IPB

Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

5 Pages V  < 1 2 3 4 5 >  
Reply to this topicStart new topic
> CCTV Turned off, Makes National news
On the edge
post May 8 2016, 12:57 PM
Post #41


Advanced Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 7,847
Joined: 23-May 09
From: Newbury
Member No.: 98



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


--------------------
Know your place!
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Andy Capp
post May 8 2016, 07:21 PM
Post #42


Advanced Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 11,902
Joined: 3-September 09
Member No.: 317



QUOTE (On the edge @ May 8 2016, 01:57 PM) *
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.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
The Hatter
post May 8 2016, 08:20 PM
Post #43


Advanced Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 287
Joined: 11-September 13
Member No.: 10,046



QUOTE (Andy Capp @ May 8 2016, 07:21 PM) *
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.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Andy Capp
post May 8 2016, 09:08 PM
Post #44


Advanced Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 11,902
Joined: 3-September 09
Member No.: 317



QUOTE (The Hatter @ May 8 2016, 09:20 PM) *
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. tongue.gif
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
On the edge
post May 8 2016, 09:33 PM
Post #45


Advanced Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 7,847
Joined: 23-May 09
From: Newbury
Member No.: 98



QUOTE (Andy Capp @ May 8 2016, 10:08 PM) *
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. tongue.gif


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 ohmy.gif


--------------------
Know your place!
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Andy Capp
post May 8 2016, 10:05 PM
Post #46


Advanced Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 11,902
Joined: 3-September 09
Member No.: 317



QUOTE (On the edge @ May 8 2016, 10:33 PM) *
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 ohmy.gif

The Coalition did do that I believe, but I suspect after a while the loss of revenue forced a re-think.

I'm cynical of that type law enforcement under the 'guise' of safety because I feel if safety really was a concern, the money I am forced to handover would be better spent on devices that would help me avoid creeping over the limit, especially when in areas where it is not obvious why the speed limit is what it is. Why is it most areas in modern life benefit from review and innovation except it seems in speed management. Like with CCTV, the focus is on new methods of detection and penalisation rather than prevention.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
On the edge
post May 9 2016, 06:10 AM
Post #47


Advanced Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 7,847
Joined: 23-May 09
From: Newbury
Member No.: 98



QUOTE (Andy Capp @ May 8 2016, 11:05 PM) *
The Coalition did do that I believe, but I suspect after a while the loss of revenue forced a re-think.

I'm cynical of that type law enforcement under the 'guise' of safety because I feel if safety really was a concern, the money I am forced to handover would be better spent on devices that would help me avoid creeping over the limit, especially when in areas where it is not obvious why the speed limit is what it is. Why is it most areas in modern life benefit from review and innovation except it seems in speed management. Like with CCTV, the focus is on new methods of detection and penalisation rather than prevention.


I wouldn't disagree with any of that, or indeed the safety points. The feeling of safety is often down to perceptions. Walking the beat also calms a great many people, although its not hugely effective in economic terms; hence the fall back to 'community policing' and PCSO's etc. So the lesson seems to be that it isn't a particularly wise move to 'switch off' the system. If economies were really needed, far better to have just slimmed down the resource. More and more, it looks as if the cuts made locally were made without any plan or thought. Just simply a panicked gut reaction; someone just went through the budget headings until the required total was met. Such a shame 'Senior Staff Wage' are at the end of the alphabet.


--------------------
Know your place!
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Biker1
post May 9 2016, 08:12 AM
Post #48


Advanced Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 5,064
Joined: 26-May 09
Member No.: 103



QUOTE (On the edge @ May 8 2016, 10:33 PM) *
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 ohmy.gif

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?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
On the edge
post May 9 2016, 09:04 AM
Post #49


Advanced Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 7,847
Joined: 23-May 09
From: Newbury
Member No.: 98



That's a bit deep for a Monday morning Biker! That's a very valid point. I'd wager that there are likely to be some very interesting rationales driving those in power who want to keep the status quo. Going back in time, when English narcotic drug use was limited to the upper end of society; the Government had no qualms about taking its own cut from suppliers; that's what the Boxer Rebellion was all about after all.


--------------------
Know your place!
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Berkshirelad
post May 9 2016, 10:55 AM
Post #50


Advanced Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 810
Joined: 13-August 09
Member No.: 271



I disagree that speeding is socially unacceptable.

Otherwise, speeders would be a minority rather than most of the driver population.

