Joined: 13 Sep 2006 Posts: 312 Location: County Durham, North-East
Posted: Sun Aug 12, 2007 2:40 pm Post subject: CCTV/Tannoy system installed at bus station
Here we go, I've lived in London for 5 years and always used to call my parents up and talk to them about the Police State. They used to say to me that they are glad things aren't progressing that far up here (in County Durham).
Well, I'm now living back up north in a town called Stanley (County Durham) and since the CCTV cameras with loudspeaker government test-bed in Middlesbrough was applauded, I have been waiting for them to start to pop up in other places. And they are happening where I live...
Tannoy system installed at bus station to deter bad behaviour
CCTV cameras with loudspeakers are being installed at a bus station besieged by trouble makers.
Council chiefs are to introduce a £22,000 Tannoy system at Stanley Bus Station.
Operators will look out for bad behaviour and operate the tannoy to break up trouble. The Tannoy system will broadcast a series of pre-recorded messages, such as 'stop kicking that football' or 'get off your bike'. The aim is to crack down on disorder at the bus station and reassure passengers.
John Shepherd, Derwentside District Council's head of general services, said: "Some of these activities cause people to feel threatened and we're trying to remove that. Some people think the cameras aren't operating, but they are.
"Because there will be a response to the activities, people will understand that they are being seen."
The Tannoy and CCTV will also be linked to a customer contact point where passengers can press a button to ask for assistance or advice.
Jeanette Armin, integrated transport officer at Durham County Council, which is funding the scheme, said: "The whole idea of this is to improve facilities for passengers generally and to address the fear of crime and disorder specifically. Often where you get a CCTV camera working on its own the perception is they don't offer a solution. When you offer a Tannoy system as well they become personal and are very effective at working in tandem." _________________ www.myspace.com/garethwilliamsmusic
Joined: 13 Sep 2006 Posts: 312 Location: County Durham, North-East
Posted: Sun Aug 12, 2007 7:21 pm Post subject:
Busker wrote:
Do you know if £22k is the full price of the system or did DCC only put in part funding?
We've already got approaching 100 cameras operated by Sedgefield Borough. Wonder when they'll start getting the tannoys.
Hello, I actually don't know whether DCC paid the full thing or if it was just partly funded by them.
I'm going to check the system out and maybe take some photo's of it.....wonder how that'll go down!!! _________________ www.myspace.com/garethwilliamsmusic
Posted: Tue Aug 14, 2007 5:48 pm Post subject: Re: CCTV/Tannoy system installed at bus station
GazeboflossUK wrote:
CCTV cameras with loudspeakers are being installed at a bus station besieged by trouble makers.
'get off your bike'
In 2002, I was in Bristol Bus Station with two of my daughters and a teenager came hacking through on a bike. He took a great chunk out of my middle daughter's right arm with the broken end of the left brake lever. He came off the bike and ran off, she needed seven stitches and a tetanus shot.
There is a fine line between acceptable prevention and over-the-top 'policing'. If used sensibly and for the right reasons, then I am all for such moves.
Joined: 13 Jun 2006 Posts: 374 Location: North East
Posted: Sat Nov 17, 2007 3:53 pm Post subject: Re: CCTV/Tannoy system installed at bus station
telecasterisation wrote:
There is a fine line between acceptable prevention and over-the-top 'policing'. If used sensibly and for the right reasons, then I am all for such moves.
I recall some programme - I think it was on radio 4 - where some guy had been trying to test these cameras out. Apparently he stood underneath a 'shouting camera' in full view of it and pissed in a litter bin. No voice issued forth to tell him to stop.
I think it was the same programme that the guy tried to travel a stretch of the south without being filmed. He got filmed in the end and requested the image. The image was of such low quality, they couldn't send it as they couldn't identify him.
