Printable Version of Topic

Posted by: gel May 4 2016, 05:14 PM

http://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/666986/Council-turns-OFF-CCTV-town-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.

Posted by: Simon Kirby May 4 2016, 06:56 PM

Has CCTV been shown to do any good? It's been helpful in a number of high-profile murders and such, but is there good criminological research that shows the social benefit of CCTV to be value for money?

Comparing Newbury's CCTV with the UK's overseas aid budget is a little bit apples and oranges as it's difficult to put a social value on our support for developing economies, but there are a couple of ways of making a meaningful comparison.

One way of looking at it is to compare overseas aid and defence and to think of overseas aid as soft power to the hard power of defence. The UK spends a little less than 2% of GDP on defence, and around 0.7% of GDP on overseas aid. We get little social benefit from our defence spending because to some extent the countries interested in belligerence are the ones we've provoked militarily in the first place. For sure, we have done some limited good, in Kosovo for example, but generally our military spending delivers little social benefit. Foreign aid spending on the other hand promotes UK interests abroad and gives us some small leverage over otherwise hostile foreign regimes so it has all the strategic advantages of military spending, but none of the down-sides. Also, the way that 0.7% of foreign aid spending is calculated, much of it is spent domestically, so it's not like we're giving money away - you'd be right to be incredulous at a Tory government doing just that, and of course they don't.

Posted by: Biker1 May 4 2016, 07:55 PM

You can sign https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/125692 if you disagree with Simon, or read the response from the government which, after reading, would suggest there is little point in having the debate.

I can assure you that the cctv system in Newbury does help to prevent and detect criminal and anti social behaviour. Whether one regards this as value for money I would think depends on which walk of life you may come from and how much you value the above.

Posted by: gel May 4 2016, 08:07 PM

HERE HERE.
And Crims will surely favour a town without CCTV for obvious reasons Simon K.

Already signed that petition needless to say

Posted by: Andy Capp May 4 2016, 09:05 PM

I think Simon made quite a sensible and rational argument, but I also think it is incumbent on the town to provided CCTV. A large minority at the last election supported withdrawing central funding so I guess we will have to pay for it another way.

Posted by: Turin Machine May 4 2016, 09:18 PM

Guns before Lollypops!

Posted by: Turin Machine May 4 2016, 09:23 PM

Two opinions, one belongs to you and the other to the 230,000 people who disagree!

Posted by: Turin Machine May 4 2016, 09:24 PM

There, fixed that for you!

Posted by: Simon Kirby May 4 2016, 09:50 PM

I don't know about leftie as such, it's really just an appeal to reason.

The council CCTV does pretty much nothing to deter crime, so if that's the concern, don't be. If there's any deterrence from CCTV it's from the cameras inside shops, and pretty much every shop in the country has CCTV.

Municipal CCTV is almost exclusively about reassuring the public and reducing the fear of crime rather than addressing criminality itself.

Posted by: Biker1 May 4 2016, 10:16 PM

How do you know all this?

Posted by: Simon Kirby May 4 2016, 10:17 PM

Your assurance doesn't carry any weight in an argument because I don't know who you are and I can't judge your credibility.

But yes, CCTV may well deter criminality and antisocial behaviour, though as you say it's rather more useful in its detection, but the question is to what degree does Newbury's municipal CCTV do that, and should other public services suffer so we can afford it?

Compare the cost/benefit of municipal CCTV with say mental health services which are being cut in West Berkshire. I haven't seen any great protest against these cuts, but poor mental health is a bigger burden on the health service than both cancer and heart disease, and there's a good correlation between poor mental health and criminality so the case for spending more on mental health services is a strong one whether your concern is for the welfare of people or the affect of their criminality on your own quality of life.

Posted by: Biker1 May 4 2016, 10:21 PM

I cannot say any more but, believe me, my credibility is sound.

Posted by: motormad May 4 2016, 11:25 PM

I can see Simons point.

But I don't think the CCTV cameras should have been turned off. I was not aware of it at all.

I read somewhere it was brought up in some sort of open public meeting, but honestly, who goes to those? Certainly not anyone I know, except perhaps Simon :-)

If they took 1/100th of the money that the Government spent sending us those stupid "we're all going to die if we leave the EU" letters, and put it towards running the CCTV systems in the whole of Berkshire that could quite easily pay for that department.
Data recording doesn't cost much and you don't need many people to watch actively unless a crime is reported or you can easily look back through recorded footage.

I think that knowing you are on CCTV prevents quite a few incidents, or certainly delays them - you are quite unlikely to be mugged outside Natwest for example because of the CCTV that (was) there.
But now - well, you better don your stab vests!

