oldmanxfella Posted November 11, 2008 Share Posted November 11, 2008 I have to say you have a very philosophical way off looking at shoplifting !!! Shoplifting is a something for individual shops to police, why should we pay four hundred grand to stop a few items of tat being nicked from Moochers? I'd accept the argument if it was raised in relation to violence or street crime but really I don't see why we should pay to provide a service to shops that are run as private enterprises. If they are worried about theft they should install their own CCTV. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Holy Paladin Posted November 11, 2008 Share Posted November 11, 2008 though we still have to help, any way its beyond the point, I used shoplifting as an example.. I agree in the case of more serious crime CCTV if recorded at at reliable level is often the only evidence they have Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
La_Dolce_Vita Posted November 12, 2008 Share Posted November 12, 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 !!! All I have to ask you then is whether you believe you are entitled to privacy outside of your house. Before there was CCTV one could travel from A to B without their route and behaviour being watched. Such people could live their lives with a large degree of privacy. I mean, yes, you have passers by who see you but before CCTV you didn't have the same 'person' watching you all the time. Whereas today we are moving closer and closer to a system where just one 'person' is watching your behaviour for long periods and in many places, and this one 'person' can request information from other persons. But this one 'person' is the state (the government). CCTV has been gradually introduced; it originally was used in places where there were big security risks but has proliferated out to many other areas; we are told it has a strong deterrent effect, but when it actually comes to the stage where people cannot go along with their daily business with being filmed because there are that many cameras then I have big issues with it because I should be allowed my privacy. My views on shoplifting are not philiosophical ways of looking at things. I don't recognise that shops or stores should be able to legally own and do not believe there are entitled to possess the goods they have if those goods were produced by people not working in that store and when the workers of that store are not at least selling it themselves. In order for GAP, Tesco, Woolworths, all hold stolen goods. They were made by workers who had these things taken away for them and were given a shitty wage. They aren't going to get them back. But such massive chain stores make their profits taking away the produce of the workers, given them little in return (which is in effect stealing) and then make more profit by selling goods which are not truly theirs to sell. But when they sell these goods they sell them at a price which must far exceed the costs of the worker producing them, and in that way the store steals from the customer too by taking their money. So basically, the goods that you see in stores, supermarkets, and shops are stolen and you are being robbed in trying to buy them. So why should these places own the goods anymore than anyone else should? Take them if you are more in need of them, you are probably in the same social and economic positions as the worker who made the goods but maybe producing a different good for someone else or offering a service. Some of these stores are making many millions and getting people rich. Take back what they steal and don't feel bad for it. It is just we live in an society with nonsensical rules that sees property are enshrined in law as something to be utterly respected which leads to the idea of the stores goods being theirs, but talking about property is to simply give the nod to allowing these stores to steal from you and the person who made the goods. This does not mean I condone all forms of theft! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Holy Paladin Posted November 12, 2008 Share Posted November 12, 2008 La Dolce Vita, you belief is to me a rather philosophical way off looking at it, but I see where you are coming from, but maybe the issue of poor wages, or semi slavery as some workers in other countries work in etc, is ather off the point off CCTV, but I am more than happy to agree with you in regards to the fact it is not right. Back to CCTV, Personal Freedoms and Privacy is a subject that we could debate for years, and still have a seperate view, but I agree that CCTV would be a invasion if it was watching us 24/7 and in places that there is no requirment for security. Ie if I was walking up Bucks Rd and a camera was following me... yep i also would feel that is obtrusive, but when i walk down Strand St or go to the Airport or a shop or a bank, I am more than happy to have a CCTV follow me, as is the usual comment "I have nothing to hide" as was said on the thread earlier, we have had CCTV for donkeys years, and this whole discusion is about whether Douglas Corpy should replace it. I feel the issue is not really about having CCTV, its about the cost implications abd whether we Should or Should not fork out 400k off rate payers money on it. John Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Albert Tatlock Posted November 12, 2008 Share Posted November 12, 2008 Personal Freedoms and Privacy is a subject that we could debate for years, and still have a seperate view, but I agree that CCTV would be a invasion if it was watching us 24/7 and in places that there is no requirment for security. Ie if I was walking up Bucks Rd and a camera was following me... yep i also would feel that is obtrusive, but when i walk down Strand St or go to the Airport or a shop or a bank, I am more than happy to have a CCTV follow me, as is the usual comment "I have nothing to hide" as was said on the thread earlier, we have had CCTV for donkeys years, and this whole discusion is about whether Douglas Corpy should replace it. I feel the issue is not really about having CCTV, its about the cost implications abd whether we Should or Should not fork out 400k off rate payers money on it. If cameras are supposedly a deterrent against crime and that is the objective, David Christian could have perhaps saved a fortune by keeping quieter and using a different (UK) approach to this under the existing budget, and then e.g. put three or four wireless linked cameras in (them being moved location occasionally perhaps to 'troubled' areas), with a load of empty camera casings acting as a deterrent, as no one would know where the actual working cameras were. This approach is used frequently in the UK simply because of cost. Instead, he is the one turning it into the 'philosphical' debate, especially since the problems here are nowhere near as bad as they are in the UK. He is the one spending a great deal of our money by buying a sledgehammer to crack a nut. I have no objection to cameras or even identity cards of sorts - but what I do have objection to is the lack of accountability, control, access, and assimilation and application of the data by the state or councils - not forgetting their tendency to lose data. It is not ID cards that are the problem, we all need to be identified to those we need to be identified to (to whom being another issue in itself) - the problem is the 53 items of information on the proposed database behind it. It is not cameras that are the problem, the problem is the philosophy that all places should be watched at all times when there are specifically identified problem areas, and that this spending is a priority amongst a raft of higher priorities when spending is likely to become tighter. However, what I do have a fundamental objection to is this overused and little thought out phrase 'If you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to fear'. That argument is a false dichotomy i.e. you are presented with a simple either/or choice - either you’re guilty, and so should be exposed; or you are innocent, in which case nothing will be exposed, and so you have nothing to worry about. Either way, you have no legitimate reason to be concerned. Like all false dichotomies, the problem is that there is at least one more option than the two offered in the either/or choice - in other words think about the other options, such as why in a free society should anyone have to have constant proof that 'I am innocent', and 'why should I have to go about proving it to them all the time?'