General Chat

Nice one Barry good thread and some issues aired,,intresting aswell,

Thank you all for your input to this thread,
Lots of views
Thank you all once again
Barrie

oh but its free country-,dont ya know,:}

If pubs were two every 5 miles,,would it stop the drinking no,,they just get it from the local off liecence.supermarket,if they closed pubs/clubs at 10-30pm,it wouldnt deter the drinking,as is proved by the street drinking,and more now days by the underage.

Its the people at who drink and commit petty/horrendous crime at fault.but it wont ever stop,infact will over coming years get worse.

But thank goodness for the old CCTV>as my friend aged 34 is now in a veggie state,---,but hey,! they were caught on camera and are spending a long time at her pleasure,without it who knows if they ever would have been caught.?so that my own personal reasons I see *some*good in them spy things,:}}

Another issue is the amount of national resources being poured into this area.

it would be better for the economy to have people working in factories and offices rather than sitting in front of TV monitors watching their fellow citizens for signs of transgression.

Same with e.g.the London congestion charge. I believe that 900 people are directly employed (in coventry) to administer the scheme. I am sure they could be more productively employed.

And how many people does it take to send out two million speding tickets every year then collect the fines. It would be better to have those people on the roads as police officers to prevent dangerous driving rather than to send out tickets after the event.

OK, the schemes are self-financing i.e.the operators take in enough money from charges and fines to more than cover their costs, but the cost to the Country as a whole is substantial.

Hi Kay - I take your point about them being useful - no dispute there - it's what it leads to that concerns me.

We are now the most filmed society in the world. What is being done with it?

And I still think that installing CCTV is a poor way of tackling crime.

Take shops - they have CCTV to 'prevent' shoplifting.

But they insist on open plan layouts, multi exits, total lack of security to create a friendly and enticing atmosphere to tempt buyers. It also creates a thieves paradise. So they put CCTV in instead of better security.

Same with city centres - on the pretext that it will combat violence. It doesnt. But what would combat violence is for the council to say - enough is enough - we are actually going to ENFORCE the licensing laws. No person who is drunk shall be served or allowed into the premises. Breach of this law will result in the licence being pulled. But they don't. They put CCTV up instead to give the illusion that they care. And everyone weeps and wails about city centre disorder. The answer is staring everyone in the face but it's the Emperors New Clothes syndrome.

Tackle the problem, deal with it and no need for CCTV!

Ian.

I didnt t say they prevented any crime, or deter it ,,only they can and do serve to often catch those who commit them.thats where I see the good in having them,and pointing out examples only when someone could be praising their use.

Lots of things in this country need re-evaluating,but we are talking CCTV<?

But Kay, as I keep saying, CCTV and surveillance in general is the soft option - there is no will -political or otherwise - to tackle the CAUSES of the problems.

As any doctor will tell you, symptoms can be treated, but prevention is better, as in vaccinations.

Why the heck should I have my personal details, DNA, photographs etc kept in state owned files (and open to abuse) just because the council has seen fit to grant drink and entertainment licenses to 100 premises within a square quarter mile? As far as I am concerned, anyone who decides to go to a town centre on a drinking spree is aware of the likeliehood of what will hapeen and makes a conscious decision to take that risk. To say that CCTV cameras play any part in preventing drunken violence is not true. They just make it easier to get a conviction AFTERWARDS. The broken noses, black eyes etc dont vanish just because there is a CCTV camera there!

Would it not be better to cut the gimmicks and deal with the real problems to stop it happening?

To say that I should have to endure surveillance because of the sins of others is not my idea of a free society at all.

Maggie!!!!

A kindred soul, lol.

As thread topic,,, CCTV in shops firstly goes back a long time now and most welcomed them in a bid to combat theft from the shop owners,Great we or most shouted now the thieves wont get away with robbing the poor shop keeper.
,Good you maybe a shop owner,

Then garages introduced them,high thieft rate there of petrol and also stolen cars can often be seen being filled up with pertol,,

,Thats good as it maybe your stolen car?.

Then CCTV gets put in lots of prominent public places,many in trouble spots where street crime is high,from the town/city centre weekly punch up,

Good they have caught on CCTV the boy/gang/ who beat my son/daughter half to death or worse,

So do these who act beyond the law also have a right to their privacy and not have their faces or every move recorded on CCTV,

Where does the line be drawn?

Who get exclusion from invasion of CCTV and how would it happen?

There is absolutely no point in watching the general public, while terrorists and violent criminals are being released - either 'accidently' or to free up space in prisons - and allowed to roam the streets.
I resent my every move being monitored. Who is looking at the cameras? Can they be trusted? When anyone from outside the country can be employed as a security guard with no police check it makes you wonder.
Exactly what is the point of surveillance when illegal immigrants are employed as cleaners (and therefore have access to the highest offices in the land) by the very government who declares this surveillance is for 'our own security'?
What is the point of surveillance when government ministers/civil servants and others in the employ of the government leave our details on trains, or in their cars, just ripe for stealing? Did they ever catch the person/people who stole the laptop from the back of the minister's car? Where were the CCTV cameras then?

As for iris recognition, I have a 10 year passport with it on - paid a fortune for the 'priviledge' . Unfortunately the iris recogniton bit will be worn out after 2 years.

