CCTV Cameras

by **Porty** » 20 Sep 2008, 18:24

Are you concerned the cameras may catch you having a wee eck?

by **Porty** » 20 Sep 2008, 19:06

Now seriously.

Unless 100% of those convicted by CCTV camera evidence subsequently re-offends there appeas to be prime facie evidence that they prevent some crimes.

Police officers do prevent specific crimes from happening but they do not prevent crime; full stop. Eck's fine example of the Lothian Road head to head could easily have had the effect of dispersing crime to other areas of the city that evening. Just like the effect of a CCTV camera. (except that CCTV costs a lot less)

Eck, have you considered that the CCTV cameras on DPS are there partly because it as an arterial route to one or more of the citiy's crime hot spots? Vehicle movements in DPS could be used to solve or even prevent crimes happening elsewhere.

I understand that for some considerable time to police have been using technology to track every vehicle movement in and out of the city. I imagine that this can be really useful in murder and drug investigations, as just two examples.

Finally, DPS may be a quiet street but the summer before last there was a hideous daylight fracas there. Involving 2 cars, swords, machetes and about 9 people. It got to court, they had some witnesses but ultimately the participants would not give evidence against each other. CCTV may have helped convict.

I don't think you have anything to fear from CCTV.

by **BeachBum** » 20 Sep 2008, 19:15

by **Porty** » 21 Sep 2008, 00:52

by **Porty** » 22 Sep 2008, 11:11

by **Grunk** » 22 Sep 2008, 13:43

by **Porty** » 22 Sep 2008, 16:56

by **Eck** » 09 Oct 2008, 12:31

by **BeachBum** » 09 Oct 2008, 13:20

by **Eck** » 09 Oct 2008, 13:37

by **Eck** » 13 Oct 2008, 11:32

Most of you have expressed your thoughts about CCTV cameras, how do you all feel about this:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree ... es.privacy

by **Porty** » 13 Oct 2008, 15:35

I think it is an unacceptable intrusion of privacy.

by **Eck** » 13 Oct 2008, 15:37

It's a bit worrying when there are stories like this going about:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/7667507.stm

by **Grunk** » 13 Oct 2008, 17:12

by **Bob Jefferson** » 13 Oct 2008, 17:46

by **Eck** » 14 Oct 2008, 10:39

by **Bob Jefferson** » 14 Oct 2008, 16:57

I agree that security is a real issue and it's difficult to believe how the various agencies who have lost data could be so careless. Some of the recent cases have been laughable. Government ministers losing hard copies of sensitive files on the train, databases sent by post - there is no excuse for that sort of thing.

But technical solutions are on the way:

by **wangi** » 14 Oct 2008, 17:39

by **Bob Jefferson** » 14 Oct 2008, 18:33

by **Eck** » 16 Oct 2008, 08:37

by **BeachBum** » 26 Jan 2009, 19:59

by **BeachBum** » 13 Feb 2009, 08:02

[url=http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/7886656.stm] From the BBC News website 13/2/09:

I wonder if "Eck" has seen this. He wasnt pleased about regular CCTV cameras so he will be even less chuffed about these ones being given a try out.[/url]

by **Eck** » 13 Feb 2009, 11:40

I'm sure that these are already in use in England. They also have cameras which are able to transmit the operators voice to tell people to stop doing something or warn them of something.

"They won't record conversations" - My erse.

They will have to record conversations. If the camera is drawn to something because of the noise then surely this will have to be presented in court as evidence.

by **BeachBum** » 26 Feb 2009, 22:08

by **BeachBum** » 11 Mar 2009, 19:25

You have probs seen the mobile CCTV unit a million times.

According to the Evening News its out and about again.

And ofcourse the fixed CCTV installation near your home Eck can also be used in such a manner in your neck of the woods. Providing two people are watching it at the same time whilst it records. Recorded evidence that wasnt being watched at the time is no good in the case of dog foul. It must be witnessed live by two people.

by **Eck** » 17 Mar 2009, 11:35

by **Eck** » 17 Mar 2009, 11:43

http://www.statutelaw.gov.uk/content.as ... size=30418

1 Offence
(1)Subject to section 3, if a dog defecates at any time upon any place to which this Act applies and a person who is in charge of the dog at that time fails immediately to remove the faeces from the place, that person shall be guilty of an offence unless—
(a)the person has a reasonable excuse for failing to do so; or
(b)the owner, occupier and other person or authority having control of the place has consented (generally or specifically) to the person failing to do so.
(2)A person who is guilty of an offence under this section shall be liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding level 2 on the standard scale.
(3)For the purposes of this section—
(a)a person who habitually has possession of a dog shall be taken to be in charge of the dog at any time unless at that time some other person is in charge of the dog;
(b)placing the faeces in a receptacle which is provided for the purpose, or for the disposal of waste, shall be sufficient removal from the place;
(c)throwing, depositing, dropping or otherwise putting the faeces onto any other place to which this Act applies shall not be sufficient removal from the place; and
(d)being unaware of the defecation (whether by reason of not being in the vicinity or otherwise), or not having a device for or other suitable means of removing the faeces, shall not be a reasonable excuse for failing to remove the faeces.
(4)In any proceedings for an offence under this section it shall be lawful to convict the accused on the evidence of one witness.

A brush up on the legislation would do you good before attempting a smert erse comment

by **BeachBum** » 17 Mar 2009, 12:02

So I put that comment about being a smart erse right back to you, I never said that I was refering to law, my comments included best practice that we work to at the Council in relation to the protocol in place between the relevant council service and the council service I work for.

I have no need to know things which do not affect me. I work to the arrangments and protocols in place between my council service and the other council service involved.

by **BeachBum** » 17 Mar 2009, 12:10

by **Eck** » 17 Mar 2009, 12:10

by **BeachBum** » 17 Mar 2009, 12:11

by **Eck** » 17 Mar 2009, 12:14

by **Eck** » 17 Mar 2009, 12:17

by **BeachBum** » 17 Mar 2009, 12:18

by **BeachBum** » 17 Mar 2009, 12:20

CCTV Cameras

Who is online