We should rejoice in the fine old tradition of apathetic low paid workers who'll skive or slack off whenever they can and cheap crappy technology that barely does the job. With a bit of luck, the same apathy that keeps 'em in power will be their undoing if enough alienated workers just can't be arsed to run an effective police state.
Hey - just trying to be optimistic! _________________ It's a man's life in MOSSAD
IF BRITAIN IS a police state, Ross Clark wants to know, where are all the police? If we are the most surveilled people on Earth, with Londoners allegedly caught on cameras 300 times a day, why can't they catch criminals or keep tabs on terror suspects and sex offenders? And what public good results from having our privacy electronically invaded by security services and supermarkets?
And why, pray tell, do we have, what is it, two or three CCTV images of the alleged perpetrators of the whatever happened in London on 7.7.5?
Posted: Sat Nov 17, 2007 9:03 pm Post subject: Re: CCTV/Tannoy system installed at bus station
Busker wrote:
telecasterisation wrote:
There is a fine line between acceptable prevention and over-the-top 'policing'. If used sensibly and for the right reasons, then I am all for such moves.
That's a common mistake.
CCTV does not prevent anything.
What statistical data do you have to support such a bizarre claim?
Be specific, don't waffle - actual researched collected figures and their sources.
Remember - you said 'CCTV prevents nothing'.
Last edited by telecasterisation on Sun Nov 18, 2007 12:19 am; edited 1 time in total
On one hand, cctv quite obviously can't prevent anything in the sense the camera is simply an observer and does not physically intervene. In terms of prevention, the Home Office (which has seriously pushed this stuff and thus has a vested interest in its success) shows that its success in curtailing crime is small and is effective in tandem with other measures as well as being unsure of any causal mechanism.
http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/pdfs2/hors252.pdf
Of course, what actually constitutes crime is up to the state. And British society got by just fine before cameras were everywhere. Or do we now think the streets are a hassle free utopia "safe beneath the watchful eyes"? _________________ It's a man's life in MOSSAD
Good point - had this system been in place, there is an excellent chance my daughter wouldn't have the scar she has.
What statistical data do you have to support this claim?
Be specific, don't waffle - actual researched collected figures and their sources.
Very simple. As I was there with her, neither of us knew there was some herbert hacking through the bus station, essentially approaching from behind. The basis of this thread involves 'Operators will look out for bad behaviour and operate the tannoy to break up trouble. The Tannoy system will broadcast a series of pre-recorded messages, such as 'stop kicking that football' or 'get off your bike'.
A loud tannoy message warning people would have alerted me to what was heading towards us. Hence, I may well have had the opportunity to get her out of the way before the collision.
I acknowledge your desire to be flippant, but under the circumstances, this is somewhat wasted given the unconnected nature of the phrasing of your imitated question.
What also needs detailing is my stance on CCTV generically;
Firstly, I understand the aversion to being 'spied' upon. There are however many levels of CCTV and in my opinion, some serve a preventative role just by existing. Cameras on buses and in taxis that are clearly marked as being there potentially reduce violence towards the driver. In car parks, they reduce car related crime and identify shoplifters in stores.
There was a programme on the tv a while back where cameras caught a drunk who had come out of a club, he walked down the street and smacked a passer-by full in the face just for fun. He was identified by the footage and served a prison sentence and in such instances, I feel CCTV is worthwhile. There is also the reverse scenario where the actions of the police can be questioned when recorded.
There are also non-CCTV cameras everywhere, countless people carry camera phones, what exactly is the difference? They can record pretty much what they like, when they like (with a few legal exceptions)? Many threads here have been based upon footage captured by regular people. This week's news showed a guy being electrocuted in an airport by police (he died), which was recorded on a camera phone. No-one shouts that such filming is wrong and privacy infringing because it suits them.
Whatever system exists, there will always be pros and cons, arguments for and against. Personally I don't give a hoot if I am filmed walking through a shopping centre, down a street. I am one of a vast sea of faces and if someone wants to have my image on a tape in a room, then enjoy.
