Whatever Next

[Claw]

I'm sure that they are on a fairly regular basis, but again whether they're all prosecuted I doubt. There is also times when the camera is of no use and doesn't catch anything useable and they have to make public appeals.

I think as long as they are used properly in connection with adequate policing then they serve a purpose and I'm not totally against cameras, but there are so many of them, do we really need them all as they cost a fortune to run and install.

Whether or not someone is prosecuted is not a camera problem, however it has contributed to someone's criminal record and hopefully a future deterrence. If not then the previous crime for which evidence was absolute, thanks to the camera, will help decide a brazen disregard for law and order and punishment may be more severe depending on the infringement.

What is adequate policing? Cost a fortune to run and install? In the camera operators room you have one person monitoring numerous streets and directions... more locations than even a bobby biker (not you Bob) could cover.

As for terrorism, that's more dependent on 'Intelligence' aforehand. No camera or Bobby (not you Bob) is able to determine whether someone is a terrorist at street level.

As a next step I feel they should also introduce cameras into school classrooms, and of course anyone who flies in helicopters. (That's you Bob)

[Myocardial Infarction]

Whether or not someone is prosecuted is not a camera problem, however it has contributed to someone's criminal record and hopefully a future deterrence. If not then the previous crime for which evidence was absolute, thanks to the camera, will help decide a brazen disregard for law and order and punishment may be more severe depending on the infringement.

If the evidence is insuficient to prosecute then it has very little contribution to someones criminal record. As long as they plead their innocence then the incident cannot be held against them forever more although it does allow the police to hold their personal data at infinitum against both the data protection act and our human rights but that's another discussion entirely. I also don't believe that prior evidence in a case where they are not found guilty can be used to determine their attitude and hence affect sentencing.

<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->What is adequate policing? Cost a fortune to run and install? In the camera operators room you have one person monitoring numerous streets and directions... more locations than even a bobby biker (not you Bob) could cover.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I suppose at this point you need to seperate out different camera modes, fixed speed cameras and traffic light cameras can actually pay for themselves if the money is used for their operation, but the studies conducted don't seem to take into account certain additinal costs such as challenges that have to be dealt with and must increase costs considerably. Also if they are so cost effective, why have most forces in the UK turned them all off when their budgets were squeezed? I know that certain forces are now funding them by way of offering courses to offenders at £100 per day and diverting the revenue to the cameras installation and operation as well as the cost of the trainers. But although they give benefits in accident reduction, those benefits are very minimal at less than 5% so are they really doing an effective job of reducing speeding. One statistic that is bandied about is the one of fatal accident reduction in camera areas but what is always missed out is the comparison to other areas to allow people to assess whether the cameras have offered the reduction or whether other factors are playing a major part.

On the other types of cameras such as those installed on street corners and monitored centrally, the costs of operation are far higher, in the region of employing half a police officer per annum for each camera. I doubt that most of those cameras are any more effective than employing a few more police officers and having them on patrols. With the added benefit that we as the populace would see a bobby on the beat and actually feel reassured about safety rather than resentful that we are being spied upon.

<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->As for terrorism, that's more dependent on 'Intelligence' aforehand. No camera or Bobby (not you Bob) is able to determine whether someone is a terrorist at street level.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Intelligence is only a very small part of the prevention of terrorism and is very often totally incorrect. In fact alot of terrorist activity is detected by cameras being monitored by profilers. I think it was the shoe bomber that was initially arrested due to being selected by a team of profilers watching cameras in an airport; he didn't have any explosives on him, therefore he was released. The next day he was back in the airport and again was highlighted by profilers but they were overidden and he was let through to unfortunate consequences. They now believe the first day was a test.

<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->As a next step I feel they should also introduce cameras into school classrooms, and of course anyone who flies in helicopters. (That's you Bob)
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
What and highlight the inadequate teachers and poor dicipline that parents teach their children? Other than being a peodophiles top job of course. Next we'll all have personal cameras in case we might break the law and we'll all be going to jail as there is no way that an individual can know the law The only people on the streets will be the crooks!

