CCTV Turned off, Makes National news Options

[gel]

http://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/666986/Co...-centre-Newbury

Our Switched off CCTV capability, makes the first letter of CCTV stand for closed down
in the operational sense!



Meanwhile our International Aid Dept. desperately seeks dubious projects for us to fund in
foreign lands, so they can meet their spending targets.

[On the edge]

It may well be a sticking plaster solution, but it's not cheap and it's certainly not effective. No one has yet produced any evidence of successful prosecution, or even much evidence of cases that would have failed had it not been for CCTV proving presence. The only thing it reduces is fear. I wonder what would happen if we invested the massive cost in CCTV to implant us all with satellite readable chips, mapped to Google earth...lo

[Andy Capp]

It may well be a sticking plaster solution, but it's not cheap and it's certainly not effective. No one has yet produced any evidence of successful prosecution, or even much evidence of cases that would have failed had it not been for CCTV proving presence. The only thing it reduces is fear. I wonder what would happen if we invested the massive cost in CCTV to implant us all with satellite readable chips, mapped to Google earth...lo

I believe that exact thing has happened in Thatcham and in Newbury. At least one person was invited to change their story was they had been shown video footage. I also feel feeling safe is a legitimate reason to do something.

[The Hatter]

I believe that exact thing has happened in Thatcham and in Newbury. At least one person was invited to change their story was they had been shown video footage. I also feel feeling safe is a legitimate reason to do something.

I've never been convinced cctv does too much at all like my sister who works for the Police sys they don't really help much at all. She'd like to see a lot more speed and traffic cameras instead because they really do work catching people breaking the law.

[Andy Capp]

I've never been convinced cctv does too much at all like my sister who works for the Police sys they don't really help much at all. She'd like to see a lot more speed and traffic cameras instead because they really do work catching people breaking the law.

LOL - I'm certain almost very driver, including the police, have broken the law while driving, so you right on that point: criminalise the entire driving population of the UK.

[On the edge]

LOL - I'm certain almost very driver, including the police, have broken the law while driving, so you right on that point: criminalise the entire driving population of the UK.

Ironic really, a form of video surveillance that is hugely unpopular with the public, even though it's supposed to be in place for safety reasons. I wonder why these cameras haven't been suggested for switch off instead? The saving on the Police precept could be used to continue funding town centre CCTV

[Biker1]

Ironic really, a form of video surveillance that is hugely unpopular with the public, even though it's supposed to be in place for safety reasons. I wonder why these cameras haven't been suggested for switch off instead? The saving on the Police precept could be used to continue funding town centre CCTV

Interesting point OTE.

Just to compare with a comment by Simon who wants to "decriminalise drug use".

Lets compare...............

Speeding :-

1. Causes injury, distress and death
2. Is socially unacceptable
3. Is committed by many
4. Is a personal choice.

Drug taking :-

1. Causes injury, distress and death
2. Is socially unacceptabe
3. Is commitedd by many
4. Is a personal choice.
And..
5. Cases further distress by necessitating additional crime by those who need to pay for it.

Which one doe we decriminalise, or both, or none?

[motormad]

Interesting point OTE.

Just to compare with a comment by Simon who wants to "decriminalise drug use".

Lets compare...............

Speeding :-

1. Causes injury, distress and death
2. Is socially unacceptable
3. Is committed by many
4. Is a personal choice.

Drug taking :-

1. Causes injury, distress and death
2. Is socially unacceptabe
3. Is commitedd by many
4. Is a personal choice.
And..
5. Cases further distress by necessitating additional crime by those who need to pay for it.

Which one doe we decriminalise, or both, or none?

Sorry, just to pick up, there is no definitive link with speed to death.
I have been at 560mph and have not died.

[blackdog]

Sorry, just to pick up, there is no definitive link with speed to death.
I have been at 560mph and have not died.

It's not the speed that kills, it's the stopping - and there is plenty of evidence to show that the faster abody is travelling immediatly prior to stopping the more energy has to be absorbed by the body and the more energy absorbed, the more damage that will be caused. 560mph to 0mph in less than a second would be fatal.

The same the other way round 0 to 30 in a split second is damaging, go from 0-40 in the same time (such as the time taken for a pedestrian to get up to speed when hit by a car) and (all other things being equal) it will be more damaging.

[motormad]

It's not the speed that kills, it's the stopping - and there is plenty of evidence to show that the faster abody is travelling immediatly prior to stopping the more energy has to be absorbed by the body and the more energy absorbed, the more damage that will be caused. 560mph to 0mph in less than a second would be fatal.

The same the other way round 0 to 30 in a split second is damaging, go from 0-40 in the same time (such as the time taken for a pedestrian to get up to speed when hit by a car) and (all other things being equal) it will be more damaging.

But I do not believe that speeding is socially unacceptable.
Nearly everyone speeds and it certainly doesn't cause the same amount of destruction to life etc that drugs do.
You can't really compare the two.