On 17 Aug 2009 at 11:21pm Sir Vey Lance wrote:
Has anybody else noticed the two new cameras peering into the Cuilfail tunnel from either end? There's another one appeared at the Black Horse end of St Anne's Crescent as well. I wonder what they're looking for?
On 18 Aug 2009 at 7:27am Sam Spam wrote:
I'd imagine that the ones on the tunnel are for your safety in the event of a fire and the others are there to watch over you as you stagger past all those hoodies late at night!.....any objections?
On 18 Aug 2009 at 9:03am Great Crested Newt wrote:
I never object to these cameras. I don't understand why people moan about them as if they are encroaching on their personal space. These people obviously have something to hide or they simply wouldn't mind.
On 18 Aug 2009 at 11:22am Ed Can Do wrote:
If you're worried about what they're filming, the operators of the cameras have to by law show you what they've filmed of you. The council should (One would hope) be able to let you know who the operator of each is and then they have to provide you with any footage of you. In practice you'll be very, very lucky to ever get to see any of it but the law is there so if you're concerned about the amount of surveilance in this country, have enough requests to view the footage denied and they eventually will have to remove the camera.
Personally I'm not overly bothered about all the cameras. They make old people feel a bit safer perhaps and provide a couple of jobs in the area for whoever it is that sits there watching them all day. They also allow the police to spend more time doing what they do best (Hiding in the police station drinking tea) and are no deterrent to any criminals because everyone knows where they are and anyway by the time the fat voyeur watching the footage has reported it and the police have finished their cup of tea and made it to the location, the criminals have had time to get to Brighton. I'd be amazed if half the ones in Lewes are even real cameras or ever switched on.
If there are any police reading this (And by that I mean locals, not the GCHQ web monitors) I'd be interested to know how many convictions have been secured in the area in any of the recent years as a direct result of CCTV evidence or even how many times the police have responded to an incident because it was seen happening on camera rather than someone reporting it. Given their reticence to show up when there are kids outside people's houses in the Pells smashing cars up, I'd be amazed if they bothered attending a crime in progress nobody had even reported.
On 18 Aug 2009 at 2:13pm Toque wrote:
Great Crested Newt trots out the "Nothing to hide, nothing to fear" defence beloved by authoritarians and fascists all over the world. Next you'll be telling us that we've always been at war with Eurasia and allied with Eastasia.
On 18 Aug 2009 at 2:51pm Rozzer wrote:
East Germany was always a very interesting place. Plenty of surveillance, half the citizens spying on the other half, and those neat little mirrors on wheels that they used to push under cars. Of course, there was nothing to fear if you had nothing to hide. That's why the people overthrew the government in the end.
On 18 Aug 2009 at 6:02pm Great Crested Newt wrote:
You Toque such crap! With comments like that, anyone would thing you have a criminal record?
On 18 Aug 2009 at 7:56pm Toque wrote:
Anyone would think wrong then wouldn't they. I'm a law abiding person who objects to be spied on, not because I'm up to no good but because there is absolutely no reason for the State or any agency, organisation, business or individual to be spying on me. I'm imagining the State that you would have us live in and the feasibility of manufacturing a criminal record for me or anyone else who wasn't with "the programme" or dissented against it. Rozzer is spot on. History has taught us that we have more to fear from governments than fellow citizens. Wat Tyler, the Levellers, Chartists, Peterloo campaigners, suffragettes, etc., would have been disappeared before they even got organised if people like you had the ability to time travel.
On 18 Aug 2009 at 8:08pm Spongebob wrote:
So you want ALL cctv and other surveilance cameras removed do you Torque ?
On 18 Aug 2009 at 9:15pm Sorry... wrote:
But I'm all for these cameras and I would be happy if everyone had to carry an ID card and all this other paranoid drivel you are on about! There are so many people breaking the law in this country, screwing the tax payers etc. I believe if these things had been introduced a few years ago our country wouldn't be in the appaling state it's in now!
