Newsbot Posted November 5, 2008 Share Posted November 5, 2008 Security cameras in an Isle of Man town centre are set to be replaced. Source : http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/rss/-/1/hi/world/...man/7710427.stm Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shit3hawk Posted November 5, 2008 Share Posted November 5, 2008 Security cameras in an Isle of Man town centre are set to be replaced. Source : http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/rss/-/1/hi/world/...man/7710427.stm He believes expanding the network of cameras in Douglas will make the town safer. So its not just a replacement scheme then more of a covert introduction of more cameras what the point in spending yet more money in a scheme that can record evidence that cannot be used help or secure any convictions, seem crazy to me Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tempus Fugit Posted November 5, 2008 Share Posted November 5, 2008 what credit crunch ? how many bobbies on the beat would £400,000 pay for ? stupid Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shit3hawk Posted November 5, 2008 Share Posted November 5, 2008 what credit crunch ? how many bobbies on the beat would £400,000 pay for ? stupid Just think of all the doughnuts........... Hmmm Doughnuts Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Skeddan Posted November 5, 2008 Share Posted November 5, 2008 Security cameras ... are set to be replaced, at a cost of £400,000. Leader of Douglas Town Council, David Christian, has said the use of CCTV monitoring equipment makes the majority of people feel safer. Bill Henderson ...believes expanding the network of cameras in Douglas will make the town safer. £400,000 to make people feel safer? I also wonder if there is any basis for this claim about the views of the majority. Was there a survey, poll, or the like? How large a majority? What were the questions asked? What kind of opposition was there? Did people feel only very slighty safer, or much much safer? It's all very well for Henderson to believe it will make the town safer. But what is this belief founded on? Note in the news report the use of 'will' rather than 'would' - indicating that the network is to be expanded. Is that actually what is going to happen, or just poor grammar by the reporter? Have the police been consulted over this? (isn't law enforcement their area?). What are Police recommendations for making Douglas safer? How would they spend an additional £400,000? "I think it would be a good idea if...." - Is that good enough for measures like this? Shouldn't there be something a bit more solid to base this decision on? Am I right in thinking that £400,000 might get spent on CCTV cameras without anything like a proper business case? If so, then dunnit show a bit of a prob? Edit to add: and where are Manx media? Doesn't Manx Radio have a public service remit? What questions have they been asking about this? Will there be anything more from them than a cosy chat smoothing the way and softening people to what's coming? i.e. The 'leave it to others if they have an axe to grind' ethos. Is asking questions such as these too hard, too expensive, or simply not subservient enough? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Albert Tatlock Posted November 5, 2008 Share Posted November 5, 2008 £400K !!! Wot a waste, we could had another 12 seagull 'sculptures' for that. I dread to think what the rates bill is going to be next year. ...I hear David Christian also wants sharks fitted with frickin lasers to protect Douglas prom from unsuspecting dog walkers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cronky Posted November 5, 2008 Share Posted November 5, 2008 I totally agree with you Skeddan. Henderson and Christian are just vote chasers. Yes, I know that CCTV makes some folk feel safer. However, you cannot actually prove that it actually makes people safer. With respect to drunken loutish behaviour resulting in assault then CCTV makes damn all difference. I would suggest that if you are angry and pissed and about to belt someone that that last thing you are going to do is look over your shoulder to see if there are any cameras around. £400k to satisfy some politicians ego? No thank you very much. The Isle of Man has the lowest crime rate in the British Isles we are told. That being the case spend the money on something else. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Slim Posted November 5, 2008 Share Posted November 5, 2008 what credit crunch ?how many bobbies on the beat would £400,000 pay for ? stupid Are cameras and police mutually exclusive? Noticed there's a police van with a camera cruising the prom, weird having that thing centre on you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Holy Paladin Posted November 10, 2008 Share Posted November 10, 2008 Skeddan, exactly what do you want me to answer..? I agree its a hell of a lot off money, a scheme like that would I doubt be done lightly and without question by Douglas corpy, no matter what David says on the news he does not make the decisions IMO, he just has an opinion... I agree that this would make you feel safer, but i also agree that without proper cameras, taht have a sufficiant capability off giving evidence that is off an exceptable level, (I am lead to belief the current camera's are NOT off the required quality) then what the point off having them, i also agree that the Police should be consulted first and formost. as for vote chasing ermmm.. DC has what 3 years left as a councillor.. why chase votes now.. live long and prosper !! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jehovah Posted November 10, 2008 Share Posted November 10, 2008 Apparently you advocate sitting on ones arse until it's time for election once again. It's opinions like that that turn people off politics and only heightens the attitude that local councilors are there for themselves and not their constituents. As for the police being consulted "first and foremost", what incredible arrogance and stupifying stupidity. The rate payers, through their representatives, make the decision, the police serve the people. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Skeddan Posted November 10, 2008 Share Posted November 10, 2008 Skeddan, exactly what do you want me to answer..? I agree its a hell of a lot off money, a scheme like that would I doubt be done lightly and without question by Douglas corpy, no matter what David says on the news he does not make the decisions IMO, he just has an opinion... I agree that this would make you feel safer, but i also agree that without proper cameras, taht have a sufficiant capability off giving evidence that is off an exceptable level, (I am lead to belief the current camera's are NOT off the required quality) then what the point off having them, i also agree that the Police should be consulted first and formost. as for vote chasing ermmm.. DC has what 3 years left as a councillor.. why chase votes now.. live long and prosper !! As reported in the media, the impression conveyed by DC is that the reason and rationale for this expenditure is because "it makes the majority of people feel safer". Does DC actually have any basis for making such a claim? If so what? If not this is hot air and hogwash. Is this the 'business case' for the expenditure of £400,000? If so, IMO it's a dismal failure of responsible management. If not, then it's a dismal failure of communication. In terms of 'culture of cynicism' as being discussed in another thread, this could be prime example. Perhaps there are very good valid reasons and sound business case developed with police etc. However failure to communicate and the 'dumbed down' fob-off reasons naturally engenders cynicism. One would assume media relations are adequate, and they are not misrepresenting what they've been told - and probably going by Douglas Corp press release. Fobbing off the public with some dopey dumbed-down reason and not being upfront and informing people properly about why this decision was reached would strike me as being extraordinarily arrogant and egotistical for a public authority. If £400,000 expenditure on CCTV really is being made because someone supposes 'it makes the majority of people feel safer', then that is quite shocking. Equally worrying is the notion that "no matter what David says on the news he does not make the decisions" - in context of this it suggests that DC's role is to 'sell' the decision to the public with whatever will best get them to swallow it, and is just a front for behind the scenes decision making. Whatever is going on, it is hard to avoid getting the impression of this being patrician politics carried out within a little fiefdom. Even if very sound sensible business cases existed, the impression this creates of how things are run is highly corrosive. It erodes trust and confidence, creates disillusionment and alienation. People become cynical and jaded, and 'discretionary' responsibility slips - there is little respect for regulations and authority when it is perceived as serving not the public, but vested interests. That itself is an indictment of the present style of leadership. Holy Paladin, you say you "advocate only a democratic and responsible society..". Please look back at some of the criticisms levelled at DC and Douglas Corp in 'Resignations From Liberal Vannin', and consider how the clear 'credibility gap' may be brought on by this style of administration. You clearly believe in the good things they are doing, and think the criticism unfair. However good administration shouldn't just be done, it should be seen to be done. Consider the importance of accountability and transparency in a democratic and responsible society, who might be to blame for such criticisms - and more importantly, what should be done to improve matters. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thesultanofsheight Posted November 10, 2008 Share Posted November 10, 2008 I agree that this would make you feel safer Its important that we all feel safer in view of such horrific crimes being reported in the Isle of Man lately This example from this weeks Examiner is particularly worrying Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
La_Dolce_Vita Posted November 10, 2008 Share Posted November 10, 2008 The rate payers, through their representatives, make the decision, the police serve the people. I think someone has been telling you porkies. The police serve the STATE, not the people. As reported in the media, the impression conveyed by DC is that the reason and rationale for this expenditure is because "it makes the majority of people feel safer". At this expense would one not at least ask whether CCTV actually makes the world safer, nevermind just the feeling of safety. And how do you balance your own need to have privacy with feeling a bit safer? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wake Up Call Posted November 11, 2008 Share Posted November 11, 2008 £400K could be spent on all kinds of things - we know that. I do get annoyed about all this wittering on about cameras, we are recorded everytime we go to Tesco, M and S, Shoprite, Boots etc etc and ofcourse the local pub. (Check it out when you go for a pint) Nobody gives a stuff about this, yet when the subject of cameras in Strand Street and the Prom comes up, the World's greatest human rights champions emerge and argue the toss. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
steven ! Posted November 11, 2008 Share Posted November 11, 2008 Although I can see some of both sides of the argument regarding CCTV cameras it didn't really bother me and being a bit of an establishment man, I used to just let the authorites do what they had to do. Then one day I opened up the Courier and there was a picture of me in glorious technicolour for all to see, asking if this person could contact the police. No problem with that really but it gave the time and day I was strolling through the Villa Arcade and would I contact the police if I had witnessed anything that evening. I contacted the number given and the police hadn't a clue what I was talking about. When I finally spoke to someone who might've known, they weren't interested if I had seen anything or not. I think the criminals had been caught by then. The freedom fighters tell us about the thin edge of the wedge, well, I certainly felt part of that wedge . . . but there again, people will say if I hadn't done anything wrong why worry? It's a good thing the people who had carried out the crime (it was a serious assault) had been caught, because judging by the state of that picture, I worry that someone could have said "yeah, he looks well dodgy - do 'im for it anyway". As the Boomtown Rats said - there's always some looking at you. (I don't know how to spell the uh, uh, uh uhhh bit) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.