Holy Paladin Posted November 11, 2008 Share Posted November 11, 2008 I liked the news story...lol as for being a champion of human rights...lol may have to change my profile name.. But I agree , its a lot off money and if and when it was too happen, there should be a consultation process, Jehovah, i was making a point about consultation, and i feel the police , should be the best avenue for safty and crime rates and conviction rates etc etc.. would you have a clue..? As for feeling safer, I agree that is a public consultation, but then again these consultations cost money, so we vote on a council, but then expect them to have a public consultation on any decision they make that costs x amount off money, sadly we just have to trust in their judgement and if we disagree moan about it on here, or wait x number of years to vote them out at the next Local Authority election, as happened to the people of Onchan who disliked some off what the commiusioners where doing, so hehowed the chairman Tim Norton and a few off his cronies..lol HP ( Champion of human rights and defender off Dorothy Quirks Legacy) ps bring back the Manninline as talking heads is not as good.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Skeddan Posted November 11, 2008 Share Posted November 11, 2008 Holy Paladin - you've not addressed issues about this I raised in post #11. Are you saying 'we just have to trust in their judgement'? Either it is gross miscommunication or - as it would seem - the entire business case for spending £400,000 is because someone supposes that this will make the majority of people feel safer. Not even the Mayor of Trumpton would mismanage things so. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Holy Paladin Posted November 11, 2008 Share Posted November 11, 2008 Skeddan, sorry i missed your question.. I agree for a spend of 400k you would expect a damn good water tight case, I have not seen the issue raised yet at a Council or P & R Meeting, the minutes are freely available on line or at he Town Hall. IMO David also remarked that the money should be funded by Dept of Home Affairs, not Douglas rate Payers, I also agree that If it was me making the decision I would want to see all the fact and figures that show these camera's do make a difference. I know a case where a Door Supervisor or 2 witnessed a brawl out side the Waterloo, the police informed that the images where very grainy and really off no use, I also agree that often the images used from CCTV are not off the best quality when you see them in the paper or on line etc, then again this could just be pixal problems , but as i am no expert on this matter, would ask someone that was. I know myself that this "makes people feel safer" remark is a little unjustified, as to be honest I dont feel unsafe walking down strand street at any time of the day or night, and teh thought off the CCTV would not even pop into my head. I would say thats more to do with the society of Mann. Then again, I would probably not feel so safe if i was to walk down the high street of say Liverpool or manchester on a sunday morning at 3 am. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
La_Dolce_Vita 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. It is not about human rights but every person's requirement to have privacy. I don't even like the idea of CCTV in shops. 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. But they don't HAVE to do anything. That's the way I see it. 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? But that makes it sound as if the state has the right to monitor everyone to eliminate people who are not guilty of crime. My question is why the state thinks it should be allowed to monitor me when I am doing nothing wrong. If someone asked me if it is okay to follow me everywhere I go, to spy on me, and film my activities I would not allow it. Why should the state be allowed? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Skeddan Posted November 11, 2008 Share Posted November 11, 2008 I agree for a spend of 400k you would expect a damn good water tight case, I have not seen the issue raised yet at a Council or P & R Meeting, the minutes are freely available on line or at he Town Hall. But that is the issue. There should be clarity in why the money is being spent, and confidence that expenditure will be properly scrutinised and not just rubber-stamped. To explain the decision in the way given in the press announcement is bound to make people even more cynical about how things are managed. Holy Paladin, perhaps you can dig out where online one can find proper report with facts and figures showing this is justified. I can't even find any mention of it in the minutes. If DC isn't mismanaging, then he isn't getting the message across in press releases etc. (which is also poor management). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Holy Paladin Posted November 11, 2008 Share Posted November 11, 2008 skeddan, The issue has not been brought up in a council meeting since may, so unless we are going to trawl through years off minutes... I can also confirm there has been no mention at any P&R as well.... but like I said thats only from May this year. IMOP DC was making his opinion felt that he feels there is a need to replae the CCTV and that it will make him feel safer, I have to say that I am not completly in agreement with him on that. In regards to facts and figures ref crime rates etc , i have no idea.. but would expect a watertight case showing taht having cctv does infact 1, reduce crime, or anto social behavior 2, when crime does occur is a viable and used source of conviction for the Dept of Home affairs 3 what level other ways does CCTV inprove life..? I can see the point of Shops having internal CCTv as shoplifting does hapen here and is a none-insurable loss so eventually does cost us all down the line But I could for see the crimes like Criminal damage and large scale theft/ram raids etc, external CCTV is if of a proper quality a tool against crime.. I have the question, do you see CCTV more as a prevention tool or a prosecution tool... .. are we just firefighting teh symtoms or should you not look at the disease as well.. Impose heavier fines, prison terms, etc.. what would put you off more (apart from your sense of right and wrong) 1 your grainy pic being in the paper for smashing a window, you get caught and you get a 12 month suspended sentance 2 your pic on a high quality CCTV image, and then a 2 year prison sentance and 1,000 fine upon your conviction. Arrrrrr La Dolce Vita I agree human right must be adhered too.. but what off the right off those who's lives are effected by crime.