Ethnic Minorities and CCTV

[Questions]

Your second point, I do understand what you are saying, it is less of an important institution in OUR lives here in the UK than what is was,... but why?.. .

Maybe because people know receive a better education - and I dont just mean in schools - which allows a rational thinking individual to realise what a lot of baloney and twaddle Christianity (insert any religion) really is.

 

[somerset]

I wont google..

that if there IS a god, then theres one god, and people seem to be going to war with each other over the way they pray to their own particular god.

... and there you have it.... well done..... ( and I am not being condescending)

 

[somerset]

Maybe because people know receive a better education - and I dont just mean in schools - which allows a rational thinking individual to realise what a lot of baloney and twaddle Christianity (insert any religion) really is.

Would have been better to have inserted "any religion" first time,... but you are correct..... another well done ( no condescension intended)

 

[daveinprague]

... and there you have it.... well done..... ( and I am not being condescending)

actually...ive edited what i said to..

people are killing each other about how they pray to the one god that different peoples call a different name basically...
If there is a god, I dont think he is doing too well...

He should have come up with cctv terrorist exterminators by now...

 

[somerset]

Blimey, the population of this country is going thorugh the roof. I blame that Gordon Brown.

Mr Pedant,..... sevral billion christians worldwide...

 

[Questions]

The sooner God appears on a hill again and tells everyone that he doesn`t really exist the better I think.

 

[bhaexpress]

actually...ive edited what i said to..

people are killing each other about how they pray to the one god that different peoples call a different name basically...
If there is a god, I dont think he is doing too well...

Unfortunately try getting that simple message across to the believer out there, whoever the big guy may be. We know it, they just can't accept it. Would no religion stop wars ? No, World War 1 and 2 were not about religion and neither was Korea or Vietnam. Iran Iraq wasn't and the reason for the Western coalition being in Iraq twice wasn't either. You could argue that what was happening in Northern Ireland wasn't either.

Can't help feeling there'd be a lot less hate in a World without religion though.

 

[daveinprague]

Unfortunately try getting that simple message across to the believer out there, whoever the big guy may be. We know it, they just can't accept it. Would no religion stop wars ? No, World War 1 and 2 were not about religion and neither was Korea or Vietnam. Iran Iraq wasn't and the reason for the Western coalition being in Iraq twice wasn't either. You could argue that what was happening in Northern Ireland wasn't either.

Can't help feeling there'd be a lot less hate in a World without religion though.

German troops in WW1 had on their belt buckles 'Gott mit uns'...although I consider WW1 a family squabble, seeing that the main participants were all related... WW2, seems like a lot of people from one religion were targeted.

Theres plenty of wars without religion, and will be plenty more... but blimey, the religious wars take some beating dont they...

yeah, i think there would be a bit less hate in gthe world though without it..

 

[somerset]

Can't help feeling there'd be a lot less hate in a World without religion though.

It is however human nature that we strive for something to believe in, something to give us hope that there is more to life than just born--live--die....

... so religion of some form will always exist,..... sorry dude but I feel that your sentiment, though laudable, is not in the real world.

I will qualify all my comments though, for clarity, I am an agnostic, but I live my life by what is euphamistically labeled 'christian values',... christian with a very small 'c'.

 

[bhaexpress]

It is however human nature that we strive for something to believe in, something to give us hope that there is more to life than just born--live--die....

... so religion of some form will always exist,..... sorry dude but I feel that your sentiment, though laudable, is not in the real world.

I will qualify all my comments though, for clarity, I am an agnostic, but I live my life by what is euphamistically labeled 'christian values',... christian with a very small 'c'.

Of course it's not in the real world Mind you where does that put people who believe in something of which there is no proof of existence ? I think I'm reasonably sane despite it all.

 

[somerset]

Mind you where does that put people who believe in something of which there is no proof of existence ?

... probably in the same category as people who believe in UFO's.....

 

[DJ Leon]

Hi. I do not believe the silent majority are stupid. I do believe that society as a whole is too passive. I feel in all aspects of life people should question what they are told. BHAExpress suggests this is a sign of paranoia- I guess ignorance is bliss.

You may have missed my post earlier re. the efficacy of CCTV. The Home Office's own research shows CCTV is not effective.
http://rds.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/pdfs05/hors292.pdf

(Summary here :http://www.privacyinternational.org/article.shtml?cmd[347]=x-347-167206)

I have had two personal experiences of CCTV in the last 2 years. Once, my brother's jaw was broken but the camera was facing the wrong way so no action was taken. The second incident, the police responded to a disturbance outside a pub that was reported by a CCTV operator. The operator informed them of the circumstances and a description of those involved. The police arrived and pepper sprayed my friend who had just arrived and was not involved. CCTV effective?

