Yet a further invasion and intrusion into our privacy by the ever increasing policies of big brother.
Surely they do not have the right,power and authority to collect and store images of law abiding public.
What regulations will be in place to ensure the images of law abiding will be deleted?

Unless, of course, this is another form of taxation and we will all be billed under a pavement tax.

Ian wrote:
Yet a further invasion and intrusion into our privacy by the ever increasing policies of big brother. Surely they do not have the right,power and authority to collect and store images of law abiding public. What regulations will be in place to ensure the images of law abiding will be deleted? Unless, of course, this is another form of taxation and we will all be billed under a pavement tax.

WHAT HAVE YOU GOT TO HIDE IAN. IF YOU GOT ATTACKED ON A NIGHT OUT YOU WOULD WANT THE THUG CAUGHT ON CAMERA.

Its not about hiding anything, Jose, its about how far this sort of action will go. Ian is right. Have you read 1984?

Have you read 1984 Jose? its not about hiding something. Ian is right. this country is getting worse year on year. I should have the right to not be filmed if i dont want to be. what if I protest, will I then be arrested?

JOSE wrote:

Ian wrote: Yet a further invasion and intrusion into our privacy by the ever increasing policies of big brother. Surely they do not have the right,power and authority to collect and store images of law abiding public. What regulations will be in place to ensure the images of law abiding will be deleted? Unless, of course, this is another form of taxation and we will all be billed under a pavement tax.

WHAT HAVE YOU GOT TO HIDE IAN. IF YOU GOT ATTACKED ON A NIGHT OUT YOU WOULD WANT THE THUG CAUGHT ON CAMERA.

I have nothing to hide, but strongly object to my privacy being recorded and held on file.

Once this is in place and accepted, who knows where it will end. Maybe we will each be given a black box recorder.

JOSE wrote:

Ian wrote:
Yet a further invasion and intrusion into our privacy by the ever
increasing policies of big brother. Surely they do not have the
right,power and authority to collect and store images of law abiding
public. What regulations will be in place to ensure the images of law
abiding will be deleted? Unless, of course, this is another form of
taxation and we will all be billed under a pavement tax.

WHAT
HAVE YOU GOT TO HIDE IAN. IF YOU GOT ATTACKED ON A NIGHT OUT YOU WOULD
WANT THE THUG CAUGHT ON CAMERA.

Did you even put any thought into this before posting? Not having anything to hide is no reason to simply give up our civil liberties - that countless people have died to protect - the way this nation of obedient sheep are doing. This is nothing more than another way for the state to keep it's populace under surveillance. Don't be fooled into thinking anything caught on camera would be submissible evidence: so there's footage of someone being within a few square miles of the scene of a crime, within about 6 hours of it happening. So what? Even the most incompetent defence lawyer will get that dismissed

This government has proven itself untrustworthy in this regard, don't fall for the nonsensical justifications they make up for spying on us. For instance, the way our joke of a DNA database was maintained was for years highly illegal, and as soon as Labour got into power, they not only changed the law to make it legal, they backdated the change so that it had never been illegal in the first place. "Oceania is at war with Eurasia. Oceania has always been at war with Eurasia" leaps uncomfortably to mind

It saddens me that the democracy on which all modern democracies are modelled has pretty much disappeared now, without so much as a whimper

Ian wrote:

JOSE wrote:

Ian wrote: Yet a further invasion and intrusion
into our privacy by the ever increasing policies of big brother. Surely
they do not have the right,power and authority to collect and store
images of law abiding public. What regulations will be in place to
ensure the images of law abiding will be deleted? Unless, of course,
this is another form of taxation and we will all be billed under a
pavement tax.

WHAT HAVE YOU GOT TO HIDE IAN. IF YOU GOT
ATTACKED ON A NIGHT OUT YOU WOULD WANT THE THUG CAUGHT ON
CAMERA.

I have nothing to hide, but strongly object to my
privacy being recorded and held on file.
Once this is in place and accepted, who knows where it will end. Maybe
we will each be given a black box recorder.

