Shoot On Sight - Menezes feature film being supressed

[Disco_Destroyer]

No one remember the Turkish film of a fictional character journying through war ravaged Iraq?

Kurtlar Vadisi Irak.
Even with Hollywood actors it was practicaly outright banned here and in the States!

"Banned" in what sense? It got a BBFC cinema certificate here and was certainly screened in the US and released on DVD there. More to the point, how many other Turkish-language films get wide distribution in either country?

Considering that Battle for Haditha, Redacted, The Mark of Cain, Rendition, Extraordinary Rendition, etc. have had much higher cinema, DVD and television profiles, there is little to suggest that the only issue with both Shoot on Sight and Kurtlar Vadisi Irak, is that they are simply not good enough commercial proposition to merit wider distribution than they actually got. As stated previously, Shoot on Sight was screened in cinemas, and you can bet your life that if it had been phenomenally successful, then its distribution would have been ramped up accordingly. There was ceratinly enough advertising and press coverage that many Londoners could not have failed to have been aware of it, but clearly not enough of them were interested in seeing it.

So what if Kurtlar Vadisi Irak had "Hollywood actors"? Plenty of high-profile actors appear in films that end up languishing in obscurity. In fact the DVD of Shoot on Sight demonstrates this quite well, as it also contains trailers for four film featuring fairly well-known actors, i.e.:

Stuck - Mena Suvari, Stephen Rea
Animal 2 - Ving Rhames
The Gene Generation - Faye Dunaway
Red - Brian Cox & Tom Sizemore

But how many of these films has anyone even heard of, let alone actually seen?

So are you saying the films are trash because they are foreign?
Anyway Kurtlar Vadisi Irak premiered to around 5 UK cinemas around a backdrop of Press Ridicule. It has never seen UK DVD release and if you can send links to any US release then fine. I never found any.
My copy came from Germany where it allegedly did well, but then there is a huge Turkish minority in Germany
Oh and it was a big budget film for Turkey, have you seen it?

[Disco_Destroyer]

Oh and if you think Brazil in its original form is not fit for UK consumption for the aforementioned reasons think again!! Nick Cooper
Why are some political films so hard to get and others not I wonder?
Why do bands of a cetain ilk get signed and others not I wonder?
Care to take this further? Care to rummage through my record collection??
Why is it that when searching for the Lyrics of 80s band Club Nouveau the only ones shown are the non political songs?
Come on M8 Censorship is real, and growing get used to the idea!

[TonyGosling]

read
The Cultural Cold War: The CIA and the World of Arts and Letters by Frances Stonor Saunders

Then try getting a copy of the 1990s anthem by Prudens Futuri, 'In The Name of the One'

Some star has YouTubed it by the way!
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JU8Y74m6tp4[/youtube]
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JU8Y74m6tp4

[Nick Cooper]

No one remember the Turkish film of a fictional character journying through war ravaged Iraq?

Kurtlar Vadisi Irak.
Even with Hollywood actors it was practicaly outright banned here and in the States!

"Banned" in what sense? It got a BBFC cinema certificate here and was certainly screened in the US and released on DVD there. More to the point, how many other Turkish-language films get wide distribution in either country?

Considering that Battle for Haditha, Redacted, The Mark of Cain, Rendition, Extraordinary Rendition, etc. have had much higher cinema, DVD and television profiles, there is little to suggest that the only issue with both Shoot on Sight and Kurtlar Vadisi Irak, is that they are simply not good enough commercial proposition to merit wider distribution than they actually got. As stated previously, Shoot on Sight was screened in cinemas, and you can bet your life that if it had been phenomenally successful, then its distribution would have been ramped up accordingly. There was ceratinly enough advertising and press coverage that many Londoners could not have failed to have been aware of it, but clearly not enough of them were interested in seeing it.

So what if Kurtlar Vadisi Irak had "Hollywood actors"? Plenty of high-profile actors appear in films that end up languishing in obscurity. In fact the DVD of Shoot on Sight demonstrates this quite well, as it also contains trailers for four film featuring fairly well-known actors, i.e.:

Stuck - Mena Suvari, Stephen Rea
Animal 2 - Ving Rhames
The Gene Generation - Faye Dunaway
Red - Brian Cox & Tom Sizemore

But how many of these films has anyone even heard of, let alone actually seen?

