Hague arm wrestling in the bar afterwards.

Jorgen said...

What the f**k do we have to learn from an Austrian body builder elected by a bunch of deluded, self-obsessed morons?

Well, the deluded morons who elected Cameron would be able to learn plenty. But I agree: you and I wouldn't.

Tim Roll-Pickering said...

Whatever else, this is bound to boost Conference registrations and income.

Oh and Info even Michael Caine wouldn't bore you with, surely it was Forest Gate? The Romford Road runs here!

Curly said...

Nice to see david is trying to toughen up the image (with a green warrior?). Let's go out and destroy them!

aardvark said...

Auntie Flo 12.30 pm

Downing Street has been blocked off since 1989 when the security gates were installed to protect Margaret Thatcher.

Ratty. said...

What on earth..
Can someone please slow things down a bit I want to jump off.

Anonymous said...

"American society is utterly loathesome at every level and if I ever came across a climate change cheerleader like 'arnie' i thinjkt would induce vomitting".

At every level? The US has cut crime sharply in many of its big cities, like New York. Unemployment is low. Businessmen are not hobbled by red tape as badly as in Britain. Enterprise is encouraged. The locals are friendly, rather than surly, as is all too often the case here.

We have plenty to learn from the United States, and plenty to change, such as the sort of whiny comment made by "norman wisdom", whom I suspect has never set foot in the States or if he or she has, clearly failed to notice much.

Anonymous said...

aardvark said...
Downing Street has been blocked off since 1989 when the security gates were installed to protect Margaret Thatcher.

aardvark, would you agree that this only partly true, since Downing Street, plus one kilometer around Parliament, was not blocked to our age old tradition of political protest after nulab came to power?

Auntie Flo'

Anonymous said...

aardvark, that last comment will teach me to garden and blog at the same time.

It should have stated:

would you agree that this is only partly true, since Downing Street, and one kilometer around Parliament, was only blocked to our age old tradition of political protest after nulab came to power?

Auntie Flo'

aardvark said...

Auntie Flo 6.41 pm

You used to be able to walk the whole length of Downing Street. Since 1989 when the barriers were installed it has been closed to the general public (including demonstrators).

Demonstrations within one kilometre of Parliament Square aren't banned but since 2005 you have had to give notice to the police who might decide to impose restrictions. The change was mainly to try to shut up people like Brian Haw.

Trumpeter Lanfried said...

The Downing Street barrier could and should come down now, following the IRA ceasefire.

Charles Greville, in his Memoirs of the reigns of George IV, William IV and Queen Victoria recalls speaking to an old man who could remember when there were shops in Downing Street.

Anonymous said...

You're right, of course, demos have not been banned - I've even been on a couple of Traf' Square demos which walked past Downing Street, so apologies for talking out of my a***e on that.

However, that doesn't alter the fact that the right to freedom of speech and peaceful protest has been dangerously eroded by Blair and nulab. These rights have been eroded by our Blair and nulab, both within a kilometre of Parliament and beyond - and not just to silence people like Brian Haw either.

When Labour Party member, 83 year old Walter Wolfgang, was manhandled out of a Labour Conference and detained under anti-terrorism legislation, Blair and nulab issued a chilling warning to all of us. Henceforward, no one could peacefully question nulab's policies or engage in peaceful protest, secure in the knowledge that this is a free country where we will not be detained, arrested, searched, finger printed, 'DNA'd', or other wise abused for peacefully exercising what should be the right of all free citizens in a free country: the right to freedom of speech.

Another example: Mark Wallace, was stopped and filmed under counter-terror laws while collecting signatures for a petition against ID Cards. Though he'd done nothing wrong he has been told by police that his details will be kept on file indefinitely.

He was detained under section 44 of the Terrorism Act 2000, which gives officers wide powers to stop anyone in a designated area, whether or not they are acting suspiciously.

Blair's government has achieved what Hitler and the Nazis failed to achieve - they've eroded our freedom.

Add to that the spin and rentacrowds nulab use to keep us away from our Prime Minister and I believe it's indisputable that not only does Blair not trust the people of this country, he fears us.

Auntie Flo'

Anonymous said...

UK has 1% of the world's population, yet 20% of the world's surveillance cameras.

