CCTV debate.

[Lady Whistledown]

Re: Re: Re: CCTV debate.

Bear with me on this TB, I dont dispute that there is a perception that CCTV in some way is there to "protect us" yet we hear with depressing regularity that the operators, including police have used it to spy on women, sometimes in their own homes, with complete impunity, the whole thing stokes suspicion and promotes covert prying.

What if in the future there is a less benevolent goverment (which looks increasingly likely) who use this covert surveillance against us? perhaps I am paranoid but I don't like being spied on.

Depressing regularity? BH, you clearly have no idea of the rules relating to CCTV then, maybe there are a few dodgy security guards around who might use their cameras for illicit purposes, but take it from me, the police CCTV operators have to be absolutely nailed on about the powers they have in respect of use of the cameras.

For example- they see on CCTV a couple having sex on the beach in Brighton. They're allowed to check for long enough- ie a few seconds- to ensure that nothing wrong is happening, ie that the girl isn't being raped or robbed- but after that, the LAW the requires the camera to be moved on, as otherwise it's an invasion of privacy under the Human Rights Act. They can't go zooming in on faces unless they think there's a crime being committed, and as all the tapes have to be kept, they're not going to lech over people for their own personal enjoyment, as being busted in that respect would mean they'd lose their jobs.

See the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act, if you're that interested.

And if you're that bothered about being spied on, wear a hoody and a false beard when you go out?

 

[Norman Baker suck my lozenge]

CCTV is usually next to useless when shown on crimewatch,half the time you see some shitty,grainy picture of the back of some herbert's head,on the other hand if the local government Gestapo catch you in a bus lane for 5 seconds the picture will have near perfect clarity.
George Orwell was right,
coming soon,property surveyors forcing their way into Your home and taking pictures of all the improvements you have worked hard for.
Welcome to Blair's socialist utopia.

 

[Lady Whistledown]

CCTV is usually next to useless when shown on crimewatch,half the time you see some shitty,grainy picture of the back of some herbert's head,on the other hand if the local government Gestapo catch you in a bus lane for 5 seconds the picture will have near perfect clarity.

:thud:

Maybe that's because the average person's face is considerably smaller than a Vauxhall Astra, so doesn't show up on camera as easily.

 

[keaton]

Not the point at all, I was saying that cheating on the wife is wrong, but it is NOT acrime, CCTV is not meant to be used as a morality checker, it is there to prevent crime, what if you were gay, but in the closet and you were broadcast across the country going into the Bulldog?, do you follow?

no but the point is the police won't do anything if you're having an affair will they, it'll be your wife that does it.

About the gay point, i'm completely straight but did go to Vavoom the other night and would think it quite funny if footage of that was broadcast on tv.

 

[Bevendean Hillbilly]

I accept your point with regard to the POlice, because the fact that where abuses have been brought to light the officers concerned have been (as far as I know) been dismissed, but once again I seem to be alone in thinking that once we accept being covertly filmed as we go about our business as normal we are basically abdicating our right to privacy.

Would we be happy to see a society that ignores anti social behaviour and thuggery on our streets because either we figure that the police will catch them on camera so we need not bother ourselves?,or that anti social behaviour will vanish from that area because of a camera?

I am only saying that with the massive proliferation of these cameras and the surveillance culture we have not seen a decline in low grade criminality and threats from hooded kids ,it has spiralled if anything.

You can't even park for a couple of minutes in London without some camera copping you, or accidentally stray into a bus lane without an £80 fine, and next you will be filmed every mile you drive and get billed if you edge over the speed limit.

Am I completely on my own here or is anyone else at all concerned?

 

[turienzo's lovechild]

Yes, yes you do. Nice curtains by the way

ha HA

i have BLINDS

 

[Parson Henry]

but does it? Can't say that I have seen improved society since we replaced cops with cameras.

Think on Perry.

BH..the debate was not a comparison between policing and CCTV coverage was it?

