Sport0 min ago
Appeasing terrorists again?
http://news.bbc.co.uk...rmingham/10337961.stm
Cameras for good or bad do assists crime so why must we make exceptions for the terrorist breeding heartlands? 200 to be covered in case they cause "offence"! Get some back bone Birmigham!
Cameras for good or bad do assists crime so why must we make exceptions for the terrorist breeding heartlands? 200 to be covered in case they cause "offence"! Get some back bone Birmigham!
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by R1Geezer. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
// Project Champion: The cameras have been paid for by a £3m grant from a government fund, the Terrorism and Allied Matters Fund, which is administered by the Association of Chief Police Officers.
About 150 automatic numberplate recognition (ANPR) cameras have been installed in Washwood Heath and Sparkbrook in recent months. Birmingham's two predominantly Muslim suburbs will be covered by three times more ANPR cameras than are used to monitor the entire city centre. They include about 40 cameras classed as "covert", meaning they have been concealed from public view.
The funding arrangement was not made clear to the handful of councillors who were briefed that the cameras would appear in their area. Instead, they were told only that the money had come from the Home Office.
The criteria for Terrorism and Allied Matters Funds state clearly that a police force must prove a project will "deter or prevent terrorism or help to prosecute those responsible". //
http://www.spyonmoseley.co.uk/
About 150 automatic numberplate recognition (ANPR) cameras have been installed in Washwood Heath and Sparkbrook in recent months. Birmingham's two predominantly Muslim suburbs will be covered by three times more ANPR cameras than are used to monitor the entire city centre. They include about 40 cameras classed as "covert", meaning they have been concealed from public view.
The funding arrangement was not made clear to the handful of councillors who were briefed that the cameras would appear in their area. Instead, they were told only that the money had come from the Home Office.
The criteria for Terrorism and Allied Matters Funds state clearly that a police force must prove a project will "deter or prevent terrorism or help to prosecute those responsible". //
http://www.spyonmoseley.co.uk/
// This question is about why Muslim areas should be treated any differently. //
They shouldn't be treated any differently. This is the first and only community that has been been targeted by MI5 for surveillance. If it were to happen in any other community (white, black muslim or Jedi) , they too would complain.
They shouldn't be treated any differently. This is the first and only community that has been been targeted by MI5 for surveillance. If it were to happen in any other community (white, black muslim or Jedi) , they too would complain.
Yet another example of our 'lets bend over backwards and give in to minorities'
An average person is likely to be captured on CCTV numerous times each day, so obviously the ones who complained about these cameras have something to hide
No-one should have any right to object to anything involving Counter Terrorism
If it was a predominantly white area do you think the cameras would have been covered up?
An average person is likely to be captured on CCTV numerous times each day, so obviously the ones who complained about these cameras have something to hide
No-one should have any right to object to anything involving Counter Terrorism
If it was a predominantly white area do you think the cameras would have been covered up?
Bazwillrun
What does the phrase "so called ethnic minoritys" mean???
That's like referring to Cheryl Cole, Judi Dench and Michelle Obama as 'so-called women'.
joeluke -
You wrote:
"An average person is likely to be captured on CCTV numerous times each day"
Yes, that's true, but the average person won't have covert CCTV cameras pointing into their back gardens. This isn't pinpointing criminals, it's pinpointing a whole community.
Let's look at it this way - overwhelmingly, those convicted of sex crimes against children in this country are white males between 18 and 50. If you fell within this demographic, would you be happy with the police being given powers to search your laptop whenever they wanted?
If you've got nothing to hide, you've got nothing to fear, right?
What does the phrase "so called ethnic minoritys" mean???
That's like referring to Cheryl Cole, Judi Dench and Michelle Obama as 'so-called women'.
joeluke -
You wrote:
"An average person is likely to be captured on CCTV numerous times each day"
Yes, that's true, but the average person won't have covert CCTV cameras pointing into their back gardens. This isn't pinpointing criminals, it's pinpointing a whole community.
