Police in Warrington to wear cameras to record crimes

Warrington Guardian: The body camera being used The body camera being used

A PILOT scheme which will see police officers carrying body worn cameras will take place in Warrington.

Twenty four will be used in the town, 12 in the town centre team and 12 in the central area team which covers districts such as Orford.

Crime commissioner John Dwyer said: "I think piloting worn body cameras in Cheshire is an excellent idea.

"I think these cameras will prove themselves invaluable when it comes to prosecuting offenders who try every trick in the book to get off.

"It’s hard to argue against an image or video footage of you being caught in the act."

The cameras will be mainly used to target incidents related to the town's night time economy. The cameras, which cost £299 per unit, will be overtly used, and where possible people will be told that the cameras are recording say police.

John added: "Using this kind of technology will ultimately help the constabulary make Cheshire a safer place to live."

 

Comments (46)

Please log in to enable comment sorting

5:00pm Thu 9 Jan 14

Nick Tessla says...

Pity they didn't have these when they were doing the biding of the mayor, by removing Councillor Bennett from a council meeting - may have made interesting viewing.
Pity they didn't have these when they were doing the biding of the mayor, by removing Councillor Bennett from a council meeting - may have made interesting viewing. Nick Tessla

5:34pm Thu 9 Jan 14

old-codger says...

Council meetings should be able to be viewed live via its website, Unless they have something to hide, Police officers who carry these camera,s will have to speak to the public with a bit less attitude and more manners. Respect has to be earned not demanded, We don't live in a police state.
Council meetings should be able to be viewed live via its website, Unless they have something to hide, Police officers who carry these camera,s will have to speak to the public with a bit less attitude and more manners. Respect has to be earned not demanded, We don't live in a police state. old-codger

7:25pm Thu 9 Jan 14

Karlar says...

That's what Tony Greg (remember him?) said when asked if he had any respect for the captaincy at the time he jumped ship and aligned himself with Kerry Packer when he was captain of England. Respect works both ways. How would you react if some person, drunken or otherwise, started mouthing off at you with attitude when you were trying to restore order to a situation they had caused? Thank your lucky stars you don't live in a Police State otherwise you really would have something to grouse about.
That said I agree Council Meetings, all of them, should be open to widest public scrutiny. No business conducted by local councils should have something to hide unless it is unlawful, illegal or downright corrupt, in which case it needs to be brought into the public domain.
That's what Tony Greg (remember him?) said when asked if he had any respect for the captaincy at the time he jumped ship and aligned himself with Kerry Packer when he was captain of England. Respect works both ways. How would you react if some person, drunken or otherwise, started mouthing off at you with attitude when you were trying to restore order to a situation they had caused? Thank your lucky stars you don't live in a Police State otherwise you really would have something to grouse about. That said I agree Council Meetings, all of them, should be open to widest public scrutiny. No business conducted by local councils should have something to hide unless it is unlawful, illegal or downright corrupt, in which case it needs to be brought into the public domain. Karlar

8:17pm Thu 9 Jan 14

mrbaxter says...

The police are not always polite I have to agree. majority are,but there's always that one that thinks he can talk to you like a piece of crap...So yes maybe they would think twice if they had these cameras.
The police are not always polite I have to agree. majority are,but there's always that one that thinks he can talk to you like a piece of crap...So yes maybe they would think twice if they had these cameras. mrbaxter

10:46pm Thu 9 Jan 14

Daz@SankeyviaOrford says...

A good idea used for the right reasons . But I don't think 'even with the odd punch up in the middle of town in the early hours ' they should not be used to try and gather bits of evidence so the police can force early closing on the pubs in the town centre. I'm pretty sure more incidents would be recorded outside the town centre if all police had them on 24/7. As stated it is an economic targeted investment to save policing costs after 12midnight.
A good idea used for the right reasons . But I don't think 'even with the odd punch up in the middle of town in the early hours ' they should not be used to try and gather bits of evidence so the police can force early closing on the pubs in the town centre. I'm pretty sure more incidents would be recorded outside the town centre if all police had them on 24/7. As stated it is an economic targeted investment to save policing costs after 12midnight. Daz@SankeyviaOrford

7:38am Fri 10 Jan 14

Nick Tessla says...