So are you saying the films are trash because they are foreign?

Not in the slightest, since many of my favourite films of all time are "foreign" in one form or another, but even then few of them were an outstanding commercial succes in the English-speaking world.

Anyway Kurtlar Vadisi Irak premiered to around 5 UK cinemas around a backdrop of Press Ridicule. It has never seen UK DVD release and if you can send links to any US release then fine. I never found any.

Candian company DVD Box Office is usually good for obscure releases, and indeed they do have it listed under the English language title:

http://www.dvdboxoffice.com/809-5273909 ... 02?fs=true

My copy came from Germany where it allegedly did well, but then there is a huge Turkish minority in Germany
Oh and it was a big budget film for Turkey, have you seen it?

Having a big budget in the country of origin doesn't usually count for much when it comes to selling a film to English-speaking audiences, who generally dislike dubbing almost as much as they dislike subtitles. Those aren't my prejudices by any means (I vastly prefer subtitles to dubbing), but the simple fact is that distributors have an uphill struggle with foreign-language films, and very few making more than even a moderate commercial impact.

No, I haven't seen KVI, but I have no aversion to doing so. By the same token, though, have you seen Shoot on Sight, which is far easier to obtain? I had the DVD on pre-order before it came out, but haven't had a chance to watch the whole thing yet. From what I have seen, yes, it is competently made on a technical level, but the script is rather heavy-handed and "obvious". It also really shies away from parallels with JCdM, as the actual circumstances of the shooting are quite different.

[Nick Cooper]

Oh and if you think Brazil in its original form is not fit for UK consumption for the aforementioned reasons think again!!

Sigh! I never said I thought it was, just explained that it is hardly unique in not getting wider distribution. There are many very good films that never get into cinemas or even onto DVD, and eventual limp onto some late night TV slot on BBC2 or C4.

Why are some political films so hard to get and others not I wonder?

The question is more why are some films so hard to get and others not, full stop? There's an American film about Ecstasy from a couple of years ago that seems to be their answer to Human Traffic and as such treats the subject in a far more realistic and less hysterical manner than the mainstream, but the makers are struggling to even get it onto DVD. However, until recently films that are overtly political or politically subversive invariably struggled, mostly because audiences in general simply aren't interested.

Why do bands of a cetain ilk get signed and others not I wonder?
Care to take this further? Care to rummage through my record collection??
Why is it that when searching for the Lyrics of 80s band Club Nouveau the only ones shown are the non political songs?
Come on M8 Censorship is real, and growing get used to the idea!

Of course sensorship is real, and as someone who has more long been interested in films and television from a historical and cultural perspective, I'm more aware of the subtleties of it than most people, but not every case of a programme or film not being shown, or shown in a more limited way than some people might like, can be attributed to it. If there is a perception by those who have control over broadcast or distribution don't think eneough people are interested in seeing it, then few people will, but that's true for all programmes and films, not just political ones. The reality is that even when something is "available," the audience self-censors, as the sad fact that more people will repeatedly watch the puerile antics of Ultimate Force than ever watched Battle for Haditha or The Mark of Cain proves.

[Disco_Destroyer]

Cheers for the reply, sorry I kinda sounded off but it is all getting to me now. Soon I dare say some bastage will soon be trying to snatch my vinyl out of my hand
I can see also now you where not intentionally trying to derail the thread
The Turkish version of KVI is best, Iraqi spoken in Turkish and English spoken in er English, you don't really need the subtitles anyhow its all pretty straight forward. It carries many of the outragious things happening in Iraq that managed to find themselves in Western Media.
It is not the best movie by far but it sure is a welcome change to see an Arabic perspective film! All the more I say
With modern media today it surprises me how our leaders can wage this endless war I understand how the Germans did't have a chance with regard to propaganda, but today we have no excuses for letting this strife continue!