[Claw]

If the evidence is insuficient to prosecute then it has very little contribution to someones criminal record. As long as they plead their innocence then the incident cannot be held against them forever more although it does allow the police to hold their personal data at infinitum against both the data protection act and our human rights but that's another discussion entirely. I also don't believe that prior evidence in a case where they are not found guilty can be used to determine their attitude and hence affect sentencing.
I suppose at this point you need to seperate out different camera modes, fixed speed cameras and traffic light cameras can actually pay for themselves if the money is used for their operation, but the studies conducted don't seem to take into account certain additinal costs such as challenges that have to be dealt with and must increase costs considerably. Also if they are so cost effective, why have most forces in the UK turned them all off when their budgets were squeezed? I know that certain forces are now funding them by way of offering courses to offenders at £100 per day and diverting the revenue to the cameras installation and operation as well as the cost of the trainers. But although they give benefits in accident reduction, those benefits are very minimal at less than 5% so are they really doing an effective job of reducing speeding. One statistic that is bandied about is the one of fatal accident reduction in camera areas but what is always missed out is the comparison to other areas to allow people to assess whether the cameras have offered the reduction or whether other factors are playing a major part.

So, you agree to some degree that cameras do contribute to identifying a criminal trend whether or not prosecuted. If they are identified as the individual who committed the crime on camera - they are guilty. However, whether through the role of the CPS or Judge, etc, they are dealt with leniently, future breaches may not be dealt with so leniently.

They're turning them off because they can't afford to run them, not because they are not effective. They are also downsizing police forces, is that because they aren't effective or not needed too?

If fatal accidents are being reduced by either deterrence or the fact that idiots are being caught as the culprit, that is still dealing with them. The more of these people that are taken off the road via ban or sentencing means there are less on the road.

On the other types of cameras such as those installed on street corners and monitored centrally, the costs of operation are far higher, in the region of employing half a police officer per annum for each camera. I doubt that most of those cameras are any more effective than employing a few more police officers and having them on patrols. With the added benefit that we as the populace would see a bobby on the beat and actually feel reassured about safety rather than resentful that we are being spied upon.
Intelligence is only a very small part of the prevention of terrorism and is very often totally incorrect. In fact alot of terrorist activity is detected by cameras being monitored by profilers. I think it was the shoe bomber that was initially arrested due to being selected by a team of profilers watching cameras in an airport; he didn't have any explosives on him, therefore he was released. The next day he was back in the airport and again was highlighted by profilers but they were overidden and he was let through to unfortunate consequences. They now believe the first day was a test.
What and highlight the inadequate teachers and poor dicipline that parents teach their children? Other than being a peodophiles top job of course. Next we'll all have personal cameras in case we might break the law and we'll all be going to jail as there is no way that an individual can know the law The only people on the streets will be the crooks!

So cameras are half-price policemen? Sounds like a bargain to me. Especially when you think that cameras can be extremely effective at following a criminal in his escape leading to his rapid capture and processing. A method much quicker than the belated arrival of a Bobby and general description based search after the fact.

So, cameras allowed the profilers to pick up on the terrorist... sounds about right. That's what they're good at.

It's all well and good pondering how negligent parents are becoming, but there needs to be a practical solution for good parents with good children wanting to benefit from good teachers. With the presence of a camera idiots and useless teachers are dealt with due punishment and possible retraining.

My wife was accused of leaving a garage without paying. We had the police visit our home telling us it's an easy mistake to make. However, my wife was adamant that she had paid, so we went and had a look at the in-store video footage. Lo and behold, the camera picks up quite clearly my wife handing over two tenners and then receiving change.

Sorted.

[Myocardial Infarction]

So, you agree to some degree that cameras do contribute to identifying a criminal trend whether or not prosecuted. If they are identified as the individual who committed the crime on camera - they are guilty. However, whether through the role of the CPS or Judge, etc, they are dealt with leniently, future breaches may not be dealt with so leniently.