We dont need surveillance cameras. People already observe and watch over eachother. we dont speak out though against injustice. By having these external watchers, it takes the repsonsibilty away from normal people and shows how we dont need to think for ourselves anymore. All wrongdoings can be punished by Authority.
I am sorry to hear about the teenager who caused an injury but a bike is probably faster than the monkey who would have been operating the tannoy.
See this classic film clip of.
"Dinner with Andre" See what he says about 'the city'
Maybe you could keep your offspring indoors Tele. Permanently.
That way they can avoid all external risks completely. Couldn't they.
Then, maybe you could install CCTV in every room in your house.
Just in case, well you know . . .
No statistical data was either provided or manipulated in the production of this post.
I have been completely honest in my response. A nasty and completely avoidable situation could have been flagged before it happened and I cited how a warning may have stopped it.
You now take things to a ludicrous conclusion in an attempt to regain some footing. If this makes you feel more composed, then that's cool.
We dont need surveillance cameras. People already observe and watch over eachother. we dont speak out though against injustice. By having these external watchers, it takes the repsonsibilty away from normal people and shows how we dont need to think for ourselves anymore. All wrongdoings can be punished by Authority.
I am sorry to hear about the teenager who caused an injury but a bike is probably faster than the monkey who would have been operating the tannoy.
Of course no system is perfect, however;
Takes the responsibility from normal people? Aren't most cameras manned by 'normal' people, just some 'monkey' in a uniform? As for 'All wrongdoings can be punished by Authority' - you can't have it both ways, either you genuinely want wrongdoings detected and acted upon or you don't. Recording those transgressing would be a step in the right direction by this premise.
If I was the elderly occupant of a block of flats then I would welcome the facility to view who was ringing my apartment's bell at 20:00 from a safe distance via CCTV.
What about the CCTV at The Pentagon on 911 - how many people here moan about how bad the quality of the available footage is? There are reams of members who actively WANT the footage from surrounding CCTV cameras made available but decry CCTV - see the dichotomy?
My view is CCTV is an excellent tool for post-event perp detection and it appears that most only will admit that when it suits.
It is a mystery to me why you think you can use your logic that you seem to think supports your povs and then react when other's reflect that back at you.
Ditto for your attempts at humour.
Among the many fragile arguments that you proffer this latest takes some beating.
The idea that a chap in a control room could have prevented your child's injury, is of course, possible.
To then use that as a rationale for CCTV is simply beyond belief.
My take on it:
Irresponsible parents that allow their children to be injured by errant cyclists is a form of child abuse.
Those parents should be shot. _________________ The Medium is the Massage - Marshall McLuhan.
It is a mystery to me why you think you can use your logic that you seem to think supports your povs and then react when other's reflect that back at you.
Irresponsible parents that allow their children to be injured by errant cyclists is a form of child abuse.
Those parents should be shot.
Every time I see the scar I am reminded of the incident so unquestionably yes, I berate myself daily for not continually scanning for rapidly approaching cyclists in a strictly pedestrian area. However, I do partly cite evolution and/or creation for not supplying eyes in the back of my head when I was doing my best to avoid all the smokers and looking at overhead destination boards at the time.
As for you finding things mysterious, this is called ‘perspective’ and from mine it is crystal clear and for me, my perspective is the only one that matters or counts. So you being mystified is neither here nor there.
You ignore all the salient points I made about CCTV in favour of rhetorical sniping, which points to you not having an answer. In addition, no-one has attempted any form of response saying why CCTV out there in daily use is wrong? Who exactly is being compromised by its existence?
Of course, it is all bad until you want the registration number of the car that ploughed into the bus queue then drove off, or the type of aircraft that flew into a military installation, but you’ve already brought that up. No, sorry, that was just me prepared to mention that one.
