CCTV

[Pleepsie]

They guy has been shown to have no regard to the safety of others and himself..

 

He is DUTY BOUND to comply with ALL public safety requirements...

 

And, this is an example of being caught with a image, there is no avenue for explanation...

 

This is why we need CCTV, it would remove the doubt and show facts to be as they are...

 

Too many folk want to bend they rules, lie and cheat, if a camera is watching then it does not happen so much..

 

I have often thought, when reading many of your posts, that you are the Nanny State personified. Now I am in no doubt.

[paulb]

a few cones would not have hurt. but if you can't see such a large piece of equipment maybe a guide dog. if you don't want to get hit on the head with something walk around it if your happy to risk it go for it. is this really worth a topic. can't we get back to topic.

 

maybe that's what Mr Clark was saying but Dr wills miss herd.

[Carlos]

To get more CCTV back into it.....

 

When the cameras are there and working, would we expect them to be used to ensure 100% compliance with traffic laws and H&S rules?

So that rather than a photo here and some "try and do better next time" comments, it should be straight over to the HSO for enforcement? And similarly a ticket sent out straight away to anybody driving down the street during the hours vehicles are banned?

 

The fact that CCTV is on place gives the option to enforce laws to that extent, but the general feeling (on here at least) seems to be that is going too far?

[piggywiggie]

CCTV handy for weekends, maybe it will improve things slightly. Honestly we cant really say much about how its effecting the place until its been up and running for a while. So maybe we should just wait and see before we make any comments?

[Michael]

^ I do like to see the occasional glimmer of sense in threads like these

[piggywiggie]

sense?! where?! lets get rid o it!

[Roachmill]

CCTV handy for weekends, maybe it will improve things slightly. Honestly we cant really say much about how its effecting the place until its been up and running for a while. So maybe we should just wait and see before we make any comments?

Now now... let's not let common sense get in the way of a good [read] thread

[shetlandpeat]

Well, let us let this one go, then what will we let go next..?

 

CCTV is being installed, and has been installed in places to get back to the basics of doing the right thing..

 

There is too many instances of petty crime and ommissions that have eventually moved to more serious outcomes..

 

Settin up a cherry picker at the top of Todds Steps without any physical warning for folks who may no be able to see such hazzards is quite wrong.

 

Or are you going to say that it is their problem....

 

Your tax has paid for this and there seems to be appethy towards a correct job being done for what is being charged for..

 

But if no one gets hurt it should be forgotten...?

 

Perhaps if folks start to get caught for more petty crimes and some parents take more responsibility for the fruit of their loins then the need for the cameras could be ommited..

 

But you shout that this is a police state, it always has been but relied on folks trust not to break the laws etc.

 

Now folks seem to care less for others, this sort of thing moves to another level...

 

Then there are folk who care less about those who care less...

 

So, people do what THEY want, when THEY want.....

 

But hey, the best thing we do is to criticise.....

 

Cos it is always easier to distract by pointing out others errors.

 

But if those errors can have a drammatic change on someone elses life, that is the only time we do anything....

 

or just complain..

 

So perhaps that is the need for the cameras, to prevent some petty crimes and to make folks a wee bit safer......

 

I have not seen any evidence where I live that folk have been persicuted via CCTV.

 

I am sure that most who complain have been victim of CCTV, hence the complaints.

 

And little LK as so affectionally put seems to be getting a bit of a reputation for Heroin...nice...

 

Why not see it in action and see if it does improve life on the street...

 

But remember the cameras will do the telling, so you don't have to.

[shetlandpeat]

harse trying to get some one the sack for this. So if you wish to report them make sure you never break any safety or other rules. There are plenty of dodgier thing going on than a man on a cherry picker.

 

Why would he get the sack??

 

And y the threats? I comply with the regulations within my industry, but there are instances when folks do not comply with ie, driving laws, which end up with more regs for me to comply with to stop myself and the work force going home in an ambulance.

 

We then get cameras to check folks speed and CCTV to watch folks bad driving and there is none. We all go home safely..

 

Mmm nanny state, nannies do seem to look after children....

 

The reason alot of us have the life we do and the freedom we have to do things is down to someone else making sure that no ill comes to you or any other..or someone is watching images in a control room somewhere.

 

Here is a senario....

 

Man in cherry picker drops camera unit onto a small group of folk....

 

The reason, a car clipped one of his outriggers???

 

I am sure that if this did happen, there would be a few comments here...

 

Then if you say no, then let us not have CCTV and let folk chase other folk around the lanes kicking the crap out of each other.

