Originally Posted by Zen10 (Post 10312362)

I think they must be certain or they would have fought harder to retain his anonymity.

Originally Posted by Zen10 (Post 10310827)

We do know three facts - he was local, he was known to the family, and he was known to police. Given this information, plus the additional info that he had a van matching the description, explains why he was caught so fast and that DNA would not have made his capture any more likely or faster. And when was the last time there was a serial child abductor in Britain?

Originally Posted by carolinephillips (Post 10312552)

You cannot cure people like that. Why should the taxpayer fund their lifetime in prison? It is one of the few things I'm in favour of the death penalty for- if they have abducted and killed more than once then they are extremely unlikely to be innocent.

Originally Posted by mrsgreenstar76 (Post 10310785)

:sigh:

I thought this was back on topic...

Yes, I do very much dislike CCTV. For the comparatively few cases where it has helped solve crimes, there are more innocent people being recorded for doing what? Just going about their daily lives. They have a right to privacy. It's fair enough that you have no objections to CCTV - that's your prerogative. However, there are many people that do object to the invasion of their privacy. Let's agree to disagree.

Now, can we please get back on topic? :focus:

Originally Posted by asprilla (Post 10312568)

I'm really interested in why you (and many others) have an issue with cctv. The main objection is usually something very nebulous like "it's an invasion of privacy". But how is that logical? How can it be an invasion of privacy when you are walking down the street, in public?

What do people really mean when they say "it's an invasion of privacy"? I am really curious. I suspect that 99% of people, don't really know what it is they don't like about it.(Quite the assumption) It is simply the fear of the unknown. A fear of change and, dare I say it, progress. BS. I'd like to know how you could consider the increased intrusion into everyday lives by the state "progress". A lawful citizen has the right to privacy. Why should the state record what that person does on a day to day basis? They've done nothing wrong & shouldn't have to tolerate being monitored by the state.

Consider it this way. What are the pro's and con's of cctv?

cons
It's an invasion of privacy. Mrs Miggins, who has never broken a law in her life, will have her privacy invaded every time she goes to Sainsburys. She may even be caught on camera, picking her nose.

pros
The images caught on cctv can be used by the police to identify suspects and criminals. In fact, as per the sad case just recently in Melbourne, CCTV images may well have gone a VERY long way towards identifying and apprehending a very dangerous individual. Without those CCTV images, the offender may have gone on to repeat the offence against other women.


How can people honestly say that their privacy is more important?? I'm baffled by this one, I really am. For me, it's in the same basket as those folks who believe that vaccinations are a "bad thing". It is in no way similar to people refusing to get vaccinations (I'm with you on that point though - that irritates me). How many liberties would you see removed/curtailed, call it what you like, before you start objecting? Whilst it's sad that crimes happen, it doesn't mean an entire populace should be treated as criminals.

Originally Posted by mrsgreenstar76 (Post 10312581)

Answers in red.

I've noticed that the death penalty issue has (unfortunately) arisen. I think I shall bow out of the thread at this point, as that is always a slippery slope. See ya, guys & gals. :)

Originally Posted by Zen10 (Post 10312565)

I'm fundamentally opposed to the state killing people, but this area is the one that comes closest to persuading me otherwise. Weirdly, I am less opposed to the Islamic system where the the offender is basically turned over to the family and they have carte blanche to punish him as they see fit. I feel child abductions and other serious crimes against the person would drop dramatically to the levels seen in Islamic countries if the potential offender knew it ended in a warehouse somewhere with the family, rather than the protected wing of a prison and gradual reintroduction to society, which is what currently happens.

Originally Posted by moneypenny20 (Post 10312619)

Do you have proof that the level of child abuse/abductions is low in those countries? I'm interested and don't know. What I do know is that they can legally marry a 12 year old girl so perhaps that's how they've got around the illegal bit. Just made it legal.

Originally Posted by Zen10 (Post 10312640)

Well you're quite right to raise the shameful forced marriages, and I haven't got any stats to hand, no. Crime in these places, and others like Singapore, is generally accepted as being lower because of the draconian punishments, but of course it could be other cultural factors as well. But yes - good point about the forced marriages.

Originally Posted by asprilla (Post 10312589)

thanks for your replies ! But please don't bow out, it's just a grown up discussion / debate.... no need for it to get out of hand.

ps - you didn't address my two key points:
1) the costs of CCTV (innocent people being recorded going about their everyday activities) are surely outweighed by the benefits? aren't they?
2) how can an invasion of privacy occur, in a public place??


Please note, if the authorities start wanting to install cctv in my lounge (and dare I say it, my bedroom) - I'll be with you all the way :D



edit - just wanted to add one more thing. You said the following (in red)...and my comments are in blue

Originally Posted by Kapri (Post 10312644)

Also far less likely to be reported.
In some islamic countries, if you are raped, the last thing you would do is tell anyone.

Originally Posted by ozzieeagle (Post 10312602)

Most CCTV is recorded over itself within a 48 hour cycle at the very most.... unless there has been a recordable incident.

So to paint a picture that everything is recorded and stored is totally wrong.

Recorded for evidence of immediate crime is all that happens in the vast majority of use.



I would have been very strongly against CCTV up until this Meahger case.... not only did CCTV actually catch the perpetrator, it's almost certainly saved future killings from evil that had just come to the boil. I know this for absoulte fact. I will say more after the trial.

If there had been CCTV on the roads at least around where this little Girl went missing then the perpetrator would have definitely had second thoughts.... unless he wants to commit personal suicide by noterity.... which I suspect is the case with some of these people.