You can't compare us to other European country's mate the Chav culture does not exist elsewhere like it does here, most of the crime that is

Suedehead is being absolutely paranoid beyond belief, god I hate "New Labour" with a passion lol but even I do not believe they would ever stoop so low as to what he is suggesting, Putin's Russia, North Korea, China, Cuba, Zimbabwe have some of the most repressive control freak governments in the entire world but do they install CCTV in everyone's houses ? no course they do not, Suedehead lost any credibility in this debate when he made that comment about CCTV being installed in homes, that ever happened 52m people would be heading for Heathrow mate and the country would collapse. If the idea of CCTV in homes hasn't occured to Putin or Castro or Mugabe or Kim Il Jong its hardly going to occur to Gordon Brown :lol:

My comment was a rather flippant way of demonstrating that "If you've got nothing to hide, you've got nothing to fear" is a silly and very lazy argument. Of course I'm not suggesting that the introduction of CCTV into people's homes is likely - here or anywhere else. But "If you've got nothing to hide, ..." is a very sweeping statement which could be applied to a whole range of intrusive acts.

And when was the last time a copper who committed a criminal act actually got sent down for it....? Hah! That would be once in a ruddy blue moon.... :lol: :lol:

 

cctv footage was instrumental in showing the coppers up for their gung ho attitude towards that 'terrorist' chap (cant remember his name let alone spell it! lol) they shot on the underground. without that footage they could have fabricated anything, prosecutions?... maybe.

 

this is a strom in a teacup, so effing what if theres cctv around? as if they (who are 'they'?) install it and run it in areas where it wasnt effective? as if anybody would fund that!

 

i have never ever heard of anyone being 'abused' by this technology, who tf wants to watch ME go shopping? :lol:

cctv footage was instrumental in showing the coppers up for their gung ho attitude towards that 'terrorist' chap (cant remember his name let alone spell it! lol) they shot on the underground. without that footage they could have fabricated anything, prosecutions?... maybe.

 

You mean the police execution of the totally innocent Jean Charles De Menezes....??? And the police cetainly did try to fabricate bullsh!t in order to cover their sorry arses - the claimed he jumped over barriers - bull$h!t, they claimed he was "acting suspiciously" - bull$h!t, they claimed he wore a long coat - bull$h!t, they claimed he was on cocaine - bull$h!t, oh and they doctored a photograph of him and Hussain Osman to make them look alike, b/astards. Witnesses on the train said time and time again that Jean Charles was just sitting there minding his own business, and police did NOT identify themselves before opening fire... <_< Pigs shot an innocent guy and all they got charged under was an infraction of the sodding Health and Safety at Work act, the cops who did it didn't even have to testify at the ruddy court.... What a fukkin' joke that case and those charges were, a bit like nicking Dr Kervorkian or Harold fukkin' Shipman for operating on people with un-steralized equipment FFS..... <_< Yeah, a LOT of good the CCTV evidence did there mate, it caught them out on a lie time and time again, and did they get charged with manslaughter or perverting the course of justice....? Ummm, nope.. Unsurprisingly....

 

Anyway, back to the matter at hand, just to play Devil's Advocate here's two scenarios for you and Craig just to see if you really do believe your own BS about the "ends justifying the means"....

 

Scenario 1 - To prevent the loss of millions of pounds of stock every year, should not high street retailers be allowed to fit CCTV cams into changing rooms in order to catch out shoplifters...?

 

Scenario 2 - To prevent the use and sale of drugs, should nightclubs not be allowed to install CCTV cams into their toilets to catch out drug users and dealers...?

 

Surely BOTH of these crimes are slightly worse than motorists doing 75mph on the motorway, or somebody not paying the congestion charge......

No one would seriously advocate security cameras inside changing rooms and toilets, that would be a serious breach of privacy and dignity and would not be acceptable in any civilised society.

