Happy Land 3 "whats that you say"?

[AxeMental]

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0, ... 87,00.html

I'm sure if this came about, it would be plugged into a data base of trigger words (just as the phone systems are) where a conversation could be recorded and followed anywhere on the street.

[JDJarvis]

feed the poor, fix potholes, makes sure the pencil sharpeners all work at the local school...no let's put in a system to monitor what people say in public.

[JCBoney]

The ultimate goal of any government is to control the lives of its populace. Period.

The ability of a government to control its populace is in inverse proportion to the populace's ability to overthrow its government. The 2nd Amendment exists for a reason.

[TRP]

My God. Can't a person, sneeze, cough, belch, swear or just take a nice walk w/o it being the business of the local police and/or council?

I don't care where you live. People shouldn't live with eyes over their shoulders. Sure, most citizens shouldn't be concerned about it, but there's still gotta be a little sense of self consciousness, even if you're not doing anything illegal.

[PapersAndPaychecks]

I understand and, to a certain extent, sympathise with the civil liberties argument.

Balanced against that is the fact that crime in the UK has fallen by 44% since 1995.

That's down to three factors:

• Anti-social behaviour orders -- a new legal process which deals with all forms of anti-social behaviour. ASBOs are a civil procedure, which means they don't require criminal standards of evidence and can be used against juveniles. (An ASBO tells you not to do something -- for example, "You may not buy, drink or be in possession of alcohol in Watford town" -- and breaching it is a criminal matter.)
• Police Community Support Officers -- civilians in police uniform with partial police training. They're paid less than full police officers (they get a maximum of £25,000, which is ~$47,000 US) and don't have powers of arrest, stop and search, or any of the other normal police powers -- but they're a public, visible deterrent and they're out on the beat finding drug paraphernalia etc. There were 14 of them in my part of Britain in 2003. Today there are about 160, and there should be about 370 by 2007-8.
• Prosecution from CCTV cameras.

Now, it so happens that near Watford, there's a place where there are three American hotels. Being American, it's their policy not to have CCTV cameras on their buildings or overlooking their car parks, because the companies that own them are very worried about personal privacy.

The area between these three hotels is called the "Bushey Triangle" by local police. (It's a bit of an unfortunate name, I know. Bushey is a village on the edge of Watford.)

Anyone want to guess what the car crime rate in the Bushey Triangle is, relative to the rest of the area?

[JRMapes]

No need to even guess.

criminals are like water and wil always follow the path of least resistance.

Frankly I think those hotels or any place of business for that matter, would be and are fools for not implementing video inside the building and outside the building be it implemented by the local authorities or by the company itself.

I appreciate the fact that here all the businesses that have their own parking areas use video surveilance. The public parking areas maintained by the city are now being equiped with video equipment. It has reduced car thefts and break-ins, as well as assaults and purse snatching tremendously. However, some SOBs can really be determined and try and sometimes get away with criminal acts. It isn't perfect-- but it's helping.

[TRP]

Now, it so happens that near Watford, there's a place where there are three American hotels. Being American, it's their policy not to have CCTV cameras on their buildings or overlooking their car parks, because the companies that own them are very worried about personal privacy.

The policy of those hotels is odd, because the hotels here, at least in New Orleans, have cameras all over the place. Front, sides, garages, lobbies.. Maybe the hotels in this area differ though from the rest of the U.S., because we're both a tourist magnet and a high crime area, perhaps the hotels are a bit more sensitive to getting their guests mugged or car-jacked.

I can understand if there's an appreciable, measurable drop in crime. Still, I guess I don't like either scenario. The problem sucks. One of the apparent working solutions sucks.

I'm just a grouchy ol' bastid that refuses to admit the realities of a world changing faster than to which he can adapt.

[AxeMental]

There's a big difference between private individuals monitoring and organized gov. tracking you across town.

[JCBoney]

I hope you don't misinterpret this as an attack against you or your countrymen. I, like most Americans, am rather fond of Britain as a whole, but I need to address a couple of your comments.

Also note I have never set foot in the UK other than a crown colony and a few commonwealth members... so perhaps my perspective is not in line.

Balanced against that is the fact that crime in the UK has fallen by 44% since 1995.

Given that CCTV and other newer methods of crime prevention may displace crime instead of curtailing it, I'd love to know how the British law enforcement came up with a starting figure since a lot of crime doesn't happen in the open in the first place. Murderers, rapists, arsonists, wife-beaters, child-beaters, gamblers, drug-dealers, prostitution acts (he act itself, not the solicitation), burglars, and espionage tend not to happen out on the street or other public places in front of the cameras. If CCTV has played in the reduction of child-kidnapping, then that's certainly something to be said in its favor... if a significant portion of this 44% reduction turns out to be traffic violations then I'm not impressed.

Anti-social behaviour orders -- a new legal process which deals with all forms of anti-social behaviour. ASBOs are a civil procedure, which means they don't require criminal standards of evidence and can be used against juveniles. (An ASBO tells you not to do something -- for example, "You may not buy, drink or be in possession of alcohol in Watford town" -- and breaching it is a criminal matter.)

This is a new legal process??? We've had blue laws here in the States for a couple of centuries now. Given, most are now defunct, but you can't purchase alcohol on a Sunday in Arkansas, for example... presumably because someone might get drunk and flip off the minister or something like that. Back on track: either your statement has deeper explanation, or something's wrong, because such laws have always existed.

