UK News

Geoff Oliver and wife Maria run El Cuba Libre restaurant in Hyde, Tameside, and were asked by police to take a Cuban flag with Che Guevera's face superimposed on it.

A Greater Manchester Police licensing officer visited the pub saying there had been a complaint about it.

Pub landlord Geoff Oliver said he was told to remove it from the window and was warned if he refused there could be consequences, with it potentially being recorded as a crime. He  described the incident as attempted political censorship and said the request was particularly offensive to his Cuban wife Maria.

The spin from the authorities is that a force licensing officer merely paid a visit on behalf of Tameside council to make him aware of the complaint and ask if he would consider taking it down. They insist he was not told he had to or threatened with an investigation.

A complaint made against Desperados has not been upheld by the Independent Complaints Panel

The complainant, a member of the public, believed that the sale of Heineken's Desperados in a 250 ml can could appeal to under 18s due to it being in the same size can as energy drinks. The complainant also believed that the size of the can could mean that the product could be downed in one.

The Panel first considered whether the product had a particular appeal to under-18s. The Panel noted that the 250ml can size did not have a traditional association with soft drinks, and the size of the can alone did not necessarily lead the product to be problematic under the Code. The Panel considered the other elements of the can's design and noted that the colour palette, although it contained bright and contrasting colours, had a mature theme. The Panel also considered that the language used provided clarity around its alcoholic content. Accordingly, the Panel did not find the product in breach of Code rule 3.2(h)

The Panel then considered if the product directly or indirectly urged the consumer to drink rapidly or down the contents in one. The Panel noted that the can did not feature any text or other instruction that the contents should be downed-in-one. The Panel was also clear that a smaller one serve container was different to encouraging a rapid or down in one message. Accordingly, the Panel did not find the product in breach of the Code.

Leeds United football fans are a little pissed off at Sky TV for messing around with kick off times to suit TV viewers rather than the football fans attending the matches. Leeds fans seem more displeased than most due t the number of their matches televised.

From September 28 to November 10, seven of their eight matches have been, or are scheduled to be, televised. Of Leeds's 15 league matches so far this season, only four have kicked off at 3pm on a Saturday, often creating transport problems for supporters.

The fans have found a way of giving voice to their complaints by chanting "Sky TV is fucking shit" during televised matches.

Sky Sports have now responded by using technology to mute the chants. During last Saturday's fixture with Nottingham Forest at Elland Road, the chants were hushed by the broadcaster on more than one occasion using a process known as dampening.

Scarborough Borough Council's licensing sub-committee has just granted A Northern Soul a 12A rating, changing a decision by the BBFC.

The Council has joined Hull, Lambeth, Leeds, Liverpool, Sheffield, Southampton, Hackney, Bradford and Calderdale as councils that have downgraded the film to 12A.

The ruling means that the film can now be shown at the Stephen Joseph Theatre on October 16 to anyone aged over 12. Children under 12 can also attend if they are accompanied by an adult.

Update: BBFC update

19th October 2018. See Board Meeting minutes [pdf] from bbfc.co.uk

The BBFC wrote in the minutes of its September board meeting:

A Northern Soul is a UK documentary classified 15 for cinema release for around twenty uses of strong language. Prior to its submission to the BBFC Sheffield City Council classified the film 12A, for its premiere, as did Hull City Council. The film's director complained in the media about the BBFC's decision. A letter co-signed by three Hull MPs was sent to the BBFC requesting that the 15 classification be reviewed, to which David Austin responded. The film is now classified 12A by seven local authorities (Sheffield, Hull, Leeds, Liverpool, Halifax, Southampton and Lambeth).

Update: Nottingham too

25th October 2018. See article

 Nottingham City Council has joined the group of councils that has disagreed with the BBFC 15 rating for the documentary, A Northern Soul. The film will be released locally with a Nottingham 12A rating.

Tommy Robinson has accused Sky News of editing their interview with him to make it seem like he said he didn't mind inciting fear of Muslims, a sentiment which was reported in the press, including by RT.

Robinson, with supporting videos published on YouTube showing the full interview, notes that the statement was made to a different question about a Dutch public service video warning children about the dangers of grooming. Robinson's comments were about whether the video incited fear of Mulsims, and was not about Robinson's actions inciting fear.

In a response video titled: Exposing Sky News lies and propaganda I will take them to court for this, Robinson states :

[The] headline that's gone all around the world says that Tommy Robinson says he doesn't care if he -- as in me -- incites fear against Muslims.

Jason Farrell wrote a piece for Sky News defending his interview, not on the grounds of its selective editing but rather over criticism that it provided a platform for Robinson and his views:

Are we not interested then in quizzing him about who he is now, and how he justifies his more recent words and actions?

A new policing super-database is in the works -- and it puts our rights at serious risk. But the Home Office has failed to respond sufficiently to Liberty's concerns. We can't be part of a process that gives a free pass to the creeping expansion of digital policing that shows contempt for our privacy rights.

On 28 September, we wrote to the Home Office telling them we can no longer take part in their Open Space civil society consultation on the Law Enforcement Data Service (LEDS) -- the Home Office's planned police super-database.

LEDS will bring together the Police National Computer and Police National Database in one place. This unprecedented development will see the Government amass deeply sensitive data for policing purposes.

It requires rigorous scrutiny and debate to make sure our personal information is protected, with robust safeguards to protect us from threats to our privacy and other fundamental rights.

The Home Office has made clear to us that the Open Space consultation will exclude discussion of our key concerns with the plan.

The information on the database will be vulnerable in many ways -- and the Home Office's plans fail to explain how police will use the system in conjunction with the creeping progression of surveillance and algorithmic policing.

The proposed system doesn't have an agreed retention policy and the police have even admitted that data they no longer have any right to hold will be transferred to the new database.

The plans even allow our data to be shared with non-policing organisations where a business case can be made.

And the Home Office has excluded from its consultation process any consideration of how the database will be linked with lawless facial recognition technology.

LEDS cannot be considered in a vacuum. This derisory consultation continues the pattern of police adding to their powers to use invasive technology without giving any regard to proper scrutiny and accountability -- or the effect on our rights.

Police forces are increasingly looking to big data to assist with law enforcement. Having enormous amounts of our personal information held in one place is a significant violation of our privacy. While the collection of a few pieces of data can seem innocuous, combining it with other sensitive information can let the state build up a detailed and extremely intrusive personal profile on each of us.

Even more sinister are the algorithms the state is increasingly using to make important decisions about us -- leading to conclusions which may be inaccurate or biased and lack proper human oversight.

We must question how super-databases like this will be linked with lawless surveillance technologies or biased algorithmic programs that make predictions about who is likely to commit crime.

In the UK, we have a long-held principle of policing by consent. We must be able to trust the police to protect our privacy and our fundamental rights.