[Disco_Destroyer]

read
The Cultural Cold War: The CIA and the World of Arts and Letters by Frances Stonor Saunders

Then try getting a copy of the 1990s anthem by Prudens Futuri, 'In The Name of the One'

Some star has YouTubed it by the way!
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JU8Y74m6tp4[/youtube]
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JU8Y74m6tp4

wow thats very Acid Also no doubt insiration for Orbital's 'Satan' ep.

[TonyGosling]

This film has been suppressed big time. No distribution is basically a killer.
The same way the NWO killed off the Rank Organisation by buying up the distribution (cinemas) and closing them off to Rank.

Anyway here's a very little known docudrama about Jean Charles' last minutes. Remember the BBC filmed a docudrama and then shredded it!
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9IGRU88GYmM[/youtube]
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9IGRU88GYmM

[dewstru]

This film has been suppressed big time. No distribution is basically a killer.
The same way the NWO killed off the Rank Organisation by buying up the distribution (cinemas) and closing them off to Rank.

Anyway here's a very little known docudrama about Jean Charles' last minutes. Remember the BBC filmed a docudrama and then shredded it!
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9IGRU88GYmM[/youtube]
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9IGRU88GYmM

What about the ITV dramatisation of the Menezes killing last week?

[TonyGosling]

What about the ITV dramatisation of the Menezes killing last week?

Errr... ?
What about it?

[Nick Cooper]

This film has been suppressed big time. No distribution is basically a killer.

Plenty of films get little or no distribution. Flood was made at the same time as Shoot on Sight, with as big names in it, got a comparable amount of publicity and news coverage, yet fared little better. Considering that Shoot on Sight did get shown in London cinemas, and has been released on DVD (through which many film make the bulk of their profits), what exactly is your evidence that it is being "supressed" other than you thinking it should have got wider distribution than it did?

The film was widely advertised on billboards in London, so it was hardly being kept "secret," but by the same token there is no evidence that it resulted in the few cinemas that were screening it playing to packed audiences. If that had happened, one could question why the distribution wasn't extended, but it didn't, so we can't. The fact that ITV's docu-drama on de Menezes managed to draw just 1.4 million viewers in a mid-week primetime slot probably explains why they weren't rushing to watch Shoot on Sight, either.

The same way the NWO killed off the Rank Organisation by buying up the distribution (cinemas) and closing them off to Rank.

An interesting theory/attribution.

Anyway here's a very little known docudrama about Jean Charles' last minutes.

Little known, no doubt, becuase of the extremely amateurish nature of it.

Remember the BBC filmed a docudrama and then shredded it!

Er.... no they didn't. The production was halted in the development phase:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2007/ja ... sdemenezes
They had, of course, covered the ground already in Panorama - Countdown to Killing. Meanwhile, ITV went ahead with, made, and screened their drama.

[Mark Gobell]

What is your take on the ITV docu-drama, Stockwell, Nick ?

[Nick Cooper]

What is your take on the ITV docu-drama, Stockwell, Nick ?

I thought it was fairly well done, but could have benefitted from another half-hour duration (i.e. 75 mins rather than 50 mins). I don't think the issue of the quality of the "suspect" photograph and that failure to obtain/distribute a better one was adequately explored. Viewers will have been given the impression that the photo available was very poor, but not that a better one was available. The same applied to Jean Charles communications with his work colleague on the morning - I don't recall seeing any explanation of why he made the journey he did, got off the bus at Brixton and then reboarded, etc.

One thing that was a surpise was how clearly it showed that the lateness of the firearms team was partly down to the job being assigned to the shift that didn't come on until 07:00, and - apparently - no attempt being made to bring them in early or to overlap with whoever was on until 07:00. I don't think the press has paid much attention to this angle in the past, but it seems a major failing, although quite believable that it could have occured in the context of how SO19 seems to be run.

[dewstru]

Is Tony Gosling there? How did he rate the factual accuracy of the ITV Menezes killing drama docu' that aired 9pm last night? I only caught the last 15 minutes but it made the police look clueless idiots the bit I saw. Also, contrary to the testimony of all witnesses, it had the firearms squad shouting "armed police!.." when entering JCM's carriage.

