Printable Version of Topic

Posted by: TallDarkAndHandsome Oct 9 2009, 09:43 AM

http://www.newburytoday.co.uk/News/Article.aspx?articleID=11264

Makes you want to carry a gun.

Posted by: Gumbo Oct 9 2009, 10:22 AM

Do we not have CCTV all over this area? surely the police should be posting up images of these scum.

Posted by: GMR Oct 9 2009, 11:21 AM

That might offend their human rights.

Posted by: Iommi Oct 9 2009, 11:23 AM

Cameras do not apprehend, they merely save on police time; sometimes.

Posted by: Gumbo Oct 9 2009, 11:37 AM

But surely there are images of the vehicle and of those involved. Are the police waiting until the next Crimewatch episode to publish these? I don't mean to tell them how to do their job but asking people to randomly spot people at a cashpoint is like trying to find a needle in a haystack unless the victim was protesting in a way that would draw attention.

Posted by: ossy1 Oct 9 2009, 11:48 AM

There are things called laws govening the publishing of images in order to trace offenders. you cannot just hand over a pic to the press.

Posted by: Iommi Oct 9 2009, 11:49 AM

The resolution on some of these cameras is quite poor. A friend of mine got beat up by people caught on these cameras, but the quality wasn't good enough to convict.

So what's the problem? What can the Police do?

Posted by: ossy1 Oct 9 2009, 11:58 AM

Disagree

Posted by: Iommi Oct 9 2009, 12:07 PM

Is this a command?

You may disagree, but I have never seen a camera leap off its poll and pinch a villain. Indeed, as a deterent, this camera has failed to prevent a crime this time, as it did way back, when the police (who on that occasion were quite pathetic in their performance) said the images would be inadmissible.

Posted by: ossy1 Oct 9 2009, 12:11 PM

I read your comment as meaning saving time during an investigation, which it does not do.

Posted by: Gumbo Oct 9 2009, 12:22 PM

Me thinks these people have gotten away with it, hurrah for those laws that protect them......I for one do not understand them but then again I am a law abiding citizen so why should I.

Posted by: Iommi Oct 9 2009, 12:50 PM

No, it can save Police time by reducing the need for Police patrols, but surley having a clear footage of a suspect in the act of committing a crime cuts down on time? Even if it is that the person admits to the crime sooner than they otherwise might.

On topic; I wonder if the robbers were armed?

Posted by: ossy1 Oct 9 2009, 01:05 PM

No it does not cut down on time, the same amount of paperwork still needs to be completed. More paperwork needs completing to obtain the CCTV from the relevant owner then getting it viewed and copied. Witness statements still needs to be taken. The investigation is exactly the same.

I'm sure the article would say if they were.

Posted by: Iommi Oct 9 2009, 01:20 PM

So are you saying police patrol time is the same now as before CCTV? There's also the point that good footage presumably can assist in a greater likelihood of a conviction, thus reducing the time police spend on lost causes.


Is it not possible to streamline the process, especially that these cameras in question are practically a municipal resource? I would have thought that they form a part of the town's 'security'.

Posted by: ossy1 Oct 9 2009, 01:58 PM

Please do not split one sentence in two and try and make out that I am saying different things. Clearly I was refering to not cutting down on paperwork. I never mentioned anything about patrol times. You have split the sentence and put words in my mouth to try and make out that I have said something I didnt.

Posted by: TallDarkAndHandsome Oct 9 2009, 02:16 PM

Why no description of the perpetrators?????
The victim must have supplied this to the Police?

Posted by: Iommi Oct 9 2009, 03:33 PM

I will post as I see fit. If you were to review the thread, you might see that I simply said cameras can sometimes reduce police time. You went off on a tangent, not I, but at least we now understand each other. You say cameras don't cut down on paper work, I'm saying cameras can replace police effort in other areas.


They haven't been able to type it up yet... have you seen the paperwork they must get through?

In seriousness, I would imagine this will come out in the fullness in time, but remember the incident is only an allegation at the moment.

Posted by: Hugh Saskin Oct 9 2009, 04:09 PM

A very odd incident indeed, were they cut price villains - why just 60 sovs, why not more?. Or were they known to the victim?

Posted by: JeffG Oct 9 2009, 04:10 PM

Are you suggesting it didn't happen? The police clearly think it did. That's quite a detailed story someone made up if it didn't.

Posted by: Iommi Oct 9 2009, 04:12 PM

I'm suggesting that it might or might-not have happened as described, I am simply using police parlance - it is an allegation.

Posted by: HJD Oct 9 2009, 05:47 PM

This is how to deal with low life scum.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mg0ov1LUdOU

Posted by: GMR Oct 9 2009, 06:01 PM

You must admit he was very patient. Anybody else would have killed him.

Posted by: Biker1 Oct 9 2009, 06:13 PM

I always think it is best to call the police on the 0845 number, wait a few hours for them to pop round and apprehend the scum, complete the necessary paperwork, charge them and take them to court and let the full wrath of the law send them on "community payback" for a few hours standing around and smoking fags while they should be painting cemetery railings.

That'll teach 'em!!

Posted by: Hugh Saskin Oct 9 2009, 06:35 PM

This is far classier:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MhUBH6gpXV8&feature=related

Posted by: Andy1 Oct 10 2009, 02:04 PM

Phone them and ask