Karlar wrote:
That's what Tony Greg (remember him?) said when asked if he had any respect for the captaincy at the time he jumped ship and aligned himself with Kerry Packer when he was captain of England. Respect works both ways. How would you react if some person, drunken or otherwise, started mouthing off at you with attitude when you were trying to restore order to a situation they had caused? Thank your lucky stars you don't live in a Police State otherwise you really would have something to grouse about.
That said I agree Council Meetings, all of them, should be open to widest public scrutiny. No business conducted by local councils should have something to hide unless it is unlawful, illegal or downright corrupt, in which case it needs to be brought into the public domain.
They should react to someone mouthing off in the correct way, that's what they have been trained (and paid) to do - not exacerbate a situation. If they are unable to act in a correct manner then perhaps they should find a job elsewhere.
[quote][p][bold]Karlar[/bold] wrote: That's what Tony Greg (remember him?) said when asked if he had any respect for the captaincy at the time he jumped ship and aligned himself with Kerry Packer when he was captain of England. Respect works both ways. How would you react if some person, drunken or otherwise, started mouthing off at you with attitude when you were trying to restore order to a situation they had caused? Thank your lucky stars you don't live in a Police State otherwise you really would have something to grouse about. That said I agree Council Meetings, all of them, should be open to widest public scrutiny. No business conducted by local councils should have something to hide unless it is unlawful, illegal or downright corrupt, in which case it needs to be brought into the public domain.[/p][/quote]They should react to someone mouthing off in the correct way, that's what they have been trained (and paid) to do - not exacerbate a situation. If they are unable to act in a correct manner then perhaps they should find a job elsewhere. Nick Tessla

7:40am Fri 10 Jan 14

Nick Tessla says...

Daz@SankeyviaOrford wrote:
A good idea used for the right reasons . But I don't think 'even with the odd punch up in the middle of town in the early hours ' they should not be used to try and gather bits of evidence so the police can force early closing on the pubs in the town centre. I'm pretty sure more incidents would be recorded outside the town centre if all police had them on 24/7. As stated it is an economic targeted investment to save policing costs after 12midnight.
Where does it say that it is about saving policing costs?
[quote][p][bold]Daz@SankeyviaOrford[/bold] wrote: A good idea used for the right reasons . But I don't think 'even with the odd punch up in the middle of town in the early hours ' they should not be used to try and gather bits of evidence so the police can force early closing on the pubs in the town centre. I'm pretty sure more incidents would be recorded outside the town centre if all police had them on 24/7. As stated it is an economic targeted investment to save policing costs after 12midnight.[/p][/quote]Where does it say that it is about saving policing costs? Nick Tessla

7:42am Fri 10 Jan 14

PageA says...

Karlar wrote:
That's what Tony Greg (remember him?) said when asked if he had any respect for the captaincy at the time he jumped ship and aligned himself with Kerry Packer when he was captain of England. Respect works both ways. How would you react if some person, drunken or otherwise, started mouthing off at you with attitude when you were trying to restore order to a situation they had caused? Thank your lucky stars you don't live in a Police State otherwise you really would have something to grouse about.
That said I agree Council Meetings, all of them, should be open to widest public scrutiny. No business conducted by local councils should have something to hide unless it is unlawful, illegal or downright corrupt, in which case it needs to be brought into the public domain.
'Thank your lucky stars you don't live in a police state'. 20% of the worlds CCTV cameras based in the Uk. These new cameras will also no doubt have a direct link to local press and social media...Orwellian. Don't you think?
[quote][p][bold]Karlar[/bold] wrote: That's what Tony Greg (remember him?) said when asked if he had any respect for the captaincy at the time he jumped ship and aligned himself with Kerry Packer when he was captain of England. Respect works both ways. How would you react if some person, drunken or otherwise, started mouthing off at you with attitude when you were trying to restore order to a situation they had caused? Thank your lucky stars you don't live in a Police State otherwise you really would have something to grouse about. That said I agree Council Meetings, all of them, should be open to widest public scrutiny. No business conducted by local councils should have something to hide unless it is unlawful, illegal or downright corrupt, in which case it needs to be brought into the public domain.[/p][/quote]'Thank your lucky stars you don't live in a police state'. 20% of the worlds CCTV cameras based in the Uk. These new cameras will also no doubt have a direct link to local press and social media...Orwellian. Don't you think? PageA

8:52am Fri 10 Jan 14

Nick Tessla says...

PageA wrote:
Karlar wrote:
That's what Tony Greg (remember him?) said when asked if he had any respect for the captaincy at the time he jumped ship and aligned himself with Kerry Packer when he was captain of England. Respect works both ways. How would you react if some person, drunken or otherwise, started mouthing off at you with attitude when you were trying to restore order to a situation they had caused? Thank your lucky stars you don't live in a Police State otherwise you really would have something to grouse about.
That said I agree Council Meetings, all of them, should be open to widest public scrutiny. No business conducted by local councils should have something to hide unless it is unlawful, illegal or downright corrupt, in which case it needs to be brought into the public domain.
'Thank your lucky stars you don't live in a police state'. 20% of the worlds CCTV cameras based in the Uk. These new cameras will also no doubt have a direct link to local press and social media...Orwellian. Don't you think?
With plans to make being annoying a criminal offence we could both be in trouble.

