Twerto Posted November 14, 2007 Report Share Posted November 14, 2007 I will just have to remember to stop picking my nose as i walk along the street Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Medziotojas Posted November 14, 2007 Report Share Posted November 14, 2007 They'll pay for themselves in no time with all the fixed penalty fines for minor misdemeanours near pubs. The average punter may be well aware of the cameras, but after a few the view can become more and more blinkered. Think of the potential revenue that could be generated from stag do's, work's nights out, etc., while the hoodies take their grisly business elsewhere. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wheesht Posted November 14, 2007 Report Share Posted November 14, 2007 I will just have to remember to stop picking my nose as i walk along the street Well if that is the worst you do you will be okay. Me, I'm going to have to stop scratching my... ...knees. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ghostrider Posted November 19, 2007 Report Share Posted November 19, 2007 I never thought I'd live to see the day our MSP and me agreed on something, but it's happened. http://www.shetland-news.co.uk/news_11_2007/We%20need%20cops,%20not%20cameras.htm Of course if I were a cynic I'd say it was a stance taken as a convenient political ploy to earn Brownie points at the expense of the SNP, who now are so predictably abandoning their election promises steadily one by one. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sudden Stop Posted November 19, 2007 Report Share Posted November 19, 2007 ^^^ Definately more of a dig at the government than a comment on Shetland's CCTV scheme, but still spot on. The mark one eye ball is much better than a camera and if it is in the head of a police officer then you have someone on the scene that can take action immediately. I would prefer to see more police on patrol but they are presumably a lot more expense per unit than cameras. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DamnSaxon Posted November 20, 2007 Report Share Posted November 20, 2007 ^^Agreed. A solid feller in blue is a DamnSight more reassuring than having snooping cameras watching (and recording) your every move. And you can't ask a camera the time ... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
digitaldodo Posted November 20, 2007 Report Share Posted November 20, 2007 I'd rather see mair cops on the beat - it'll be all over bar the shouting by the time their summoned to the scene by CCTV controller. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
trout Posted January 5, 2008 Report Share Posted January 5, 2008 A PUBLIC hearing is to be held in Lerwick next week to help determine whether the long-delayed network of surveillance cameras should be allowed in the town centre. The 13-camera system is up for planning approval on Wednesday but concerns about the positioning of several cameras have been expressed by local hotel and pub owner George Hepburn. He said there was no need for cameras to be set up directly in front of licensed premises, such as the Thule Bar. A great deal of the late-night trouble in the town Mr Hepburn blamed on youngsters who drink large quantities of cheap alcohol at home before coming out on to the streets after 1am. The only other objector, Mr S. Lawrence of Eshaness, is worried about civil rights, how the cameras will be monitored and how the information gleaned from the footage might be used. Council planning officials have recommended approval of the £200,000 project. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
max Posted January 5, 2008 Report Share Posted January 5, 2008 Is Lerwick town centre really such a crime den that the powers that be can justify spending £200,000? I'm not so sure. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TeeAyBee Posted January 5, 2008 Report Share Posted January 5, 2008 Is Lerwick town centre really such a crime den that the powers that be can justify spending £200,000? I'm not so sure. It is more than just a few drunken punch ups down the street - in the past I have witnessed more than one 'transaction' taking place on the street itself. If all we manage to do is to nip problems in the bud 200K is a small price to pay. It's not like money hasn't been spent in greater amounts on less worthy things.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MJ Posted January 5, 2008 Report Share Posted January 5, 2008 £200,000 over how long? does this figure cover staffing and running costs? has any bright spark figures out if the camera's they're about to install are even going to be Shetland weather proof? Then there's the whole bother about how they don't deter crime but most of the time camera footage is totally ineffective for prosecuting anyone. CCTV on streets is only useful for the false peace of mind given to the law abiding citizens who are daft enough to believe the hype. but hey another excuse for wasting money. If it's good enough for sooth... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TeeAyBee Posted January 5, 2008 Report Share Posted January 5, 2008 £200,000 over how long? does this figure cover staffing and running costs? has any bright spark figures out if the camera's they're about to install are even going to be Shetland weather proof? Then there's the whole bother about how they don't deter crime but most of the time camera footage is totally ineffective for prosecuting anyone. CCTV on streets is only useful for the false peace of mind given to the law abiding citizens who are daft enough to believe the hype. but hey another excuse for wasting money. If it's good enough for sooth... You raise a fair point about weather proofing admittedly, yes the weather here is punitive to installations, although we still manage to get TV signals and mobile phone signals from equipment that has had to be similarly weather hardened - I suspect some "bright spark" has thought of that. And your evidence for CCTV being ineffective is what? I should say that this is not my project and I have nothing to do with it but to write it off as hype is perhaps not giving the subject the attention it clearly warrants. Take a look at: http://www.crimereduction.homeoffice.gov.uk/cctv/cctvminisite19.htm http://www.pendle.gov.uk/site/scripts/download_info.php?fileID=879 http://sharepoint.bromley.gov.uk/Public%20PDF/11-CSLPH-2311.pdf http://www.rbkc.gov.uk/pressrelease/pressrelease.asp?id=2370 I've read the NACRO report questioning the level of effectiveness of CCTV (drop of 5% in crime) and the subsequent comparison with the implementation of street lighting (drop of 20%) and from what I've learned from the article is that while a number of the issues we face are the same as the south we're not a close enough match to adequately compare against the negative factors cited. Additionally I've read the commentry by Privacy International which decrys the cctv drop in crime figures by what they call a negligible statistic - 5% for instance in Bromley represents a large number of crimes and I would have thought that a 5% drop was a start. Their criticism relied on scale rather than the actual number of people not mugged or murdered. As to the admissability of the material in terms of quality, CCTV is largely used as a tool for steering resources towards trouble spots and ensuring that the situations are dealt with. Okay so a previous poster has said that the problem may be over before the authorities arrive, but there is such a thing as radios and support can be called in rather than waiting for for some poor sod to be found in the street and someone calling an ambulance. Video quality, especially in low light is improving as days go by. In any case, if youngsters weren't encouraged to drink to excess and to misbehave and if they had something constructive or entertaining for them to do perhaps these measures wouldn't be needed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
max Posted January 6, 2008 Report Share Posted January 6, 2008 In any case, if youngsters weren't encouraged to drink to excess and to misbehave and if they had something constructive or entertaining for them to do perhaps these measures wouldn't be needed. This is what I feel the £200,000 would be better spent on. Also, a previous poster refers to "transactions" taking place on the street. IMHO, CCTV won't stop this sort of thing taking place.....it'll merely displace it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TeeAyBee Posted January 6, 2008 Report Share Posted January 6, 2008 ( ** MOD EDIT ** - this post was accidently altered by trout whilst taking a quote! Below is the recovered post which is not complete. Apologies!) I do think that CCTV is a good idea and I believe in the effectiveness of the solution, however, I also think that if we remove the need for the system we'll be happier all round. And in the end healthier. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Para Handy Posted January 8, 2008 Report Share Posted January 8, 2008 The trouble is that teenage boys think getting drunk makes them some sort of a man. But you only have to drive a taxi on a Friday night to see that drink makes you go from being a man to bring an instant squeeky clean poop tube and cctv isn’t going to change that Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Please sign in to comment
You will be able to leave a comment after signing in
Sign In Now