kuzadd Posted May 7, 2008 Report Posted May 7, 2008 For all the people who have actually deluded themselves into thinking cameras' on every street corner will keep anyone safe? http://www.abc.net.au/am/content/2008/s2237473.htm TONY EASTLEY: A top British police officer has thrown serious doubts about closed circuit television or CCTV cameras as an effective tool in crime prevention.Detective Chief Inspector Mike Neville, who leads Scotland Yard's Visual Images, Identifications and Detections Office, says despite billions of dollars being spent on CCTV networks, they've failed to reduce crime. He has described the system as an "utter fiasco" and criminologists here in Australia agree. http://news.scotsman.com/latestnews/Britai...CTV-.4055450.jp BRITAIN'S network of CCTV cameras has been branded "an utter fiasco" for failing to cut crime, despite billions of pounds being spent on it.Detective Chief Inspector Mick Neville, who is in charge of closed-circuit television for the Metropolitan Police Force, claimed only 3 per cent of the capital's street robberies are solved using security camera footage and criminals are not afraid of being caught on film. The UK has the highest level of camera surveillance in the world, according to civil liberty groups and security experts, with an estimated 4.2 million CCTV cameras on buildings, shops, roads and stations. multi-billions of pounds spent 1 camera for every 13 Brits useful in 3 percent of crimes defintely not money well spent Quote Insults are the ammunition of the unintelligent - do not use them. It is okay to criticize a policy, decision, action or comment. Such criticism is part of healthy debate. It is not okay to criticize a person's character or directly insult them, regardless of their position or actions. Derogatory terms such as "loser", "idiot", etc are not permitted unless the context clearly implies that it is not serious. Rule of thumb: Play the ball, not the person (i.e. tackle the argument, not the person making it).
WarBicycle Posted May 7, 2008 Report Posted May 7, 2008 (edited) Had it not been for CCTV cameras the authorities would have never caught the people who committed the terrorist acts on the London buses and, most important, had they not been caught they probably would have gone on to commit other terrorist acts. Edited May 7, 2008 by WarBicycle Quote
kuzadd Posted May 7, 2008 Author Report Posted May 7, 2008 Had it not been for CCTV cameras the authorities would have never caught the people who committed the terrorist acts on the London buses. why did the "catch them"? more nonsense. this is what the cops themselves are saying, more then 3 billion pounds wasted. Useful in 3 percent of the crimes, that translates to USELESS 97 percent of the time! what a return! It appears you fall into the category "For all the people who have actually deluded themselves into thinking cameras' on every street corner will keep anyone safe?" Quote Insults are the ammunition of the unintelligent - do not use them. It is okay to criticize a policy, decision, action or comment. Such criticism is part of healthy debate. It is not okay to criticize a person's character or directly insult them, regardless of their position or actions. Derogatory terms such as "loser", "idiot", etc are not permitted unless the context clearly implies that it is not serious. Rule of thumb: Play the ball, not the person (i.e. tackle the argument, not the person making it).
DrGreenthumb Posted May 7, 2008 Report Posted May 7, 2008 why did the "catch them"?more nonsense. this is what the cops themselves are saying, more then 3 billion pounds wasted. Useful in 3 percent of the crimes, that translates to USELESS 97 percent of the time! what a return! It appears you fall into the category "For all the people who have actually deluded themselves into thinking cameras' on every street corner will keep anyone safe?" Maybe the cops are just scared more of their brutality will be caught on tape? They wouldn't want to be seen on video tazering any more unarmed people to death now would they? Quote
DogOnPorch Posted May 7, 2008 Report Posted May 7, 2008 What kuzadd failed to mention unless you read the whole article is that is an 'utter fiasco' the way it is being used at the moment. Mr Neville, who is head of the Metropolitan police's division on visual images, identifications and detection, is now leading an initiative to increase conviction rates from CCTV.He aims to set up a database of images to track down offenders and to put pictures of suspects in crimes such as muggings and rape on the internet. Mr Neville said the work "has to be balanced against any Big Brother concerns, with safeguards". Work is under way to ascertain whether software can be developed to perform automated searches for suspects on footage, while Mr Neville said officers needed more training on using CCTV, with many being put off because "it's hard work". Last night, a spokesman for the Metropolitan Police said the force "does not consider that CCTV has failed". He added: "CCTV is an important tool in protecting the public both as a deterrent and in the investigation of a wide range of crime, from minor offences to terrorism." Assistant Chief Constable John Pollock, of the Association of Chief Police Officers in Scotland (Acpos), also gave his support for CCTV. So while Mr Neville thinks it is not up to snuff at the moment, he plans to change that. ------------------------------------------------------------ Now you've heard....the rest of the sto-ry. ---Paul Harvey Quote Nothing cracks a turtle like Leon Uris.
DogOnPorch Posted May 7, 2008 Report Posted May 7, 2008 Maybe the cops are just scared more of their brutality will be caught on tape? They wouldn't want to be seen on video tazering any more unarmed people to death now would they? I suggest you read both articles as well. ---------------------------- All morons hate it when you call them a moron. ---J. D. Salinger Quote Nothing cracks a turtle like Leon Uris.