:-)
[quote][p][bold]PageA[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Karlar[/bold] wrote: That's what Tony Greg (remember him?) said when asked if he had any respect for the captaincy at the time he jumped ship and aligned himself with Kerry Packer when he was captain of England. Respect works both ways. How would you react if some person, drunken or otherwise, started mouthing off at you with attitude when you were trying to restore order to a situation they had caused? Thank your lucky stars you don't live in a Police State otherwise you really would have something to grouse about. That said I agree Council Meetings, all of them, should be open to widest public scrutiny. No business conducted by local councils should have something to hide unless it is unlawful, illegal or downright corrupt, in which case it needs to be brought into the public domain.[/p][/quote]'Thank your lucky stars you don't live in a police state'. 20% of the worlds CCTV cameras based in the Uk. These new cameras will also no doubt have a direct link to local press and social media...Orwellian. Don't you think?[/p][/quote]With plans to make being annoying a criminal offence we could both be in trouble. :-) Nick Tessla

9:10am Fri 10 Jan 14

PageA says...

Yep! they'd throw away the key. How long til they suggest cameras in people's homes to reduce domestic abuse? No doubt, none of us on here would consider doing such a thing so we'd have nothing to worry about. I'm all for it :)
Yep! they'd throw away the key. How long til they suggest cameras in people's homes to reduce domestic abuse? No doubt, none of us on here would consider doing such a thing so we'd have nothing to worry about. I'm all for it :) PageA

9:41am Fri 10 Jan 14

mrdaveyasdfr says...

I a good thing over all. The as stated earlier a polite and firm officer can defuse a situation. Cocky disrespectful officer can make it worse.

I wonder how easy these cameras can be made to fail, be obscured or lost or turned off when it suites the police.

Will they only be turned on when the officer thinks it will be in their interest or will they be on all the time or turned on at the request of a member of public.

Who will the footage be made available to?
I a good thing over all. The as stated earlier a polite and firm officer can defuse a situation. Cocky disrespectful officer can make it worse. I wonder how easy these cameras can be made to fail, be obscured or lost or turned off when it suites the police. Will they only be turned on when the officer thinks it will be in their interest or will they be on all the time or turned on at the request of a member of public. Who will the footage be made available to? mrdaveyasdfr

10:06am Fri 10 Jan 14

PageA says...

It'll be made available to Sky, ITV an channel 4 like it is at the moment. I've just sent an idea to myself for copyright purposes. It's called 'Homeowners do the craziest things!!' A bit like the police camera action shows crossed with You've been framed. I'm also going to contact Electronic Arts to see if we can use real life footage of people to replace the characters in the Sims.
It'll be made available to Sky, ITV an channel 4 like it is at the moment. I've just sent an idea to myself for copyright purposes. It's called 'Homeowners do the craziest things!!' A bit like the police camera action shows crossed with You've been framed. I'm also going to contact Electronic Arts to see if we can use real life footage of people to replace the characters in the Sims. PageA

11:33am Fri 10 Jan 14

grey_man says...

Fair enough in the majority of circumstances but they should be running whenever an officer is dealing with a situation rather than when they choose and you just try videoing the police if they are dealing with a situation badly and see what happens.
Fair enough in the majority of circumstances but they should be running whenever an officer is dealing with a situation rather than when they choose and you just try videoing the police if they are dealing with a situation badly and see what happens. grey_man

3:12pm Fri 10 Jan 14

mrdaveyasdfr says...

Wasn't the idea of these camera to ensure that the police were behaving!
Wasn't the idea of these camera to ensure that the police were behaving! mrdaveyasdfr

4:06pm Fri 10 Jan 14

Nick Tessla says...

Wonder what Andrew "Plebgate" Mitchell thinks of these cameras.
Wonder what Andrew "Plebgate" Mitchell thinks of these cameras. Nick Tessla

4:59pm Fri 10 Jan 14

PageA says...

mrdaveyasdfr wrote:
Wasn't the idea of these camera to ensure that the police were behaving!
I think that's what they're saying Nick. It's for our safety
[quote][p][bold]mrdaveyasdfr[/bold] wrote: Wasn't the idea of these camera to ensure that the police were behaving![/p][/quote]I think that's what they're saying Nick. It's for our safety PageA

8:04pm Fri 10 Jan 14

old-codger says...

mrdaveyasdfr says...
Wasn't the idea of these camera to ensure that the police were behaving!

It was indeed, That's what I said in my above comment, Nobody mentioned cricket or drunks, The police are public servants, Paid by the public out of the public purse to uphold their public duty, An excuse me sir would go down a lot better than hey you when the police want to ask you something, Otherwise they get spoken to how they speak to you, 80% of police officers do it right the rest think this is a police state, Which it is not.
mrdaveyasdfr says... Wasn't the idea of these camera to ensure that the police were behaving! It was indeed, That's what I said in my above comment, Nobody mentioned cricket or drunks, The police are public servants, Paid by the public out of the public purse to uphold their public duty, An excuse me sir would go down a lot better than hey you when the police want to ask you something, Otherwise they get spoken to how they speak to you, 80% of police officers do it right the rest think this is a police state, Which it is not. old-codger

8:37pm Fri 10 Jan 14

Karlar says...

old-codger wrote:
mrdaveyasdfr says...
Wasn't the idea of these camera to ensure that the police were behaving!