On 19 Aug 2009 at 10:21am Ed Can Do wrote:
Or maybe, if instead of spending millions and millions of pounds on cameras and hugely expensive consultation about ID cards nobody really wants and building up a massive bureaucracy to fill in all the forms associated with the cameras and cards and what have you, the money had been spent on employing some more police and having them walk around the town from time to time, we wouldn't have reached the ridiculous state we're now in?
The governement want to control every aspect of our lives it seems and every time a new perceived problem arises in society, they try to legislate to crush it, rather than looking at why the problem arose in the first place. This can never work in the long run as you simply can't legislate to control everything. It's a system doomed to failure and one can only hope that it can be dismantled through proper political channels before the need for a bloody revolution arises.
On 19 Aug 2009 at 10:27am Great Crested Newt wrote:
Paranoid! Why would anyone want to spy on you Toque? Or should I call you John Nash? So if your granny (Can't imagine you being a parent so didn't use the term 'if your child...') was attacked and beaten to the ground, would you think "Poxy interfering cameras" as your granny lay broken in hospital, frightened but relieved the thug was caught with the aid of these cameras? What a complete t...er! and if I was watching you through CCTV, I would say to myself "There goes an angry bitter saddo"
On 19 Aug 2009 at 11:18am Toque wrote:
You could justify just about anything on the grounds that it will make us safer. Why not install a military junta or a curfew? The fact is that there's a trade off to be made between liberty and safety.
It's not me that's paranoid because it's not me that lives in fear of crime. Your philosophy is essentially Marxist because you are espousing 'positive liberty' at the expense of the more valuable and essential 'negative liberty'. Each to their own. You obviously have a great deal of anger and bitterness and expect the government to protect you from society. I pity you.
On 19 Aug 2009 at 12:17pm Andrew Richardson wrote:
"They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety." - Benjamin Franklin
On 19 Aug 2009 at 3:22pm Great Crested Newt wrote:
Been on Wikipedia then have we? Try sticking to the main subject instead of spouting off quotes which, quite frankly, is just a saddo way of claiming to be intelectual. It's all very well being a clever dick but you'll eat your words one day when some little scumbag comes along and violates your world.
Toque.... Well aren't you lucky not having to live in fear of crime? Ever been violated? No, doesn't sound like it! Arrogant prick.
On 19 Aug 2009 at 3:36pm Great Crested Newt wrote:
Perhaps this will shut you up and help ignorant twats like you to walk a mile in my shoes before you judge.
In 1993, my father, who lived alone in a house in Leeds, was sitting watching tv one day when two men broke in and robbed him. He foolishly tried to protect himself but being 87, was too weak. He died that day of a heart attack.
CCTV cameras could have helped catch them or even deter them in the first place. Despite neighbouring witnesses, they were never caught.
I have reason to be bitter Toque....
On 19 Aug 2009 at 5:15pm Rozzer wrote:
This might interest you from the Telegraph Great Crested Newt. It's probably best not to have too much confidence in what our masters tell you:
'Britain's surveillance society was exposed as ineffective yesterday by a damning official report which revealed 80 per cent of CCTV footage is of poor quality and that the cameras are mostly used to trap motorists rather than catch criminals.'
On 19 Aug 2009 at 5:40pm Ed Can Do wrote:
You do know the best place to go if you want to spot someone selling drugs in Lewes of an evening is the precinct. Sure there's a big old camera on a stick there but it can't point straight down so they stand underneath it. It must be a blind spot because nobody ever, ever gets arrested. A silly example perhaps but for cctv to be effective you have to blanket the world in it and then you'd need to employ hundreds of people to watch the cameras all day. Then what do you do if the person employed to watch the cameras knows the criminals and doesn't report what they see? Why, you put up some cameras to watch the people watching the cameras of course!