DogOnPorch Posted May 7, 2008 Report Posted May 7, 2008 A similar story from Vancouver. ---------------------------------- In my sister's case, by the time the police were done with us, three hours had passed. Even at that point, it would have been too late to get the footage. ---Shyleen Datt Quote Nothing cracks a turtle like Leon Uris.
kuzadd Posted May 7, 2008 Author Report Posted May 7, 2008 (edited) the 3 billion pounds spent has to be justified somehow. Or the taxpayers whose money was thrown down the drain this entire time, will get up in arms. The cameras have been around long enough and there are enough of them that their value, if any, would have already been obvious, that is clearly not the case. this recent news matches with a governmet report His comments echo a government report last October which said most CCTV footage is not of high enough quality to help police identify offenders, with many cameras focused on enforcing bus lanes as well as stopping crime. The report said anecdotal evidence suggests more than 80 per cent of CCTV images supplied to the police are not up to scratch. now one would wonder what would the sense be in setting up an image tracker when 80 percent of the images are useless? either way, the cameras do nothing to prevent crime and the images caught are almost all useless. Edited May 7, 2008 by kuzadd Quote Insults are the ammunition of the unintelligent - do not use them. It is okay to criticize a policy, decision, action or comment. Such criticism is part of healthy debate. It is not okay to criticize a person's character or directly insult them, regardless of their position or actions. Derogatory terms such as "loser", "idiot", etc are not permitted unless the context clearly implies that it is not serious. Rule of thumb: Play the ball, not the person (i.e. tackle the argument, not the person making it).
kuzadd Posted May 7, 2008 Author Report Posted May 7, 2008 Maybe the cops are just scared more of their brutality will be caught on tape? They wouldn't want to be seen on video tazering any more unarmed people to death now would they? now that's an interesting thought. Quote Insults are the ammunition of the unintelligent - do not use them. It is okay to criticize a policy, decision, action or comment. Such criticism is part of healthy debate. It is not okay to criticize a person's character or directly insult them, regardless of their position or actions. Derogatory terms such as "loser", "idiot", etc are not permitted unless the context clearly implies that it is not serious. Rule of thumb: Play the ball, not the person (i.e. tackle the argument, not the person making it).
M.Dancer Posted May 7, 2008 Report Posted May 7, 2008 Maybe the cops are just scared more of their brutality will be caught on tape? They wouldn't want to be seen on video tazering any more unarmed people to death now would they? This is stupid for two reasons 1)Tazers are only used on unarmed people. Armed people are shot, and when cops shoot, they shoot to kill. 2)Cops are in favour of CCTV....it's what is done with it is the issue. Quote RIGHT of SOME, LEFT of OTHERS If it is a choice between them and us, I choose us
bush_cheney2004 Posted May 7, 2008 Report Posted May 7, 2008 ....2)Cops are in favour of CCTV....it's what is done with it is the issue. Yep...that's been my experience with law enforcement and CCTV. My neighbor's SUV was stolen early one morning....since our house/driveway has a 24/7 DVR going, we were able to provide some digital video/audio to the cops....they were delighted! I would agree that many times the video quality is not high enough to collar a perp, but it does frame what happened in real time with audio. Police cruisers with dashboard cams have really improved conviction rates for DUIs, assault, possession of controlled substances, etc., and it makes for great TV. Bad boys, bad boys...whatcha gonna do...whatcha gonna do when they come for you? Quote Economics trumps Virtue.
Argus Posted May 7, 2008 Report Posted May 7, 2008 For all the people who have actually deluded themselves into thinking cameras' on every street corner will keep anyone safe? Facial recognition software is coming. When it's here they will be of enormous use. Of course, as the article stated, a major impediment is the lack of quality of the cameras. I'm sure you've seen those bank robber pictures the banks occasionally release. In most cases you can barely make out that they're human. The cameras need to be upgraded in quality. Quote "A liberal is someone who claims to be open to all points of view — and then is surprised and offended to find there are other points of view.” William F Buckley
buffycat Posted May 7, 2008 Report Posted May 7, 2008 Is this finding really a surprise? I recall seeing, not long ago, that a popular pastime for British youths was to destroy the CCTV cameras and post their results on the internet. A few have been blown up by townspeople as well (iow it's not just bored kids - it's every liberty loving Brit or Scot or Welsth that hates them). I find this offers a glimmer of hope, that the people of the UK are sending a message, and won't tolerate much more of the intrusiveness by government into their lives. Take em down. Let communties patrol themselves. Return the police to the role of police - not miliatarized brownshirts. That might help. Quote "An eye for an eye and the whole world goes blind" ~ Ghandi
M.Dancer Posted May 7, 2008 Report Posted May 7, 2008 looks like another person didn't read the article.... Quote RIGHT of SOME, LEFT of OTHERS If it is a choice between them and us, I choose us
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.