Oh, I expect it's already in place, Ian. But best pretend to pilot it first, to keep up the "we live in a democracy" facade, eh! As for "accepted", well, it will be, no doubt, because the powers-that-be will use the same underhand techniques and loaded questions to "prove" that the public want this that they are with ID cards

Sample question from a government poll regarding ID cards:

"Would you like to help the government prevent terrorism with measures such as ID cards?" (nobody's going to say "I do not wish to help prevent terrorism", obviously)

So it's not a fantastic leap to guess along the lines of

"Would you like to help the police crack down on crime by allowing them to film arbitrary citizens going about their business and behaving as if they still lived in a free country?"

You had the right idea, Ian, getting out of this moribund land to somewhere else

Usually I wake up on a Saturday afternoon with little or no recollection of the night before, so I'm more than happy to be videoed on my nights out. Perhaps the Police would be good enough to upload their videos to YouTube, so i can find out exactly what I got up to.

U Tube wrote:
Usually I wake up on a Saturday afternoon with little or no
recollection of the night before, so I'm more than happy to be videoed
on my nights out. Perhaps the Police would be good enough to upload
their videos to YouTube, so i can find out exactly what I got up to.

So presumably you don't remember borrowing a grand off me on Friday night then? When do I get it back, by the way?

"You had the right idea, Ian, getting out of this moribund land to somewhere else" - except that you went to Turkey - a country with of of the worst, if not THE worst Human Rights record in Europe.

I have doubts about this. If you film people early on when they're still sober you'll stir up resentment. If you wait til later when they're a murderous mob they'll smash the cameras and beat up the policemen.

Remember too that some of the gals going into the pubs and clubs are semi-naked and certain suspicions could fall upon the police.

Oh my - I always though Ian was from Turkey Island, Nr Wickham!

designated areas of the city that have been identified as hotspots for trouble on nights out.

If there are areas identified as being so troublesome why are the license holders still allowed to trade ?

I resent my taxes being paid for plod to stroll around on a Saturday night stopping trouble which should not be their in the first place.

Close down Leisure World and the bars in Bedford place until these animals can behave themselves. Surely the solution is simple ?

Further to 1984 and related Big Brother type worries, can you not see that the police are doing this so they have enough footage for the 'never off the telly' Police chase programmes! How much do the police actually get paid when they 'send in' their tapes of chasing people in high speed car chases anyway? You've Been Framed' charges £250?

Keith Oftergrass wrote:

designated areas of the city that have been identified as
hotspots for trouble on nights out.

If there are areas
identified as being so troublesome why are the license holders still
allowed to trade ?
I resent my taxes being paid for plod to stroll around on a Saturday
night stopping trouble which should not be their in the first place.
Close down Leisure World and the bars in Bedford place until these
animals can behave themselves. Surely the solution is simple ?

The solution is nowhere near simple. Do you really think that if a few bars close down, "these animals" will simply go "oh, we can't go there any more, so I hereby renounce alcohol, anti-social behaviour and gratuitous violence"? No, they'll either move to other bars, and cause chaos there. Or, once we've closed every bar in town, they'll just be in our off-licences en masse, being aggressive to anyone who isn't them, drinking in the streets and wandering around doing much as they do now

But I agree with your implication that licensees must bear more responsibility for the situation. Giving people 3 bottles of e-number laden alcohol that they can quaff all night with no effort, for a pound, and such-like is just asking for trouble. Price it such that it simply costs too much to get completely out of your skull every night

I think your all being a tad dramatic, this is obviously purely a police tool to try and discourage anti social behaviour in the town.If a serious incident happened I imagine they would use the footage for witnesses or victims, as for DNA you only have to give that when your arrested.

pat wrote:
I think your all being a tad dramatic, this is obviously purely a
police tool to try and discourage anti social behaviour in the town.If
a serious incident happened I imagine they would use the footage for
witnesses or victims, as for DNA you only have to give that when your
arrested.

