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."
Well you see, a pub is private property.
Once police have the power to install cameras in private property, they'll be able to install them anywhere they want... say, in your home.
Think that's far-fetched? The law is constantly being chipped away, bit by bit. First, cameras are put in pubs. Then since hey, we got them installed in pubs, we can probably install them in restaurants too. They sell alcohol, don't they? What's that? You want to stay in business? You're going to need to co-operate with us, then.
Now since cameras are already in pubs and restaurants, what's the harm in having them in workplaces? That'll sure make it easier to establish people's whereabouts and make sure that anyone shredding corporate documents gets the scrutiny they deserve. What's that? You want to stay in business? You're going to need to co-operate with us, then.
Then hey, since everyone is already being monitored at work and everywhere else, the precedent has clearly been set. The government will next want to install cameras in criminal's homes or the homes of their families, and they'll get it, because the law up to this point has said that cameras are allowed on private property.
Well at this point, why don't we just roll the thing out everywhere? If you've got nothing to hide, you've got nothing to fear, right? What are you all doing that means you mind being on camera?
There are direct parallels with the storage of DNA. First, it was just the criminal's DNA. Now, it's everybody who gets arrested, even if they aren't ever charged with a crime. Next, you'll be pulled over by mobile DNA units and have to submit to tests to ensure that you aren't a criminal, without any probable cause whatsoever.
This is EXACTLY how the law is chipped away. Once chipped away, it's difficult if not impossible to go back to the way it was.
Feel free to dismiss that as an "Orwellian circle-jerk fantasy". You clearly don't understand anything about how the law works and how politicians leverage the law to get what they want. Nor do you have any regard whatsoever for the sort of world your children will grow up in.
Do that, and it's just a matter of time until they fix whatever loophole allowed you to disable it while following the letter. If you disagree in principle, then fight the principle, not the letter. Even if you beat the letter, their principle remains in law, and will bite you in the ass next time round.
I hate printers.
... a lengthy rebuttal of the hopeless summary, but then I noticed it was the UK-hating Timothy that posted.
Timothy, why do you feel the need to misrepresent every story about the UK in the worst possible light? Did you even read the article in question?
Perhaps you should. The police aren't installing CCTV cameras in pubs. One police chief is recommending to the licensing board that grants licences to pubs that they require new licensees to fit CCTV. The police would not have access to the CCTV unless they came down and requested the tapes (or more likely DVR drive, these days).
Now - here's the important bit - are you paying attention? They were told that they couldn't do that. Let's just say that again to make sure you've got it - the police were told that they could not ask the licensing board to make installing CCTV a condition of the licence.
So, in fact, the police are *not* installing CCTV in pubs, for several different reasons.
It's called literacy, Timothy. You should try it.
Except that we have really strong cannabis here.
Hah, the cannabis in the UK is potentially the same strength as cannabis in any other country (with equivalent climates), though most of the cannabis on the black market is often weaker than it could be due to the actions of law enforcement and the consequences of cannabis being illegal.
You are just parroting the bollocks that the prohibitionists speak. Fuck knows what idiot modded you up!
Due to cannabis having been the illegal for about 2 generations now, there have been selectively bred strains of cannabis developed which are indeed much stronger than naturally occurring cannabis, that are adapted for growth indoors, etc..
The line that the cannabis available nowadays is much stronger in the 60s is bollocks. In the 60s and 70s the vast majority of cannabis available in the UK was hashish, Moroccan, Lebanese etc.. Hashish is made by collecting the resins from the surface of the female cannabis flowers, and pure hashish can be maybe 80% or 90% THC, the active ingredient.
As time went on, hashish got cut more and more with adulterants, lowering the strength and making it much more profitable for people selling it (remember it is illegal - no enforceable quality controls). In the UK now you rarely can get real hashish, and the stuff solid as resin is usually known as soapbar - the general consensus is that it contains ground up cannabis plants (flowers, leaves, stems and all), something to dye it dark like henna or coffee, and an oily product like turpentine to give it a bit of a sheen. There are lots of rumours of other stuff that goes into it too to bulk up the weight, such as tyres or dog shit! Soapbar is maybe 5% THC at the very most, but more like 1 or 2%.
As a consequence of hashish turning to shit and law enforcement crack downs on smuggling people in the UK looked more and more at growing here, and herbal cannabis became much more popular. Basically people started to smoke the whole flowers of the female cannabis plant (with tobacco, as is customary in most of Europe) rather than products made from the flowers. Skunk simply refers to any variety or cannabis that has been selectively bred for strength, as they very often are much smellier than natural cannabis varieties. Killer skunk is a myth made up to sell newspapers and to get politicians and law enforcement power. The percentage of THC in even the strongest strains of skunk is only up to 15% or so, significantly less than what was available on the black market in the past.
As time has gone on, the quality of herbal cannabis has gone down too - look up gritweed. Also the major black market suppliers focus on growing the plants with the biggest amounts of saleable bud, not on strength. They choose varieties that produce the largest amounts of plant matter, and as it is a black market quality counts for very little. 70+ years of cannabis prohibition means that most cannabis users are grossly under-informed about what is good or bad weed.
Someone high on that can be very dangerous. I tell you what, you come over here and ask the gang of youths at the back of the bus to turn their mobile phone MP3 players off and stop stinking up the bus with their joints and see how quickly the situation turns ugly.
Now you just sound like an old man. "Kids with their music, smelly skunk.... I'm going to write to the Daily Mail".
Maybe if you approached them with the right attitude it wouldn't be a problem? More than likely they are just twats who would give you shit no matter what state they are in though, but stoned (only) people tend to not actually be very hostile.
I can assure you that the kind of kids that sit on buses smoking will also have been drinking too, maybe have had a line as well or are buzzing from some amphetamine, or have been chugging redbull all day too.
There are problems in society, but don't just blame cannabis. You sound seriously ignorant when you do so.
Car analogies break down.
Hardwiring surveillance into the UKâ(TM)s pubs raises serious privacy concerns. We recognise that CCTV plays an important role in the prevention and detection of crime...
And that role is?
I watched a short segment on MSNBC last night - it contained crystal clear footage of someone robbing a fast-food restaurant, holding one person at gunpoint - even putting the gun to his head and pulling the trigger (for whatever reason, the gun didn't go off). There were two cameras - one in the back room where the safe was, and another in the dining area. Fortunately this individual was able to wrestle the intruder out the door, at which point he ran. The perpetrator was never caught - apparently there's this weird limitation that cameras have - the guy was wearing a ski mask and was fully covered in dark clothing. But the point is, that even under the best of circumstances, cameras can easily be rendered useless. The crime won't stop, it will just change how crimes are committed.