How chilling is that? It surely tells us all we need to know about how paranoid Blair and nulab are.
Remind me, nulab, what was it Kinnock said in 1992 about taking our freedom back?

Auntie Flo'

Iain Dale said...

Anonymous, where did you get that statistic?

Anonymous said...

Iain Dale said...
Anonymous. where did you get that statistic?

It's not an anon, Iain, it's Auntie Flo'- not very observant, are you?

It's on a newspaper clipping I've pinned to a bookcase. I've annoyingly cut off the name of the newspaper. It could: Telegraph, Guardian, Mail, Express, Independent etc, I read them all. Even the Sun - I read a colleague's. From the print and style I would think it's a tabloid. It's by James Stack, Home Affairs editor. Does he work for the Daily Mail?

Auntie Flo'

Anonymous said...

"Experts yesterday called for a halt in the spread of CCTV cameras. Britain is now being watched by a staggering 4.2 million - one for every 14 people and a fifth of the cameras in the world."

"The Royal Academy of Engineering also warned that lives could be put at risk by the lurch towards a 'Big Brother society in which the government and even supermarkets hold huge amounts of information on us."

By James Slack - thanks for reminding us, James.

The article states that UK is first in the world surveillance league table for our ratio of cameras to people. We're also first in the DNA sample league table.

What a disgusting invasion of our privacy. How I detest this government.

Auntie Flo'

Anonymous said...

“Talking CCTV is another tool in creating safer communities,” Reid said in a statement. “It uses modern technology to allow camera operators to speak directly to people on the streets to stop or prevent them acting anti-socially.”

Louise Casey, a civil servant who co-ordinates the government's Respect campaign to tackle bad behaviour, said people could “face the shame of being publicly embarrassed.”

“Talking CCTV ... is aimed at the small minority who think it is acceptable to litter our streets, vandalize our communities and damage our properties,” she said.

Peter Griffiths

http://66.102.9.104/search?q=cache:e0A9ujoRvnIJ:www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20070404.wgtcameras0404/BNStory/Technology/home+Britain+20%25+surveillance+peter+griffiths&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=1&gl=uk

Aimed at the small minority, eh?Well, if we believe that, we'll believe anything - even Blair.

Do you know what these cameras do? They (the operators - in an overseas call centre?) call out, you over there, you with brown hair and the blue and white spotted dress/tie - yes, YOU! Come over here, quickly! Dropping litter is anti-social, you are anti-social. Now pick up that wrapper...and so it goes on.

Auntie Flo'

Anonymous said...

Found James Slack. It is the Daily Mail - he's home affairs editor.

Auntie Flo'

Anonymous said...

And what chance will a severely deaf person like me have with one of these speaking & shaming cameras? I can't even hear the person next to me unless I can see their face to read their lips.

I can see what's going to happen. Someone drops a sweet paper behind me, the camera blames me - and I don't hear a word of it. Everyone around is having a good laugh at my expense and I haven't a clue why.

Next thing you know, sirens, flashing lights, and I'm carted off to the cop shop...where I'm locked up for 3 days or so because BSL interpreters are rare as gold dust.

Court of Human Rights, here I come!

Auntie Flo'

Aardvark said...

Ian and Auntie Flo.

The figures showing the UK as having 1% of the world's population, yet 20% of the world's surveillance cameras were quoted widely in the press a few weeks ago.

As far as I can see (i.e. starting off with Wikipedia) they originate with a report on a study carried out by McCahill and Norris. They looked at a sample of the businesses in just one location (Putney town centre) and found that 41% of the businesses in their sample had CCTV (with an average of 4.1 cameras per business). They then added a bit to allow for public institution cameras (traffic control cameras, street surveillance cameras, hospitals, schools, etc). Grossing up from their very small sample gave a national total of 4,285,000 cameras.

I don't believe think that anyone really objects to cameras within banks, shops, etc. The public institution cameras are the ones that cause the unease but they represent only about 15% of the total. If we got rid of all of institutional cameras we would probably still be the most 'watched' country in the world.

I don't suppose the Conservatives are seriously proposing to significantly reduce the number of CCTV cameras when they get back into government.

Anonymous said...

