Discussion in 'Current Affairs' started by sussex2, Aug 25, 2009.

Welcome to the Navy Net aka Rum Ration

The UK's largest and busiest UNofficial RN website.

The heart of the site is the forum area, including:

  1. Interesting, is it not?

    According to statistic the UK has around 20 percent of the entire worlds CCTV cameras.
    If the level of success for their stated purpose (crime reduction) is what the article says, then can anyone suggest what other purpose these spy cameras may have.
  2. Very cunning how to 'create' a story the Beeb picks one apparently poor statistic without any qualification, such as how many of the drimes took place in areas not cvered with cameras etc. Interestingly mr plod suggests they are very helpfull in murder enquiries contributing to 70% of them so that seems to amke them pretty useful.
  3. On a lighter note, the CCTV I have installed here at my factory picked up two thieves stealing lead from the roof last night. I am considering sending the footage to you've been framed as one of them managed to fall off and crack his head open in the process. Fnaaaar! Fnaaaar!

    He spent 5 hours knocked out in the car park and was caught this morning by our machine shop manager. Unfortunately his oppo got away but has left his DNA and fingerprints all over the place and we have a close up of his face on camera, along with his car registration.
  4. sgtpepperband

    sgtpepperband War Hero Moderator Book Reviewer

    ...and by that same rationale, CCTV is very useful to disprove a person's involvement in an offence, as it can often discredit a witness's written account of a particular incident (for example, who threw the first punch, how far the observer was from the scene of the incident, etc.). It has also been used to support/disprove allegation of police violence or injuries sustained in custody.

    However, as seen recently in the Steven Gerrard case, despite CCTV footage to the contrary, some juries are not entirely convinced by video evidence... :roll: :oops:
  5. Talk about posing a loaded question.

    They sure helped identify the 7/7 bombers quickly.
  6. chieftiff

    chieftiff War Hero Moderator

    I'm in two minds about the overwhelming spread of CCTV to be honest, I can see the benefits but I can also understand peoples real grievance that a sense of privacy is virtually non- existant. Fortunately I live in the country so don't feel too spied on!

    Coppers love it though, doesn't half help meet those KPI's, a whole generation of lads criminalised for the sake of a short punch up in/ outside a bar which in the past was just a part of growing up!
  7. It is also interesting that they are making an issue of only one crime being solved by 1000 cameras, when the very purpose of those cameras is to reduce or prevent crimes, not to just catch people in the act. How many crimes have been prevented by the presence of CCTV? Where are the statistics on that, then?
  8. Fine and dandy if you like CCTVs spying on your every move. But, does this small island really warrant 20 percent of the entire worlds supply of the things.
    I am honestly really surprised at the lack of public outcry about this in the UK. The population seem to have gone along with this intrusion with hardly a murmur.
    Could it be that people are using them as a sort of adult security blanket, or worse still a dummy.
    I'll give an example from abroad, here in Catalunya (Can't speak for Spain as a whole as different autonomous states have different rules).
    A friend owns a bar and has a camera to show who is entering the building (as it is a music bar and in a town there must be two properly sealed doors between the street and the bar). However this camera must NOT show the faces of anyone passing in the street, and this is regularly checked by the police.
    In the UK the things have spread like wildfire, and seem to uncontrolled.
  9. Standby to be sued for the injury etc :lol: :lol:
  10. sgtpepperband

    sgtpepperband War Hero Moderator Book Reviewer

    And that's wrong because..? That sort of behaviour may have been part of growing up for you but for the vast majority of the general public, that is exactly why many people choose not to go out and have a quiet night in town by themselves or with partners/friends, to save themselves coming across men (usually) causing them "harassment, alarm or distress" (see Public Order Act 1986 Section 5). What may be high jinx and a bit of a laugh for one person may seem something more serious to the sober bystander.

    Anyway, for most offences committed under POA 86 Sections 4, 5 and 6, CCTV is not necessary and the Police Officer's discretion is used to deal with the matter at the time, usually by means of a Public Order fine which does not necessarily result in a criminal record as such, so they are hardly "criminalised" by CCTV.