[EM]

Here is a senario....

 

Man in cherry picker drops camera unit onto a small group of folk....

 

The reason, a car clipped one of his outriggers???

 

I am sure that if this did happen, there would be a few comments here...

 

In general I find the whole H&S situation nowadays increasingly misguided. The construction industry's safety record was abysmal and consequently H&S was tightened up. The regulations are actually quite sensible, but the implementation is driven by the wish to be able to avoid legal liability for negligence rather than what is genuinely safe practice.

 

In this specific case, however, I agree with SP that the cherry picker activity was remarkably lax. In particular, at one point I saw activity aloft while the device had one support standing flush with the edge of one of the steps leading down a lane from the street. Had it slipped off, the result would have been catastrophic. It struck me at the time as being an amazing sight in the current H&S obsessive culture.

[paulb]

shetland peat i was not implying that you did. but if were going to run to someones boss when they mess up the likely result will that they will lose there job. I know i mess up and I'm sure the rest of us do too so it would be a pity to victimize this one man. You could argue that he clearly needs extra safety training. who know what his bosses may have said to him.sorry if you though i was having a dig.

[shetlandpeat]

I think he was self employed..and, further training or a refresher is all that is required. In this instance..it is classed as a near miss.

 

There is also a question of fair competition...

 

If someone quotes and provides all the safety aspects of the quoted task is against some one who sez he can do the same job, same safety, but knows he wont have to cos no one will check and gets the job, at a lesser price, it is not right, then we will edge back to cowboy builders and the like...

 

And just to add, there does not seem to be too many folk who argue or debate from a legislative point of view.

 

 

 

It seems that folk expect other folk to just put up and shut up...and let them make their money.

 

The situation could have been avoided some what if the MEWP (Mobile Elevated Work Platform) that sits idle at Grantfield was used. The council would have provided barriers etc....

 

 

It is something I use at my work and is fully self contained.

 

But some of my argument is that the tax payer has been paying for Health and Saftey implementations and do not always get them.

 

Yet no comment on that as yet...

 

So what if I debate for a more resposible (personally) way of life and attitudes....

 

But, the cameras are in place, and I hope that they are used correctly....

 

They have helped me in the past, though it is sad that we have got to a place in our society where we think we need them.

 

Is it not an inditement on how we lead our lives and interact with others??

 

We have lost TRUST, we are heading for big trouble now...

[Njugle]

 

And little LK as so affectionally put seems to be getting a bit of a reputation for Heroin...nice...

 

Why not see it in action and see if it does improve life on the street...

 

But remember the cameras will do the telling, so you don't have to.

 

Interesting post and some good points. A couple of observations though. I don't think the CCTV is intended to, nor will, have any effect on the heroin problem.

 

Yes, it will be good to see if the cameras will improves things but your last statement partially exemplifies a key part of the problem with them, particularly in a small community. Now anything and everything that does happen is notably defined as "someone else's problem." That attitude may well be quite prevalent in Lerwick already but the cameras can only reinforce that.

To quote a case in point, I recall a colleague calling the Police as a group or youths ( of respectable backgrounds, I might add) vandalised a car on the street. Would anyone be so inclined to do so with the cameras in place? The self same youths need only wear hoodies to avoid identification. And on that occasion the police arrived by car 20 mins after the prolonged offence had taken place, at the foot of Charlotte Street, and caught nobody.

 

As a serious question, rather than rhetoric, what will the cameras do to improve a scenario like that, for instance?

[shetlandpeat]

Ah I have heard this too.

 

It could be said that the cameras gather evidence for future prosecution..

 

Then there is the argument of "saving" such evidence untill there is enough evidence....

 

Then there is a situation where you could be constantly monitored by a CCTV operator, cos he knows you....

 

And, would the responce times be different if it were a person being vandalized...

 

The police reaction times are prioritised so there is a possibility a person was being delt with hence the long wait..

 

I know and understand the CCTV wont stop the Heroin trade in Lerwick, but it would stop it comming down from the lanes to the street...

 

I could see it daily in London, and here in Lancashire, deals done on the street.

 

I don't know if the cameras would stop folk from reporting stuff, I know that when we had the huge oblong cameras we knew if they were looking at a situation, but with the dome ones, you cannot readily see if they are, a good thing and a bad thing.

 

The same folk would still make a call or complaint, regardless, but I think it should be emphasized that the cameras can only work better if there is public information...and if there were more calls, there would be a need to reduce coverage...

 

We have got into our society a prison regime of not grassin, snitching, or tellin tales on another, for fear of being labeled or victimised for doin so.