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Skeddan Posted November 11, 2008 Share Posted November 11, 2008 Holy Paladin - have a look at couple of recent discussions of the topic here: http://www.manxforums.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=27516 http://www.manxforums.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=27866 yes - often it is just firefighting symptoms. Project Centurion showed how much can be gained by tackling root causes. That went about things in a sensible way, not just 'I think that' and 'it makes people feel safer'. What is the impact on crime that this £400,000 is anticipated to deliver? (what is being purchased?). What impact has CCTV as currently installed had on crime? Has it had any measurable effect? What about alternatives? Maybe a requirement that clubs and pubs which are known troublespots pay for having security staff who are trained as 'community constables' or the like - i.e. who will be responsible for stepping in and making an arrest, who have hotline to call for police assistance, and so on. (isn't part of the problem because these places are profiting from drinking which leads to rowdy behaviour, but the cost of that is 'externalised' and borne by the ratepayers.). I could perhaps see a place for monitored CCTV in the prom - but that doesn't need high quality images. Too often though it is a blunt instrument used without having ever really made any attempt to find the best solution to the problem. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Holy Paladin Posted November 11, 2008 Share Posted November 11, 2008 Skeddan , some good points Cent did a grand job, but the root issues do need to be tageted, education and prevention do hand in hand I do not know off any facts etc on the difference, but agree would expect to see some before discussion on a 400K project. Because DC talks about something in teh paper does not mean it will be happening now. But I also agree that prevention is better than cure Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
La_Dolce_Vita Posted November 11, 2008 Share Posted November 11, 2008 Arrrrrr La Dolce Vita I agree human right must be adhered too.. but what off the right off those who's lives are effected by crime.. It isn't about human rights at all. Rights are just permissions. Better to think of terms of our freedoms and how we would wish to be treated as free human beings, something in today's society we are very far from. The only way CCTV cameras are not pulled down by the public is because the public believe that the state should place them there and that it is quite all right for the state to monitor the public. It also involves the belief that it makes places safer. I can see the possible deterrent effect of CCTV. If you know a camera is there you will be more aware of your behaviour and less likely to commit crime. Really we are talking about violent crime here aren't we? In my opinion, firstly, CCTV has a limited deterrent effect. It cannot guarantee deterrent. So for the benefit of some deterrence I have to submit to the state filming me doing my everyday stuff. This is very wrong. It is instrusive, it is spying. It makes no difference who is doing it, the government or police should not do it anymore than anymore else. What do you mean about the rights of those affected by crime? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Holy Paladin Posted November 11, 2008 Share Posted November 11, 2008 we all shout about Human right this human right that.. wel i agree we have rights or freedoms as you philosophically put it.. but i do not want to live in total anarchy, for with rules thast what we would become.. so yes when i say what about the rights off those who have experienced crime you ever had your car broken into.. yes i have You ever been mugged or attacked in teh street.. me , thankfully no.. but there are a lot who have I want to live in a society that is safe for me and my children to live a life that is happy and safe and fun.. yes its nice to be able to drive where i want, say what i want ona forum.. human rights are great.. but you break in MY house and i will defend my home and my family with required force.. sadly during the incident you are suffer a black eye or a bit off a pasting.. ohhh and behold I am in prison.... wait a second you broke into my house and are suing me... where is teh human right there..? where is the human right for those who's business is stung for lots off money as I choose to come into the shop and take hat is not mine without paying.. where is the human rights for the guy who's car is hit in car park and the guilty party drives off.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Holy Paladin Posted November 11, 2008 Share Posted November 11, 2008 last comment sounded harsh.. but I feel that when people commit crime they gave away their human rights to a certain degree.. we all have a choice. Choices for both right or wrong both share a common thing.. its called consquences.. 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. It is not about human rights but every person's requirement to have privacy. I don't even like the idea of CCTV in shops. 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. But they don't HAVE to do anything. That's the way I see it. 