UK spy drones!
- Thread starter LabR@t
- Start date
"ZOMG POLICE STATE, REBEL, ANARCHY AM COMING!!!"
Or, perhaps they want to free up valuable police time and resources, so they can spend more time doing their job?
Nah, how silly of me, they're obviously all going to spy on us, carry on with rebelling against the police state.
Or, perhaps they want to free up valuable police time and resources, so they can spend more time doing their job?
Nah, how silly of me, they're obviously all going to spy on us, carry on with rebelling against the police state.
This is next!
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/6675335.stm
Although the most ironic thing I heard today is that within 50ft of George Orwell's house there are something like 30 CCTV cameras!
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/6675335.stm
Although the most ironic thing I heard today is that within 50ft of George Orwell's house there are something like 30 CCTV cameras!
LabR@t said:
Say no to what? Police doing their job and watching over trouble spots to gather evidence to convict criminals?
Do you not want the police protecting society? I'm sure though, that you'll be the first to complain when something is done against you, such as a stolen car, and no CCTV was present that captured the theft, and then you'll be all angry at how your car was stolen but the police can't do anything.
iCraig said:
If it did any of that I'd be all for it sure.
But it doesn't, if my car is broken into there is no CCTV, because it's only in town centers.
Seeing as CCTV is concentrated in just a few spots - why not stick a policeman there? If there was a visible police presence perhaps it wouldn't be a trouble spot any more, watching the crime happen and then tracking the offender so police can be despatched doesn't stop the offence, a policeman on the spot might.
I don't like to say police prefer to sit in the station or wizz around in cars but there definitley seems to be a push away from patrolling town centers and towards cctv and vans full of riot cops to respond once the cameras see an offence.
Too little, too late and doesn't make me feel safe.
Telescopi said:
That's not what it's designed for though, it's esentially giving the police force airborne surveillance for every crime or event that needs it.
At the moment a police force has one, maybe two if they're lucky, police helicopters.
If theirs is busy, they have to call in one from another county.
If a more serious crime is happening, they can only watch one of them, when this could do that.
Freeing up the police and their own helicopters for things that need it.
Last edited:
Associate
- Joined
- 23 Jun 2005
- Posts
- 2,495
- Location
- On the Edge*
iCraig, it has absolutely **** all to do with CCTV and the Police. People are committing crimes these days so readily because there is no deterent. If we put laws in place that actually punished criminals and not pandered to their civil liberties and rights, by handing out proper jail terms, there would be a huge reduction in criminality.
The truth is we are soft and our Police "service", are shackled by the ever growing restrictions imposed upon them by political correctness.
The drug problem that is ever growing and massively linked to crime levels could be dealt with by introducing new measures. Look at the way in which Switzerland deal with the problem. They have introduced clinics for addicts, taking the problem from the streets and eliminating the dealers...
This Orwellian society will continue. One woman when asked if she welcomed the introduction of more camera's and checks said " I would quite happily give up some of my liberties for more freedom". A complete contradiction in terms but exactly the sort of opinion that would be welcomed our government.
I think as Labrat has said, it is time to wake up to what is going on around you. If I where a criminal and locked up in jail. I would expect CCTV camera's to be watching the prison and the yard. As a free man who has no criminal record, I do not like the idea that my yard, which is my everywhere I go in the country adding more survelliance to watch me.
"When I close the door to the toilet I want privacy. When Im walking my dog, I would like privacy. I live my life, it's my private life. Its got nothing to with you or anyone else. Keep your nose out of my business. Please stop watching me... I have done nothing wrong"
The truth is we are soft and our Police "service", are shackled by the ever growing restrictions imposed upon them by political correctness.
The drug problem that is ever growing and massively linked to crime levels could be dealt with by introducing new measures. Look at the way in which Switzerland deal with the problem. They have introduced clinics for addicts, taking the problem from the streets and eliminating the dealers...
This Orwellian society will continue. One woman when asked if she welcomed the introduction of more camera's and checks said " I would quite happily give up some of my liberties for more freedom". A complete contradiction in terms but exactly the sort of opinion that would be welcomed our government.
I think as Labrat has said, it is time to wake up to what is going on around you. If I where a criminal and locked up in jail. I would expect CCTV camera's to be watching the prison and the yard. As a free man who has no criminal record, I do not like the idea that my yard, which is my everywhere I go in the country adding more survelliance to watch me.
"When I close the door to the toilet I want privacy. When Im walking my dog, I would like privacy. I live my life, it's my private life. Its got nothing to with you or anyone else. Keep your nose out of my business. Please stop watching me... I have done nothing wrong"
I'm sure whoever said this wouldn't be too upset if they were walking their dog in the park and got jumped by a group of chavs, then because of no CCTV the attackers weren't caught, but it's all ok because no-one was watching them walk their dog
As to having a police officer where CCTV cameras are, the amount of extra funding this would require would be obscene.