The film makers repeatedly showed JCM swiping his oyster card, i can't seem to get anyone to confirm this was or could have been a factor in identifying "the suspect". Apparently Brixton tube was shut that day so JCM caught a further bus to Stockwell, how did the police not know he was not a bus bomber?

...What about these points Nick? (Tony doesn't entertain people who sympathise with some of Dr.Wood's 911 theories me thinks)

[Nick Cooper]

Is Tony Gosling there? How did he rate the factual accuracy of the ITV Menezes killing drama docu' that aired 9pm last night? I only caught the last 15 minutes but it made the police look clueless idiots the bit I saw. Also, contrary to the testimony of all witnesses, it had the firearms squad shouting "armed police!.." when entering JCM's carriage.

The film makers repeatedly showed JCM swiping his oyster card, i can't seem to get anyone to confirm this was or could have been a factor in identifying "the suspect". Apparently Brixton tube was shut that day so JCM caught a further bus to Stockwell, how did the police not know he was not a bus bomber?

...What about these points Nick? (Tony doesn't entertain people who sympathise with some of Dr.Wood's 911 theories me thinks)

Yes, I noticed that it showed the officers shouting "armed police" while coming down the escalators/on the platform, but I'm pretty certain that they weren't shown doing so in the train car itself, although I'd have to check my recording to be sure.

As to JCdM's use of his Oyster card, it's certainly been established that he did so. However, we don't know whether or not the card was actually registered or not. When first introduced, you had to have an earlier-era Travelcard photocard if you were putting a season ticket longer than a week on an Oyster card, but I think that may have been phased out by July 2007. If he used his card for only weekly Travelcards or Pre-pay, it may not have been registered, in which case it wouldn't have been any use for identification purposes.

It is, of course, an unanswered question as to why he was not deemed enough of a threat on a bus or even on foot beforehand to intercept him them, as it's clear the surveillance team were keen to do. ITV's drama had them requesting to, "do a stop from cover," and the use of this terminology is significant. It suggests that the officers wanted to challenge JC from a distance, with enough cover and/or separation between them and him to minimise any potential risk. It's notable that some early news reports erroneously claimed that the surveillance officers were not armed*, but we now know they were. My reading between the lines is that there was an unwillingness to "trust" the surveillance officers in carrying out the stop, but this is less a reflection on them as on SO19's self-promotional tendency to claim that only they should be doing that sort of thing. In one sense it's remarkable that the insitutional arrogance and inflexibility of SO19 was a major factor in what happened, yet they have more or less escaped censure on that level.

* e.g.: http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2005/aug/1 ... .terrorism

[Disco_Destroyer]

Maybe the unwillingness was that someone had a wisper in his ear 'we need a fatality to persuade the public the threat is real'? just a thought that will never be answered

[dewstru]

This obvious factor of whether or not JCM's TFL Oyster card could have identified him in 2005 has never been made public suggests it probably was the case he could have been identified from his TFL Oyster card, given the proven untruths stated by the met police in this case "jumped the barrier" "heavy coat with wires sticking out" "ran from police" "CCTV not working" "we shouted armed police"etc..

How can we clear up the confusion over whether the ITV film makers, contrary to every witness testimony under oath, showed the gunmen shouting "Armed police!" when entering JCM'S tube carrriage. Can it be downloaded anywhere? youtube?

The fact the police let JCM take two bus journeys and get on the tube at Stockwell suggests entrapment and intentional killing for some reason, was Menezes being eliminated?

[Nick Cooper]

This obvious factor of whether or not JCM's TFL Oyster card could have identified him in 2005 has never been made public suggests it probably was the case he could have been identified from his TFL Oyster card, given the proven untruths stated by the met police in this case "jumped the barrier" "heavy coat with wires sticking out" "ran from police" "CCTV not working" "we shouted armed police"etc..

A Brazilian photo driving licence was found in his back pocket, and would have been a far more immediate visual form of ID than an Oyster card, which may or may not have been registered, and would have taken time to have checked.

How can we clear up the confusion over whether the ITV film makers, contrary to every witness testimony under oath, showed the gunmen shouting "Armed police!" when entering JCM'S tube carrriage. Can it be downloaded anywhere? youtube?