"Blackpool might be a bit rough round the edges these days but it's still a damn sight better than Sarfend!!"

As a northerner can I just say, twaddle! The 'Pool is a cesspit.

Anonymous said...

aardvark said:

As far as I can see (i.e. starting off with Wikipedia) they originate with a report on a study carried out by McCahill and Norris. They looked at a sample of the businesses in just one location (Putney town centre) and found that 41% of the businesses in their sample had CCTV (with an average of 4.1 cameras per business). They then added a bit to allow for public institution cameras (traffic control cameras, street surveillance cameras, hospitals, schools, etc). Grossing up from their very small sample gave a national total of 4,285,000 cameras.

I thought the research was by
Professor Nigel Gilbert:

Professor PhD(Cantab), ScD(Cantab), FBCS, CEng, FRSA, AcSS, FREng
Department of Sociology, University of Surrey,
Guildford, Surrey, GU2 7XH, UK

...read for a first degree in Engineering, intending to go into the computer industry. However, he was lured into sociology and obtained his doctorate on the sociology of scientific knowledge from the University of Cambridge, Mulkay...continuing research and interest in both sociology and computer science (and engineering more widely).

...main research interests are processual theories of social phenomena, the development of computational sociology and the methodology of computer simulation, especially agent-based modelling. He is Director of the Centre for Research in Social Simulation.

He is also Director of the University's Institute of Advanced Studies and responsible for its development as a leading centre for intellectual interchange.

He is the author or editor of several textbooks on sociological methods of research and statistics and editor of the Journal of Artificial Societies and Social Simulation.

Teaching
Research methods, computational social science

Research
Computer simulation, sociology of science and science policy, innovation, consumer behaviour, sociology of the environment.

Current projects include:

NewTies

The NEW TIES project is growing an artificial society using computer programming that develops agents—or adaptive, artificial beings—that have independent behaviours. The project is the first of its kind to develop a large-scale and highly complex computer-based society. The project's results may have larger implications for information technologies design, evolutionary computing systems, artificial intelligence and linguistics.

Auntie Flo'

Anonymous said...

aardvark, might you be cherry picking a bit here?

I only ask because you haven't mentioned the information Commissioner's recent warning that we're 'sleep walking into a surveillance society'

Nor have you mentioned the Academy of Engineers warning about the threat to our privacy and liberty of the huge amount of surveillance we have.

Nor the fact that Britain is ranked 1st in the global surveillance league and first in the DNA sample league.

I also ask because all of this surveillance doesn't seem to bother you - yet it scares the sh*t out of me and most people, experts as well as ordinary bods.

Surely you're concerned about this uncontrolled growth of surveillance in our country?

Auntie Flo'

Anonymous said...

starring below is mine, aardvark

One of the report's authors, Professor Nigel Gilbert,
said

"the number of CCTV cameras in Britain is so large that the installation of any more should be halted until the need for them is proven. The average Londoner may be monitored by up to 300 every day."

"Britain relies on the cameras far more than other countries, accounting for ***20 per cent*** of all such technology used across the world, despite having just one per cent of the globe's population."

Auntie Flo'

Anonymous said...

One last point before I'm off for some shut eye. This business surveillance that you mentioned, aardvark. A lot of that is done by supermarkets. Aren't some of the directors of a number of these multinational giants large donors to nulab?

Also, a number of directors of the supermarket giants are on government policy making committees, aren't they? One of them is a former government Minister.

This link between commercial surveillance agencies and nulab is a bit too close for comfort and another cause for concern, isn't it?

Auntie Flo'

aardvark said...

Auntie Flo 11.40 PM

I wasn't cherry picking. I was trying to answer Iain's question about where your figures came from.

The Daily Mail report you mention quotes Prof Gilbert extensively but doesn't make it clear what is an actual quote and what is something they have dreamed up.

For instance the Britain accounting for "20% of all such technology" mention does not appear in Prof Gilbert's Royal Academy of Engineering Report.

Prof Gilbert's figure of 4.2 million cameras in the UK comes from the guestimate in the Norris and Armstrong report that I mentioned earlier. It was produced as part of the Urbaneye project which was co-ordinated by the University of Berlin. The Urbaneye project was a study of the use of CCTV cameras in Europe. It showed that whilst CCTV cameras are more prevalent in the UK, other countries are not far behind. It reports CCTV cameras in 41% of publicly accessible space in the UK compared with a Europe average of 29%. one big difference they found was that open-street cameras are much more prevalent in the UK.