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? But that makes it sound as if the state has the right to monitor everyone to eliminate people who are not guilty of crime. My question is why the state thinks it should be allowed to monitor me when I am doing nothing wrong. If someone asked me if it is okay to follow me everywhere I go, to spy on me, and film my activities I would not allow it. Why should the state be allowed? Cameras have been all over the Island for years and years and as far as I know, there hasn't been any reported infringements of privacy reported in the media. (Or any serious misuse by an operator). I don't know of anybody complaining against the supermarkets, shops, sportscentre, pool, schools, pubs, the hospital, airport, banks etc etc as they have us watched and recorded on film so what is the big deal now? I could understand if folk had been lobbying against ALL CCTV for years, but cherry picking your arguments like many of these MHKs are doing is simply an easy way to have a ride on the bandwagon. If you check the papers week in, week out, there are many instances of crims getting caught and all that. You would think that it will also stop crime as well - some thieves, drug dealers, violent nutters will keep clear of public areas where more security is in place - this must be good for everybody? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Holy Paladin Posted November 11, 2008 Share Posted November 11, 2008 Wake up call I agree, human rights is a flag that is so often waived by those that have no regards to the human rights off others.. still if there is a good case to have the CCTV then all the government has to do is present it.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
La_Dolce_Vita Posted November 11, 2008 Share Posted November 11, 2008 we all shout about Human right this human right that.. wel i agree we have rights or freedoms as you philosophically put it.. but i do not want to live in total anarchy, for with rules thast what we would become.. You will have to explain this point a little more as I don't understand what you are trying to say. Forget about the idea of human rights for a moment, the very idea of human rights is a creation, it is artificial. But when we talk about freedoms, we are talking about the very necessities which must exist for human beings to live in happiness and to their full potential. Human rights have been largely based on the recognition of these freedoms. And one of those freedoms must be the ability to go about our normal day to day life in privacy and with no unwelcome interference. How could anyone disagree with such things? so yes when i say what about the rights off those who have experienced crime you ever had your car broken into.. yes i have You ever been mugged or attacked in teh street.. me , thankfully no.. but there are a lot who have I want to live in a society that is safe for me and my children to live a life that is happy and safe and fun.. yes its nice to be able to drive where i want, say what i want ona forum.. human rights are great.. but you break in MY house and i will defend my home and my family with required force.. sadly during the incident you are suffer a black eye or a bit off a pasting.. ohhh and behold I am in prison.... wait a second you broke into my house and are suing me...where is teh human right there..? Again, I don't understand the point you are trying to make. How do the rights of the victims have anything to do with CCTV. if it is CCTV we are still about? You seem to mixing up a few different issues that are not all the same. Rather than look at the law and how things already are let us return to the idea of one's freedoms and your right to privacy and safety. If someone breaks into your home then you SHOULD use force to get them out, if they use force against you then you do EVERYTHING in your power to retaliate until your safety is assured. I cannot agree with a system that can prosecute the family. But the issue with CCTV is different. CCTV cannot itself eradicate crime. And rather than finding something which removes the motivation the crime it simply puts fear into the populace about committing such a crime and requires watching a LOT of people. In my opinion it is the capitalist system and the State that are to blame for the majority of criminal behaviour. So I very much dislike an attempt by the state to further watch us just in case we act upon many understandable but terrible desires. where is the human right for those who's business is stung for lots off money as I choose to come into the shop and take hat is not mine without paying.. where is the human rights for the guy who's car is hit in car park and the guilty party drives off.. What have human rights got to do with shoplifting??? Have you maybe not really understood what is meant by human rights? I would say though, that shoplifting should NOT be thought of as a bad thing, it is a GOOD thing indeed. What easier way can be found to help bring a bit more equality. One the one hand you have the owners of the means of production who have stolen the fruits of labour from the workers and then attempt to steal YOUR money by making a profit out of the sale. The goods in a shop or store may not be yours as property until purchased, but they SHOULD not even be the property of the store or the shop. These stores and shops effectively make their money from theft themselves so help yourself to their stuff! If you are in a supermarket and are having trouble affording something then I see no issue with just taking it, it doesn't truly belong to the supermarket. And what better way to assess the merits of a good when you have not paid for it. If you are going to talk about crimes then shoplifting is one which I think may be a crime in law but is actually an understandable, effective, and worthy act. Just don't get caught. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Holy Paladin Posted November 11, 2008 Share Posted November 11, 2008 ermm ok maybe a little off track theer.. CCTV is what you say an infringment off human rights, well to me i dont feel it is... IMO.. I have to say you have a very philosophical way off looking at shoplifting !!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.