Let's look at it this way - overwhelmingly, those convicted of sex crimes against children in this country are white males between 18 and 50. If you fell within this demographic, would you be happy with the police being given powers to search your laptop whenever they wanted?
If you've got nothing to hide, you've got nothing to fear, right?
The larger picture of national security is far more important than the hurt feelings of the minority. I was in my local town today and didn't give the CCTV cameras a thought - there again, I had no need to, I wasn't doing any wrong, but they're still necessary and I understand and accept that.
No one can measure the deterrent aspect of security cameras - they're like home or car insurance, i.e. "just in case". They are the proverbial "necessary evil" and wouldn't be needed if every community could be trusted, but that's sadly not the case, hence the cameras.
No one can measure the deterrent aspect of security cameras - they're like home or car insurance, i.e. "just in case". They are the proverbial "necessary evil" and wouldn't be needed if every community could be trusted, but that's sadly not the case, hence the cameras.
Sounds fair enough to me. I don't want some nosey parker watching me any time I surreptitiously scratch my elbow when no one seems to be looking. None of their damned business to be nosing at me. IMO the advantages of CCTV are overplayed anyway, and at best may help identify who has done something criminal, but not prevent it. And often it doesn't even do that. Why form a surveillance society and have to live in it just for that ? I'm not a zoo exhibit to be viewed, even if the rest of you want to be. The price is too high.
sp1418......
"the average person won't have covert CCTV cameras pointing into their back gardens. This isn't pinpointing criminals, it's pinpointing a whole community"
A community that the counter terrorism security forces obviously fear is possibly harbouring terrorists
The next terrorist attack on our country is just waiting to happen, and if it means I had a security camera pointing into my back garden I wouldn't whinge about it if it meant an attack was prevented
"the average person won't have covert CCTV cameras pointing into their back gardens. This isn't pinpointing criminals, it's pinpointing a whole community"
A community that the counter terrorism security forces obviously fear is possibly harbouring terrorists
The next terrorist attack on our country is just waiting to happen, and if it means I had a security camera pointing into my back garden I wouldn't whinge about it if it meant an attack was prevented
@joeluke - "A community that the counter terrorism security forces obviously fear is possibly harbouring terrorists " - based on what? the fact that there's a high concentration of muslims? And as a country we automatically assume that muslims = terrorists? If they had some grounds for thinking there was terrorist plotting, they wouldn't have covered the cameras just because of complaints. And anyway, do terrorists do their plotting in streets and gardens?
Look at the title of this thread to see all you need to know about the mindset of this poster and others here - "Appeasing terrorists". Almost certainly the great majority of the people at whose homes these cameras are aimed are totally innocent and law-abiding, abhor terrorism and just want to get on with their lives, as with pretty much all muslims. They object to this level of surveillance, so R1Geezer labels them "terrorists" - which is shameful and says a lot about his small-mindedness.
Look at the title of this thread to see all you need to know about the mindset of this poster and others here - "Appeasing terrorists". Almost certainly the great majority of the people at whose homes these cameras are aimed are totally innocent and law-abiding, abhor terrorism and just want to get on with their lives, as with pretty much all muslims. They object to this level of surveillance, so R1Geezer labels them "terrorists" - which is shameful and says a lot about his small-mindedness.
@OrcadianOil - "No one can measure the deterrent aspect of security cameras - they're like home or car insurance, i.e. "just in case". They are the proverbial "necessary evil" " - well, if no-one can measure their deterrent value, why do we spend so much on them? How exactly do they combat terrorism?
"Being constantly under suspicion comes with the territory " - yes it does if you're surrounded by narrow-minded judgemental bigots. A reasonable decent person would immediately see that the small number of islamists who carried out those attacks does not mean that the large number of peaceful muslims in the UK must be viewed with suspicion. I find it hard to believe that people like you can publicly voice such views. You actually genuinely think that all muslims should be treated with suspicion? What about the small number of convicted middle-aged white male paedophiles and child murderers - should we therefore keep all middle-aged white men under constant surveillance? By your argument, we should.
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.