I've just checked my recording. It's not immediately clear, because the sound (and vision) is slowed down, but - as I said before - the officers are shouting "armed police" on the escalators and platform, but not inside the Tube car. Presumably the sound distortion is used to imply that those inside the train wouldn't necessarily be able to hear/understand what was being shouted outside. Generally speaking, when a train is standing at a platform, with the motors idling, it's hard to make out anything on the platform except if it was happening adjacent to an open door in whaterevr car you're in.

The fact the police let JCM take two bus journeys and get on the tube at Stockwell suggests entrapment and intentional killing for some reason, was Menezes being eliminated?

No, I think it suggests exceptionally poor operational planning in setting up a surveillance operation at around 05:00 and relying on a firearms team that weren't coming on until 07:00, and not being actually ready for another two hours or so after that. You have to bear in mind that over the years SO19 have so carved a niche for themselves as the "experts" in the police use of firearms that by implication it diminishes the standing of non-SO19 officers' use of firarms, even if they are authorised to carry them. The situation is analagous to not using local patrol cars to intercept a wanted speeding vehicle when they can, insisting that only a qualified advanced driver with a high-speed car should do it, but it's not actually in the right place at the right time.

Commonsense would dictate that you use what resources are available, even if they are not "ideal." Ironically, it is a maxim within SO19 that in any given situation they, "go with what you've got," i.e. if a situation would normally demand specialist equipment that isn't immediately available, they have to make do without it if there is a time imperative. Thus, sometimes Armed Response Vehicle crew are used if there is no time to wait for the deployment of more highly-trained Specialist Firearms Officers. In this case, there seems to have been a reultance higher in the command chain to rely on the armed surveillance officers, possibly because it was thought that if in the process of the arrest it did turn into a Kratos situation, they hadn't had that training, nor would they have been armed with the "ideal" ammunition. Effectively it all comes down to a lack of trust, which probably more than explains the widespread dissatisfaction by the surveillance officers that they were not allowed to attempt an arrest well before Jean Charles got to Brixton, let alone Stockwell.

[dewstru]

Thank you for that Nick, when I speak of JCM's TFL Oyster card I'm referring to the sinister (IMHO)database somewhere that registers our every journey time and duration with this form of travel pass, this would surely be the first thing the police would have checked presuming they have the powers to hack into the system given the potential gravity of the case?

[Nick Cooper]

Thank you for that Nick, when I speak of JCM's TFL Oyster card I'm referring to the sinister (IMHO)database somewhere that registers our every journey time and duration with this form of travel pass, this would surely be the first thing the police would have checked presuming they have the powers to hack into the system given the potential gravity of the case?

Well, a few of clarifications are needed here, I think. Firstly, Oyster cards don't register journey duration for buses at all, since the user only has to touch-in when they board, not when they exit. There would only be a record of a Tube journey in as much as users should touch-in and -out every time if they are on Pre-pay, but touching out is not necessary with a period Travelcard loaded on the Oyster and there is an unbarriered exit point. Most rail journeys would be only partially recorded, if at all. A card used at a station (Tube or national rail) registers on the system "immediately," but on buses the data is uploaded (IIRC) only at certain times of the day, so not in "real-time." However, the fact that the user has made a bus journey is also recorded on the card itself, and that data would be transfered to the system if they subsequently touched-in at a station.

For example, if the rail network hadn't fallen over and died this morning, I would get a national rail train in to Moorgate, change to the Northern line to London Bridge, from there take a national rail train out to Lewisham, and then either catch a bus to work or walk to where I work (depending on which station I come into, as several are within easy distance). The only places I would use my card would be the Underground exit barriers at London Bridge, the national rail entry barriers at the same, and then - if applicable - on the bus. The police have to request Oyster data via TfL's Information Access and Compliance Team - they don't have a direct line into the system, although they do want one (apparently between August 2004 and March 2006, 409 out of 436 requests were granted). Data is only held in a form associated with the specific card for eight weeks, after which it is anonymised and used for research purposes only.