Police Community Support Officers -- civilians in police uniform with partial police training. They're paid less than full police officers (they get a maximum of £25,000, which is ~$47,000 US) and don't have powers of arrest, stop and search, or any of the other normal police powers -- but they're a public, visible deterrent and they're out on the beat finding drug paraphernalia etc. There were 14 of them in my part of Britain in 2003. Today there are about 160, and there should be about 370 by 2007-8.

We have something similar. They're called "informants" or... in less polite company, "snitches" or "narcs." They tend to have amazingly short lifespans. Incidentally, if they're in plain dress, how are they a public deterrent... or do they wear some identification? If so, that's commonly called auxillary police.

Prosecution from CCTV cameras.

Assuming, of course, the miscreant is identified brought to trial. I'd be interested to know how many crimes seen on CCTV result in a dead end because the criminal had the forsight to obscure his identity or is simply unidentified.

Now, it so happens that near Watford, there's a place where there are three American hotels. Being American, it's their policy not to have CCTV cameras on their buildings or overlooking their car parks, because the companies that own them are very worried about personal privacy.

The area between these three hotels is called the "Bushey Triangle" by local police. (It's a bit of an unfortunate name, I know. Bushey is a village on the edge of Watford.)

Anyone want to guess what the car crime rate in the Bushey Triangle is, relative to the rest of the area?

Those hotels, as TRP pointed out, have their own surveillance systems inside and out. If crimes are committed on their grounds, then the police should have no problem getting a subpeona for the tapes. Something's amiss here, and it's probably your police not doing their jobs.

[thedungeondelver]

Here comes a candle to light you to bed.

[JCBoney]

Look out, Mr. Charrington!!!

[JRMapes]

Police Community Support Officers -- civilians in police uniform with partial police training. ...

... Incidentally, if they're in plain dress, how are they a public deterrent... or do they wear some identification? If so, that's commonly called auxillary police.

I think you missed the Bold text above.

Now, it so happens that near Watford, there's a place where there are three American hotels. Being American, it's their policy not to have CCTV cameras on their buildings or overlooking their car parks, because the companies that own them are very worried about personal privacy.
...

Those hotels, as TRP pointed out, have their own surveillance systems inside and out.

The policy of those hotels is odd, because the hotels here, at least in New Orleans, have cameras all over the place.

TRP was speaking of NOLA.

I personally would be surprised if the hotels in Watford didn't have video inside the hotel to some extent. But they not having any wouldn't surprise me -- as in a "little colonist protest" vs. the big bad U.K. government. I still say they are fools to not allow surveillance of their parking areas.

[JCBoney]

I did miss the bold part. Thanks for pointing that out.

As to hotels and security, I'm not sure of the size of the ones in question, but I'd be hard pressed to believe they didn't maintain their own security systems.

[PapersAndPaychecks]

Given that CCTV and other newer methods of crime prevention may displace crime instead of curtailing it, I'd love to know how the British law enforcement came up with a starting figure since a lot of crime doesn't happen in the open in the first place.

There's an annual British Crime Survey (which, incidentally, is published on the internet). It's slightly different to crimes reported to the police, because it's anonymous, and then it's normalised against police reported crime to find any significant discrepancies and seek explanations.

Of course there's no guarantee that the public are telling the truth. But the British Crime Survey's figures are as good as the figures you'll get anywhere else in the world.

If CCTV has played in the reduction of child-kidnapping, then that's certainly something to be said in its favor... if a significant portion of this 44% reduction turns out to be traffic violations then I'm not impressed.

Well, CCTV and speed cameras tend to increase the number of traffic offences recorded.

In the UK, minor traffic offences (parking violations, lesser speeding offences, driving without a seatbelt, etc.) are civil matters dealt with via a fixed penalty notice, so they don't appear in the crime figures. Major vehicle-related offences would qualify.

For example, doing 80 mph on the motorway is a £30-£60 fixed penalty. (The national speed limit is 70 mph.) Doing 100 mph is a criminal offence and you're looking at a driving ban.

This is a new legal process??? We've had blue laws here in the States for a couple of centuries now. Given, most are now defunct, but you can't purchase alcohol on a Sunday in Arkansas, for example... presumably because someone might get drunk and flip off the minister or something like that. Back on track: either your statement has deeper explanation, or something's wrong, because such laws have always existed.

Well, we've got a more relaxed attitude to booze. Anyone aged 18 or over can purchase alcohol anywhere in the country, and it's legal to drink it from the age of 5.

An ASBO is a specific restriction on a specific person. ("Although everyone else can purchase alcohol in Watford, YOU may not do so.")

Assuming, of course, the miscreant is identified brought to trial. I'd be interested to know how many crimes seen on CCTV result in a dead end because the criminal had the forsight to obscure his identity or is simply unidentified.

A very significant percentage, of course.

CCTV is like fingerprinting or DNA testing. It's a useful tool for solving certain crimes, but not an instant panacea that immediately reduces crime to nil.

Those hotels, as TRP pointed out, have their own surveillance systems inside and out.

They don't. Honestly.

[Thoth Amon]

Well, we've got a more relaxed attitude to booze. Anyone aged 18 or over can purchase alcohol anywhere in the country, and it's legal to drink it from the age of 5.

Out of curiousity, how did the age 5 become the drinking age? It seems to me that if the age is so young, there might as well not be any.