Cctv is a deterrent, not a solution and many of the cameras you see around the place aren't even real, they're just there to make it look like a place is under surveilance so that those paranoid people who walk around all day terrified of being mugged by a ywelve year old in a hooded top will feel safe enough to venture out once in a while.
I lived in Salford for a while, it's a really, really nasty place compared to anywhere, let alone Lewes. Sure they put cctv up here and there and as fast as they did, the local kids smashed up the cameras. Unlike a policeman on the beat, a camera can only look where you tell it and it can't defend itself. It can't differentiate between someone going about their business and someone up to no good and follow the criminal.
We don't need more cameras, we need more policemen, more jails and a legal system that's not afraid to send people to prison. That's the only thing that's ever going to stop the gradual decline of this country into either a police state or complete lawlessness.
On 19 Aug 2009 at 6:37pm Annette Curtin-Twitcher wrote:
If the cameras really prevented crime, I'd feel differently, but they don't. At best, they displace it.
They've made the reduction in police on the beat more "acceptable", becvause they've convinced the politicians that they provide adequate surveillance.
On 19 Aug 2009 at 7:54pm Toque wrote:
"Ever been violated? No, doesn't sound like it! Arrogant prick."
Actually I've had my jaw broken in two places in a completely unprovoked attack on Edinburgh's Princes Street. The police picked me up off the pavement - they were chasing some guys who had started a fight in a nightclub and been kicked out. They punched me as they ran past.
Edinburgh town centre is covered by CCTV but it makes no difference to people like that.
You come across as a really sad c*nt. Life has really dealt you a bum deal hasn't it?
Personally I'd rather we concentrated our efforts on actually preventing crime and societal breakdown, but if paranoid retards like you get security from CCTV then I suppose we'll have to invest all our taxes in that.
On 19 Aug 2009 at 7:58pm Toque wrote:
"I have reason to be bitter Toque...."
Well I'm afraid that it's clouded your judgment and you've become a fearful hate-filled individual incapable of reason or moderation. Very rude too, but that's OK by me because we're not in a police state yet (however much you would like us to be).
On 19 Aug 2009 at 9:57pm I think..... wrote:
These camera's have solved a lot of crimes, it doesn't matter how many Policemen are on the beat, they still can't be everywhere.
Again... if you have nothing to hide you wouldn't have a problem with this!
On 19 Aug 2009 at 10:19pm Great Crested Newt wrote:
Everything I have said on this forum has been a wind up!! Sorry, couldn't resist it. It started with the lost cat thread. I am actually a sensible member of this forum and you would be shocked if you knew my other name. I am not a married man with 2 kids (taxi thread) and my dad died in 1962 or natural causes, I don't run an animal rescue centre (fireworks thread), and this is the best bit.....I am a womanl!!!
Sorry guys, It's been fun but I have run out of steam.
On 19 Aug 2009 at 10:21pm Ex great crested newt wrote:
I still like CCTV cameras though.....
On 19 Aug 2009 at 10:29pm Ex great crested newt wrote:
just one more thing....just watched the news, womans hair set alight on a train. CCTV caught it all and showed the faces of 4 wanted youths.
On 19 Aug 2009 at 10:40pm TDA wrote:
lol. oh dear.
On 19 Aug 2009 at 10:50pm Andrew Richardson wrote:
No, I haven't been on Wikipedia, I knew the quote anyway and it sums up my feelings of the state spying on people and those who depend on it to feel warm and fuzzy inside.
Presumably you'll have no problem with someone sticking a camera in your window or having a bit of a look through your house or arresting you without charge. After all, "if you have nothing to hide"...
On 20 Aug 2009 at 7:38am Ex great crested newt wrote:
Surely a CCTV camera would not be stuck in my window as that would be invasion of privacy? Anyway, how can you possibly use a quote by Benjamin Franklin in relation to CCTV? I may not be as clever as you but i'm clever enough to work out that he wasn't thinking about CCTV cameras when he made that quote in the year 17 something...? So if you're going to dazzle us all with 'philosophy', make sure it's relevant to the subject or it can make one sound a bit of a tit!
