CCTV

[Carlos]

junior wrote

You would have every legal right (to the best of my knowledge) to follow Wheesht around with a video camera filming his every move,

 

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.

 

You have the right to film anybody in public, or on private property where you have permission to film, and then can use the footage any way you like.

EXCEPT, where it could be considered harrasment.

 

UK Photographers rights

[RickB]

Im not opposed to cctv although I do think that the neds will just take thier fights to other areas. For example residential areas, which in my opinion would be worse than them fighting each other on comercial street.

I could be wrong though. Ive been wrong before.

[The Man]

Trout,

 

First an apology. When I refered to sheep and whining, I was referring to thiose whom i represented in a past life, not the folk here. I have reread my comment and realise that this may not have been clear (ok, it read badly! ) and for that i apologise.

 

similarly, i realise that Shetland HAS been the forefromnt for a highly publicised and succesful campaign led BY the community in recent months, ie Sakchai. However you have to admit this is the exception rather than the rule and was likely because here was someONE to rally around, someone you all knew or felt for, rather than some nebulous THING (such as privacy and human rights). I just wish folk would stand up for themselves more in this day and age rather than leaving it to others to do it for them, and that INCLUDES the polis (of who i am STILL not an ardent fan, but hey, its not a job i would want or envy, would you?).

 

I too want community policing rather than downsizing and becoming technologicaly advanced. But as i said in another thread we're living in age where a lot of folk know their rights and the polis cannoyt apply the same "pressure" that would have served the majority of the community in days of yore.

 

Big Mouth, you havent helped by generalising. Scots Law requires EVIDENCE and CORROBORATION of that evidence. I have never heard of any one being convicted by way of a nod or a wink (not since the days of West Midland Crime Squad, anyway!!). Its no good folk nodding to the polis and then crying foul when the guilty dont get convicted, or even make it to court. Polis dont deciude who goes to court, the procurator fiscal does, based oin the amount of evidence he/she has provided by polis vesrus the public interest (and likelihood of conviction, probably!). To generalise by saying

 

" 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!"

 

is not helpful to any rational or reasoned debate (and believe it or not thats what i am after here, not proving i am right). I would ask you worself for examples of what you have spoken about, and if you can provide them, fine, if not then...

 

And examples should be just that, not "well, i heard from my neighbours girlfriends aunt mothers hairdressers dog about a man who was robbed and the polis did nothing even when he tracked the bad men down and gave the polis their names and addresssed and shoes sizes, but i dont know what his name was or where it was or if it really happened"

 

More debate please (agent provocateurs of the world unite! )

[The Man]

Hmmm, not sure you can film anyone without their permission despite what some photographer may say. Theres a wee thing called harrassment and stalking and specific legislation for them these days. And if that not enough, thers the old glasgow special. breach of the peace. Wouldnt put my faith in some photograpoher before checking that one out sources. 8O

[junior]

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.

 

AFAIK it is the breach which is the crime, not the irritation which caused it. So the person holding the camera wouldn't be doing anything wrong.

 

I guess what I was trying to point out, was that if you are going to take the human rights argument about privacy (which I don't, I'm more inclined to agree with Trout on this one), then in a world where everyone has phone cameras, and they are allowed to use them to film anyone, adding CCTV cameras doesn't really change much. You don't actually have the privacy you are trying to protect.

[Claudias]

The original question was about wether SIC needed to buy cctv or not. Too late now,it already has.

I still maintain that a person sitting at a desk,watching several screens,will not be able to identify the knife wielder from a bunch of fifteen or so people dressed alike in trainers,jeans and hoodies. Policemen on the beat in uniform or plain clothes would be far more effective.

[Fjool]

Web cam at the Market Cross:

 

http://www.visitshetland.com/lerwick_2/

[Sherri]

I didn't realise they had a web cam at the cross.

 

Are the CCTV cameras superior quality to this? Lets face it, unless they are going to cover Lerwick in flood lights as well. Is there any point??

[Fjool]

I guess a professional CCTV system would be much higher quality and have other advantages: pan and zoom, multiple angles, light amplification, possibly even face recognition (although this last aspect probably requries quite some extra processing power)

[PressedCurdsOfMilk]

I guess a professional CCTV system would be much higher quality and have other advantages: pan and zoom, multiple angles, light amplification, possibly even face recognition (although this last aspect probably requries quite some extra processing power)

 

Another advantage might be that a professional CCTV recording might have a higher level of authentication like time and date stamp and be a bit more tamper proof etc... more admissible than a webcam recording maybe... actually used to get a conviction.