    Moral of the story: don't get plastered, don't kick off, don't get caught on camera. Or just don't do it where there is a concentration of cameras... :thumbleft:

    (1) A person is guilty of an offence if he—

    (a) uses threatening, abusive or insulting words or behaviour, or disorderly behaviour, or

    (b) displays any writing, sign or other visible representation which is threatening, abusive or insulting,

    within the hearing or sight of a person likely to be caused harassment, alarm or distress thereby.
  11. Which is predicated on the assumption that deterrence theory is valid, far more behavioral and criminal psychology work indicates that it doesn't. It does however have a reassurance effect, although the performance metrics don't support that as a valid conclusion.
  12. chieftiff

    chieftiff War Hero Moderator

    A year ago I might well have agreed with you mate, now having seen the crap my son has been through for what happend in exactly 2 seconds, amounted to a small slap a couple of almost black eyes and hand shakes all around I don't! Happy to pm you the details if you are interested but the upshot was my lad now has a criminal record, as does his mate...... all done in the interest of public order although nobody else was involved, nobody was hurt, nobody except the police officer present( he happened to be stood about 2 yards away - talk about unlucky!) wanted to press any charges. The lawyers opinion was that no charges would have been brought if there hadn't been a cctv camera because the effort required to gather evidence (witness testimony etc) would have been disproportionate to the "offence", the lads would have a got a slap on the wrist and learnt the lesson you observed - namely that what seems high jinks with your mates may not be construed as such by others... and of course it makes a nice easy conviction for an hours work. I spoke to the copper involved, a more patronising prick I have yet to meet in my life and of course "he had no choice but to proceed" giving me the impression that had it been his choice he wouldn't have - I have my doubts about the use of discretion to be honest and whether the modern copper, pressurised by a culture of meeting targets actually has the ability to use his discretion when the "offence" however minor is recorded in full technicolour.

    It was a childish event that happened at a stag night between two lads who are actually best mates, was it wrong - yes, do they regret it - yes did either of them deserve a criminal record - I certainly don't think so as I've done far worse in my youth on the booze.
  13. sgtpepperband

    sgtpepperband War Hero Moderator Book Reviewer

    CT: Sorry it happened, and sorry your son has a record. But the Officer at the scene - I imagine - acted not to protect his own interests, but in the interests of the general public who were likely to be nearby, and whom may not have had the temerity to step forward and complain themselves. You admit it was childish behaviour and yes, I would prefer to have a quiet word with someone rather than arrest them. But I do not known enough about the facts of the case or the operational policy for the Force concerned at the time.

    But despite the sorry resolution, I imagine your son and his friends will consider how their acts are perceived by others in the future, and will behave accordingly? :oops:
  14. In my youth back in the days when the magistrates believed Mr Plod you would have spent a couple of nights in police cells before fronting up in court on Monday morning picked up a 50 bob fine with the option of 2 days prison and a criminal record by lunchtime. Which was why I and most of my mates did try to behave even when pissed. For plods discretion consider that as mr plod is no longer believed then he has to get others to give evidence and that can be difficult and time consuming so the incident ends up in the too dificult box unless there is CCTV.

    Chucking out time violence is rising because it is just too difficult to prosecute, so now drunks get lifts home from the plods rather than a chance to reflect on their foolishness in a cell.
  15. chieftiff

    chieftiff War Hero Moderator

    All's well that ends well and he has undoubtedly learnt his lesson.... eventually. I suspect that the little cherub might have been less than respectful to the guy when he was arrested which probably didn't help matters! But my point is that what would have been considered too minor in the past to bother with has now become almost bread and butter stuff and criminalising young lads has potentialy serious consequences for the rest of their lives and is not something to be taken lightly. It also poses some serious questions for a society which all too easily forgets that they were once young hormone driven teenagers struggling to establish their position in a grown up world. CCTV has a place, I'm just not sure that place has been properly thought through.

    My local council has just installed CCTV camera's in the village "to help prevent youth crime" and there is a sign up informing us that further camera's are to be installed. The most serious thing that's happened here is the local rugby club lads ran through the village dressed in skintight superheroes costumes the other week after winning a big game, it was bloody hilarious... but there were apparently a "stream" of complaints from local residents, I shit you not; some people just can't wait to die in the hope they will be disappointed and can complain directly to God.
  16. No use quoting statistics ..The fact is the cameras act as a deterrent and so it isn’t known specifically how many crimes have been prevented…
    Take the cameras away and fighting in the streets…speeding…burglaries…ect would change from being a reasonable statistic to a way of life…..

  17. I'd refer to my last post on this, people think they act as a deterrent, but there is no evidence to support that, and some evidence to support the assertion that deterrence doesn't.

    They're comfort blanket for the ill-informed and uncritical.
  18. I'll drink to that (as it were). In the ‘70s, one didn’t need to be involved in violence while drunk to be shown the inside of the slammer. The Turktown runners certainly didn’t run a taxi service then!
  19. Ok …fair comment …now let me give you some first hand evidence….

    I had a small factory unit ..on an industrial estate…a few of my neighbours were wholesalers and when we first arrived burglary was rife…..15 years ago cameras were installed and anyone coming onto the estate out of hours was tackled ….Crime there now is virtually non existent thanks to the cameras….

Share This Page