Posted by: Andy Capp May 4 2016, 11:54 PM

And whether people are prepared to listen to arguments before making minds up.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-125426/Does-CCTV-really-cut-crime.html

Posted by: Andy Capp May 5 2016, 12:08 AM

Judging by yours and other comments, it looks like you're right.

Posted by: Andy Capp May 5 2016, 12:10 AM

It looks like CCTV works for certain crime like car crime, but is less effective on spontaneous crime, like crime fuelled by drink.

Posted by: Andy Capp May 5 2016, 12:13 AM

Appeal to popularity is a poor argument for decisions.

Posted by: Andy Capp May 5 2016, 12:14 AM

A good argument is a good argument whether left, right, or up wing.

Posted by: Andy Capp May 5 2016, 12:19 AM

You might help to enhance that reputation with some rational argument? My view on CCTV is that it is an important tool for certain types of crime, but it shouldn't stop us scrutising its cost and implementation. The same goes for overseas aid too, but to say we should or shouldn't do something without testing evidence is daft.

Posted by: newres May 5 2016, 05:31 AM

Credibility aside, if you are able to assure us you must have some data to prove your point. That's the only way I'd be assured.

Posted by: On the edge May 5 2016, 06:47 AM

The data we do have, as said earlier, demonstrates that the voters round here don't want it. It's the choice they made, putting it bluntly, our peers believe having such things as splash pads, ceremonial robes and flag poles is far more important. OK, even the Council admits that data is a bit dodgy, so we'd be justified in looking at anecdotal evidence too. The media regularly reports that many people are against speed reporting cameras; which are, of course, a species of surveillance camera. So, like it or not, it was a community decision.

Posted by: On the edge May 5 2016, 06:47 AM

The data we do have, as said earlier, demonstrates that the voters round here don't want it. It's the choice they made, putting it bluntly, our peers believe having such things as splash pads, ceremonial robes and flag poles is far more important. OK, even the Council admits that data is a bit dodgy, so we'd be justified in looking at anecdotal evidence too. The media regularly reports that many people are against speed reporting cameras; which are, of course, a species of surveillance camera. So, like it or not, it was a community decision.

Posted by: Biker1 May 5 2016, 08:25 AM

Likewise is there "good criminological research (data) that shows the social benefit of CCTV NOT to be value for money"?
Unfortunately I cannot enlarge on that which i have already said for good reason. I am just trying to keep folks informed. If you choose not to be convinced that is up to you.

Posted by: Simon Kirby May 5 2016, 11:06 AM

That's a bit of a Russell's tea pot. If you're advocating the spending of public money on CCTV the burden of proof is on you to show that it is effevtive at delivering social benefit, it's not for me to falsify your claim.

Posted by: Rdg May 5 2016, 12:31 PM

Actually it is not the case you have to prove "value for money" but instead "better value for money" than an alternative (be that mental health services or improved lighting or more bobbies on the beat), there are only limited funds so we need to ensure every £ spent does as much good as it can.

£80,557 plus VAT gets a Splashpad, £70k some toilets, £90k the mobile libraries back and £224,930 covers the 40 CCTV cameras in West Berks for a year. So basically Toilets, Splashpad and Libraries add up to the same as the CCTV, if you keep that £225k of annual spend what else would have to go instead ?

Posted by: On the edge May 5 2016, 04:36 PM

In reality we get very little indeed from CCTV. When did you last read of an offender prosecuted on evidence given by CCTV round here? The big cost is having someone watch the screens and call the old bill when they see trouble. That really works doesn't it? After a good Saturday night, the streets are still just as full of puke and broken glass. Frankly, no self respecting crim is going to be deterred by CCTV as the lack of convictions amply demonstrate.

Posted by: Simon Kirby May 5 2016, 06:56 PM

You're right of course, and I would question the justice of Conservative voters who want their town council to spend £500,000 on the pointless and ceremonial while slashing public services like respite care, mental health services, libraries, and public toilets.

Posted by: newres May 5 2016, 08:59 PM

Yes, I regularly spend hours of my time proving negatives.

Posted by: Andy Capp May 5 2016, 09:53 PM

From a cursory search, it would seem that evidence is mixed and not clear. CCTV seems to reduces things like car crime, but has little effect on violent crime. I have also seen that it also depends how it is installed. Sometimes CCTV is not as effective as good street lighting.


Informed of what and convinced by what? The argument and evidence from you hasn't been particularly forth coming either, other than to say your opinion is shared by some others.

