Forgot your password?
observer, January 22, 2010 in Question Time
Think all face coverings, ski masks etc in public places, would enhance security and allow recognition on CCTV - common sense. Indecent exposure is illegal, so is smoking in an enclosed public place - but if no one complains, you don't expect our hard pressed police to get out of their cars do you! And while you liberal luvvies are waxing on about an anachronistic religious practise from the M/East; our Islamic cousins in Egypt appear rather less liberal and tolerant - they've banned Elton John!
Oh, right. So it's terrible to be so intolerant as to ban one bloke from making another couple of million because he is gay and might corrupt a few morals, but PERFECTLY sensible to upset 500 nice Muslim ladies by banning their veils because they are clearly all bank-robbing, shoplifting terrorists? DO make your mind up!
For decades, halloween masks have been used by bank robbers. So have ladies' tights. We have masses of evidence but nobody wants to ban either. I'm not liberal, or a luvvie. It's plain common sense that the correct answer to the issue of the burka is to set in place security regulations for specific areas that require such things - airports, customs, certain jobs - but regulations that apply equally to ALL face coverings for both sexes, from a burka to a bucket with eyeholes. Then leave everyone else and everywhere else alone.
What are you going to do when instead of a handful of ladies wearing burkas, the entire female population of Warrington takes to the streets wearing perfectly legal paper bags on their heads to make the point? Oh, let me guess, you'll come on here and go
Hahahaha @ LP.
It could be an improvement?
Probably an improvement for LP! The FBI has just caught a guy who tried to explode a car bomb in N/York; the first evidence they examined, which put them on the trail of the guy, was the CCTV - nuff said. An homophobic ban by the Egyptian Gov on Elton John, one would have thought, would offend your liberal sensitivities, - maybe your coming round to the view "when in Rome" etc?!
"When in Rome"? Oh you are boring. I have been polite, but honestly, this devotion of yours to wasting vast sums on a pointless insult to a tiny minority of our population is beyond belief. It's nothing but spite, born of nasty prejudice. A chance to make a small number of people understand how very unwelcome you consider them to be here. To achieve that tiny, petty little satisfaction, you don't care how many other people you alienate or what kind of further damage you do to a situation that's already cost lives. The only thing vaguely Roman about it is your belief in your own status as almighty Emperor with the right to dictate to everyone else. Odd indeed for one so opposed to togas to grab the biggest one for himself?
The FBI has just caught a guy who tried to explode a car bomb in N/York; the first evidence they examined, which put them on the trail of the guy, was the CCTV - nuff said
Well, if squillions of ineffective CCTV cameras are "nuff" for you, then fine: For myself, when whoever is the PM is happy with a CCTV camera outside of Number 10 instead of a uniformed bobby, then I might start to believe they have a role in reducing crime proportionate to their cost.
An homophobic ban by the Egyptian Gov on Elton John, one would have thought, would offend your liberal sensitivities
There you go again! You're ascribing views to me that I may not necessarily hold and then attacking me on those views.
Your strawman strategy isn't going to work with me, daddy-o!
(For anyone who may be interested, this is how a "strawman" position works:
it may seem a little complicated at first, but if you have a MASSIVE INTELLECT like obs, s'easy).
When in Rome
Gawd, not again.
OK, this deserves a new meme, it goes like this:
Wipe your arras with a sponge on a stick.
Who could resist!
certainly living up to your nom de plume - keep it up!
Y'know, I'm sure I'd enjoy a few pints with you obs, but you're really not up to this, are you?
I had CCTV outside my house that caught a guy breaking into my car back in 1999..... unfortunately even though he admitted theft and damage to vehicles in excess of ?30,000 he got a six months suspended sentence.......
In 2007, a young scrote hit my wifes car which was at the time, parked outside the house. It happened at about 3:30 in the morning and it was all caught on my CCTV. Even though the police wouldn't take the footage as evidence (because it didn't show the front of the car) from the side, it was obviously a Peugeot 206 and as we lived in the close and there were only two cars that it could possibly be, I sorted that one myself.
The scrote paid in excess of ?1,600.00 for the damage repairs.
I still have CCTV outside the house and would recommend it to anyone..........
Two examples where CCTV worked for me so I'd vote for it everytime! Unfortunately it wasn't the CCTV that let me down, it was the Police and the "justice" system!
I think he's more a "small creme de menthe with a cherry and umbrella" sort of girl.....
When in Rome, condoms are murder, child abuse is acceptable and being homosexual either makes you an abomination or a Cardinal, depending on whether you keep your mouth shut and your choirboys silent. Not an example I'd aspire to, really.
Good for you and glad to hear it Baz, just don't think they should be considered as some kind of Laura Norder cure-all. They're not very conclusive and we seem to be expected to be reassured by their presence more and more.
The trouble is that most CCTV is rubbish quality..... My company has installed some pretty cheap but good quality systems into a few schools over the years which have resulted in quite a few convictions.
One school was spending tens of thousands of pounds a year in repairing vandalised windows and outdoor furniture etc. we fitted a system for a few grand (FOC Initially until the system had proven itself) and now three years on, the vandalsim spend is now less than a tenth of what they used to spend......
Trouble is, a lot of companies will charge 4 times the price for a system that doesn't do the business but they have a convincing salesman......
It does work if the system is properly thought out and fitted!
Although CCTV hasn't in itself yet proved itself in the courts, it's clearly an investigatory tool that the Police are now more reliant on - and of course, even more reliable when a face can be recognised! Hence, I think you can rely on it's use increasing in the future - whether we like it or not.
Fearnhead centre has an excellent one, Clear as a TV picture.
Peter, that sounds like you take sandwiches and a flask and settle down to watch it......
OK, so when these kind of examples start to have an effect on the stats, I might start to think they're all they're cracked up to be.
They certainly have an effect on the funding from speeding fines!
Well, different kind of camera but same kind of purpose, who needs coppers when we have THESE?
It difficult to quantify a deterred crime or action though.
It's like a lot of other things, it may deter casual things, like a bunch of kids kicking down a school fence on impulse. If it gets into people's minds that there's usually some footage somewhere, then the deterrent value spreads. But it's never going to affect career criminals, who will work around it, come prepared to disable it or accept it as an occupational hazard; and it won't stop offences born out of anger, drink or drugs, because those offenders are already past the point of sensible thought.
For me, it's not a miracle cure, but every little helps. If CCTV cameras locally stop even some of the kind of petty stupid ASBO stuff, then they're worth having. Of course, the real issue will be when the picture quality if good enough to make them really effective and everyone wants them. Because that's when people will start nicking them for resale and we'll all have to take them in at night or buy dogs to protect them!!
.. and it helps detection, if you can see faces on the footage!
I can show you still images on the videos on one of the schools we did that you could even count the freckles on the kids face..... the images are that clear!!
.. BUT you wouldn't be able to see the freckles under a burkha!
You can post now and register later.
If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
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.