Whether they identify a criminal trend or not is irrelevant, if they are identified as the person on the video does not make them guilty, that's the oddity of the law. The judge will never be told that they have been caught for xyz offence but never prosecuted so it never really factors into the judges decision.

<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->They're turning them off because they can't afford to run them, not because they are not effective. They are also downsizing police forces, is that because they aren't effective or not needed too?<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Rather than downsize the police force I'm pretty sure a fair few people would rather see the cameras go, it's actually relatively safer than it used to be but generally they don't believe this is down to policing, in fact it has more to do with levels of wealth and social welfare.

<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->If fatal accidents are being reduced by either deterrence or the fact that idiots are being caught as the culprit, that is still dealing with them. The more of these people that are taken off the road via ban or sentencing means there are less on the road.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Haha, have you heard the news, less sentencing is going to occur as they can't afford that either. Also what is the point in taking people off the road who have not caused anyone else any harm. Since the inception of the RTA we've criminalise more of the population to the point that it doesn't mean anything any more, I mean our judges and police are mostly comprised of criminals as a vast majority of them have speeding fines etc, why are they still allowed to lock people away when they are just criminals themselves?

<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->So cameras are half-price policemen? Sounds like a bargain to me. Especially when you think that cameras can be extremely effective at following a criminal in his escape leading to his rapid capture and processing. A method much quicker than the belated arrival of a Bobby and general description based search after the fact.


So, cameras allowed the profilers to pick up on the terrorist... sounds about right. That's what they're good at.

It's all well and good pondering how negligent parents are becoming, but there needs to be a practical solution for good parents with good children wanting to benefit from good teachers. With the presence of a camera idiots and useless teachers are dealt with due punishment and possible retraining.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Haha it'll be like America here soon and I'll be moving out. You should know when a teacher is useless not have to film them doing it. How about a law change so that we can sterilise the dumb social spongers and not have to worry about their children, that way we don't need cameras and can only ave the good children in the schools.

<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->My wife was accused of leaving a garage without paying. We had the police visit our home telling us it's an easy mistake to make. However, my wife was adamant that she had paid, so we went and had a look at the in-store video footage. Lo and behold, the camera picks up quite clearly my wife handing over two tenners and then receiving change.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
If you can't see the irony in that situation then there's not much I can say. While I don't totally disagree with cameras, I am against their over use and the police etc's over reliance on them. In the situation above I'd have said you should have made a formal complaint to the police for not investigating the incident before leveling an accusation at your wife. Did the PO accompany you to the garage? and if not have you ensured that the police have on record that she did not commit a crime? If not then her data is now marked with a crime she did not commit, sure the judge will be looking at that if she ever ends up in court as you state above. She's got a record of being a thief.

[Claw]

Whether they identify a criminal trend or not is irrelevant, if they are identified as the person on the video does not make them guilty, that's the oddity of the law. The judge will never be told that they have been caught for xyz offence but never prosecuted so it never really factors into the judges decision.
Rather than downsize the police force I'm pretty sure a fair few people would rather see the cameras go, it's actually relatively safer than it used to be but generally they don't believe this is down to policing, in fact it has more to do with levels of wealth and social welfare.
Haha, have you heard the news, less sentencing is going to occur as they can't afford that either. Also what is the point in taking people off the road who have not caused anyone else any harm. Since the inception of the RTA we've criminalise more of the population to the point that it doesn't mean anything any more, I mean our judges and police are mostly comprised of criminals as a vast majority of them have speeding fines etc, why are they still allowed to lock people away when they are just criminals themselves?
Haha it'll be like America here soon and I'll be moving out. You should know when a teacher is useless not have to film them doing it. How about a law change so that we can sterilise the dumb social spongers and not have to worry about their children, that way we don't need cameras and can only ave the good children in the schools.
If you can't see the irony in that situation then there's not much I can say. While I don't totally disagree with cameras, I am against their over use and the police etc's over reliance on them.