On 20 Aug 2009 at 10:02am Toque wrote:
The Benjamin Franklin quote is extremely relevant to this subject. The fact that you believe its truth has diminished over the years says everything about you and nothing about the quote.
On 20 Aug 2009 at 2:46pm Ex great crested newt wrote:
Who said anything about it diminishing? All I said is that his quote was nothing to do with CCTV!
However, when I try to make sense of the meaning behind his quote, all I get is, in other words, "If you safeguard yourself, or a colony from harm, instead of living in hope that harm will never come, then you don't deserve to be protected" I find this quote arrogant. It devalues the importance of human life.
1) I tell my kids not to go out onto the road on their bikes without a crash helmet as I want to protect them.
2) I tell them it's up to them to decide if they want to wear a helmet but if they don't and get hurt, at least it was freedom of choice.
Again, his quote is disrespectful towards people who just want to protect themselves and others. I can understand having freedom of choice and all that but his quote seems to ram down our throats that we should all believe in his philosophy. Now is that freedom of choice? It was probably easier for him to think up such a quote in those days when crime was not such a huge issue.
Another thing, if those drunks who beat you up in Edinburgh had been prosecuted due to CCTV, would it have satisfied you? And your comments about trying to prevent crime and society breakdown....how would you suggest this be initiated?
On 20 Aug 2009 at 4:37pm Andrew Richardson wrote:
Allowing someone to spy on you and take rights away from you is not "protecting yourself". It's relying on someone else to do it for you.
The choices you make for your children are a different matter. They're minors and as such you're expected to make decisions on their behalf. When they're adults you won't have the right to do that - they should be able to make those decisions themselves. They should be free to take their own risks, as long as those risks to do cause harm to anyone else.
What the government is doing (and I'll admit that CCTV is only a small part of the creeping surveillance/control culture and I've digressed a bit here) is slowly taking those choices away from *everyone* and treating *all* of us like children. I'm not happy about that.
On 20 Aug 2009 at 5:59pm Ex great crested newt wrote:
Point taken about the the kids but who exactly is spying? OK, so I'm walking down the street and a CCTV zooms in on me and follows my move....but who is operating the camera? Surely they're not going to take much notice of me unless I'm doing something out of the ordinary and unless I am not committing an offense, then they'll move away. I don't particularly care that their's someone looking at me saying "Look...there goes Ex Great Crested Newt" and so what if they have a giggle about my fat arse or stupid trousers, I am impersonal to them and they don't care either. The only way it would become intrusive is if the CCTV operator was my stalker but that's unlikely.
I just think that we should accept that some find it re-assuring (and why not?) and some find it intrusive but like I said in the very beginning, if I were a law breaker and wanted to go out and do some robbing, then I would find them an impediment and probably think twice before committing a crime.
On 20 Aug 2009 at 7:37pm Mystic Mog wrote:
Britain has the most amount of CCTV cameras per head globally. Therefore it should have the lowest crimes and the best detection rates.
CCTV is 'sticking plaster' for our current society. It is the root causes that need to be fixed.
'Ed can do' a correction. Generally it is the Police or Councils that request CCTV, Council's pay for them and the Police that operate them
On 21 Aug 2009 at 1:58am Expat Two wrote:
The argument that people objecting to CCTV cameras "obviously have something to hide" is just plain stupid.
We could wipe out all crime in a flash if CCTV cameras were fitted in every room of every building (including your bedroom). Or if we withdrew the need for search warrants and police were allowed unlimited access to all properties to check you're doing nothing illegal. Surely, only those with something to hide could possibly object?
Maybe I've got a different set of values, but the most disturbing aspect of CCTV cameras going up everywhere is quite simply the insinuation that we can't be trusted. If that doesn't bother you then "obviously" its because you can't be trusted.