And you conveniently forget to add costs of treatment by NHS, etc. under drugs
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Simon Kirby
post May 9 2016, 12:49 PM
Post #51


Advanced Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 6,326
Joined: 20-July 10
From: Wash Common
Member No.: 1,011



QUOTE (Biker1 @ May 9 2016, 09:12 AM) *
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?

If you read what I said you'll see that I recognise substance abuse as a significant factor in criminality, and it's also a significant factor in the abuse and neglect of children too, so I fully recognise how damaging, personally and socially, drug and alcohol abuse can be, and that's precisely why I advocate spending public money addressing the problem by supporting people not to become substance-dependent and to clean up if they are. However, criminalising drug use does very little to prevent abuse and addiction and creates a whole raft of problems all of its own.


--------------------
Right an injustice - give Simon Kirby his allotment back!
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
motormad
post May 9 2016, 01:59 PM
Post #52


Advanced Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 1,970
Joined: 29-December 09
From: Dogging in a car park somewhere
Member No.: 592



QUOTE (Biker1 @ May 9 2016, 09:12 AM) *
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.


--------------------
:p
Grammar: the difference between knowing your poop and knowing you're poop.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
blackdog
post May 9 2016, 07:01 PM
Post #53


Advanced Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 2,945
Joined: 5-June 09
Member No.: 130



QUOTE (motormad @ May 9 2016, 02:59 PM) *
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.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
newres
post May 10 2016, 01:15 AM
Post #54


Advanced Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 2,674
Joined: 27-November 12
Member No.: 8,961



QUOTE (Biker1 @ May 9 2016, 09:12 AM) *
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?

As long as alcohol is legal, then it's hypocrisy that other drugs aren't. Al of the other drugs put together don't cause a fraction of the harm that alcohol does.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
On the edge
post May 10 2016, 05:47 AM
Post #55


Advanced Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 7,847
Joined: 23-May 09
From: Newbury
Member No.: 98



QUOTE (newres @ May 10 2016, 02:15 AM) *
As long as alcohol is legal, then it's hypocrisy that other drugs aren't. Al of the other drugs put together don't cause a fraction of the harm that alcohol does.


Again, quite true and very interesting. Arguably, even worse is smoking.

So then, who decides these laws and penalties? More, how do we secure compliance?


--------------------
Know your place!
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Biker1
post May 10 2016, 07:31 AM
Post #56


Advanced Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 5,064
Joined: 26-May 09
Member No.: 103



QUOTE (newres @ May 10 2016, 02:15 AM) *
As long as alcohol is legal, then it's hypocrisy that other drugs aren't. Al of the other drugs put together don't cause a fraction of the harm that alcohol does.

So because alcohol is legal we should compound the problem by introducing more numbers into the equation?
Alcohol use / abuse is historical and has been with us and legal for centuries.
I would imagine that if it was introduced into modern times it would not be condoned and legalised.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Turin Machine
post May 10 2016, 09:37 AM
Post #57


Advanced Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 2,682
Joined: 23-September 10
From: In the lower 40
Member No.: 1,104



As with alcohol as with tobacco, the question is, cui bono?


--------------------
Gammon. And proud!
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
On the edge
post May 10 2016, 02:19 PM
Post #58


Advanced Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 7,847
Joined: 23-May 09
From: Newbury
Member No.: 98



QUOTE (Turin Machine @ May 10 2016, 10:37 AM) *
As with alcohol as with tobacco, the question is, cui bono?

So it's yes from you then?
laugh.gif


--------------------
Know your place!
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
motormad
post May 12 2016, 09:25 AM
Post #59


Advanced Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 1,970
Joined: 29-December 09
From: Dogging in a car park somewhere
Member No.: 592



QUOTE (blackdog @ May 9 2016, 08:01 PM) *
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.


--------------------
:p
Grammar: the difference between knowing your poop and knowing you're poop.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Turin Machine
post May 12 2016, 10:00 AM
Post #60


Advanced Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 2,682
Joined: 23-September 10
From: In the lower 40
Member No.: 1,104



QUOTE (motormad @ May 12 2016, 10:25 AM) *
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.

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


--------------------
Gammon. And proud!
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post

5 Pages V  < 1 2 3 4 5 >
Reply to this topicStart new topic
1 User(s) are reading this topic (1 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
0 Members:

 

Lo-Fi Version Time is now: 28th March 2024 - 12:34 PM