In JC's case, sure he would have touched in on the bus, but the main system would not "know" that until he entered Stockwell, so analysis of the Oyter card would only retrospectively tell the police what they knew already, having followed him. As I said before, we don't know if his card was registered or not; if the latter it therefore couldn't be used to ID him, and even if it was, it would have merely corroborated the Brazilian driving licence found on him.

[Disco_Destroyer]

oo I wonder who's were with held and to what end

409 out of 436 requests were granted

[Nick Cooper]

oo I wonder who's were with held and to what end

409 out of 436 requests were granted

Apaprently that total was not just police but any "public authority" with statutory investigatory powers. Maybe it was schools checking up on parents/school catchment areas!

[dewstru]

You seem very well informed Nick, do you know whether we are entitled to a written reciept with every TFL Oyster card journey under the data protection act?

In 2005 JCM could have purchased a certain category of Oyster card without divulging his name and address, is that what you're saying? why hasn't this key question ever been *(to my knowledge) publicly debated and resolved? According to Alex jones in 'Terrorstorm' JCM put cash into his Oyster card at Stockwell tube, unusal MO for a terrorist I'd say, this meant he used his card four times that morning. Greatest living American Alex Jones is a bit slack checking his facts sometimes but could be right on this occasion.

[Nick Cooper]

You seem very well informed Nick,

Inherently perhaps little more than anyone who actually lives in London and uses Oyster; anything else is not particularly hard to find out.

do you know whether we are entitled to a written reciept with every TFL Oyster card journey under the data protection act?

A bit easier to get a print-out at any Tube station or Ticket-Stop shop, I would have thought.

In 2005 JCM could have purchased a certain category of Oyster card without divulging his name and address, is that what you're saying?

Yes, certainly as far back as early 2004 you could pay a £3 deposit to get an Oyster card, which you did not need to register if you were using it for Pre-Pay. This version of the Oyster website from December 2004 cached by IA confirms this:

http://web.archive.org/web/200412040417 ... /buy_2.php

You can still do the same today, and in fact a number of stations have Oyster vending machines, so you do not even have to interact with staff at the ticket office to obtain and top-up them, as the latter can be done with cash on the self-service ticket machines.

why hasn't this key question ever been *(to my knowledge) publicly debated and resolved? According to Alex jones in 'Terrorstorm' JCM put cash into his Oyster card at Stockwell tube, unusal MO for a terrorist I'd say, this meant he used his card four times that morning. Greatest living American Alex Jones is a bit slack checking his facts sometimes but could be right on this occasion.

I don't see any contradiction there if Jones's information is right. In fact, if JC "put cash into his Oyster card at Stockwell," that would seem to confirm that he was using Pre-Pay, and therefore had a potentially unregistered card. I still fail to see, however, how this is a "key question" in the first place. The evidential value of JC's Oyster card would only be retrospective, and very much secondary to the ID we know was on him, i.e. his Brazilian driving licence. Perhaps you would like to explain what role you think his Oyster card could have played prior to the shooting, given the actual technology in use and the timescale of events?

[dewstru]

Well.... did JCM have a TFL Oyster card registered in his name and address and connected to the sinister database monitoring our movements yes or no? a card that could have identified him had the police, with permission, taken this obvious initiative and accessed the TFL database??

Is that correct, you can buy short term anon' user TFL Oyster cards AND diferent zone anon day passes? how curious,seems like duplication to me.

I always thought you could demand a copy of anything printed in a computer database under the 'Data Protection Act'. The VERY sinister right wing organisation 'the economic league' always listed leftie trade union 'troublemakers' to forwarn corporate employers in written script on paper to avoid the Act. Didn't Dom Jolly try and get all the CCTV images of himself from BIG BRO' using this legislation? (I recall he only got one imagr tho')That's another thing, JCM surely could have been identified by CCTV en route from his home to Stockwell, am I right?

[Nick Cooper]

Well.... did JCM have a TFL Oyster card registered in his name and address and connected to the sinister database monitoring our movements yes or no?

