Jump to content

CCTV


oor_wullie
 Share

CCTV  

40 members have voted

  1. 1. CCTV

    • yes
      19
    • no
      21


Recommended Posts

Why? It's true.

 

It's not true at all. Are you saying that there's never been a miscarriage of justice? Or a case of mistaken identity? Are you suggesting that every leader since the dawn of time has been honest and with the best interests of the populace at heart?

 

What if something you currently do is one day deemed to be illegal? Such as... say... leaving your house after 9pm.

 

Or suppose you wanted to stand against the current governement and they, with their increased powers, were able to follow your every move, detain you without reason, fly you to another country for 'questioning', and so on.

 

These things may start out being genuinely well intentioned but become corrupted, misused. Once these extra powers are granted, you'll find that they're very hard to remove again.

 

'Wrong' can be redefined to suit whoever has the power to define it. Just because you're on this side of the law today, doesn't mean you'll stay there.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 416
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

I once lived in a area with heavy CCTV coverage, which had a crime level completely incomparable to central Lerwick

 

Although I was "doing nothing wrong", I hated the idea of some anonymous spies in a control room somewhere being able to track my movements and keep tabs on me

 

There is something very uncomfortable about watching a CCTV camera swivel to point at you. I'd say it's human nature to dislike being spied on

 

I really don't think "if you're doing nothing wrong you have nothing to worry about" is a justification

 

 

 

As has been pointed out in the posts above, I think we need to be very careful when introducing measures which infringe on civil liberties (in my opinion, CCTV does). I'm not saying I'm against CCTV in principal, but I haven't been convinced it's necessary in this case

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I do think that saying "if you're doing nothing wrong you have nothing to worry about" is a very fair point and very valid.

 

Calm down people.

 

These cameras will be there for local use for crime prevention and detection purposes only. To say that the government will be crawling over a tape from Commercial Street in wir peerie capital toon is completely ridiculous!

 

There is less likihood of miscarriages of justice when cameras are involved, unless of course you are wearing a monkey suite and are out on a buscrawl.

 

The paranoia that abounds when a very simple crime prevention measure like this is mooted is laughable.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Which is an interesting point perriebryan. You would have every legal right (to the best of my knowledge) to follow Wheesht around with a video camera filming his every move, as long as he was in public, exactly like the paparazzi do with celebrities. You would then have the right to pass that recording on to anyone you wanted.

 

My point is: if we can't legally ask members of the public not to film us, do we have the right to ask the police/government/whoever to not film us?

 

I would also feel uncomfortable having a CCTV camera watching me, but I don't think we have the right to walk around unfilmed: legally, or ethically.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Indeed junior

 

As far as I'm aware, the law states that if you're in a public place, anyone can film/ photograph/ record you, but if you're in a 'private' place (which is a fairly nebulous term), that would be invasion of privacy

 

The police do have the right to use CCTV, but is it a right they need to exercise in this case? I'm on the fence

 

I would also feel uncomfortable having a CCTV camera watching me, but I don't think we have the right to walk around unfilmed: legally, or ethically.
As you say junior, we have no legal grounds for complaint, but I think it's a grey ethical area
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sorry, Claudias, but in this case I AM unconcerned, as I too believe that, on the whole, justice prevails and that if I am not doing something wromng, I have nothing to worry about.

 

I HAVE organised protests in the past and been heavily politcially involved, especially froma union stance, but those days are done. There are only so many times you can hear the sheep behind you whining, wanting soemone else to speak for them or make their protest for them, cos they don't want involved or more likely cant be arsed. And its THAT about some of teh comments made on the forum that drives me nuts.

 

The points raised about paparazzi and the like are interesting though. My understaning of Article 8 of the infamous Human Rights Act is that it entritles you and me to privacy in our private and family lief. There ARE execptions such as when it is in the lawful interests of the state or prevention of crime, but that has tio be run past a High Court Judge, even for polis. Thats why there was the stooshie when they wanted to hold terror suspoects indefinitley anbd the court said Nope!

 

Celebrities have tried the same challenge but as it has been argused they make a living out of poutting themsleves in photos, they have been pretty unsuccessful so far. Thats why they have to tell you they are vusing cameras with these signs they put up. If they didnt it'd be illegal, or so i beleive.

 

Any takers on that one?

 

(Still say its the lesser of two evils, as opposed to seeing neds walk unpounished).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I do think that saying "if you're doing nothing wrong you have nothing to worry about" is a very fair point and very valid.

That's fine then. I'll follow you around with a video camera and give the police a ring if I see you commit any crime or act suspiciously :wink:

 

No problem, as long as I can have time to look my best (won't take long).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

^ Could you give me a clue as to who you are and where you live first (maybe a carnation on your lapel) so I can focus my limited surveillance budget. I don't have the £200,000 (?) to set up my own CCTV system

 

I'll be watching you Wheesht

 

 

Or I could apply for a job as a CCTV operator

 

Come to think of it, that would be a good job, getting paid to spy on folk all day!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My point is: if we can't legally ask members of the public not to film us, do we have the right to ask the police/government/whoever to not film us?