Wow, Myo, you've got some issues going on there m8. I think we're gonna see you on camera soon...

Video evidence is admissible, and is used as such. End of...

You personally know that the vast majority of the law enforcement bodies throughout this country are criminals?

Sterilise the dumb social spongers? I suppose upper class halfwit numpties would much prefer to quaff with the strictly blonde haired and blue eyed genetically perfected master race of Aryans? Where have we heard that rhetoric before?

While I don't totally disagree with cameras, I am against their over use and the police etc's over reliance on them.

Well I'm glad you're changing your view...

[Myocardial Infarction]

Wow, Myo, you've got some issues going on there m8. I think we're gonna see you on camera soon...

except I'm not the one hiding behind cameras and running scared at all times that the boogy men are going to get me and we need to be protected by the state. Personally I think I'm pretty likely to be the one prosecuted as I'm fed up of a culture where the victim is the criminal and isn't allowed to stand up and be counted, less the sheep and nanny state hide behind their so called camera weilding security.

<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Video evidence is admissible, and is used as such. End of...<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
If it relates to the case in question then yes it is, but what you've said is that any evidence of previous capture on video not related to the case would be reviewed. That is not the case, it's completely inadmissable as evidence so I'm not sure what your getting at here.

This is what you said previously: <!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->cameras do contribute to identifying a criminal trend whether or not prosecuted<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
As I said before a judge is not going to be able to consider video evidence where a person is not convicted so would not be able to pick up on a criminal trend and as far as I am aware the CPS and police would not be able to use such evidence in any other cases.

<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->You personally know that the vast majority of the law enforcement bodies throughout this country are criminals? <!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<a href="http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... ivers.html" target="_blank">Article on the most convicted parts of society</a>

A small excerpt for you: <!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->"Legal eagles have the most convictions for flouting speed limits, jumping red lights or using mobile phones at the wheel.

Analysis of 1.6 million motor insurance policies revealed that one in five has penalty points on their driving licence.

That is more than twice as many as hairdressers and beauticians who have the fewest blemishes on their record.

Those working in the medical profession are the second most likely to flout the laws of the road followed by religious leaders, police officers and teachers.

The surprising results are based on checks by insurance giant Admiral of motor policies taken out last year."<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->

Therefore if they're in the most convicted of RTA offences then a vast number of them are CRIMINALS as they've commited a criminal offence, yet they are allowed to remain working in our judicial and criminal system. A Police officer used to have to be above reproach, now they can be common criminal scum and keep the job. Doesn't really send out the correct message to the rest of society if the police and judges can get away with it, then why not the rest of us.

I've also watched a few of these police programs recently and the level of unessessary violence that police officers subject suspects to is rather shocking, and yet they openly publicise it on TV. You've only got to look at the case of the police officer who pushed the Ian Tomlinson an innocent bystander to the ground and beating him to his ultimate death, but yet has been brushed under the carpert. If I did that I'd be locked up for murder, yet the police officer involved is not even facing manslaughter charges. This country seriously has lost it tbh.

<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Sterilise the dumb social spongers? I suppose upper class halfwit numpties would much prefer to quaff with the strictly blonde haired and blue eyed genetically perfected master race of Aryans? Where have we heard that rhetoric before?
Well I'm glad you're changing your view...
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Claw, the people you talk about are unlikely to be in the general school population so how would a camera pick them up. Also do you really see that debate of class having a huge amount to do with it, you obviously haven't watched a few of the programs recently where a much larger part of the population are millionaires and are considered upper class. Upper class halfwit numpties aren't in the demographic of disrupting classes at school and requiring punishment. But your very set on dishing out punishment left right and centre for any minor discretion

[Claw]

except I'm not the one hiding behind cameras and running scared at all times that the boogy men are going to get me and we need to be protected by the state. Personally I think I'm pretty likely to be the one prosecuted as I'm fed up of a culture where the victim is the criminal and isn't allowed to stand up and be counted, less the sheep and nanny state hide behind their so called camera weilding security.
If it relates to the case in question then yes it is, but what you've said is that any evidence of previous capture on video not related to the case would be reviewed. That is not the case, it's completely inadmissable as evidence so I'm not sure what your getting at here.