We know he had an Oyster card, as that has been firmly established. We don't know whether it was registered or not - it could have been either, but Jones's claim about him topping up his card with cash suggests he was using Pre-Pay, and if he only ever used it, he would not have had to register. In this respect, and given that the Oyster does not "moniter our movements" in their totality, it is something of a poor "sinister database," even if one choses to think of it as one. People can choose to use Oyster or not, and they can choose to register or not.

a card that could have identified him had the police, with permission, taken this obvious initiative and accessed the TFL database??

Why are you side-stepping the question of why they would need to - other than for corroboration - given that when they actually searched the body, they found his driving licence and other documents in his name? The driving licence has been widely reported, and there has never been any suggestion that it was anybody's other than JC's:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/ ... oting.html
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/peopl ... 65935.html

In the presence of lots of other ID, why do you think the Oyster card is as relevent as you seem to think it is?

Is that correct, you can buy short term anon' user TFL Oyster cards AND diferent zone anon day passes? how curious,seems like duplication to me.

Then, as now, you can only buy single-day zoned Travelcards as paper tickets. You cannot put a single-day Travelcard on an Oyster card; instead, any Pre-Pay balance is deducted upto 50p less than the cost of the relevent zoned Travelcard - this is termed "daily capping".

I always thought you could demand a copy of anything printed in a computer database under the 'Data Protection Act'.

Yes, an individual can request any data that relates to themselves, but - as I have stated - anyone with an Oyster card can obtain a print-out of their most recent journeys from any Tube station or shop that sells tickets. In any case, presumably the Act only applies to any personal data that is held at the time the request is held - it would be difficult for it to require the disclosure of data that had been wiped or dis-associated, as Oyster journey data is after eight weeks. I'm sure you wouldn't advocate that any organisation that acquires or builds personal data should keep it indefinitely, would you?

The VERY sinister right wing organisation 'the economic league' always listed leftie trade union 'troublemakers' to forwarn corporate employers in written script on paper to avoid the Act.

Since their activities long pre-date the DPA, it's more the case that they did not computerise their records when they could have realistically done so, but retained the original paper-based filing system.

Didn't Dom Jolly try and get all the CCTV images of himself from BIG BRO' using this legislation? (I recall he only got one imagr tho')That's another thing, JCM surely could have been identified by CCTV en route from his home to Stockwell, am I right?

I would imagine that by the time they had secured any such CCTV recordings - let alone had time to analyse them - they would already have known who he was.

[dewstru]

Nick Cooper, thank you again for that. Perhaps you could enlighten us the CASH payment cost of using TFL buses compared to a single TFL Oyster card journey? 'Comrade' Ken (iink!) with his brilliant business acumen priced cash customers off Transport for london long long ago forcing them to aquire Oyster cards with all their attendant invasion of our privacies.

I'd still like to know whether JCM had an oyster card that could have identified him by accessing the sinister database and CCTV pictures en route could have compared him to the alleged suspects photo almost at leisure by the met Police.

You are wrong about the economic league predating the data protection act, their sinister and not terribly competent activities were highlighted in an ITV 'World in Action' documentary circa 1985 appx' .Several working class tories somehow got onto their 'on paper hand written lists'.

[Nick Cooper]

Nick Cooper, thank you again for that. Perhaps you could enlighten us the CASH payment cost of using TFL buses compared to a single TFL Oyster card journey? 'Comrade' Ken (iink!) with his brilliant business acumen priced cash customers off Transport for london long long ago forcing them to aquire Oyster cards with all their attendant invasion of our privacies.

Bus fares are £1 on Oyster, £2 cash, although given that a one-day paper non-traceable bus pass is £3.80, anyone paying more than one cash fare a day would be cutting off their nose to spite their face. It also gives lie to the suggestion that people are being "forced" into anything.

I'd still like to know whether JCM had an oyster card that could have identified him by accessing the sinister database and CCTV pictures en route could have compared him to the alleged suspects photo almost at leisure by the met Police.

What would be the point apart from corroboration, given that - as I have pointed out repeatedly, but you seem to be wilfully ignoring - JC's driving licence and other ID were found on him? Sorry, but surely you aren't talking about in "real-time" whilst he was actually making his final journey, are you?