I see that the government and Simon Kirby have tabled reasonable ideas and argument, but the conservative amongst us have simply thrown scorn or cynicism in reply.

Posted by: On the edge May 6 2016, 06:50 AM

CCTV is a fixed view of a limited area, it needs focussed concentration by humans 24/7 to make even that surveillance, 100% effective. Yes, but again not without significant human intervention, it can be searched to show someone was in the area at a specific time. So without a huge ongoing cost, it's never going to be any real solution. As effective as the French Maginot line as a deterrent against war.

It seems to me that a better and rather more effective solution for public surveillance would be to revert back to the original Police 'walking the beat' model. CCTV does have its place; supporting train guards, car park attendants, supermarket security people etc.

Street CCTV was a worthwhile experiment, which I suspect would have ended, even in less economically straightened times. Simply because without the heavy supporting resource needed and limited area of cover, it's hard to see how it can be effective.

Posted by: Andy Capp May 6 2016, 07:57 AM

A trained operator is likely to be cheaper than a policeman and is more mobile when called upon. CCTV can help to track movements and to prove whereabouts as evidence. It doesn't have to be looking at the actual incidence to be helpful. Then of course, it will have a small amount of deterrence effect, unless of course it is announced that they are not perminanely manned!

Posted by: On the edge May 6 2016, 09:20 AM

A trained operator wouldn't expect any less than a PCSO, but the budget the money comes from isn't Police its Council, so the savings are wooden dollars. Again, sure, CCTV can track movements, but that's actually quite resource hungry. Extract archives and manually scan. Yes, just like a five lever lock, or a simple burglar alarm system it might have a minor deterrent effect; but that's marginal and almost unmeasurable. In reality, the biggest benefit is that it reduces 'fear of crime' in certain elements of the population. That fear is often whipped up by the media and so often wholly unjustified. The cost versus even the best intangible benefits would therefore make a very weak business case; even when the economy is less stressed.

Posted by: Andy Capp May 6 2016, 06:18 PM

I see CCTV a bit like insurance, it make one feel comfortable to know it is there, but hope not to use it. It would be interesting to hear the police's view on having no CCTV available in Newbury.

Posted by: Biker1 May 6 2016, 08:26 PM

The cameras in Newbury are were linked to cover most of the town centre.
They could also move and did not have a fixed view.
They could track an offender as they progressed to bring about an apprehension or identification.
But, fair enough, you guys feel they are ineffective and a waste of money so I'll leave it there.
Better tell the BID team maybe? Wouldn't want them to waste their time or money!

Posted by: Andy Capp May 6 2016, 10:33 PM

I think most appear to have made their minds up, but I would like to see the facts and evidence before deciding.



Now then: disadvantaged children or middle classes in their Vogues.

Posted by: On the edge May 7 2016, 06:49 AM

The BIDs input is a very good point. Arguably, the biggest loosens will be the BID members. It has had the chance to take over, indeed actually has the capability, it has also had the chance to campaign or at least enter the debate. It has chosen to do next to nothing; which to my mind speaks volumes!

Posted by: Simon Kirby May 7 2016, 11:38 AM

If the idea of CCTV is to make communities safer then I really couldn't be more supportive of that, but when looked at objectively in the round CCTV is not necessarily the best answer.

CCTV can be a useful tool in detecting certain crimes in certain areas, but it's not particularly effective at preventing that crime in the first place and for all its popularity with the hot-fuzz generation chattering classes it does nothing to address the underlying causes of criminality or design-out criminality from the built urban environment.

So if safer communities is really the objective here then the first place to start is with social justice, eliminating poverty by paying a living wage and providing a decent standard of living to those who can't work or can't find work. Then invest public money in social services so that fewer children are neglected and abused, provide very much better mental health services, decriminalise drug use, provide much better support for drug and alcohol abusers.

Then design out out crime by building quality homes, and address the social injustice of the unaffordability of housing, and if there is still money left after all that and you want to put something electronic on the top of a pole, install street lighting, because just that alone is more effective at deterring crime than CCTV.

Posted by: blackdog May 8 2016, 07:26 AM

Your solutions to the crime problem may well prove wonderfully effective if implemented, but, dare I say it, the cost would be enormous. CCTV is a sticking plaster solution - a cheap (relatively) and easy way to reduce crime a bit.

Posted by: Biker1 May 8 2016, 07:36 AM

Ah yes, the old communist, utopian solution that has been tried and failed by many countries and communities.
Unfortunately doomed to failure because those who purport it fail to incorporate the factor of human greed, which to a greater or lesser extent is built into all of us from prehistoric times.
What would be just as effective, but also as improbable as the your solution Simon, is for people to take responsibility for themselves and their actions.