This is what you said previously:
As I said before a judge is not going to be able to consider video evidence where a person is not convicted so would not be able to pick up on a criminal trend and as far as I am aware the CPS and police would not be able to use such evidence in any other cases.
<a href="http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... ivers.html" target="_blank">Article on the most convicted parts of society</a>

If an individual is indisputably guilty of a crime due to video evidence and is dealt with leniently the first time, how will he/she be dealt with the second or third time with similar indisputable evidence? How much time and money is saved by such indisputable admissible evidence?

Anyone caught and dealt with via indisputable admissible evidence should be dealt with according to the law, which can also take into consideration mitigating circumstances. So, your article is quite helpful to this argument, thank you. The system is effective to the degree where it has the integrity to process legally even those you would expect to be upstanding members of the community when they deliberately infringe it.

Cameras are just a tool used by the legal system, and a very effective one. If at any time the legal system fails, that is not a fault with what the cameras have achieved in obtaining indisputable admissible evidence.

I've also watched a few of these police programs recently and the level of unessessary violence that police officers subject suspects to is rather shocking, and yet they openly publicise it on TV. You've only got to look at the case of the police officer who pushed the Ian Tomlinson an innocent bystander to the ground and beating him to his ultimate death, but yet has been brushed under the carpert. If I did that I'd be locked up for murder, yet the police officer involved is not even facing manslaughter charges. This country seriously has lost it tbh.

These TV programmes don't tell the whole story, and people in general are going to note the most sensational aspects above the other moments where officers have been remarkably lenient. Police officers will make mistakes, there will be some who are corrupt. I would rather have a police system than not have one at all, perhaps you feel to the contrary?

The majority of people a Doctor will see are sick people. The majority of people an Aid worker will see are those in deprived circumstances. The majority of people a Police Officer will see are those in breach of a law they are employed to enforce. Would you take away a doctor's medical kit, an Aid workers aid?

Claw, the people you talk about are unlikely to be in the general school population so how would a camera pick them up. Also do you really see that debate of class having a huge amount to do with it, you obviously haven't watched a few of the programs recently where a much larger part of the population are millionaires and are considered upper class. Upper class halfwit numpties aren't in the demographic of disrupting classes at school and requiring punishment. But your very set on dishing out punishment left right and centre for any minor discretion

Set on dishing out punishment left right and centre for any minor discretion? If a school kid is caught on camera systematically and menacingly taunting or baiting a teacher, or other pupils, what should be done? Nothing? If someone is caught on camera keying your car, hey, what of it? It's not like anyone was hurt or anything were they? What exactly do you call a minor discretion? Sweet old lady throws a cat into a wheelie bin, hey big deal? She's a sweet old lady... yes?

Personally I feel that CCTV has been quite an eye-opener for the general populace. It's good to have a good look at yourself to see exactly consequences of chosen actions. Actually seeing the cause and effect of an incident says more than some newspaper article written from a perspective designed for the now globally understood view that reporters will sensationalise for sales. When you read a newspaper you are still looking for further info for a rounded out view. When you see a moron caught on CCTV wilfully engaged in criminal activity, who has no argument to the evidence presented and thus more likely to confess and acquiesce to legal process, you see in a rounded out way the consequences of stupidity.

[Dangerous Bob]

wokka wokka Bang Bang......

Not terribly constructive to the discussion I know....

[Claw]

wokka wokka Bang Bang......

Not terribly constructive to the discussion I know....

Shouldn't that be Bang Bang wokka wokka?