As for facts and figures, do you mean some to support that something that would have happened didn't because of the existence of CCTV? If you watched ‘X Factor’ yesterday, you would have seen a female contestant ask Simon Cowell to ‘Get up here do it’ after being told her act was somewhat less than acceptable. This is very common when people are compromised; having no reasoned response they resort to playing all manner of evasive and derisive cards, highlighting both their lack of originality or cognitive abilities. You’ll see it here a great deal – points are made, people flounder and their only real option is to bluster through hoping the whole thing will quickly blow over and be forgotten.
You keep playing the imitation card in favour of ignoring the original question posed, which, given your track record, is to be expected = ‘ignore pertinent questions, just throw them back’. Busker stated ‘That's a common mistake. CCTV does not prevent anything’ - I simply asked for it to be substantiated with something, but we embark on yet another voyage aboard 'HMS Avoidance' touring the Bay of Evasive and Slippery Chicanery combined with oodles of sabre rattling and pant dropping nonsense, culminating in another literary round of attempted one-up-manship which you are so famous for.
I haven't and don't claim CCTV is a complete deterrent, more it has definitive uses post-event as I stated earlier in the thread. Again all ignored by yourself. I have access to the same figures that you do - I could supply links but they mean very little and I cannot prove their validity. Perhaps you can detail which cameras I should be concerned about and how they impact my life?
Going to a social event at the in-laws starting at 16:00 until late, so don’t wait up.
my perspective is the only one that matters or counts
The old selective quote ploy - always good until you check exactly what was originally typed. Here;
Quote:
and for me, my perspective is the only one that matters or counts
Everyone (no exceptions) has a unique individual view of the world and
not being related to Deanna Troi, I am unable to experience my surroundings through anyone else's filters. So for me, there is only my view of the world - empathy is thus impossible.
This is so 'you', evade, duck, bob, weave, anything but tackle crippling questions, I witness you doing it time after time.
To remind you - perhaps you can detail which cameras people should be concerned about and how they compromise our lives?
I am sorry that this happened T.
Maybe its no consolation, but it could have been a whole lot worse.
I can't think of of case where a cctv stopped a crime and when one major one occurs they 'aren't working'
We have to be responsible for ourselves and lead by example.
I could spend hours typing up my reasons for opposing CCTV and the wider issues of surveillance.
I could offer you examples of articles, books, reports and research for you to consider. All of which, you correctly identify as being available to you also.
Since these resources are available to you, I assume you are aware of the arguments.
If you are not aware of them perhaps you might like to research them.
In the meantime, I see little value in trying to debate issues with someone who states that:
Quote:
and for me, my perspective is the only one that matters or counts
and
Quote:
So for me, there is only my view of the world - empathy is thus impossible.
I do apologise for omitting the words "and for me". I wasn't attempting to misquote you or quote you out of context.
For me, the words "and for me" really didn't matter that much.
They obviously do for you, adding irrefutable weight to your argument. Clearly. _________________ The Medium is the Massage - Marshall McLuhan.
You've already been provided with a Home Office report that suggests the effects of cctv in reducing crime are pretty marginal. There is also plenty to suggest they don't solve much crime either -
Quote:
Main Findings
In the 12 months after installation of the cameras there were 3,156 fewer crimes and offences than the average for the 24 months preceding installation.
Once the crime and offence figures were adjusted to take account of the general downward trend in crimes and offences, reductions were noted in certain categories but there was no evidence to suggest that the cameras had reduced crime overall in the city centre.
The cameras appeared to have little effect on clear up rates for crimes and offences.
33% of people questioned in the city centre were aware of the cameras 3 months after installation and 41% 15 months after installation.
Installation of the CCTV cameras did not reduce the proportion of those who said they would sometimes avoid a certain part of the city but there was a slight reduction in those who said they were anxious about becoming a victim of crime in the city centre.
72% of all those interviewed believed CCTV cameras would prevent crime and disorder; 81% thought they would be effective in catching perpetrators; and 79% thought they would make people feel less likely that they would become victims of crime.
