Welcome to Newburytoday.co.uk’s message boards where you can have your say and share your views on any number of issues.
Anyone can read messages, but only registered users can post messages, reply to messages or create new topics. As part of the free and simple registration, you will be asked to read and conform to the house rules.
To register, click here ……Enjoy the debate. Newbury Today Forum > Categories > Newbury News
Robbery |
|
|
|
Oct 9 2009, 11:21 AM
|
Advanced Member
Group: Members
Posts: 6,085
Joined: 13-May 09
From: Newbury, Berkshire.
Member No.: 33
|
QUOTE (Gumbo @ Oct 9 2009, 11:22 AM) Do we not have CCTV all over this area? surely the police should be posting up images of these scum. That might offend their human rights.
|
|
|
|
|
Oct 9 2009, 11:23 AM
|
Advanced Member
Group: Members
Posts: 4,138
Joined: 13-May 09
From: Newbury
Member No.: 20
|
QUOTE (Gumbo @ Oct 9 2009, 11:22 AM) Do we not have CCTV all over this area? surely the police should be posting up images of these scum. Cameras do not apprehend, they merely save on police time; sometimes.
|
|
|
|
|
Oct 9 2009, 11:49 AM
|
Advanced Member
Group: Members
Posts: 4,138
Joined: 13-May 09
From: Newbury
Member No.: 20
|
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. QUOTE (ossy1 @ Oct 9 2009, 12:48 PM) 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. So what's the problem? What can the Police do?
|
|
|
|
|
Oct 9 2009, 11:58 AM
|
Advanced Member
Group: Members
Posts: 338
Joined: 8-July 09
Member No.: 182
|
QUOTE (Iommi @ Oct 9 2009, 12:23 PM) Cameras do not apprehend, they merely save on police time; sometimes. Disagree
|
|
|
|
|
Oct 9 2009, 12:07 PM
|
Advanced Member
Group: Members
Posts: 4,138
Joined: 13-May 09
From: Newbury
Member No.: 20
|
QUOTE (ossy1 @ Oct 9 2009, 12:58 PM) Disagree 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.
|
|
|
|
|
Oct 9 2009, 12:22 PM
|
Advanced Member
Group: Members
Posts: 323
Joined: 13-May 09
Member No.: 19
|
QUOTE (ossy1 @ Oct 9 2009, 12:48 PM) 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. 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.
|
|
|
|
|
Oct 9 2009, 12:50 PM
|
Advanced Member
Group: Members
Posts: 4,138
Joined: 13-May 09
From: Newbury
Member No.: 20
|
QUOTE (ossy1 @ Oct 9 2009, 01:11 PM) I read your comment as meaning saving time during an investigation, which it does not do. 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?
|
|
|
|
|
Oct 9 2009, 01:05 PM
|
Advanced Member
Group: Members
Posts: 338
Joined: 8-July 09
Member No.: 182
|
QUOTE (Iommi @ Oct 9 2009, 01:50 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? 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.
|
|
|
|
|
Oct 9 2009, 01:20 PM
|
Advanced Member
Group: Members
Posts: 4,138
Joined: 13-May 09
From: Newbury
Member No.: 20
|
QUOTE (ossy1 @ Oct 9 2009, 02:05 PM) No it does not cut down on time 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. QUOTE (ossy1 @ Oct 9 2009, 02:05 PM) 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. 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'.
|
|
|
|
|
Oct 9 2009, 01:58 PM
|
Advanced Member
Group: Members
Posts: 338
Joined: 8-July 09
Member No.: 182
|
QUOTE (Iommi @ Oct 9 2009, 02:20 PM) So are you saying police patrol time is the same now as before CCTV? There's also the point that good footage presumable 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 towns 'security'. 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.
|
|
|
|
|
Oct 9 2009, 03:33 PM
|
Advanced Member
Group: Members
Posts: 4,138
Joined: 13-May 09
From: Newbury
Member No.: 20
|
QUOTE (ossy1 @ Oct 9 2009, 02:58 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. 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. QUOTE (TallDarkAndHandsome @ Oct 9 2009, 03:16 PM) Why no description of the perpetrators????? The victim must have supplied this to the Police? 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.
|
|
|
|
|
Oct 9 2009, 04:10 PM
|
Advanced Member
Group: Members
Posts: 3,762
Joined: 14-May 09
Member No.: 56
|
QUOTE (Iommi @ Oct 9 2009, 04:33 PM) remember the incident is only an allegation at the moment. 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.
|
|
|
|
|
Oct 9 2009, 04:12 PM
|
Advanced Member
Group: Members
Posts: 4,138
Joined: 13-May 09
From: Newbury
Member No.: 20
|
QUOTE (JeffG @ Oct 9 2009, 05:10 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. I'm suggesting that it might or might-not have happened as described, I am simply using police parlance - it is an allegation.
|
|
|
|
1 User(s) are reading this topic (1 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
0 Members:
|
|