 

Security cameras on shop floors and also security tags are more than sufficient without having voyeurs perving over women in their knickers in changing rooms

 

In terms of the nightclub scenario a security guard / bouncer (male one in mens toilets) and female bouncer in the womens area being on hand to witness any wrongful activity while being strategically positioned in a place where they could not be in a position to watch bodily functions would be fine you don't need security cameras for either scenario you mentioned Scott

 

I am fully in favour of CCTV in shops, shopping centres, car parks, high streets, transport places like bus and rail stations, airports, neighbourhoods where there is a chav problem and so on, certainly NOT in clothing cubicles or toilets

No one would seriously advocate security cameras inside changing rooms and toilets, that would be a serious breach of privacy and dignity and would not be acceptable in any civilised society.

 

Security cameras on shop floors and also security tags are more than sufficient without having voyeurs perving over women in their knickers in changing rooms

 

In terms of the nightclub scenario a security guard / bouncer (male one in mens toilets) and female bouncer in the womens area being on hand to witness any wrongful activity while being strategically positioned in a place where they could not be in a position to watch bodily functions would be fine you don't need security cameras for either scenario you mentioned Scott

 

I am fully in favour of CCTV in shops, shopping centres, car parks, high streets, transport places like bus and rail stations, airports, neighbourhoods where there is a chav problem and so on, certainly NOT in clothing cubicles or toilets

 

But surely if it prevents crime Craig, which is kinda yours and Rob's whole arguement innit....? After all, if you've nothing to hide..... :P I was using these examples because you could easily make a reasonable case for it, unlike setting it up in private homes...

 

And who decides if a neighbourhood is a "problem area" anyway...? Frankly I dont really believe that it is a deterrant to chavs anyway, most of these little buggers are going around filming themselves committing crimes on their mobile phones and posting it up on the internet, "famous for 15 minutes" and all that... <_< If Police want to stop "chavvy" behaviour, they'd be better off checking out You Tube, MySpace or Facebook, rather than pore over acres of CCTV footage most of which is just filming the tops of people's heads... Deterrant??? Is it fukk.... Frankly I reckon banning the ownership of cameraphones to under-18s would be a more effective prevention tool than CCTV....

"If you've got nothing to hide, ..." is a very sweeping statement which could be applied to a whole range of intrusive acts.

 

 

Absolutely mate, such as the examples that I gave of putting up CCTV in shop changing rooms and night club toilets....

 

 

But surely if it prevents crime Craig, which is kinda yours and Rob's whole arguement innit....? After all, if you've nothing to hide..... :P I was using these examples because you could easily make a reasonable case for it, unlike setting it up in private homes...

 

And who decides if a neighbourhood is a "problem area" anyway...? Frankly I dont really believe that it is a deterrant to chavs anyway, most of these little buggers are going around filming themselves committing crimes on their mobile phones and posting it up on the internet, "famous for 15 minutes" and all that... <_< If Police want to stop "chavvy" behaviour, they'd be better off checking out You Tube, MySpace or Facebook, rather than pore over acres of CCTV footage most of which is just filming the tops of people's heads... Deterrant??? Is it fukk.... Frankly I reckon banning the ownership of cameraphones to under-18s would be a more effective prevention tool than CCTV....

 

oh... so because cctv is used to prevent crime in an unacceptable manner then all the cameras that are being used to prevent crime are nullified as unacceptable! bonkers!

 

its a FACT that in areas where cctv is in place crime is significantly reduced.

 

so what if it doesnt prevent some idiotic chav committing a crime, at least the bugger can be caught!

 

you ought to go into politics,. all the scummy, chav crims would vote for you...

Absolutely mate, such as the examples that I gave of putting up CCTV in shop changing rooms and night club toilets....

 

well maybe if scummy people would stop stealing goods fom changing rooms, and stop scoreing drugs in nightclub toilets (which could get the club closed down), then there would be no need for them! or would you rather have them be body searched <_<

I can see where Scott is coming from on this one actually, on the whole of the matter where will it stop? And young stupid people who set themselves up by filming themselves on their phones commiting crimes. But I do think it's needed on dark roads, car parks, stations etc. I don't have a problem with them being there, they don't bother me at all.

oh... so because cctv is used to prevent crime in an unacceptable manner then all the cameras that are being used to prevent crime are nullified as unacceptable! bonkers!

 

its a FACT that in areas where cctv is in place crime is significantly reduced.

