Slashdot Mirror
London Police Seek To Install CCTV In Pubs
JCWDenton writes "The Met Police got a short sharp rap over the knuckles yesterday, as the Office of the Information Commissioner questioned what looks very much like a blanket
policy to force CCTV onto public houses in certain parts of London. The story begins with a letter to the Guardian last week, from Nick Gibson. He is currently renovating Islington pub The Drapers Arms, after its previous owners allowed it to go insolvent and then disappeared. In his letter, he argues that if he had merely taken over an existing licence, the police could not have imposed any additional conditions. However, because this was now a new licence, the police were able to make specific requests, including one particular request in respect of installing CCTV."
I am guessing you have never been out in a major UK town/city after midnight.
Not that I am in support of the CCTV plan but to suggest that drunk people are not causing serious problems in UK towns suggests a woeful lack of experience in the subject matter. It is practically impossible to go out on the town on a Friday or Saturday night, returning after midnight, without seeing at least one act of violence or criminal damage.
Yes, extremely drunk people pass out, it is what they do *before* that happens that is causing the problems.
... I know the misleading summary helps with the old /. "ZOMG BRITAIN IS A POLICE STATE" propaganda, but if you actually *read* the article (an unpopular idea, I know) you'll see that the police were swiftly kicked into touch over it. I believe the actual phrase used was "Not now, not ever."
This actually goes one 'better' than 1984, where a pub was one of the few public places without a camera, though entering one would be considered a highly suspicious act for a non-prole ('It was horribly dangerous, but at any rate there was no telescreen in the room, a point he had made sure of as soon as he came in.').
Umm.. JCWDenton wrote the summary. Timothy is just the Slashdot "editor" who selects the high voted stories from the firehose, checks that it is in the right category and, maybe, that it has a link, and then pushes it to subscribers so they can tell him if it is a dupe.. and after 20 minutes or so, it goes live. He's in no way responsible for the summary, or the popularity of the story due to that selection.. if you don't like what is getting through to the front page, go to the firehose and vote. Maybe it would be nice if Timothy did read the story and did some fact checking or whatever, but that's not what Slashdot "editors" are paid to do.
How we know is more important than what we know.
A few years ago (2002) I was cycling home in Hackney, East London, when a group of teenagers dragged me off my bike, kicked me in and stole my bike. Luckily a woman in a flat opposite heard the noise and called the police. Also I managed to get to my feet and flag down a passing biker who helped me chase down the kids and get my bike back.
Met. police investigated the case and told me they couldn't use the CCTV footage- the event was all captured on CCTV - as the quality was too low to be of any use.
Great bloody use of my council tax that was, putting in all those CCTV cameras if they don't actually work well enough to do what they are supposed to do.
So even beyond all the ethical discussions of whether CCTV cameras should be around to film people, and if it's a worthwhile use of public money, they don't even work!