This is partly why there haven't been any significant anti-Brexit protests; the police have very effectively dismantled the structures from which violence might spring.
Police tactics, ground changes, putting responsibility more on to the clubs, and a good degree of managing the groups of supporters. Companies would once finish early if there was a Wednesday match and their office was even vaguely on a route to the ground. By the nineties and noughties, normality was far more expected.
Far more has been for security theatre and red top media campaigns that the "government must DO something!!!!". So government does do something. Like rings of steel around London. Tanks at airports (huh?) and all the rest. Despite this a man in a van can still perform a terrorist outrage on a bridge, or take a bomb to a teen pop concert.
We're far more likely to hear some days after that some perpetrator was known to police or security services, than all the security theatre prevented some atrocity, or the perpetrator was arrested en route.
I'm not old enough to remember football hooliganism in the 80s and before, but abroad at least, it was very far from solved by the 90s - which is why passports are taken away.
> than all the security theatre prevented some atrocity
Without commenting on how effective any of this is, you won't hear about prevention because it isn't news.
By the nineties there was just a dwindling hard core minority of hooligans, that were starting to become removed from the clubs. Same for the international element, it had become some thugs being thugs, and mostly separated from grounds, matches and the general support. They tagged along with the footie event, for a good punch up in a city bar or city square. From a point of view of "everyone well behaved" it remained a problem. From a point of view of hundreds or thousands of opposing supporters kicking off, it was mostly solved.
Prevention isn't news, but arresting someone preparing a bomb, or caught on a bus with a machete on their way to wherever is. Yet for all the additional surveillance...
See also, The Troubles
Really that's the core liberal/conservative policing distinction: the conservative argument is that some people are really bad and that justifies measures taken against them, and the liberal argument is that actions of the police should be judged as acceptable or unacceptable regardless of who those actions are against.
Protest has also changed from the anti-"G8" anti-globalisation days.
> anti-brexit, anti-austerity and anti-trump protests
All those things appear to still be happening despite the protests. I should have said "effective".
What protests are ever "effective"? They're a warning to those in power more than anything else. Usually the repercussions for politicians are felt years afterwards, for example Labour losing elections and Tony Blair being unable to participate effectively in UK politics any more.
Also regarding the protests - it really depends on your definition of effective. I don't think anyone thought they were going to topple the Trump presidency by protesting when he visited. They were just expressing that they believed he was not welcome here. And given the media coverage and the comments from the man himself I'd say they were quite effective.
If this was a good justification for this kind of measure (abuse) can you imagine what Germany should do given their history? Yet they'd rather go for less divisive solutions.
What if there are better ways to prevent repeating the mistakes of the past that don't involve making even bigger mistakes? But those ways give more power to all people instead of just some people so I can understand why mass surveillance was the go to instead.
> those measures were considered necessary and a re supported by a large part of the public
All slippery slopes start somewhere high and this is all people are shown at first. But it's the bottom you should worry about instead.
The fact that UK police are not routinely armed helps a lot, but they're still capable of some highly selective treatment of people they don't like.
"Then why don't they install some? Perhaps people would respect their environment a little more".
"Because the IRA put bombs in them".
But they are very convenient to monitor daily life of political activists.
It got a bit ridiculous at one point with one perfectly normal pizzeria in my town being asked to install 6 different CCTV cameras, but they started pushing back at that point.
When you're talking about the law and the UK you need to recognise that there are different legal systems.
In some parts of the UK owning a handgun for defence is legal.
In England you're allowed to defend yourself. This includes a pre-emptive strike upon your attacker, and you're allowed to use a weapon to do so.
This is confusing to people who don't know anything about the laws in the UK, but perhaps those people should stop talking about UK law.
Self defence: https://www.cps.gov.uk/legal-guidance/self-defence-and-preve...
Pre-emptive strikes: https://www.cps.gov.uk/legal-guidance/self-defence-and-preve...
>The police said that since 2017, 58 people had been arrested after being identified by the technology.
I mean, 58 people in 2 years is like 2-3 per month, if the scanned faces were (say) 1,000 per month is one thing, if they were (still say) 1,000,000 per month it would be another.
And it all depends on how the 998 or 999,998 not-identified people data (if any) is used (or stored).
The analogy of:
>a police officer standing on the corner looking out for individuals and if he recognizes somebody, saying, ‘I want to talk to you.’”
is fine and dandy exactly because those that were not recognized are not "talked to" nor any note about them is taken by the officer.
I can't think of an explanation for that.
I think you're right though. British people have a complicated relationship with surveillance. Mass government surveillance is mostly seen as okay so long as there are some checks and balances. CCTVs (and most UK CCTV is privately owned and run) are mostly seen as ok so long as there are some regulations around how it's used. But police surveillance does make some people feel uncomfortable.