It was indeed, That's what I said in my above comment, Nobody mentioned cricket or drunks, The police are public servants, Paid by the public out of the public purse to uphold their public duty, An excuse me sir would go down a lot better than hey you when the police want to ask you something, Otherwise they get spoken to how they speak to you, 80% of police officers do it right the rest think this is a police state, Which it is not.
The cameras are attached to the Police Constables and as the article states: "these cameras will prove themselves invaluable when it comes to prosecuting offenders who try every trick in the book to get off. It’s hard to argue against an image or video footage of you being caught in the act."
[quote][p][bold]old-codger[/bold] wrote: mrdaveyasdfr says... Wasn't the idea of these camera to ensure that the police were behaving! It was indeed, That's what I said in my above comment, Nobody mentioned cricket or drunks, The police are public servants, Paid by the public out of the public purse to uphold their public duty, An excuse me sir would go down a lot better than hey you when the police want to ask you something, Otherwise they get spoken to how they speak to you, 80% of police officers do it right the rest think this is a police state, Which it is not.[/p][/quote]The cameras are attached to the Police Constables and as the article states: "these cameras will prove themselves invaluable when it comes to prosecuting offenders who try every trick in the book to get off. It’s hard to argue against an image or video footage of you being caught in the act." Karlar

9:05pm Fri 10 Jan 14

Karlar says...

PageA wrote:
Karlar wrote:
That's what Tony Greg (remember him?) said when asked if he had any respect for the captaincy at the time he jumped ship and aligned himself with Kerry Packer when he was captain of England. Respect works both ways. How would you react if some person, drunken or otherwise, started mouthing off at you with attitude when you were trying to restore order to a situation they had caused? Thank your lucky stars you don't live in a Police State otherwise you really would have something to grouse about.
That said I agree Council Meetings, all of them, should be open to widest public scrutiny. No business conducted by local councils should have something to hide unless it is unlawful, illegal or downright corrupt, in which case it needs to be brought into the public domain.
'Thank your lucky stars you don't live in a police state'. 20% of the worlds CCTV cameras based in the Uk. These new cameras will also no doubt have a direct link to local press and social media...Orwellian. Don't you think?
The UK may currently be the CCTV front runner, but Australia, Germany and the USA are pressing on fast with their installations and may soon match our level of use. CCTV was instrumental in bringing the 7/7 bombers to book. It was also provided firm evidence of Police unacceptable (criminal) behaviour in the USA and here in the case of the news vendor beaten up when a crowd were kettled in central London. It also seems to have been used thankfully to shed some useful light on the plebgate saga. Not a good day for the Police today even if it was by a rogue cop. There are always some rotten apples in most barrels and the Police are no exception. If we are going to accept cameras are beneficial on our coppers I don't see the objection to CCTV, unless one is up to no good.
Orwellian is a bit of an OTT adjective. What he described in 1984 was truly a Police State = "a totalitarian state controlled by a political police force (hardly after today's revelations) that secretly supervises the citizens'. actvities" OED. The UK has along history of secrecy but mainly to cover up the many actions and even more indiscretions of our jobsworthy political class, nationally and locally.
[quote][p][bold]PageA[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Karlar[/bold] wrote: That's what Tony Greg (remember him?) said when asked if he had any respect for the captaincy at the time he jumped ship and aligned himself with Kerry Packer when he was captain of England. Respect works both ways. How would you react if some person, drunken or otherwise, started mouthing off at you with attitude when you were trying to restore order to a situation they had caused? Thank your lucky stars you don't live in a Police State otherwise you really would have something to grouse about. That said I agree Council Meetings, all of them, should be open to widest public scrutiny. No business conducted by local councils should have something to hide unless it is unlawful, illegal or downright corrupt, in which case it needs to be brought into the public domain.[/p][/quote]'Thank your lucky stars you don't live in a police state'. 20% of the worlds CCTV cameras based in the Uk. These new cameras will also no doubt have a direct link to local press and social media...Orwellian. Don't you think?[/p][/quote]The UK may currently be the CCTV front runner, but Australia, Germany and the USA are pressing on fast with their installations and may soon match our level of use. CCTV was instrumental in bringing the 7/7 bombers to book. It was also provided firm evidence of Police unacceptable (criminal) behaviour in the USA and here in the case of the news vendor beaten up when a crowd were kettled in central London. It also seems to have been used thankfully to shed some useful light on the plebgate saga. Not a good day for the Police today even if it was by a rogue cop. There are always some rotten apples in most barrels and the Police are no exception. If we are going to accept cameras are beneficial on our coppers I don't see the objection to CCTV, unless one is up to no good. Orwellian is a bit of an OTT adjective. What he described in 1984 was truly a Police State = "a totalitarian state controlled by a political police force (hardly after today's revelations) that secretly supervises the citizens'. actvities" OED. The UK has along history of secrecy but mainly to cover up the many actions and even more indiscretions of our jobsworthy political class, nationally and locally. Karlar

10:17pm Fri 10 Jan 14

PageA says...

