ANPR: allowed, because we allowed it

David Davis

Allowed: Not Prevented Rigorously…”

Wake up, everyone, before it is absolutely too late. This post is triggered by one in The Register.

Here’s a choice quote from the wiki-article about ANPR in the UK:-

ANPR does, of course, also have the potential to be a lucrative source of income for the Police, a fact not lost on Ronnie Flanagan who in an official report instructed other forces to “ensure they are taking an entrepreneurial approach to policing, in ethical income generation and in creating and exploiting business opportunities,” effectively encouraging a change in the Police’s role, from disinterested and essentially reactive upholders of the law, to modern-day bounty hunters.[17]

As Michel Foucault, Paul Virilio and others have noted, information is power. The UK Government is able to track almost all automated and many non-automated journeys within and outwith the UK. Individual freedom of movement is not protected as the Government possess the right of detention without charge for up to thirty days. There are no effective restrictions on the Governments right to track. In essence, critics say, the UK has become a giant open prison.


  1. ANPR’s primary use is to detect and subsequently stop motorists using vehicles illegally (no tax, no insurance, no licence, vehicle has a history of criminal activity or all of the above) This is a good thing. I abide by the law so why should some people get away with using their vehicles illegally, pushing up my insurance premiums to compensate for their selfishness and greed?

    Yesterday an ANPR van was parked up on the way into Rugby town with police officers then pulling people in to check the legality of their vehicles. From what I saw they were pretty busy. These scum will be fined and if uninsured have their vehicles confiscated thus reducing the chances of people being injured or killed by uninsured drivers.

    I really don’t get this conspiracy theory thing about the government tracking peoples journeys (unless they have somehting to hide) I don’t know of anyone who has been harrassed by the police or government as a result of ANPR. Please enlighten me.

  2. Alfie, old fellow: look, all my “papers” are in order too. I don’t object to your position regarding insurance premiums and the like. I object to the universal accepance _in principle_ of the modern Statist notion that “if you’ve nothing to hide, then you have nothing to fear”.

    Although entirely legal in my vehicle transactions and payment of imposts etc, I object to the fact that my movements are transparent to people I don’t know, and whose moral motives I distrust. You should also.

  3. What possible suspicious moral motive could someone have for tracking me on my way to work or to visit my relatives? I have absolutely no reason to distrust ANPR. It’s there for a very good reason. Catching illegal motorists. The fact that it could be used to track people who are possibly committing criminal acts is a good thing. No one is interested in Joe Public nipping down to Tesco or going to see their granny despite how much some people would like to think they are. Just another conspiracy theory I’m afraid.

  4. The answer is very simply human nature.
    Who would you trust to run the system?
    Uncle Adolf would have been ecstatic with these tools.
    Never here?
    Don’t you believe it.
    By the way, I like this IBM commercial:

  5. I’d trust anyone to run the system COS I’M NOT BREAKING THE LAW. Let’s see what happens shall we? My guess is that it will still be used only to catch law breaking scrotes 20, 30 years from now while honest, law abiding citizens can continue to go about their business unhindered as they do now.

  6. Dave, perhaps you’d like to expand on your statement. “I object to the universal accepance _in principle_ of the modern Statist notion that “if you’ve nothing to hide, then you have nothing to fear”.”

    Why do you object?

Leave a Reply