[Partystar]

Originally Posted by fatbrit Not!

In your opinion. Everyone's entitled to their own.

[Angry White Pyjamas]

Originally Posted by anotherlimey Which makes them believe the people in power know what they are doing, which gets them re-elected. If September 11th 2001 didn't wake anyone up nothing will.

Its all sleight of hand and smoke and mirrors.

[britontour]

Originally Posted by anotherlimey But there are so many more things to consider than just putting a criminal behind bars.

They should be looking at the poverty in society that makes these people desperate enough to commit crimes. I think a majority of people would turn to crime if they where brought up in a rough neighborhood with no money, no job or worth where its survival.

[anotherlimey]

Originally Posted by Angry White Pyjamas Its all sleight of hand and smoke and mirrors.

This is a classic example:

http://www.boston.com/news/nation/ar...ton.com+/+News

Miami police announced Monday they will stage random shows of force at hotels, banks and other public places to keep terrorists guessing and remind people to be vigilant.

Barring the complete ineffectiveness of this, as well as the costs involved, the sheer lunacy of this idea should have got someone fired!

[Partystar]

Originally Posted by rincewind Too true. For me, the whole "Big Brother" paranoia is a waste of time. For most people, it's a term they've heard in pop-culture and have never even read Orwell's "1984." It's thrown around like sprinkles on a snow cone along with "very Orwellian." "Big Brother" (to use the over-used phrase) will always be watching. Regardless. Social Security numbers, census lists, voting lists, bank details, credit cards, car tags, etc. If you don't like being apart of society, you have the "freedom" to seek refuge in the mountains. But I don't fancy your chances there. Just ask Ned Beatty. When you live in an organised society, this is what you expect. I for one see it as a security blanket. It's nice to know that there are cameras out there looking out for me. Granted, they won't stop all crime. But if it makes one criminal think twice before committing an act, how can they be a bad thing? And people please, do you really think the government is going to be interested in you picking your nose and flicking it when you're out on the streets at night? There is no man power large enough to investigate every muppet that parades past a CCTV camera. They are there as a crime reducer and I for one applaud them. As long as they capture my best side, I don't give a flying Orwell.

Well said.

[fatbrit]

Originally Posted by rincewind And people please, do you really think the government is going to be interested in you picking your nose and flicking it when you're out on the streets at night? There is no man power large enough to investigate every muppet that parades past a CCTV camera. They are there as a crime reducer and I for one applaud them. As long as they capture my best side, I don't give a flying Orwell.

Yes -- governments have and governments will. Here's an example from your lifetime:

"The Stasi was much, much worse than the Gestapo, if you consider only the oppression of its own people," according to Simon Wiesenthal of Vienna, Austria, who has been hunting Nazi criminals for half a century. "The Gestapo had 40,000 officials watching a country of 80 million, while the Stasi employed 102,000 to control only 17 million." One might add that the Nazi terror lasted only twelve years, whereas the Stasi had four decades in which to perfect its machinery of oppression, espionage, and international terrorism and subversion.
[http://www.nytimes.com/books/first/k...er-stasi.html]

[Angry White Pyjamas]

Originally Posted by britontour They should be looking at the poverty in society that makes these people desperate enough to commit crimes. I think a majority of people would turn to crime if they where brought up in a rough neighborhood with no money, no job or worth where its survival.

Explain why so many brought up in those very circumstances dont turn to crime. Or are you suggesting that everyone below or on the poverty line is a criminal?

[fatbrit]

Originally Posted by Partystar In your opinion. Everyone's entitled to their own.

Depends whether you live in a free society or a totalitarian one, really. You are arguing that you can have your own opinion on one hand, then supporting a totalitarian one on the other. Cake and eat it may not be possible.

[rincewind]

Originally Posted by fatbrit Yes -- governments have and governments will. Here's an example from your lifetime: "The Stasi was much, much worse than the Gestapo, if you consider only the oppression of its own people," according to Simon Wiesenthal of Vienna, Austria, who has been hunting Nazi criminals for half a century. "The Gestapo had 40,000 officials watching a country of 80 million, while the Stasi employed 102,000 to control only 17 million." One might add that the Nazi terror lasted only twelve years, whereas the Stasi had four decades in which to perfect its machinery of oppression, espionage, and international terrorism and subversion. [http://www.nytimes.com/books/first/k...er-stasi.html]

Is that proof that the Gestapo investigated 80 million? All of them? Checked into their backgrounds? Every single one?

Or was it those they merely suspected? Not the ones picking their noses, but the ones swapping briefcases at night. Or was that Russia?

[anotherlimey]

Originally Posted by rincewind Too true. For me, the whole "Big Brother" paranoia is a waste of time. For most people, it's a term they've heard in pop-culture and have never even read Orwell's "1984." It's thrown around like sprinkles on a snow cone along with "very Orwellian." "Big Brother" (to use the over-used phrase) will always be watching. Regardless. Social Security numbers, census lists, voting lists, bank details, credit cards, car tags, etc. If you don't like being apart of society, you have the "freedom" to seek refuge in the mountains. But I don't fancy your chances there. Just ask Ned Beatty. When you live in an organised society, this is what you expect. I for one see it as a security blanket. It's nice to know that there are cameras out there looking out for me. Granted, they won't stop all crime. But if it makes one criminal think twice before committing an act, how can they be a bad thing? And people please, do you really think the government is going to be interested in you picking your nose and flicking it when you're out on the streets at night? There is no man power large enough to investigate every muppet that parades past a CCTV camera. They are there as a crime reducer and I for one applaud them. As long as they capture my best side, I don't give a flying Orwell.

That's great, but I'm worried about the costs, who is watching them, the lack of man power to follow up on data they produce, their ineffectiveness in reducing crime etc...

[tony126]

CCTV cameras will not stop something happening but it stands a good chance of catching particular perpertrators from doing it again. They are a tool that is necessary to fit an ever changing society behavoural pattern. I would sooner have todays copper on the job with the tools he has to fight crime with than one of Sir Robert Peels' era. Society, time and laws are changing constantly and we do not wish to remain static. Ask any New Orleans citizen whether they would have wanted the levies built to the same standard as before? Prior to the storm the answer would have been yes. After the event the answer is no.
CCTV cameras are here to stay, lump it or like it, imho of course.

[britontour]

Originally Posted by Angry White Pyjamas Explain why so many brought up in those very circumstances dont turn to crime. Or are you suggesting that everyone below or on the poverty line is a criminal?

I'm not saying that everyone below the poverty line is a criminal I'm just saying that poverty is a major factor in alot of crimes. Of course there are crimes such as Enron etc where pure greed is involved.

[Partystar]

Originally Posted by fatbrit Depends whether you live in a free society or a totalitarian one, really. You are arguing that you can have your own opinion on one hand, then supporting a totalitarian one on the other. Cake and eat it may not be possible.

That's not quite true, just because a person lives in a place where they might now be allowed to express their opinion without dire consequences doesn't mean they don't think an opinion other than the 'allowed' one, they just keep it to themselves.

[fatbrit]

Originally Posted by Partystar That's not quite true, just because a person lives in a place where they might now be allowed to express their opinion without dire consequences doesn't mean they don't think an opinion other than the 'allowed' one, they just keep it to themselves.

Precisely. Or suffer the consequences.

[Elvira]

Originally Posted by Partystar That's not quite true, just because a person lives in a place where they might now be allowed to express their opinion without dire consequences doesn't mean they don't think an opinion other than the 'allowed' one, they just keep it to themselves.

Is there a point to this? What are you trying to say?