Karlar wrote:
PageA wrote:
Karlar wrote:
That's what Tony Greg (remember him?) said when asked if he had any respect for the captaincy at the time he jumped ship and aligned himself with Kerry Packer when he was captain of England. Respect works both ways. How would you react if some person, drunken or otherwise, started mouthing off at you with attitude when you were trying to restore order to a situation they had caused? Thank your lucky stars you don't live in a Police State otherwise you really would have something to grouse about.
That said I agree Council Meetings, all of them, should be open to widest public scrutiny. No business conducted by local councils should have something to hide unless it is unlawful, illegal or downright corrupt, in which case it needs to be brought into the public domain.
'Thank your lucky stars you don't live in a police state'. 20% of the worlds CCTV cameras based in the Uk. These new cameras will also no doubt have a direct link to local press and social media...Orwellian. Don't you think?
The UK may currently be the CCTV front runner, but Australia, Germany and the USA are pressing on fast with their installations and may soon match our level of use. CCTV was instrumental in bringing the 7/7 bombers to book. It was also provided firm evidence of Police unacceptable (criminal) behaviour in the USA and here in the case of the news vendor beaten up when a crowd were kettled in central London. It also seems to have been used thankfully to shed some useful light on the plebgate saga. Not a good day for the Police today even if it was by a rogue cop. There are always some rotten apples in most barrels and the Police are no exception. If we are going to accept cameras are beneficial on our coppers I don't see the objection to CCTV, unless one is up to no good.
Orwellian is a bit of an OTT adjective. What he described in 1984 was truly a Police State = "a totalitarian state controlled by a political police force (hardly after today's revelations) that secretly supervises the citizens'. actvities" OED. The UK has along history of secrecy but mainly to cover up the many actions and even more indiscretions of our jobsworthy political class, nationally and locally.
Instrumental in bringing the 7/7 bombers to book? Do you mean we got to watch them walk around London. Surely the fact that they blew themselves up and left messages to say they were about to is what brought them to book
[quote][p][bold]Karlar[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]PageA[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Karlar[/bold] wrote: That's what Tony Greg (remember him?) said when asked if he had any respect for the captaincy at the time he jumped ship and aligned himself with Kerry Packer when he was captain of England. Respect works both ways. How would you react if some person, drunken or otherwise, started mouthing off at you with attitude when you were trying to restore order to a situation they had caused? Thank your lucky stars you don't live in a Police State otherwise you really would have something to grouse about. That said I agree Council Meetings, all of them, should be open to widest public scrutiny. No business conducted by local councils should have something to hide unless it is unlawful, illegal or downright corrupt, in which case it needs to be brought into the public domain.[/p][/quote]'Thank your lucky stars you don't live in a police state'. 20% of the worlds CCTV cameras based in the Uk. These new cameras will also no doubt have a direct link to local press and social media...Orwellian. Don't you think?[/p][/quote]The UK may currently be the CCTV front runner, but Australia, Germany and the USA are pressing on fast with their installations and may soon match our level of use. CCTV was instrumental in bringing the 7/7 bombers to book. It was also provided firm evidence of Police unacceptable (criminal) behaviour in the USA and here in the case of the news vendor beaten up when a crowd were kettled in central London. It also seems to have been used thankfully to shed some useful light on the plebgate saga. Not a good day for the Police today even if it was by a rogue cop. There are always some rotten apples in most barrels and the Police are no exception. If we are going to accept cameras are beneficial on our coppers I don't see the objection to CCTV, unless one is up to no good. Orwellian is a bit of an OTT adjective. What he described in 1984 was truly a Police State = "a totalitarian state controlled by a political police force (hardly after today's revelations) that secretly supervises the citizens'. actvities" OED. The UK has along history of secrecy but mainly to cover up the many actions and even more indiscretions of our jobsworthy political class, nationally and locally.[/p][/quote]Instrumental in bringing the 7/7 bombers to book? Do you mean we got to watch them walk around London. Surely the fact that they blew themselves up and left messages to say they were about to is what brought them to book PageA

10:49pm Fri 10 Jan 14

Karlar says...