 

so what if it doesnt prevent some idiotic chav committing a crime, at least the bugger can be caught!

 

you ought to go into politics,. all the scummy, chav crims would vote for you...

 

So, you actually support putting up cameras in women's changing rooms and in nightclub bogs... Blimey, every single pervert, p**** and panty sniffer in the land would vote for YOU mate..... :P :P Then they'd go out and get jobs as Store Detectives or Shopping Centre security guards.... :lol: :lol:

 

Where's the actual evidence that CCTV prevents crime then....? I mean, if Chavs are going around filming themselves on camera phones Happy Slapping, vandalising, nicking cars and so on and posting it up on the internet, I somehow doubt they're frightened of being filmed by a camera that's about 15 fukkin' feet in the air and only catches the tops of their heads...... :lol: :lol:

 

Why should I as a law abiding fukkin' citizen tolerate being surreptitiously filmed without my consent simply walking down the fukkin' street minding my own business....??? On some supposed, esoteric "prevention" argument that just doesn't hold any water when you look at the actual crime stats... Do me a fukkin' favour.....

 

I wouldn't be a Politician, I've got too many principles mate..... :lol: :lol:

I can see where Scott is coming from on this one actually, on the whole of the matter where will it stop? And young stupid people who set themselves up by filming themselves on their phones commiting crimes. But I do think it's needed on dark roads, car parks, stations etc. I don't have a problem with them being there, they don't bother me at all.

 

I've never argued against CCTV in stations, airports, public transport, car parks, etc... My objection is to it being everywhere you bloody look....

 

You could conceivably track a person travelling from Lands End to John O Groats and everywhere inbetween using various CCTV networks..... Seriously.... It's fukking scary.... And I dont exactly trust some of the so-called "custodians" of this information considering that a lot of it seems to end up on the Internet, totally illegally....

I've never argued against CCTV in stations, airports, public transport, car parks, etc... My objection is to it being everywhere you bloody look....

 

I didn't say you did Scott, I read the thread!

 

I can see 2 just outside my window and I'm only in Pride Park, but tbh it's just one big view of cars. I can see the problems more down south or in Scottland not here really.

I can see the problems more down south or in Scottland not here really.

 

Why in Scotland particularly....? :unsure:

 

Stats and proportions wise, there's far less crime in Scotland and Wales than in England... True, you get "black spots" like Paisley, certain areas of Glasgow, Dundee and Edinburgh, but generally speaking....

Why in Scotland particularly....? :unsure:

 

Stats and proportions wise, there's far less crime in Scotland and Wales than in England... True, you get "black spots" like Paisley, certain areas of Glasgow, Dundee and Edinburgh, but generally speaking....

 

Oh I was going off size not the fact that you're all drunks lol. They just tend to put more in big citys.

I've never argued against CCTV in stations, airports, public transport, car parks, etc... My objection is to it being everywhere you bloody look....

 

You could conceivably track a person travelling from Lands End to John O Groats and everywhere inbetween using various CCTV networks..... Seriously.... It's fukking scary.... And I dont exactly trust some of the so-called "custodians" of this information considering that a lot of it seems to end up on the Internet, totally illegally....

 

well they ARNT everwhere you look... only in crime ridden london. so what if someone could track someone going from john o'groats to lands end... i mean... who would want too and how would that be intrusive? they arnt doing it in secret! :lol: its a silly argument scott.

So, you actually support putting up cameras in women's changing rooms and in nightclub bogs... Blimey, every single pervert, p**** and panty sniffer in the land would vote for YOU mate..... :P :P

 

Where's the actual evidence that CCTV prevents crime then....? I mean, if Chavs are going around filming themselves on camera phones Happy Slapping, vandalising, nicking cars and so on and posting it up on the internet, I somehow doubt they're frightened of being filmed by a camera that's about 15 fukkin' feet in the air and only catches the tops of their heads...... :lol: :lol:

 

Why should I as a law abiding fukkin' citizen tolerate being surreptitiously filmed without my consent simply walking down the fukkin' street minding my own business....??? On some supposed, esoteric "prevention" argument that just doesn't hold any water when you look at the actual crime stats... Do me a fukkin' favour.....