 

But also there are future events to think of, Hamefairing, Tall Ships.

 

There will be many new faces in town, and without going into facts I am sure crime will increase if not assessed and the means not put in place...

 

In theory, it should free up more police time, I hope the Chief does not use it as a reason to cut back officers..

 

Perhaps someone could invite him to comment, either here of in the free press???

 

The cameras could also help in the search of the lost.

 

Children get lost or go missing and there are adults who are not full in control of their actions who go walk about.

 

There are instances of folk falling in the harbour un observed...

 

Are there any other +ve aspects I could have missed...?

 

I do hope that the CCTV scheme does not increase appethy, we need to take some resposibility, surly!!!

 

But we wont know anything for fact until we can compare bothe situations, cameras. No cameras..

 

But you may find that crime figures increase, not because there are more crimes, but more are being reported.

 

Then, the sales of the Times would increase, cos of our inquisitive nature. Oh, and will privide more gossip and debate....

 

Interesting times ahead...but I do hope the +ve outweigh the -ve. There will always be -ve stuff, tis folk dealing with folk at the end of it..and folk can be wrong....you know what I mean......folk.

[DamnSaxon]

CCTV is being installed, and has been installed in places to get back to the basics of doing the right thing.

 

No, sorry, I really can't 'let that one go', either, shetlandpeat. I'm assuming that by 'doing the right thing' here you mean knowing how to behave decently in society, since the droning falsehood that "CCTV will help to cut street crime" has been pumped out of every governmental orifice as a "justification" for it for years. And, believe me, living in a city, I know that there seem to be a lot of people around these days who remind me of Rudolf Steiner's chilling comment that "towards the end of the present age there will be many people born without souls"; I'm not at all saying that there is no problem in the UK's streets.

 

The infestation of every public space in the UK of snooping cameras, all linked back to some fortified bunker out of town, though, has nothing at all to do with street crime. As I've mentioned above in this thread, practically every study ever done on that topic concludes that CCTV has little, or no, impact on crime levels - but people who don't actually investigate the matter for themselves just assume that it must help, mustn't it? I mean. It's what they tell us.

 

No, the infestation is just one of the more obvious parts of the surveillance dragnet which is being lowered over the population. It really shouldn't take too much of a leap of the imagination to link the system with the DNA database (and associated ID cards - how long before those become either compulsory or effectively so?), facial recognition software, the opening up to pretty much anyone in a uniform of all databases - banking, medical, you name it - without, of course, the trouble of notifying you, the Automatic Number Plate Recognition system which tracks people's vehicular movements and records all data for at least five years, even after it's obvious that you haven't committed any crimes, the new register to "protect" vulnerable people, featuring yet another database, this time one which treats malicious gossip as an acceptable substitute for truth ... the list goes on and on.

 

And all linking it together shouldn't be that difficult - after all, the tyrants upstairs are doing all that linking for real, on a worryingly large scale, not just thinking about it.

 

As for why all this is being done, well, I'd say follow up justlookin's observation about the EU, and read around the subject a bit. The "Lisbon Treaty" is going to be hammered into place irrespective of all opposition, no matter how factually based, because the plan (which is international) is among other things to reduce all Europe to, effectively, a collection of vassal 'regions', where you, as an ordinary citizen, will have only the 'right' to shut up and do as you're told.

 

Few actual Brits are particularly responsible for this state of affairs, but what I can only call a series of traitorous governments have now broken up the UK. I'd love to think that the Irish vote next month would again say 'no' to all this, just for the frisson of hope it would give, but I fear that the 'yes' lobby have by now bought themselves victory. We, of course, don't even get the courtesy of a vote - not that it matters that much; as we used to say, "if voting changed anything they'd abolish it".

 

European "integration" is getting the same sort of treatment as the question of whether Quebec should become officially French-speaking. Every time there's a vote on it, the public say 'no' ... so it comes back over and over again, until it gives the (predetermined) "right" result - the Quebecois call it the 'neverendum'.

 

As for any practical results of CCTV in Shetland, I'd predict much the same as everywhere else. You'll get a few show trials, where some idiot (probably drunk) gets picked up for something damn stupid and made an example of, then when you're used to the cameras being there even those will fade away. And so another piece of civilian control apparatus has been quietly moved into place to be used against you.

 

Oh, and before anyone accuses me of being a conspiracy theorist, you're quite wrong. I'm a conspiracy watcher, and one who is pretty damn angry about his country being stolen.

 

(I can say damn, check my forum name. But no swearing, kids! )