 

[Lady Whistledown]

I accept your point with regard to the POlice, because the fact that where abuses have been brought to light the officers concerned have been (as far as I know) been dismissed, but once again I seem to be alone in thinking that once we accept being covertly filmed as we go about our business as normal we are basically abdicating our right to privacy.

Would we be happy to see a society that ignores anti social behaviour and thuggery on our streets because either we figure that the police will catch them on camera so we need not bother ourselves?,or that anti social behaviour will vanish from that area because of a camera?

I am only saying that with the massive proliferation of these cameras and the surveillance culture we have not seen a decline in low grade criminality and threats from hooded kids ,it has spiralled if anything.

You can't even park for a couple of minutes in London without some camera copping you, or accidentally stray into a bus lane without an £80 fine, and next you will be filmed every mile you drive and get billed if you edge over the speed limit.

Am I completely on my own here or is anyone else at all concerned?

I understand what you're saying, but from a work point of view at least, the first thing that I get from people when they've been mugged, or burgled, seen kids drinking in the street, or had their car broken into, is "We need CCTV installed in this road". They all want it when crime happens to them.

Believe it or not, *most* crime is actually falling, I'm not saying things are perfect, but it's the perception of crime that affects people more. Stuff like you see on the front of the Mail about "hoodie thugs" gets inside people's heads.

Some stuff continues to be a problem, principally robberies (partly because people habitually walk down the road displaying their expensive phones and iPods for all to see) and anti social stuff from kids.

But you're a hell of a lot less likely to be burgled in Sussex right now than you would have been ten years ago. And (funny, the Daily Mail has gone rather quiet on this) serious violent offences- ie bottlings, stabbings, GBH type stuff) have fallen since the licensing laws were changed a year ago.

 

[Bevendean Hillbilly]

no but the point is the police won't do anything if you're having an affair will they, it'll be your wife that does it.

About the gay point, i'm completely straight but did go to Vavoom the other night and would think it quite funny if footage of that was broadcast on tv.

The wife would not know about it until the Police came a callin'

Glad that you are a confident heterosexual who enjoys gay bars, not everyone would be so delighted to be on TV doing that, especially if they were gay, but were trying to keep it quiet.

 

[Bevendean Hillbilly]

Re: Re: CCTV debate.

On the other hand if it was your granny that got mugged, would you give a shit if the only witness was secretly having it away with some office skirt? Or would you just go "nah, don't worry about giving a statement mate, your desperate efforts to pep up your sex life are far more important".

Did'nt I say in my example that you have not witnessed the attack?, of course if you see a crime and fail to report it that is an offence in and of itself, I was saying that you would be forced to rule yourself out of an incident that you had no knowledge of, whilst disclosing deeply personal information.

On another note, perhaps people don't report crimes that they witness because they rely on the cameras to witness every damn thing for them?

 

[Lady Whistledown]

The wife would not know about it until the Police came a callin'

Glad that you are a confident heterosexual who enjoys gay bars, not everyone would be so delighted to be on TV doing that, especially if they were gay, but were trying to keep it quiet.

Believe it or not, we try and be discreet where possible.

Principally because when we go to see someone, we have absolutely no idea of their personal circumstances.

It might be like you say, that someone's been in a car crash and it transpires the woman in the car with the bloke wasn't his wife but his secret lover, then we have to go and tell his wife. Or having to get a statement from a guy who's been assaulted while out with male partner, but the family he lives with have no idea he's gay.

You work in Brighton, you have to learn to expect the unexpected- never assume anything, be tactful with everyone until you know the facts, and don't give out information to people who don't need to know it!

Straying slightly from the thread now, but you see where I'm coming from. The wonders of Brighton.

 

[Bevendean Hillbilly]

BH..the debate was not a comparison between policing and CCTV coverage was it?

Who uses CCTV footage as evidence?