On 21 Aug 2009 at 8:43am Ex great crested newt wrote:
Expat Two, you summed it up in one swift (final) paragraph which is more powerful than Franklin's quote and makes alot more sense.
On 21 Aug 2009 at 9:19am Andrew Richardson wrote:
So you don't like CCTV now? I wish you'd make your mind up...
On 21 Aug 2009 at 1:06pm Toque wrote:
Britain has 20% of the global number of CCTV cameras. We are, in the words of Privacy International - an 'endemic surviellance society' (actually, they said that about England and Wales and praised Scotland for its civil liberties record).
If you want CCTV then just keep voting Labour. If they have their way then all our travel movements will be logged; our bank transactions monitored; our DNA held, along with other biometric data; our day-to-day activities recorded on camera; our telephone calls and emails monitored, and; all this data will be held centrally and made available (sometimes for a fee) to local councils, private companies and even foreign governments (at the moment it's just EU police forces). This is the end of liberty, and the end of the concept of the Freeborne Englishman (that concept that requires agents of the state to identify themselves to you, rather than you having to prove yourself to them). You may believe that our present government is benign (personally I don't think so) but what happens when all this power rests with a Government that is most definitely not benign; or which is prejudiced against certain political groups, races or religions?
It's then that you will turn to the thugs that you live in fear of to begin the civil insurrection.
On 21 Aug 2009 at 1:25pm Lavender wrote:
Who cares? the cameras are there to protect and uphold law and order...so unless you are worried about getting caught in the act doing something illegal...WHAT'S the problem??? Many crimes would go unpunished if it wasn't for CCTV evidence...I don't see the difference between having policemen patrolling the streets or sticking up a few cameras and having them monitored centrally.
On 21 Aug 2009 at 2:23pm Taff wrote:
The cameras are there to record misdemeanours, not t protect and uphold law and order. They are 'after the event record' facility. Assuming the quality is good enough and the offender(s) are not disguised!
Policemen on the street provides a deterent effect. When I was younger, the days when the local plod were local residents it wasnt just the police you thought about if caught, it was the chat the local plod may have with ones parents or grandparents.
On 21 Aug 2009 at 2:52pm Toque wrote:
"Many crimes would go unpunished if it wasn't for CCTV"
It's pointless me arguing the ideological case against it if you have no objection to being watched and don't forsee any scenario in which you might.
True, CCTV evidence can lead to arrests. It is attributed with solving 3% of street crime in London. The CCTV cameras cost London £200 million. There's scant evidence to show that they actually deter crime. There's usually a dip in crime (or a displacement) when they are initially installed and then the crime rate just returns to what it was.
The difference between policemen and CCTV cameras would seem obvious to me. CCTV cameras don't arrest people.
What was interesting about the Home Office report on CCTV was the fact that installation of CCTV has led to crimes (more particularly public disorder offences) being investigated by the police even though no one ever reported a crime. And as we all know CCTV has been used to prosecute people for dog fouling and littering, and also to identify peaceful demonstrators whose details are then kept on file. Thin-end-of-the-wedge stuff. The fact that police can solve crimes that were never reported, of course, looks good when they release their figures. Reported crime down, arrests up.
On 21 Aug 2009 at 4:49pm Taff wrote:
Great post Toque.
Hopefully the thin blue 'lavender' line has a better perspective now.
On 22 Aug 2009 at 12:33am not from around here wrote:
I'm totally in agreement with Togue and others on this. Anybody who seriously uses the "if you are not doing anything wrong, you have nothing to fear" line is, in my opinion extremely infantile in their thinking.
To those in favour of more and more cameras, would you like them inside your house, perhaps in your bedroom, bathroom? Why not? As long as you are doing nothing wrong then you have absolutely nothing to fear as they are there to protect you...
On 24 Aug 2009 at 9:10am Lavender wrote:
Taff and Toque: are you old men in macs?