i've only come across 2 or 3 cases of in- year examinations, so they appear random-ish, numberwise, but "identified by CCRO staff on the basis of risk" suggests risk profiling of some kind as the basis of selection.
developments in 'fraud world' suggest 'profiling' is an increasingly favoured tool, and c'mon, the PM's ideas for identifying pre-natal 'anti-social behavioural problems'for early intervention, and his support for pre-emptive strikes generally, indicates a certain amount of momentum behind this approach. : )
it doesn't chime with the traditional views of justice, in which it is an individual's actions which are relevant, not what 'type' of person he is classified as, and maybe 'science' and law are set on a collision course, sooner or later, or maybe law will radically change?
i find it fascinating that the PM, a lawyer himself, married to a lawyer, and with a government consisting of probably more lawyers than ever before, displays at times such thorough disenchantment with the law. as a non-lawyer, i wonder what accounts for it... : )
practically, i suppose that an individual subjected to an 'audit' of their life by HMRC investigators (see the 'TC routine enquiry- thread) might find the demonstration of state power such an unpleasant experience that it might deter someone who is the 'type', from straying from the straight and narrow. the statistics might then 'prove' the effectiveness of the method...it all sounds a bit 'creationist' to me...<shudder>
at present, civil risk profiling is basically stratified on the basis of income, but presumably the national identitity registration scheme will allow for finer tuning and equalising...heh!
oh don't mind me - i shouldn't have listened to the foreign secretary being grilled by the ghost of Christmas Present on the radio this morning - Bah!
at least it highlighted the humbug in the 'predicted risk' approach, if applied to government. i suppose it boils down to the question is there one law for them and one law for everybody else? : )
|