PageA wrote:
Karlar wrote:
PageA wrote:
Karlar wrote:
That's what Tony Greg (remember him?) said when asked if he had any respect for the captaincy at the time he jumped ship and aligned himself with Kerry Packer when he was captain of England. Respect works both ways. How would you react if some person, drunken or otherwise, started mouthing off at you with attitude when you were trying to restore order to a situation they had caused? Thank your lucky stars you don't live in a Police State otherwise you really would have something to grouse about.
That said I agree Council Meetings, all of them, should be open to widest public scrutiny. No business conducted by local councils should have something to hide unless it is unlawful, illegal or downright corrupt, in which case it needs to be brought into the public domain.
'Thank your lucky stars you don't live in a police state'. 20% of the worlds CCTV cameras based in the Uk. These new cameras will also no doubt have a direct link to local press and social media...Orwellian. Don't you think?
The UK may currently be the CCTV front runner, but Australia, Germany and the USA are pressing on fast with their installations and may soon match our level of use. CCTV was instrumental in bringing the 7/7 bombers to book. It was also provided firm evidence of Police unacceptable (criminal) behaviour in the USA and here in the case of the news vendor beaten up when a crowd were kettled in central London. It also seems to have been used thankfully to shed some useful light on the plebgate saga. Not a good day for the Police today even if it was by a rogue cop. There are always some rotten apples in most barrels and the Police are no exception. If we are going to accept cameras are beneficial on our coppers I don't see the objection to CCTV, unless one is up to no good.
Orwellian is a bit of an OTT adjective. What he described in 1984 was truly a Police State = "a totalitarian state controlled by a political police force (hardly after today's revelations) that secretly supervises the citizens'. actvities" OED. The UK has along history of secrecy but mainly to cover up the many actions and even more indiscretions of our jobsworthy political class, nationally and locally.
Instrumental in bringing the 7/7 bombers to book? Do you mean we got to watch them walk around London. Surely the fact that they blew themselves up and left messages to say they were about to is what brought them to book
They would have been pretty dumb suicide bombers if they hadn't blown themselves up. It was a tragedy they took the lives of or injured so many innocent people.
What I meant, but not well expressed I accept, was CCTV provided postive identification and intelligence of those involved and potential links to terrorist groups/cells. I believe on the strength of some of it the Police raided property in Leeds and recovered a significant quantity of explosives.
[quote][p][bold]PageA[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Karlar[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]PageA[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Karlar[/bold] wrote: That's what Tony Greg (remember him?) said when asked if he had any respect for the captaincy at the time he jumped ship and aligned himself with Kerry Packer when he was captain of England. Respect works both ways. How would you react if some person, drunken or otherwise, started mouthing off at you with attitude when you were trying to restore order to a situation they had caused? Thank your lucky stars you don't live in a Police State otherwise you really would have something to grouse about. That said I agree Council Meetings, all of them, should be open to widest public scrutiny. No business conducted by local councils should have something to hide unless it is unlawful, illegal or downright corrupt, in which case it needs to be brought into the public domain.[/p][/quote]'Thank your lucky stars you don't live in a police state'. 20% of the worlds CCTV cameras based in the Uk. These new cameras will also no doubt have a direct link to local press and social media...Orwellian. Don't you think?[/p][/quote]The UK may currently be the CCTV front runner, but Australia, Germany and the USA are pressing on fast with their installations and may soon match our level of use. CCTV was instrumental in bringing the 7/7 bombers to book. It was also provided firm evidence of Police unacceptable (criminal) behaviour in the USA and here in the case of the news vendor beaten up when a crowd were kettled in central London. It also seems to have been used thankfully to shed some useful light on the plebgate saga. Not a good day for the Police today even if it was by a rogue cop. There are always some rotten apples in most barrels and the Police are no exception. If we are going to accept cameras are beneficial on our coppers I don't see the objection to CCTV, unless one is up to no good. Orwellian is a bit of an OTT adjective. What he described in 1984 was truly a Police State = "a totalitarian state controlled by a political police force (hardly after today's revelations) that secretly supervises the citizens'. actvities" OED. The UK has along history of secrecy but mainly to cover up the many actions and even more indiscretions of our jobsworthy political class, nationally and locally.[/p][/quote]Instrumental in bringing the 7/7 bombers to book? Do you mean we got to watch them walk around London. Surely the fact that they blew themselves up and left messages to say they were about to is what brought them to book[/p][/quote]They would have been pretty dumb suicide bombers if they hadn't blown themselves up. It was a tragedy they took the lives of or injured so many innocent people. What I meant, but not well expressed I accept, was CCTV provided postive identification and intelligence of those involved and potential links to terrorist groups/cells. I believe on the strength of some of it the Police raided property in Leeds and recovered a significant quantity of explosives. Karlar

10:50pm Fri 10 Jan 14

richiepooh says...

Let's hope they don't patrol golden square. The security will chuck them out.
Let's hope they don't patrol golden square. The security will chuck them out. richiepooh

10:07am Sat 11 Jan 14

PageA says...