You are wrong about the economic league predating the data protection act, their sinister and not terribly competent activities were highlighted in an ITV 'World in Action' documentary circa 1985 appx' .Several working class tories somehow got onto their 'on paper hand written lists'.

Am I? The Economic League was formed in 1919 - long before modern computers, the DPA, and the press's interest in the organisation. The first DPA, of course, was in 1984, and it was effectively the League side-stepping of it that prompted media investigation. Or do you think that the League managed to collate detailed files on thousands of individuals in just a year or so? It's also silly of you to use terms like "paper hand written lists" - did typewriters not exist in this strange alternative-universe past you seem to believe in?

[dewstru]

er, thank you for that (I think)

I still can't see why the type of TFL Oyster card JCM had the day he was killed is not an issue? surely whenever you swipe one it identifies you and the balnce of your account for certain categories of card?
Did you comment on the CCTV cameras en route from his home to Stockwell tube (bus CCtv too) perhaps you concede my point on that?
The economic league were around investigating trade union activists when the the data protection act was in law, are you saying it was just coincidence they listed "industrial trouble makers" strictly hand written on paper? I note 9/11 critics are invariably coincidence theorists.
Is that correct the flat rate cash payment on the buses has been frozen at £2 for going on two years? can anyone else confirm this?

[Nick Cooper]

I still can't see why the type of TFL Oyster card JCM had the day he was killed is not an issue?

It is more the case that you have failed to come up with convincing reasons why it should be an issue. You have repeatedly ignored the issue of the other clear and tangible ID that we know JCdM had in his possession, and have failed to explain why you think his Oyster card would be anything other than secondary/corroboratory to them.

surely whenever you swipe one it identifies you and the balnce of your account for certain categories of card?

No, it recognises the card, whether it is registered or not. The system does not "know" that the card is being carried by whoever it is registered to, even if it is actually registered in the first place. Within the Oyster terms & conditions, cards used for Pre-pay only are explicitly transferable, so can be shared between any number of people, as long as only one person is using it at any given time (I have a second Oyster card topped up with Pre-pay for "emergencies," and I often lend it to friends visiting London).

Presumably JC's Oyster card was found when his body was eventually searched, at the same time they found his driving licence, NI card, credit cards, etc. in his name. By that stage, all the Oyster would have told them - when they eventually got access to the data - is stuff that they already knew, i.e. the time he boarded the bus and when he entered Stockwell station. Please explain why you think this adds anything significant in evidential terms, or are you thinking of a different scenario?

Did you comment on the CCTV cameras en route from his home to Stockwell tube (bus CCtv too) perhaps you concede my point on that?

Despite a direct request, you have failed to clarify exactly what your "point" is. Are you talking about identifying JC from CCTV during his final journey, or after he was shot? I have already noted that in the case of the latter, it would be very much secondary to the actual ID that was found on his body. Assuming that somebody had actually stopped and detained the bus after it arrived at Stockwell, a technician would have to be summoned to remove the hard-drive from the vehicle, and it would then take time to check through it for the appropriate images, and their evidential worth would depend on the type of camera system installed and where JC was actually sitting on the bus. It does not seem likely that this process would be anything other than secondary to the ID actually found on his body.

The economic league were around investigating trade union activists when the the data protection act was in law, are you saying it was just coincidence they listed "industrial trouble makers" strictly hand written on paper? I note 9/11 critics are invariably coincidence theorists.

No, the EL were recording the activities of various people long before the DPA was even proposed, let alone part of lesgislation. It's my recollection from the news reports in the 1980s that they maintained a main card index - which tend to be hand-written, simply because it's easier than typing on them - and copious files of press-cuttings and other reports. Of the latter, brief notes may well have been in long-hand, but most were typed, no doubt obviously for the sake of clarity. What is the source for your claim that their documentation was, "strictly hand written"?

Is that correct the flat rate cash payment on the buses has been frozen at £2 for going on two years? can anyone else confirm this?

I usually have a Travelcard on my Oyster, or rely on Pre-pay for when I haven't, so I take little notice of changes (or not) to cash prices.