If you think we're over-reacting, then, with all due respect, you are being incredibly naive (about this subject). Our liberties are disappearing, one by one, that is a simple fact. Those that would have us under 24 hour surveillance rely on people with exactly your apathy to allow them to do this. How will this help discourage anti-social behaviour? It won't, unless there are enough officers/cameramen around to be watching everyone, all the time (who wants that?)

As for your latter imaginings, well, first of all, this "evidence" is gatherered up-front regardless of whether an offence is committed, so the question of consent is irrelevant. Regarding DNA, is it right that anyone arrested (note: arrested, not convicted) should give a sample? Even if, as often happens, they have committed no offence? There have been recorded instances of people discovering they are, for example, adopted, by being arrested for something they did not do. Is that fair? I think not.

All this, of course, ignoring the fact that the UKs method of DNA testing is so full of holes that no other agency on the planet will touch it with a barge pole. Did you know that a 14 year old schoolboy from Nottingham was arrested for the Omagh bombings, because of a "foolproof DNA sample"? The other guy arrested, with the "same" DNA, was no relation, but he was Irish, so presumed guilty, despite the fact that DNA profiling had already proven to be inaccurate at best in the case

So obviously no-one on here goes to football matches then? The police have been using this same tactic for years. Its even taken to the extreme where if you have your team scarf around your neck face you are grabbed and have the scarf forcibly removed from your neck and a camera shoved in your face. Trust me, its happened to me plenty of times.

You all want a reason for "rise of the hoodie"? CCTV & cameras are your reason.

It makes me laugh when the police say "to communicate with the public." From behind a camera? As if ....

Fred wrote:
So obviously no-one on here goes to football matches then? The police
have been using this same tactic for years. Its even taken to the
extreme where if you have your team scarf around your neck face you are
grabbed and have the scarf forcibly removed from your neck and a camera
shoved in your face. Trust me, its happened to me plenty of times.
You all want a reason for "rise of the hoodie"? CCTV & cameras are
your reason.
It makes me laugh when the police say "to communicate with the public."
From behind a camera? As if ....

Nope. Not been to a football match in years! Didn't know this tactic was in use there, although presumably it's slightly different in that there are specific crimes and people being looked for, and by Football Intelligence, rather than a blanket "get everyone on camera, just in case" from a more general policing POV. Still a worry, though, that merely covering your face is treated as suspicious behaviour

And, yes, this is exactly why hoodies wear hoodies

when you are arrested you have to give dna whether you have commited the crime or not.

This is utter nonsense. It's not the presence of a camera that deters crime, it's the fact that the camera is being held by a police officer!

If you put the police out without the cameras they'd still reduce the number of crimes. Why does everything have to be a social engineering project now and what the hell happened to good, old-fashioned "policing the streets"?

Dont worry everybody! Its only a matter of time now before we are all living under the confines of shariah law. Such technology is not used under our future new laws. 'Word of mouth'is all that will be needed. before you are taken out and stoned to death because you have been found guilty of drinking a glass of wine or shagging your next door neighbour.

Blanket filming of all supporters at football matches is now the norm. Many of us have been criminalised because we watch football.

Somehow I cant see the same small brained police officers getting away with this practise at a rugby match.

The establishment of this country is really asking for a dramatic reaction from the ordinary working man that would change the whole way our so called democracy operates.

Advice: if you are a decent human being with nothing to fear from the police, or any other agency get out of the country now! when the great british public finally removes its head out of its rather obese arse. It will be very angry to realise that there are no more rights for anyone whatever there colour or religilon!

err..
that is what CCTV cameras are for, i thought.
unless the cops plan to raise money by doing a 'before and after' photo shoot to sell back prints to the punters/drinkers/soo

n-to-be-criminals or maybe just to aggravate the public and then be there when the lairyness errupts - how convenient!

i think the police sould not have to go through all the people that has been bad and try being good for once

sincerelly stuart