Interestingly, they reported that 67% of people they surveyed in Europe supported CCTV cameras. In London 90% of people supported the cameras. I agree with the majority.

I can't find a sensible estimate of the total number of CCTV cameras worldwide. It's anybody's guess.

Anonymous said...

aardvark: How trusting you are.

The Academy of Engineers and professor Gilbert advise you not to be. They and proff. Gilbert forsee:

Now: finger, face, iris recognition
Next: voice recognition
Speaker identification - will allow searches of recorded dialogues.
Privacy and Anonymity harder to maintain
Processing technologies dominate
Giant databases
Highly developed searching

Orwell's vision

Government as Big Brother

BIG MESS

Connection technologies dominate
Even legitimate requirements for processing are hard to organise
Fraud difficult to identify
Weak disconnection technologies give rise to regular scandals
Credit card numbers exposed on web
Nefarious use of surveillance and personal data

LITTLE SISTERS

Disconnection technologies dominate
Personal data is routinely encrypted
Personal identities are fragmented
The keys to identity are held by little sisters

Now: ISPs, credit card companies
Next: Identify management brokers

A REAL BIG MESS - unless we introduce controls to protect ourselves

See:

http://ico.crl.uk.com/files/NigelGilbert.pdf

Auntie Flo'

Anonymous said...

The academy advise:

Preparing for failure

Loss of data
leaks in data
errors of data

Through requiring data holders to store data in encrypted form
Store the minimum of data
Processes for data subjects to review the accuracy of data regularly
Inform and compensate data subject where their are failures

Protecting privacy

Technologies can be used to collect and process data without the subjects knowledge

Surveillance cameras - require operators to show camera's field of vision

Travel cards - allow aunthentification rather than identification

Inform subjects decisions have been made on the basis of automatic profiling

Auntie Flo'

Anonymous said...

Leaving aside the loss of privacy issue, I can't understand why you are prepared to give up rights of ownership on your personal data when, as the Academy's report points out, there are so many possibilities for :

abuse
loss
theft
corruption
significant mistakes

which could have a catastrophic affect on the lives of you and your family.

As the Academy's report says, you and your family could find yourselves:

refused credit
refused services
the subject of suspicion
liable for debts that did not occur
inaccurate profiled
discriminated against on the basis of an erroneous profile
denied rights which are legitimately yours.

Regarding cameras:

"an essential problem with the surveillance of public spaces is that the citizen is in no position to decide whether to accept or reject surveillance".

You say that polls show that this is ok, as 67% to 90% of people agree with the use of surveillance cameras. However, studies which have asked people to consider cameras among a range of other means of maintaining law and order and minimising anti-social conduct - such as more effective policing - have produced very different results from those you refer to.

In one case only 4% of those surveyed wanted surveillance cameras and the rest didn't

Auntie Flo'

Anonymous said...

The report raises many more important issues than I've can go itno here. I can't post a link to the report, it seems to be security encrypted :) The following should take you to a page where you'll find a link to the report.

The report's signed by Professor Gilbert

http://www.raeng.org.uk/news/releases/shownews.htm?NewsID=378

Auntie Flo'

aardvark said...

Auntie Flo.

Not to worry. We'll have a Tory government soon and they will reverse all the NuLab intrusions on our privacy won't they.

Anonymous said...

I don't know if Cameron's lot will reverse all, or even most, of nulab's surveillance measures. Some measures would certainly be binned - the finger printing of school children among them.

They will certainly bin Gordon Brown!

I would like to hear firmer and more specific undertakings from Cameron about these issues before I have to decide whether or not to vote for him. As a life long Liberal until I lost faith them last year, privacy, civil liberties and control of surveillance are key issues for me, perhaps the most important issues of all.

I would be interested to hear why you're in favour of CCTV cameras, aardvark, because I recognise that my view of these is quite one sided. I detest the bl**dy things and do fear that we really will end up like Winston in 1984 if we don't get all of these surveillance meaures under control.

Auntie Flo'