Karlar wrote:
PageA wrote:
Karlar wrote:
PageA wrote:
Karlar wrote:
That's what Tony Greg (remember him?) said when asked if he had any respect for the captaincy at the time he jumped ship and aligned himself with Kerry Packer when he was captain of England. Respect works both ways. How would you react if some person, drunken or otherwise, started mouthing off at you with attitude when you were trying to restore order to a situation they had caused? Thank your lucky stars you don't live in a Police State otherwise you really would have something to grouse about.
That said I agree Council Meetings, all of them, should be open to widest public scrutiny. No business conducted by local councils should have something to hide unless it is unlawful, illegal or downright corrupt, in which case it needs to be brought into the public domain.
'Thank your lucky stars you don't live in a police state'. 20% of the worlds CCTV cameras based in the Uk. These new cameras will also no doubt have a direct link to local press and social media...Orwellian. Don't you think?
The UK may currently be the CCTV front runner, but Australia, Germany and the USA are pressing on fast with their installations and may soon match our level of use. CCTV was instrumental in bringing the 7/7 bombers to book. It was also provided firm evidence of Police unacceptable (criminal) behaviour in the USA and here in the case of the news vendor beaten up when a crowd were kettled in central London. It also seems to have been used thankfully to shed some useful light on the plebgate saga. Not a good day for the Police today even if it was by a rogue cop. There are always some rotten apples in most barrels and the Police are no exception. If we are going to accept cameras are beneficial on our coppers I don't see the objection to CCTV, unless one is up to no good.
Orwellian is a bit of an OTT adjective. What he described in 1984 was truly a Police State = "a totalitarian state controlled by a political police force (hardly after today's revelations) that secretly supervises the citizens'. actvities" OED. The UK has along history of secrecy but mainly to cover up the many actions and even more indiscretions of our jobsworthy political class, nationally and locally.
Instrumental in bringing the 7/7 bombers to book? Do you mean we got to watch them walk around London. Surely the fact that they blew themselves up and left messages to say they were about to is what brought them to book
They would have been pretty dumb suicide bombers if they hadn't blown themselves up. It was a tragedy they took the lives of or injured so many innocent people.
What I meant, but not well expressed I accept, was CCTV provided postive identification and intelligence of those involved and potential links to terrorist groups/cells. I believe on the strength of some of it the Police raided property in Leeds and recovered a significant quantity of explosives.
As opposed to these clever suicide bombers who killed 52 people. The CCTV did nothing to prevent these lives being lost and in fact has lead to thousands of conspiracy theories due to missing footage, system malfunctions at exactly the times they were needed and recorders being manually switched off. What we're reminded of this week is that sometimes the police tell lies. What I don't need is more surveillance to protect me from the lies and bullets of the police..I need a better police force. Don't tell me it's for my own sake in the week we hear about police surveillance being used on the grieving Hillsborough families. It won't be long until they put these cameras on wheels..and give them guns..for my safety of course
[quote][p][bold]Karlar[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]PageA[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Karlar[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]PageA[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Karlar[/bold] wrote: That's what Tony Greg (remember him?) said when asked if he had any respect for the captaincy at the time he jumped ship and aligned himself with Kerry Packer when he was captain of England. Respect works both ways. How would you react if some person, drunken or otherwise, started mouthing off at you with attitude when you were trying to restore order to a situation they had caused? Thank your lucky stars you don't live in a Police State otherwise you really would have something to grouse about. That said I agree Council Meetings, all of them, should be open to widest public scrutiny. No business conducted by local councils should have something to hide unless it is unlawful, illegal or downright corrupt, in which case it needs to be brought into the public domain.[/p][/quote]'Thank your lucky stars you don't live in a police state'. 20% of the worlds CCTV cameras based in the Uk. These new cameras will also no doubt have a direct link to local press and social media...Orwellian. Don't you think?[/p][/quote]The UK may currently be the CCTV front runner, but Australia, Germany and the USA are pressing on fast with their installations and may soon match our level of use. CCTV was instrumental in bringing the 7/7 bombers to book. It was also provided firm evidence of Police unacceptable (criminal) behaviour in the USA and here in the case of the news vendor beaten up when a crowd were kettled in central London. It also seems to have been used thankfully to shed some useful light on the plebgate saga. Not a good day for the Police today even if it was by a rogue cop. There are always some rotten apples in most barrels and the Police are no exception. If we are going to accept cameras are beneficial on our coppers I don't see the objection to CCTV, unless one is up to no good. Orwellian is a bit of an OTT adjective. What he described in 1984 was truly a Police State = "a totalitarian state controlled by a political police force (hardly after today's revelations) that secretly supervises the citizens'. actvities" OED. The UK has along history of secrecy but mainly to cover up the many actions and even more indiscretions of our jobsworthy political class, nationally and locally.[/p][/quote]Instrumental in bringing the 7/7 bombers to book? Do you mean we got to watch them walk around London. Surely the fact that they blew themselves up and left messages to say they were about to is what brought them to book[/p][/quote]They would have been pretty dumb suicide bombers if they hadn't blown themselves up. It was a tragedy they took the lives of or injured so many innocent people. What I meant, but not well expressed I accept, was CCTV provided postive identification and intelligence of those involved and potential links to terrorist groups/cells. I believe on the strength of some of it the Police raided property in Leeds and recovered a significant quantity of explosives.[/p][/quote]As opposed to these clever suicide bombers who killed 52 people. The CCTV did nothing to prevent these lives being lost and in fact has lead to thousands of conspiracy theories due to missing footage, system malfunctions at exactly the times they were needed and recorders being manually switched off. What we're reminded of this week is that sometimes the police tell lies. What I don't need is more surveillance to protect me from the lies and bullets of the police..I need a better police force. Don't tell me it's for my own sake in the week we hear about police surveillance being used on the grieving Hillsborough families. It won't be long until they put these cameras on wheels..and give them guns..for my safety of course PageA

