CCTV Turned off, Makes National news Options

[Andy Capp]

Its inappropriate speeding that's dangerous, 90 on a motorway? But 50 in a 30 is a different beast altogether.

Like many things; it is conditional: 90 in the rain on a busy motorway is dangerous, but 50 through a 30 at 0300 in the morning probably isn't so, yet cameras make no distinction: the law is the law (plus 10% and 1 mile an hour).

[Turin Machine]

Be aware that last bit is ACPO guidelines only. Not law.

[Andy Capp]

Be aware that last bit is ACPO guidelines only. Not law.

Yes I am aware!

[Biker1]

Its inappropriate speeding that's dangerous, 90 on a motorway? But 50 in a 30 is a different beast altogether.

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.

Like many things; it is conditional: 90 in the rain on a busy motorway is dangerous, but 50 through a 30 at 0300 in the morning probably isn't so, yet cameras make no distinction: the law is the law (plus 10% and 1 mile an hour).

Ahh, good.So therefore it would be more acceptable to decriminalise speeding than drugs. Nice!

[Andy Capp]

Ahh, good.So therefore it would be more acceptable to decriminalise speeding than drugs. Nice!

No cuz not all drug abuse is heinous! 😋

[Biker1]

No cuz not all drug abuse is heinous! 😋

Decriminalise both then?
In fact, I should imagine someone would find argument to decriminalise everything.
"Anarchy In The UK"
"We know what we want and we know how to ged it".

[Turin Machine]

Decriminalise both then?
In fact, I should imagine someone would find argument to decriminalise everything.
"Anarchy In The UK"
"We know what we want and we know how to ged it".

Perhaps legalise Fructus naturales?

[Berkshirelad]

Perhaps legalise Fructus naturales?

That might work as it almost impossible for the drug version of hemp to grow unaided in this country.

But I don't know about how that would help with speeding rather than speed

[motormad]

http://www.newburytoday.co.uk/news/news/18...TV-funding.html

Yay!

[Biker1]

http://www.newburytoday.co.uk/news/news/18...TV-funding.html

Yay!

Yes, agreed, "Yay!".
However most on here I suspect will find it a misuse of money as they think CCTV is, apparently, ineffective in reducing and and catching perpetrators of crime and antisocial behaviour.

[On the edge]

We now have some real data. Are WBC or the Police willing to say 1) how much crime increased by 2) how much the crime clear up rate increased and 3) how many prosecutions failed, that can be attributed to the time the cameras were out of action?

The justification aside, I'd happily admit that even if it doesn't work, the scheme is very popular with the electorate and even if I personally disagree, does seem to reduce 'the fear of crime.

So, on the latter basis alone, I'd argue there is far more justification for doing this than installing a Splashpad, or flagpole, or dare I say, several yards of fake fir.

[Turin Machine]

One of the worst aspects of crime is the fear of crime, if this mitigates that fear then so be it and money well spent.

[Berkshirelad]

and 3) how many prosecutions failed, that can be attributed to the time the cameras were out of action?

As far as I know, the cameras used are not evidential as they don't reach the required Home Office standards to be certified for evidence.

I would though suggest that when scrote is confronted with CCTV footage bythe Police, 'fessing up might become more likely

[Simon Kirby]

One of the worst aspects of crime is the fear of crime, if this mitigates that fear then so be it and money well spent.

I agree that reducing the fear of crime is a worthty cause, and it worries me that so many people read the Daily Mail and get themselves all upset and anxious.

A report I saw suggested that CCTV doesn't reduce the fear of crime, but if an installed system is removed fear of crime increases so that things are worse than before. It's and argument in favour of continuing with CCTV, though not a very attractive argument.

Those who know don't generally claim that CCTV prevents crime, the claim is generally that CCTV aids in the detection of crime. It's depressing then if Berkshire Lad is correct and the Newbury system is inadmissable as evidence - I'm sceptical that's true though as I didn't believe that such a system could comply with the Data Protection Act and that the operation would be unlawful, but I may be mistaken.

[Berkshirelad]

though as I didn't believe that such a system could comply with the Data Protection Act and that the operation would be unlawful, but I may be mistaken.

It complies with the DPA providing the pictures are stored securely. Police investigation has an exemption within the DPA.

Anybody can take photographs in a public area without impinging on the DPA. CCTV does need the additional caveat of signage.

[Biker1]

I agree that reducing the fear of crime is a worthty cause, and it worries me that so many people read the Daily Mail and get themselves all upset and anxious.

So there is nothing to worry about at all?
It's just the Daily Mail and it's poor misguided readers who are panicking over nothing!
Thanks for that reassurance Simon. We can all now sleep soundly in our beds!

[Simon Kirby]

It complies with the DPA providing the pictures are stored securely. Police investigation has an exemption within the DPA.

Anybody can take photographs in a public area without impinging on the DPA. CCTV does need the additional caveat of signage.

It's not about that. I have some recollection that it is a positive requirement of the DPA somthing to the effect that information is necessary and sufficient and that it would be a breach of the DPA for a CCTV system to capture images at too poor a resolution to satisfy the stated aims of the system, somthing like that. I may be mistaken and I'll look it up if I can.

[Andy Capp]

So there is nothing to worry about at all?
It's just the Daily Mail and it's poor misguided readers who are panicking over nothing!
Thanks for that reassurance Simon. We can all now sleep soundly in our beds!

Nah, readers of The Daily Express and The Sun can be just as timid.

[Andy Capp]

It's not about that. I have some recollection that it is a positive requirement of the DPA somthing to the effect that information is necessary and sufficient and that it would be a breach of the DPA for a CCTV system to capture images at too poor a resolution to satisfy the stated aims of the system, somthing like that. I may be mistaken and I'll look it up if I can.

https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/...ode-of-practice

[Simon Kirby]

https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/...ode-of-practice

Thanks.