Mr_White said:
The point he is trying to make is that it's better to make sure a problem does not occur, rather than try to find the person responsible for nicking the car.
LabR@t said:
Hi-power air rifles
Phil99 said:I'm sure whoever said this wouldn't be too upset if they were walking their dog in the park and got jumped by a group of chavs, then because of no CCTV the attackers weren't caught, but it's all ok because no-one was watching them walk their dog
As to having a police officer where CCTV cameras are, the amount of extra funding this would require would be obscene.
Then do the sensible thing and allow people a basic human right, to defend themselves, not tape their every move.
Last edited:
The thing is, these cameras don't prevent crime at all, in fact all they do is video the crime happening.
The ironic thing is that when you do video the criminals breaking into your house, the police refuse to even view the video because it somehow breaks the criminal's data protection act!
The ironic thing is that when you do video the criminals breaking into your house, the police refuse to even view the video because it somehow breaks the criminal's data protection act!
Phil99 said:I'm sure whoever said this wouldn't be too upset if they were walking their dog in the park and got jumped by a group of chavs, then because of no CCTV the attackers weren't caught, but it's all ok because no-one was watching them walk their dog
As to having a police officer where CCTV cameras are, the amount of extra funding this would require would be obscene.
Nope. Paying a few officers 30k each or whatever a year is much cheaper than installing multi-million pound CCTV cameras. But most of the police are either a) in their cars going after people exceeding the speed limit by 3mph, b) sat in the station doing admin or something similar...
Seriously though, officers on the beat are a far better solution. More cost-effective, a better deterrent, able to intervene almost immediately and can work with members of the public better when they're out on the street instead of behind a desk.
Phil99 said:
24/7 perhaps, but if cameras are only in certain locations, for certain reasons, you only need a police officer there at certain times.
If you think having a couple of police in a busy town center on Friday and Saturday night is obscene then you are under-estimating the good they could do.
Town center policing is now bouncers on the door, CCTV and a van full of police stationed somewhere waiting for CCTV to tell them where a fight is - the fight would probably have never happened if all the police weren't sat in a van.
-|ScottFree|- said:
Is the spy drone not just a flying CCTV camera for all intents and purposes? Which is controlled and operated by the police, no?
-|ScottFree|- said:
Precisely, no deterrent. They can commit violence at these events because they know that there's little chance of getting arrested. How often do you see riots and fights at these events, thousands of people committing violence, vandalism, assault, but only a handful getting caught and charged for it. With this spyplane they'll be able to deploy one or many to cover the events more closely, leading to more arrests being made and a stronger deterrent being recognised.
-|ScottFree|- said:
What has this got to do with political correctness? This is about new and improved surveillance leading hopefully leading to a decrease in crime.
-|ScottFree|- said:
I'm sure several methods of police etiquette could go under scrutiny, but what has that got to do with police surveillance? You're basically fuelling your argument against an apparent big brother state with irrelevant criticisms about areas of the force completely unconnected to this. I agree the police force needs work, so does the NHS, and the education system, and house prices, but none of that can be attributed to the issue of drone planes.
-|ScottFree|- said:
Well there's a line isn't there? Nobody wants a Big Brother state where every action is watched, every word recorded, but we're a far cry from that right now, despite what the people running around with tinfoil on their heads say. It's just propaganda (ironic that propaganda is one thing they accuse the government of spreading daily) that the government is out to get us, and the people need to revolt against the man. However, that quote above is simply referring to sacrificing a small and frivolous amount of privacy to aid the bigger picture. Like having your face on CCTV footage every time you go to fill up at a petrol station, so that a surveillance system can be put in place to prevent and punish those who drive off without paying.
-|ScottFree|- said:
You are not being watched per say. The government aren't focusing on you, writing down what you do and monitoring what you say and putting it all in a massive file somewhere at Thames House. The CCTV is put in place to monitor and provide evidence for crime. Crime is more localised in town centres, especially crimes which require proper surveillance in order to provide evidence against them. Street assaults, car thefts, mugging etc
-|ScottFree|- said:
As you placed that in speech marks I guess it's a quote from someone rather than yourself, either way, don't you think that's a little extreme compared to the actual situation. I don't know what you personally believe the government does behind closed doors but I've spoken to an individual before who is convinced the government brainwash people and monitor every single word ever spoken from your mouth since you learnt how to speak. Every house is bugged, every phone call recorded, blah blah blah
Nobody is invading privacy to that degree in the public domain regardless of what any conspiracy nutter tells you.
Last edited:
It seems quite easy to get hold of those things.