Having read the conclusions of that report it doesn't simply suggest that CCTV is ineffectual. It challenges its cost effectiveness principally and then also suggests its impact in decreasing overall crime levels and making people feel safer has been limited. It does, however, suggest that there are plenty of other success criteria - prosecution rate, prosecution rate by crime, reduction in crime types etc - by which it may be successful.

Let's also note that the aim of the cameras in the featured story is not to be cost effective, to reduce overall crime figures or make people (in those communities) feel safer. They are there for surveillance reasons. They're an intelligence tool.

Being against this practice is fine (and let's face facts that's why people are up in arms) but the report you cite as evidence doesn't win the argument on how effective CCTV is.

 

[Bakero]

Are you an American? If not, your 9/11 reference is pointless.
They attacked the USA. Not Britain.

The 7/7 bombings were, according to the bombers suicide videos, a response to British troops joining American troops in Iraq.


British drones are targetting Afghanis in their country pretty much daily.
We are attacking them. Not vice versa.
If Islamic forces were attacking British people daily, and occupying Britain, would you sit back and take it?
To go on about them bombing us...on 7/7 and the Glasgow failure is a bit..well..paltry.
Im not suggesting youre an idiot. Just ill informed, and being directed by propaganda.

Dave, my post was a quote from bhaexpress:
'The reason we're there is because they started blowing us up first, were you born after 9/11 ?'

I was the one laughing at his ignorance:
'I've just realised it was you that posted this! And you have the nerve to suggest that I'm an idiot'

 

[daveinprague]

my apologies...and really to anybody else who takes offence as to what ive posted..its my views, and i cant change them

 

[Bakero]

I guess like always on here, there is a rush to shout down anything remotely 'establishment'.... go with it, Bakero has a view, just throw good counter-points back at him/them and agree to disagree..... nobody ever bends to anothers point of view in the end anyway.

I've not shouted down anything, Somerset. I've simply argued that people should think for themselves. My points have been logical and I've provided 'evidence' where possible. As I've previously said, contrasting views are welcome. Debate is healthy. Unfortunately, bhaexpress' debating skills stretch to name calling, nothing more.

 

[Bakero]

Ok.

1. CCTV has it's use in certain places- shops being a prime example. I can see that this would be useful. It would provide evidence leading to the prosecution of shoplifters. Street CCTV I do not feel is necessary. As previously stated it is not effective and I do not feel its use is justified.

2. Again, as previously stated, just because you have nothing to hide, why should the government/police have the right to watch you? This may seem like a small thing now but where does it end? Perhaps you should read up on totalitarian societies. You may find this alarmist but are you not slightly concerned that no developed society is as 'surveilled' as us.

3. CCTV is not effective- Home Office research supports this claim. I have posted the link to the research twice. I also provided a case study involving my brother. If it doesn't work to deter crime or assist in prosecution, what's the point?

4. The UK is seen as a pioneer of mass surveillance. At the end of 2006 it was described by the Surveillance Studies Network as being 'the most surveilled country' among the industrialized Western states.[5]

On 6 February 2009 a report by the House of Lords Constitution Committee, Surveillance: Citizens and the State, warned that increasing use of surveillance by the government and private companies is a serious threat to freedoms and constitutional rights, stating that "The expansion in the use of surveillance represents one of the most significant changes in the life of the nation since the end of the Second World War. Mass surveillance has the potential to erode privacy. As privacy is an essential pre-requisite to the exercise of individual freedom, its erosion weakens the constitutional foundations on which democracy and good governance have traditionally been based in this country."

It's not all about you in the here and now. The erosion of civil liberties has the potential to affect us all as well as future generations.

Any more questions?

1. Street CCTV I do not feel is necessary. As previously stated it is not effective and I do not feel its use is justified. ... Who can argue with such a cohesive argument ?

2. You may find this alarmist but are you not slightly concerned that no developed society is as 'surveilled' as us. .... Very few developed societies have a comprable population density and welfare state infrastructure to support, needs must to maintain the peace surely?

3. If it doesn't work to deter crime or assist in prosecution, what's the point? ... Some studys confirm your assertion, many don't, eg, how much hooliganism is there in the stands these days, barely any because of CCTV consequences.

4. As privacy is an essential pre-requisite to the exercise of individual freedom ... Yes, freedom to do BAD things aswell as normal daily routine, you can't blithely quote reports from Liberty assuming it covers all circumstances nicely, one size does not fit all.... Q. why would it concern you if HM Gov knew where you are or where you have been, they know already, you have a credit/debit card, you take out loans and mtgs, you register to vote, you use computers,... shall I carry on?