[JustMe]

Quote from the BBC today

Boys quizzed over £100k vandalism

Four boys aged 11 to 14 are being questioned by transport police over a £100,000 vandal attack on a new train.

 

More than 40 windows were smashed and 20 potentially lethal rail detonators were stolen from the train, in sidings between Coventry and Spon End.

 

The detonators were later recovered, British Transport Police said.

 

The boys, from the Spon End area of Coventry, were traced after CCTV images were released. Central Trains offered a £5,000 reward to find the culprits.

 

There had been concerns about the detonators, which are about the size of a £2 coin and capable of killing people within a 100ft (30m) radius, if they are set off.

 

They are placed on the track approaching an incident and are set off by any approaching trains rolling over them to warn drivers to stop.

Story from BBC NEWS:

 

I think we would all think that this was a good use of cctv and with the number of shop windows getting smashed on the street I think we have to accept cameras on the grounds of stopping (or catching) vandals.

[trout]

^^ Indeed, and yes the Lerwick Shop Owners Cartel will be chuffed to bits their windows won't be being smashed, however, to repeat myself:

 

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.

 

I think I would be re-assured if it was plain to know that the cameras somehow would free up, what is most likely an over-worked police force, to then seek active community policing initiatives. That would be a win-win situation for everyone long term!

 

Just because there are now to be CCTV cameras installed along the street it doesn't mean the f**kwits causing all the problems are going to just magically disappear.

[The Man]

Not quite sure what you mjean when you say its the breach that is the crime, not the irritation whicvh caused it. I looked it up once when a family member was charged and it said its any behaviour "...likely to cause fear alarm or annoyance ..." and thats to anyone, anyhwre, even when your in your own hosue (as my relative was).

 

As for the systems, I remember the demonstration which Northern much publicised when Inverness started it up there. An operator (none of whom were cops, all semi-disabled or similar, employed through a contracted agency - a good way of employing willing and able minded folk, if you ask me!) was able to clearly see the face iof a operson at teh far end of Church Street from the camera at the other. And they've been improved since then, altho they dont have bioemtric scanning there (yet) as that costs so much aparently. The video is on a hard drive which can be backed onto dvd which becomes evidence same as interview tapes or photographs taken by police. iIts time/date stamped and has not been succesfully disputed yet in court (to best of my allbeit limited knolwedge).

 

Theres also hitech wizrdry availabnle to polis which can be used (and has been) to tidy images and clean them up of "noise", etc, which is also recognised by courts in Britain as legal in use. (Even private web types can purchse stuff like this, so no surprise there).

 

Guess we'll just have to wait and see whether its money well spent or just another "Bridge to Bressay!" Fior the sake of the victims out there, i hope its the former!

[The Man]

Trout,

damnanblastit man, the more you write te more i find commin ground with you! 8O

 

You are quite right inn what you say, however to repeatr something i said earlier, we cant just dump it on polis and blame themm when things dont go all our way. Its up to ALL OF US to help in our own way by stepping up and facing these cretins (you use SUCH rude words! when they step out of line. I dont mean with a baseball bat (although... no! Stoppit!) I mean by being wuilling to see justice done if necesseary and speaking out. If it was your mother or father a victim of some of tehse twats and I saw what happenbed, wouldnt you want me to say what i say to polis? NOT just giving them an old fashioned "nod"! In ths day and age its not enough. If we want a safer community we have to do our bit too. Not by putting on a uniform i might add (might work for some but - "shudders"!) but by doing our bit to help our fellow community.

 

Does that make sense? Does to me, but i know what it is I'mm trying to say!! 8O

[Njugle]

An interesting article on STV's evening news tonight (i can't seem to get on their site for a link at the mo) featured a new idea in Perth where Police Officers have bicycles equipped with CCTV cameras, meaning they can patrol virtually anywhere with the constant assistance of CCTV evidence.

 

Two birds with one stone? Get the Bobbies out on bikes with cameras and everybody's happy. No place to hide from the cameras, bobbies on the beat. Bish-bosh, job's a good 'n.