 

I wouldn't be a Politician, I've got too many principles mate..... :lol: :lol:

 

didnt say i supported it, i said i can understand why its being done.

 

local tv said that a shopping centre has had less crime since cctv was installed and offenders have been identified and prosecuted... i simply dont believe that 'they' would spend all that money on surveilance IF it didnt work... it does help alot, not only in helping prevent certain types of crime, but in prosecuting identified individuals AND getting police to trouble as soon as it occurs thus preventing a possible escalation.

 

until i see any evidence that this technology is being abused , then im all for it.

well they ARNT everwhere you look... only in crime ridden london. so what if someone could track someone going from john o'groats to lands end... i mean... who would want too and how would that be intrusive? they arnt doing it in secret! :lol: its a silly argument scott.

 

Oh dear, you're just not getting it are you...? I'm using it to illustrate the sheer volume of what's actually out there.... Our European neighbours wouldn't tolerate this sort of intrusiveness (and the facts are CCTV aint used to anything like the extent on the continent as it is in this country..), why should we....? I dont believe the argument that Craig comes up with, that somehow the French, Scadinavians, Swiss and Germans are somehow our intellectual and emotional superiors.... No, I think what it is, is that their Govts act in a more reasonable manner and treat their citizens with a bit more respect, giving them more credit, and thus creating a far more egalitarian, liberal society where the citizens respond to this trust by giving the Govt a bit more credit and respect in return... Our Govt doesn't trust us, calls us "subjects" and treats us like animals or naughty children and then wonder why some of us act the way we do.... <_<

 

Of course it's secretive, do YOU know who's doing the watching...? I dont...

Oh dear, you're just not getting it are you...? I'm using it to illustrate the sheer volume of what's actually out there.... Our European neighbours wouldn't tolerate this sort of intrusiveness (and the facts are CCTV aint used to anything like the extent on the continent as it is in this country..), why should we....? I dont believe the argument that Craig comes up with, that somehow the French, Scadinavians, Swiss and Germans are somehow our intellectual and emotional superiors.... No, I think what it is, is that their Govts act in a more reasonable manner and treat their citizens with a bit more respect, giving them more credit, and thus creating a far more egalitarian, liberal society where the citizens respond to this trust by giving the Govt a bit more credit and respect in return... Our Govt doesn't trust us, calls us "subjects" and treats us like animals or naughty children and then wonder why some of us act the way we do.... <_<

 

Of course it's secretive, do YOU know who's doing the watching...? I dont...

 

i get it full well.... and the reason we have it is like everything else. there is a serious lack of morals in this country, we have the largest teenage pregnancies in europe, we have the largest rate of std's, we have the biggest drink problem in the young, the biggest drugs problem in the young and consequently the biggest load of unruly young chavscum in europe ... hence we have more cctv to catch the buggers!

 

i couldnt give a $h!t whos watching.... what are they going to do? ...lol i mean, as if they are watching me shopping! ffs <_<. you are sounding paranoid scott.... :lol:

didnt say i supported it, i said i can understand why its being done.

 

local tv said that a shopping centre has had less crime since cctv was installed and offenders have been identified and prosecuted... i simply dont believe that 'they' would spend all that money on surveilance IF it didnt work... it does help alot, not only in helping prevent certain types of crime, but in prosecuting identified individuals AND getting police to trouble as soon as it occurs thus preventing a possible escalation.

 

until i see any evidence that this technology is being abused , then im all for it.

 

It is being abusedb though mate, the examples I gave are obvious... Somehow I doubt if the motorists or suspects (ie, they've NOT been tried or convicted of any offence...) who are the subjects of progs like "Cops" or "Police Camera Action" are being asked permission to appear on these shows or sign any waivers.... And, just cos the faces are 'blanked out' so what...? They could still theoretically be identified....

 

Cams in general areas in shopping centres are okay, but you have to draw the line at changing rooms ffs....

 

the biggest load of unruly young chavscum in europe ...

 

So you weren't watching the news coming out of Italy at the weekend then mate..... :P

 

 

The Italian "Ultras" make the West Ham and Millwall firms look like a couple of old ladies swinging handbags at each other.....