More CCTV cameras needed

[TimberWolf]

Try following some of the links I posted and reading some of the reports that say

IT DOES NOT WORK

Of course it works. Shops, pubs, offices and home-owners don't use them for fun.

[RichardCranium]

Of course it works. Shops, pubs, offices and home-owners don't use them for fun.

If you can't be bothered following the links and reading the articles to educate yourself, then by all means keep stroking your paranoia to help you sleep at night.

But don't keep promoting wasteful bollocks out of ignorance.

[sasguru]

Try following some of the links I posted and reading some of the reports that say

IT DOES NOT WORK

I recently did jury service and without giving any details, I think I am allowed to say that the CCTV evidence was crucial in helping us reach a guilty verdict.

[TimberWolf]

If you can't be bothered following the links and reading the articles to educate yourself, then by all means keep stroking your paranoia to help you sleep at night.

But don't keep promoting wasteful bollocks out of ignorance.

I don't greatly care whether there are cameras or not, and this is the first time I have 'promoted' them as you erroneously describe, though I am warming to them. Can you not see that it is you that is paranoid?

[xoggoth]

Quite a few continuous webcams about too. There's a good quality one showing country near me. Think I might have a quick J Arthur in the bushes and then rush back and watch myself.

[RichardCranium]

Can you not see that it is you that is paranoid?

Riiiiight. It's not me that's frightened to go out of doors without an electronic chaperone.

- - - - -

I'm growing fond of CCTV cameras, but there aren't enough of them.

I don't greatly care whether there are cameras or not

Make your mind up.

- - - - -

I gather some people don't like these cameras, though I don't recall their reasons

That's because you refuse to read them.

- - - - -

I doubt anyone would be the slightest interested in seeing person after person on video, if indeed anyone was employed to do so except where a crime had taken place, so privacy isn't much of an issue.

Invasion of privacy has been dealt with by the prosecutions referred to above: it is an issue.

- - - - -

It's not just of assisting in obvious mysteries such as the Joanna Yeates murder (which the existing small number of cameras appear to have assisted a great deal)

You have now been given the evidence of 44 reports which shows we are the most 'surveilled' (yuck) society in the world, yet street cameras do not work in preventing crimes as above.

but also for any crime, from car theft to antisocial behaviour.

As above. Debunked.

- - - - -

[in reference to a civil liberties site concerned about street cameras...]

I'm not interested in arguing with loonies, just in convincing reasons for not increasing their use.

a) There you go again: so those who disagree with you have mental health issues? Jeez.
b) so read what that web site says, then you'll see some reasons. Primarily they cost a lot of money and do not make a difference.

- - - - -

The money being wasted on street cameras would be far better spent employing coppers to walk the beat.

[sasguru]

...some mindless rant

I just gave you, in my previous post, a concrete example (one of many, I'm sure) where CCTV helped bring a perp to justice.
So fooking stop ranting.
Ultimately this must have a deterrent effect.
And if the crime happened to you you'd be glad if you were being filmed.

[TimberWolf]

Riiiiight. It's not me that's frightened to go out of doors without an electronic chaperone.

I suppose I do feel safer knowing there are cameras. I do not fear them. Should I be made to feel ashamed for feeling safer in the presence of this technology? Should my manhood need to be felt threatened by an added sense of security? No, I feel reasonably confident in my physical abilities against a single assailant, but these cameras could also help ascertain guilt and innocent in a situation. They might even deter. As well as protect those less capable of defending themselves. They might supply factual evidence rather than eyewitness accounts. And they also work against the police, who I imagine you also have, shall we say, misgivings about.

Make your mind up.

You are playing cheap games. Let me explain for the audience. You tell me to make my mind up because in one sentence in this entire thread I say I do not care greatly one way or another and in another sentence in this thread I say I am growing fond of them. Sorry, but my mind is not binary and I'm rarely dogmatic on any issue.

That's because you refuse to read them.

I did read and comment on some of your links. Perhaps you should go for quality or summarise what is being said rather than referring to 40 links of dubious origin and quality. Or just say what you think backed up by some solid link. Don't be lazy. Or at least if you are lazy don't complain of it in others. One of the links you gave started talking about filming in woman's changing rooms and another about how we should not be guilty without trial or somesuch paraoid nonsense. I do not need to read 1 of those let alone 40 links like that.

Invasion of privacy has been dealt with by the prosecutions referred to above: it is an issue.

I agree invasion of privacy needs to be handled carefully. We are talking about streets here, where anyone can see you anyway. Do you feel threatened by pub and shop cameras?

You have now been given the evidence of 44 reports which shows we are the most 'surveilled' (yuck) society in the world, yet street cameras do not work in preventing crimes as above.

Which above? Presumably one of your 40 links.

a) There you go again: so those who disagree with you have mental health issues? Jeez.

You called me paranoid for not being afraid of cameras (perhaps you could explain that one), so you are hardly in a position to take the moral ground on questioning mental health. The links you gave prior to my comment looked loony so I said so. Perhaps that's why you later called me paranoid, who knows. In any case I wasn't insulting you, at least not directly and in the way you describe.

b) so read what that web site says, then you'll see some reasons. Primarily they cost a lot of money and do not make a difference.

- - - - -

The money being wasted on street cameras would be far better spent employing coppers to walk the beat.

Which is what I was solving/putting to the audience. As far as I understand the situation, cameras are not solving many crimes and the police say better quality video is required:

CCTV cameras get upgrade at police request - Telegraph
This follows an 18-month review carried out by the Home Office and the Association of Chief Police Officers (Acpo) amid concern about the quality of evidence supplied by millions of cameras.

Not a great link to what the police think about their effectiveness, but the first I found and better could certainly be found. I think their opinion would be of relevance, even if you don't believe them and prefer your own sources.

Why do you argue. It is not obvious you are my intellectual subordinate?

[doodab]

There is a difference between deterring someone from committing a crime in the first place and helping bring them to justice. Cameras might not help with the first but they certainly help with the second.

The problem is that we are looking for a technical solution to a human problem. If there world weren't full of ***** we wouldn't need cameras.

[OwlHoot]

Quite a few continuous webcams about too. There's a good quality one showing country near me. Think I might have a quick J Arthur in the bushes and then rush back and watch myself.

If it's live, wouldn't you have to rush back faster than the speed of light, and end up time-travelling into the past.