 

[Parson Henry]

Who uses CCTV footage as evidence?

Agreed..but not the original point of debate. (Think on)

 

[Lady Whistledown]

Re: Re: Re: CCTV debate.

On another note, perhaps people don't report crimes that they witness because they rely on the cameras to witness every damn thing for them? [/B]

Annoyingly, I'd say it's the opposite.

You wouldn't believe some of the crap that people report to the police, the most trivial of things that they expect us to sort out for them!

"I've got a ghost in my house"

"I've just seen a man and a woman arguing in the street, I don't know who they are, I can't describe them, and I don't know where they are now, but I thought I should report it"

"Someone just gave me a nasty look outside Marks & Spencer"

"I've just been ejected from Creation by the doormen and it's not fair"

"A man just called me fat"

 

[Bevendean Hillbilly]

Believe it or not, we try and be discreet where possible.

Principally because when we go to see someone, we have absolutely no idea of their personal circumstances.

It might be like you say, that someone's been in a car crash and it transpires the woman in the car with the bloke wasn't his wife but his secret lover, then we have to go and tell his wife. Or having to get a statement from a guy who's been assaulted while out with male partner, but the family he lives with have no idea he's gay.

You work in Brighton, you have to learn to expect the unexpected- never assume anything, be tactful with everyone until you know the facts, and don't give out information to people who don't need to know it!

Straying slightly from the thread now, but you see where I'm coming from. The wonders of Brighton.

So.. do you think , as a cop, that, CCTV prevents crime? or is it principally to give the general public a perception of safety and generate a bit of cash from motorists into the bargain?

Go back to bed Britain, your government is in control.

 

[Bevendean Hillbilly]

Agreed..but not the original point of debate. (Think on)

 

[Parson Henry]

Use of smiley means I lose.

 

[Bevendean Hillbilly]

Re: Re: Re: Re: CCTV debate.

Annoyingly, I'd say it's the opposite.

You wouldn't believe some of the crap that people report to the police, the most trivial of things that they expect us to sort out for them!

"I've got a ghost in my house"

"I've just seen a man and a woman arguing in the street, I don't know who they are, I can't describe them, and I don't know where they are now, but I thought I should report it"

"Someone just gave me a nasty look outside Marks & Spencer"

"I've just been ejected from Creation by the doormen and it's not fair"

"A man just called me fat"

Reads like a London Irish Thread log.

 

[Lady Whistledown]

Bit of both, innit.

People are generally less likely to commit crime where they know there are cameras potentially watching them. And the public, overall, want them, as they always ask us for them.

But by and large, they are mostly only going to be used as supplementary evidence in a court case. Someone's sworn witness statement would be the main evidence, we'd go and check out possible CCTV sources, ie shops, bars etc, to back up the account afterwards.

CCTV can show your innocence as well as your guilt.

I completely understand where you're coming from, but CCTV has been responsible for nailing some pretty nasty people. Graham Coutts, the guy who murdered Jane Longhurst, was identified because automatic number plate recognition cameras carrying out a traffic survey registered his car going repeatedly back and forth to the site where her body had been dumped and burnt. Similarly, he was also caught on camera carrying a large package (sadly, her body) to a storage facility in Brighton.

The men on trial for the murder of the Bradford PC were picked up when their car went through ANPR cameras in the congestion charging zone. The 7/7 bombers (Ok, after the event) were identified through CCTV, as were some of the plotters for the failed 21/7 attempt.

No, it's not the answer to everything, and frankly it would be dangerous if we started to rely on it, but I do think it's (1) a useful deterrent at times and (2) a decent source of evidence on occasion.

 

[Simster]

And (funny, the Daily Mail has gone rather quiet on this) serious violent offences- ie bottlings, stabbings, GBH type stuff) have fallen since the licensing laws were changed a year ago.

Anyone with a brain could have seen this was going to happen, which kind of rules out the Daily Mail and people who believe its every word.