67% of those interviewed 'did not mind' being observed by street cameras.
In fact, I'm not personally aware of any research that suggests cctv is dramatically effective in either preventing or solving crime. Are you aware of any?
It does, however, give the state the power to watch people whenever they want.
My own personal anecdote involves a friend who suffered an attempted rape in London. The guy followed her from a club where she'd chatted to him. It had cctv. She told the police about this. She heard nothing. She called the club three weeks later - the met hadn't bothered to get hold of the cctv tape which would show his image. She was too distraught by the whole affair to complain or pursue it further. He got off scot free.
Yet whenever there is a peaceful protest march these days, they're there with their very own video crew.
Cameras and police are not there to protect us, they are there to ensure the status quo is never threatened. _________________ It's a man's life in MOSSAD
Having worked in the "security industry" for a number of years, specifically with CCTV, monitoring & installs I can see both sides of this particular coin.
As has been pointed out CCTV, in and of itself rarely prevents crime. A CCTV system for live real time protection only works with dedicated operators viewing the feeds.
Even then, there is no guarantee, despite VMD (video motion detectors or red walls) that a crime will be prevented.
Certainly, to the average yob, a camera is not a deterrent.
A tannoy system that uses pre recorded messages, is quite frankly nonsense. Those systems have been around on garage forecourts for years & the "criminals" knows the CCTV system is not monitored.
I could argue for live tannoy messages from the operator, however I'd be kidding you to say that suspects take a blind bit of notice from these.
POST EVENT DETECTION
CCTV can be effective in post event detection, identifying suspects, however again it depends on a number of variables.
Chances are if the system is monitored by a control room & the incident was not spotted in real time then you wont get results on playback.
PTZ (Pan tilt zoom) cameras which a lot of public CCTV systems use will often be looking in the wrong direction & thus miss the crime.
CCTV has a place, but I, like others do worry about the intrusive nature of these systems & how they are run.
I could spend hours typing up my reasons for opposing CCTV and the wider issues of surveillance.
I could offer you examples of articles, books, reports and research for you to consider. All of which, …………..weight to your argument. Clearly.
It appears you still are unable to grasp the premise that Mark Gobell's view of reality is the only one he has, he is not able to access anyone else's. The same for me - my view is the only one I have access to and we are unable to share them - it is not meant to highlight anyone's egotistical standpoints or point to me being inflexible. Your echoing of the same basic statement clearly means you are misconstruing the concept to the point you see saying my view is right and everyone else’s is not. This is incorrect – merely, my view is the way I see things and even if my opinion on a subject changes – it still remains my view.
"and for me" is integral to your misunderstanding of the sentiment.
As for the CCTV issue – yes, I have done research, but the reason I am posing the question;
Perhaps you can detail which cameras people should be concerned about and how they compromise our lives?
Is that the only clear downside of CCTV tends to be that ‘my right to privacy will be compromised’. Apart from that I can find no clear evidence to suggest anything else. There are shouts of ‘Big Brother’, but he is just some uniformed numpty in a room being paid the minimum wage – so what?
I am not saying CCTV reduces crime, I have clearly stated this – it is a valuable tool, circumstances permitting and in the right hands, in aiding the detection of offenders/whatever post-event. Yes there will always be exceptions and these stories of my brother’s neighbour’s ex-cleaner’s nephew knew this bloke who……, are all well and good = but there are instances where video footage will have helped a great deal.
I point out once again all the anti-CCTV brigade who would love to get their hands on the tapes from the hotels around The Pentagon. This meaning some footage is useful, whilst the rest is ‘infringing my rights’?
I see someone with a hand-held device being far more dangerous than a static camera on a pole. I genuinely would like someone to supply a simple paragraph, no links or waffle, stating how my life is compromised by CCTV?
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum You cannot attach files in this forum You can download files in this forum
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Chat
Usergroups
Calendar
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