Your response seems to disregard some of my answers.

1. I stated if it doesn't work, how can you justify it?
Why is this not a cohesive argument?

2. You claim that very few societies have a comparable population density and welfare state infrastructure to support. What do you base this on? Holland certainly beats us on both counts. http://www.google.com.vn/imglanding...&sa=X&ei=bCLITMOxL4SucM-w3bEF&ved=0CB8Q9QEwAQ

3. I didn't say that CCTV works under no circumstances. On private property I have little argument. In public spaces I disagree with it.

4. I don't remember blithely quoting Liberty. Please refer back to my post. I was quoting, as clearly stated, that well known anarchist think tank the House of Lords Constitution Committee.

 

[Nibble]

I have visited the police cctv room while working in security. the operators can pass on whereabouts of known and prolific crims like purse dippers to security in town and have and I assume still do prevent people getting their valuable nicked including pensioners etc which is one factor in the FOR argument.

The operators can also only follow someone for a set time (obviously thi sbecomes unlimited if they witness the person actually involved in anti social/criminal activity) if they suspect them of being up to no good.

From my experience the operators are very skilled and very conscientous.

They definately do not just nose on people, they have at least 40 screens to view and I can guarantee they do not have the time to simply follow folks for the sake of it.

 

[Bakero]

Having read the conclusions of that report it doesn't simply suggest that CCTV is ineffectual. It challenges its cost effectiveness principally and then also suggests its impact in decreasing overall crime levels and making people feel safer has been limited. It does, however, suggest that there are plenty of other success criteria - prosecution rate, prosecution rate by crime, reduction in crime types etc - by which it may be successful.

Let's also note that the aim of the cameras in the featured story is not to be cost effective, to reduce overall crime figures or make people (in those communities) feel safer. They are there for surveillance reasons. They're an intelligence tool.

Being against this practice is fine (and let's face facts that's why people are up in arms) but the report you cite as evidence doesn't win the argument on how effective CCTV is.

Fair points. The report's conclusion does state though that:
R e s e a rch on the effectiveness of CCTV has painted a somewhat confusing picture. There are plenty of studies showing successes, but plenty highlighting failures too. The most robust studies, a c c o rding to the criteria deemed acceptable according to the Campbell Collaboration, compound the confusion. While CCTV in some locations, and car parks are the best example, show some success, it is typically introduced alongside other measures. No single study appears to have included a process and impact evaluation taking account of the various objectives and seeking to develop transferable lessons for good practice. More o v e r, residential areas have received scant coverage and there is little knowledge about whether CCTV works there.


This is hardly supportive of the use of the widespread use of CCTV. As I've said before, it will certainly work in some situations/locations. Taking into account the civil liberties concerns, can we justify the current ubiquity of CCTV?

 

[somerset]

Your response seems to disregard some of my answers.

.

Of course it does, I have an in built spam filter..............

Seriously though.... Point 1) is very subjective, your statement has foundations in your selective assessment of the reports you quote.
Point 2) Ok, so Holland and Belgium fit in there, but I did say VERY FEW if you recall.
Point 3) Why be selective, why can't I have the security coverage when I am walking down a high st after dark, or waiting at a station for a train, or to ensure my car isn't vandalised in my street, why are shopkeepers the only ones allowed to have coverage in your Utopia?
Point 4) Cross reference the average House of Lords Constitution Committee with membership lists of groups such as Liberty and Statewatch,.. there have traditionally been significant overlaps.... though I cannot comment on the current incumbents.

 

[Bakero]

Of course it does, I have an in built spam filter..............

Seriously though.... Point 1) is very subjective, your statement has foundations in your selective assessment of the reports you quote.
Point 2) Ok, so Holland and Belgium fit in there, but I did say VERY FEW if you recall.
Point 3) Why be selective, why can't I have the security coverage when I am walking down a high st after dark, or waiting at a station for a train, or to ensure my car isn't vandalised in my street, why are shopkeepers the only ones allowed to have coverage in your Utopia?
Point 4) Cross reference the average House of Lords Constitution Committee with membership lists of groups such as Liberty and Statewatch,.. there have traditionally been significant overlaps.... though I cannot comment on the current incumbents.

I think we may have to agree to disagree on this. If you don't mind being filmed for every waking moment- fine. I just find it unnecessary.

Perhaps we can agree on this: 2-1 Saturday, Barnes and Murray to score.