(Funny how a simple discussion about cctv can evolve into a philosophical debate!)

Posted by: Simon Kirby May 8 2016, 10:00 AM

Communism is a social system in which workers own the means of production and are supported by the collective each according to their needs. I'm a free-market liberal and if you need to shoe-box my argument then it's essentially utilitarianism.

That "responsibility" narrative is an ideological objection, but if you actually want a solution then it needs to be pragmatic. You talk yourself about how people behave (although your argument was a straw man, directed as it was at demolishing communism) and the answer is to recognise that criminality is strongly correlated with poverty, neglect, mental ill-health, substance abuse, urban design, and street lighting - and that's not ideological, it's empirically true.

Of course if this isn't about creating safer communities and is really about the chattering classes catching and punishing people who aren't "taking responsibility", then CCTV is the answer.

Posted by: On the edge May 8 2016, 12:57 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

Posted by: 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.

Posted by: The Hatter May 8 2016, 08:20 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.

Posted by: Andy Capp May 8 2016, 09:08 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.

Posted by: On the edge May 8 2016, 09:33 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

Posted by: Andy Capp May 8 2016, 10:05 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.

Posted by: On the edge May 9 2016, 06:10 AM

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.

Posted by: Biker1 May 9 2016, 08:12 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?

Posted by: On the edge May 9 2016, 09:04 AM

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.

Posted by: Berkshirelad May 9 2016, 10:55 AM

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

Posted by: Simon Kirby May 9 2016, 12:49 PM

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.

Posted by: motormad May 9 2016, 01:59 PM

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

Posted by: blackdog May 9 2016, 07:01 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.

Posted by: newres May 10 2016, 01:15 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.

Posted by: On the edge May 10 2016, 05:47 AM

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?

Posted by: Biker1 May 10 2016, 07:31 AM

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.

Posted by: Turin Machine May 10 2016, 09:37 AM

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

Posted by: On the edge May 10 2016, 02:19 PM

So it's yes from you then?

Posted by: motormad May 12 2016, 09:25 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.

Posted by: Turin Machine May 12 2016, 10:00 AM

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

Posted by: Andy Capp May 12 2016, 11:37 AM

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).

Posted by: Turin Machine May 12 2016, 01:04 PM

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

Posted by: Andy Capp May 12 2016, 06:00 PM

Yes I am aware!

Posted by: Biker1 May 13 2016, 08:27 AM

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

Posted by: Andy Capp May 13 2016, 08:47 AM

No cuz not all drug abuse is heinous! 😋

Posted by: Biker1 May 13 2016, 08:56 AM

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".

Posted by: Turin Machine May 13 2016, 09:15 AM

Perhaps legalise Fructus naturales?

Posted by: Berkshirelad May 13 2016, 10:35 AM

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

Posted by: motormad Jun 7 2016, 04:53 PM

http://www.newburytoday.co.uk/news/news/18338/West-Berkshire-Council-agree-CCTV-funding.html

Yay!

Posted by: Biker1 Jun 8 2016, 07:47 AM

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.

Posted by: On the edge Jun 8 2016, 12:50 PM

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.

Posted by: Turin Machine Jun 8 2016, 02:13 PM

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.

Posted by: Berkshirelad Jun 8 2016, 02:26 PM

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

Posted by: Simon Kirby Jun 8 2016, 03:17 PM

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.

Posted by: Berkshirelad Jun 9 2016, 08:45 AM

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.

Posted by: Biker1 Jun 9 2016, 08:48 AM

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!

Posted by: Simon Kirby Jun 9 2016, 09:34 AM

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.

Posted by: Andy Capp Jun 9 2016, 01:18 PM

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

Posted by: Andy Capp Jun 9 2016, 01:24 PM

https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/surveillance-camera-code-of-practice

Posted by: Simon Kirby Jun 9 2016, 05:31 PM

Thanks.

Posted by: Biker1 Jun 10 2016, 08:26 AM

Wow! What a seriously misguided nation we appear to be.
Serious propaganda reform required.
Simon for president of new, all powerful EU!?

Posted by: Andy Capp Jun 10 2016, 12:13 PM

There's a lot of it about. Fortunately, the scientific model has helped start a new age of enlightenment.

Posted by: Simon Kirby Jun 10 2016, 04:35 PM

Hey, at least I'll stand up and debate with you what I think in a public forum. You're free to hate my opinion, but at least you know what it is. But where are the miserable slinkers that you do vote for? Not one of them prepared to stand up on their hind legs and give an account of their politics.