. This phrase often leads us down paths we don't wish to go, and when normalised into society, more erosion often follows. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Holy Paladin Posted November 12, 2008 Share Posted November 12, 2008 whoooooooooosh.. flies over my head Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Albert Tatlock Posted November 12, 2008 Share Posted November 12, 2008 whoooooooooosh.. flies over my head I find using soap or shower gel occasionally is a good way to deal with that I'm sad you didn't understand that. However, I'm even sadder that you purport to represent us and didn't understand it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Holy Paladin Posted November 12, 2008 Share Posted November 12, 2008 lol ........ Its really becoming a base philisophical case Albert ... I am happy to represent you in any discussion, but I know you are far more able to do that yourself... I am in agreement to the use CCTV, but only if it serves a purpose. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pat Ayres Posted November 12, 2008 Share Posted November 12, 2008 That's the whole point HP, the case hasn't been made. As an aside, how the pedants on this forum have left you alone so long, is beyond me. I count myself among them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
La_Dolce_Vita Posted November 12, 2008 Share Posted November 12, 2008 I have no objection to cameras or even identity cards of sorts - but what I do have objection to is the lack of accountability, control, access, and assimilation and application of the data by the state or councils - not forgetting their tendency to lose data. It is not ID cards that are the problem, However, what I do have a fundamental objection to is this overused and little thought out phrase 'If you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to fear'. That argument is a false dichotomy i.e. you are presented with a simple either/or choice - either you’re guilty, and so should be exposed; or you are innocent, in which case nothing will be exposed, and so you have nothing to worry about. Either way, you have no legitimate reason to be concerned. Like all false dichotomies, the problem is that there is at least one more option than the two offered in the either/or choice - in other words think about the other options, such as why in a free society should anyone have to have constant proof that 'I am innocent', and 'why should I have to go about proving it to them all the time?'. This phrase often leads us down paths we don't wish to go, and when normalised into society, more erosion often follows. I would also add that we all actually do have something that we want to hide, our day to day whereabouts and activities. None of us actually want to be watched and monitored when we are just being ourselves. People just accept it because they believe it might actually sort out crime and that if the government is going to set-up cameras there is nothing that one can do about it, and that the government and police know best. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Skeddan Posted November 12, 2008 Share Posted November 12, 2008 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. What was the Door Supervisor doing in all this? Standing by watching? Wouldn't it be cheaper to issue them with 8mpx camera? (or have them use the ones on the mobile phones). IMO pubs, clubs and bars should be made to take some responsibility for the law and order problems that their profitable businesses help create. Anyway this just shows existing CCTV did not deter or prevent this brawl from happening. Even if images had been clear, there's no reason to think there'd be any greater deterrent effect. Unmonitored CCTV like this is mainly to do with catching and prosecuting the person after the fact. It may perhaps reduce cost of catching offenders, but may have little impact on reducing crime - particularly ones involving spontaneous, impulsive or aggressive behaviours. In other cases it might only serve to displace crime to areas without CCTV coverage. Equally worrying is that money was spent installing CCTV cameras whose images turned out to be of no use whatsoever. It doesn't appear to have been a sensible purchasing decision. Now DougCorp seem to be saying that more money needs to be spent to rectify this cock up. Nothing to show that this isn't throwing good money after bad. No questions being asked or heads rolling over this wasted expenditure. Nothing to show why anyone should have any confidence that the decision this time round will be any better or more sensible. It just seems to be a mindless decision. As skrappey says, the case hasn't been made to support this purchasing decision. (Meanwhile for all you know that £400,000 spent in other ways such as per Project Centurion could have the effect of reducing crime in IoM by 30% while more CCTV may turn out to be a total waste of money). The issue is that it is being done without any adequate justification whatsoever given for this - that shouldn't be acceptable. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ai_Droid Posted November 12, 2008 Share Posted November 12, 2008 Equally worrying is that money was spent installing CCTV cameras whose images turned out to be of no use whatsoever. Think there's a lot of really shit cctv around Douglas. I was robbed in the strand centre right under a camera, and the image was so shit it was useless. The police of course know how bad it is and tried to get some images from the privately owned in store cameras which are of good quality, but I was in the general area. Don't mind CCTV myself as long as it's limited to public areas where it's very clear you're being observed and it's use is justified. It's for stopping crime, and supporting prosecutions, not for anything else. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pat Ayres Posted November 12, 2008 Share Posted November 12, 2008 I have personal experience of being a victim of crime and the perpetrators being apprehended due to CCTV. Turned out to be a nice little earner for me, Ta MM, It did not stop the crime from happening, did not deter the criminals one iota and certainly did not make me feel any safer, if anything it proved it's ineffectiveness at reducing crime. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sebrof Posted November 12, 2008 Share Posted November 12, 2008 That's the whole point HP, the case hasn't been made.As an aside, how the pedants on this forum have left you alone so long, is beyond me. I count myself among them. Shooting sitting ducks is not sporting. S Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pat Ayres Posted November 12, 2008 Share Posted November 12, 2008 Don't say we have rules now? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.