There was also talk of the government being able to listen in on the phones of peope who were 'a risk'.
Well, I'm afraid they can declare anyone 'a risk' , because until proven innocent, everyone in this country is now guilty!!

What about councils using sophisticated anti-terrorist equipment to check that someone really is living in the school catchment area or not putting the wrong stuff in their recycle bin? Is that acceptable?
Only a couple of cases have been reported, but you can bet it goes on more than we know.

It's just the tip of the iceberg of population control.

I no longer use my supermarket 'loyalty card' as what I eat or drink is my affair and a few measly nectar points are no substitute for privacy.

maggie

Its back to the old argument again - cctv is not a way of preventing - it only treatrs the symptoms by assisting in the detection.

If we are talking about terrorism - why do so few people stop to think about the cause of it. One mans terrorist is anothers freedom fighter. If the germans had got into the UK in the war, my grandfather would have been a terrorist, and so would many others.

So it pays to take a look at what causes 'terrorism'. The ages old battle between east and west. Radical religious lunatics. Both christian and muslim. And Jew.

But that problem is too hard to deal with, so instead we shall infringe on the liberties of our citizens and tell them it is for their own good.

Does anyone realise how far we have gone? Just suppose you are walking down the street and all of a sudden you get pounced on by 2 police officers and arrested. You fit the description of someone who has just fled a local shop after stealing some small item.

You are taken to a police station, searched, placed in a cell, fingerprinted, photographed and have your DNA taken before you are even questioned. Then when it is a realised that it is a mistake, they let you go, pat you on the head and say cheerio. But all that information is kept. Because the state says it must be. Are you happy about that?

I wouldnt be. But that is what happens every single day.

Yes, Secret Squirrel & Sheila - I've said it before, and will say it again - You may have nothing to hide, but you do have a lot to fear.

You can't 'recognise' every terrorist or terrorist threat, even with all the surveillance in the world. We have a choice - detain everyone who looks or acts suspicious and (maybe) reduce the threat, or have greater freedom and accept that some miscreants will go free. We seem to be heading towards the former scenario and I, for one, am not happy with that.

Hi Kay,

So are you saying that those who have no private domain aren't entitled to have any privacy?

I have nothing to hide but I don't want to be living in a surveillance society. I have to agree with a lot of what Eldrick, Barrie and Robert are saying.

This country is becoming more like 1984 every day.

Well said, Eldrick!

On whose definition is someone a threat to the country?

Was Tsvirango (sp?) a threat to the security of Zimbabwe, or just to Mugabe?

How soon before a British PM uses similar logic? All the elements are in place, now, they only have to be activated.

btw, wasn't King's Cross caused by a faulty escalator?

What the government really should be addressing is the causes of crime - why do so many in this country feel that they are in some way above, or outside, the law? How can anyone justify theft, be it an old lady's pension, petty pilfering at work, shoplifting, or the contents of a bank?

Why do we consider it "manly" to strut the street, shouting and swearing, threatening people who object to it? Why is it so cool to get "bladdered", so drunk you lose complete control of your body?

Our society is sickening, and all we do is sit and watch - "they" will sort it out. "They" are doing as much about it as we are.

Therein lies the rub!

Who is to say that the person is a threat to the country? When no court appearance is required, no judicial sanction - just the word of the state....to me, it is a terrifying prospect.

Yet there are parallels to it. In living memory in Europe. Was that fight for freedom - all that sacrifice - in vain? And I dont think thats being over dramatic either.

What price freedom, eh? lol

Anyway, CCTV only catches, or helps to catch - it doesnt prevent. If prevention was taken more seriously, there wouldnt be as much need for catching.

But while you remain in a public area,you cant have total privacy,,invasion of privacy to me is when your private domain is invaded,

If they keep someone who could be linked to cause a threat to the people of this country then I support the 90days holding,

Do we want to see another Kings Cross happening,or the Birmingham --Brighton bombings?

This is where this bill would perhaps come into its own.

Its not new this country has known to hold information on people of this country for decades without thier knowledge,

My privacy is being invaded because images of me are being captured and stored for what purpose I am not aware. Actually, I am aware of what is possible...digital facial recognition is now a reality, numberplate recognition has been for some time now.

I make the point that it is fine now, but where do you stop....? When the politicians introduce the bill that says everyone must carry a personal transponder....to prevent crime or whatever....do you say 'Well, its no worse than CCTV, so we will just accept it'?

Lets just say that you have been overheard in the office criticising the national whatsit party....the office informant grasses you up and from then on you are under surveillance. Your habits are recorded, your routine logged, etc. When it suits them, you are detained without trial for 90 days.........far fetched?

Are you willing to take the chance?

How can you shout,,*my privacy * is being invaded when CCTV is put in public places,!

They as Elderick quoted they dont stop crime but can make it easier to catch criminals caught on them.
How many criminals have got away with crimes in past years before CCTV,?

I dont have any problem with them,infact I think most people even forget they are there till its brought up in discussions,

I also have nothing to hide.......but then again..

I dont feel the need to wear a hoodie either!

Need i say more?

Great Gran Gerri (without a hoodie. I also pull me knickers n trousers up!) lol

PS...Like you say Eldrick...it is coming to that and soon!