Yes. The police and government have special powers and enormous resources at their disposal that are unavailable to an individual member of the public. I don't see these special powers shouldn't be counterbalanced by special constraints.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My point is: if we can't legally ask members of the public not to film us, do we have the right to ask the police/government/whoever to not film us?

Yes. The police and government have special powers and enormous resources at their disposal that are unavailable to an individual member of the public.

 

Fair point. Which was why I then mentioned that the public can pass the recordings on to whoever they want, including people with enormous resources (e.g. the press, to follow on from my paparazzi example). But I suppose the police can do more, so it is different.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The whole issue with CCTV is that it is not statistically proven to reduce crime. Statistics showing figures resembling anything near to this are the ones publically bandied about by the government to show "how good they are doing" at tackling crime. Usually around the time of elections or if they are needing to put a point across.

 

Statistics from non-party affiliated and independant sources; the Scottish Centre for Criminology for instance, show significant trends of "crime" being merely moved outwith the peripheral vision of cameras and unto and into other areas, both geographically and criminally.

 

Yes, the council are to blame as much as the next. They wouldn't have made their minds up all by themselves now would they without "consultation"!?

 

I admit openly that there are significant wrongs in Shetlands past that would have been able to have been cleared up had there been that camera evidence. The very point I have attempted to make, although clumsily, is that these crimes would have likely been committed outwith the vision of these cameras thus negating any use that these cameras are going to perceivably have!

 

This claim can be backed up by evidence by viewing papers commissioned by the Home Office and the Scottish Office as well as various other sources (of course there are also papers detailing the virtues of CCTV though mostly weighted in my opinion):

 

Honess T, and Charman E (1992) ; "Closed Circuit Television in public places" Crime Prevention Unit paper no. 35 London HMSO.

Gabor, T (1978) "Crime displacement The literature and strategies for its investigation", Crime and Justice, Vol 6 no. 2 p.105.

Ditton, J (1996) Does Closed Circuit Television Prevent Crime? Scottish Centre for Criminology, HSO Edinburgh.

(February 2003), 17–18. Lies, Damned Lies, and CCTV Statistics. Security Gazette.

Sivarajasingam, V, et al. (1999) Effect of closed circuit television on urban violence. Journal of Accident and Emergency Medicine, Vol 16, Issue 4 255-257.

 

It is absolutely shameful that people did not and are not helping the police when they are trying to solve crime. That is a problem socially within Shetland. Any perceived slaging of the police from my quarter was merely in heat as I truely believe community policing is the age that Shetland still lives in and to move to the new "technological" age is a wrong and backward step. I wouldn't want to see, with the growth of CCTV as the primary means of crime prevention, more traditional, community based measures being discarded over nothing more than in my opinion a "crime prevention misnomer"!

 

The real questions that should be being raised is how Shetland as a whole community can work with the police in a unified and wholey better relationship?

 

The Man you seem to have mate the fateful assumption that we're all just whinging on this forum and not having taken anything further. You talk of whining sheep - pot and kettle! So you don't think that opinions have been voiced in the more traditional outlets and official channels? Or rather you've made that presumption!

 

For the record I've lived the majority of my adult life in both Aberdeen and Edinburgh in some less than salubrious areas.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

junior wrote

Which is an interesting point perriebryan. You would have every legal right (to the best of my knowledge) to follow Wheesht around with a video camera filming his every move, as long as he was in public, exactly like the paparazzi do with celebrities. You would then have the right to pass that recording on to anyone you wanted.

 

Not sure about this. To be following someone to the point that they became irritated and/or distressed might well count as "behaviour likely to cause a breach of the peace.

 

And of course most people in Shetland to appear on cctv on at least a weekly basis. Supermarkets, other shops, banks, post offices and so on all have cctv. Indeed the pier is watched as well as the cross.

 

As for a town centre cctv scheme I believe that consent to install the cameras in a conservation area would have to be given and I think (and very much hope) that building owners would have to give permission for the camera to be mounted on their building.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Let's step back a bit here for a moment.

 

Why does a lot of the crime happen? I think it is because there is little fear of being prosecuted. Not because no-one saw it. Whatever you may think they are plenty of members of society in Shetland that might not openly go to the police to give them a name, but they will tip them the wink on the quiet. Good on them I say.

 

The problem is that the police don't seem interested in pointing out people's misdeeds and those misdeeds grow into bigger misdeeds. Bad just becomes the norm.

 

Now I am sure that there is a reason why the police don't bother, I would just like to know what it is with an easy to understand example please!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share


×
×
  • Create New...