11:06am Sat 11 Jan 14

MAD 4 IT says...

HOPE THE "POLICE" FIND OUT "PAGE A" REAL NAME !! THINK THEY WILL WANT TO "TALK" TO HIM ABOUT HIS COMMENTS !! WHY DONT U CALL INTO ARPLEY STREET STATION AND TELL THEM YOUR "VIEWS" !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
!!!!!!!!!!
HOPE THE "POLICE" FIND OUT "PAGE A" REAL NAME !! THINK THEY WILL WANT TO "TALK" TO HIM ABOUT HIS COMMENTS !! WHY DONT U CALL INTO ARPLEY STREET STATION AND TELL THEM YOUR "VIEWS" !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!! MAD 4 IT

11:58am Sat 11 Jan 14

PageA says...

MAD 4 IT wrote:
HOPE THE "POLICE" FIND OUT "PAGE A" REAL NAME !! THINK THEY WILL WANT TO "TALK" TO HIM ABOUT HIS COMMENTS !! WHY DONT U CALL INTO ARPLEY STREET STATION AND TELL THEM YOUR "VIEWS" !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

!!!!!!!!!!
I don't think they'd be interested mad 4 it. I'm not referring to the bobbies on the street. These decisions aren't made in Arpley Street
[quote][p][bold]MAD 4 IT[/bold] wrote: HOPE THE "POLICE" FIND OUT "PAGE A" REAL NAME !! THINK THEY WILL WANT TO "TALK" TO HIM ABOUT HIS COMMENTS !! WHY DONT U CALL INTO ARPLEY STREET STATION AND TELL THEM YOUR "VIEWS" !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!![/p][/quote]I don't think they'd be interested mad 4 it. I'm not referring to the bobbies on the street. These decisions aren't made in Arpley Street PageA

7:05pm Sat 11 Jan 14

local man says...

every drunk idiot and teenage moron films the police on mobile phones, they have to get even somehow.
every drunk idiot and teenage moron films the police on mobile phones, they have to get even somehow. local man

8:42pm Sat 11 Jan 14

MAD 4 IT says...

DONT BACK PEDDLE NOW "PAGE A" YOU WAS CALLING THE POLICE !! THINK YOU USED THE "WORD" PLASTIC !!!
DONT BACK PEDDLE NOW "PAGE A" YOU WAS CALLING THE POLICE !! THINK YOU USED THE "WORD" PLASTIC !!! MAD 4 IT

8:51pm Sat 11 Jan 14

MAD 4 IT says...

HOPEFULLY SHOULD DETER SOME CRIMINALS !!! ESPECIALLY THE DRUNKEN YOBS !
HOPEFULLY SHOULD DETER SOME CRIMINALS !!! ESPECIALLY THE DRUNKEN YOBS ! MAD 4 IT

9:21pm Sat 11 Jan 14

Melonfish says...

MAD 4 IT wrote:
HOPEFULLY SHOULD DETER SOME CRIMINALS !!! ESPECIALLY THE DRUNKEN YOBS !
And people who type all in caps deliberately being rude?
[quote][p][bold]MAD 4 IT[/bold] wrote: HOPEFULLY SHOULD DETER SOME CRIMINALS !!! ESPECIALLY THE DRUNKEN YOBS ![/p][/quote]And people who type all in caps deliberately being rude? Melonfish

10:03pm Sat 11 Jan 14

MAD 4 IT says...

IF I WANT TO TYPE IN "BLOCK CAPITALS" I WILL OK !!
IF I WANT TO TYPE IN "BLOCK CAPITALS" I WILL OK !! MAD 4 IT

5:51am Sun 12 Jan 14

Nick Tessla says...

MAD 4 IT wrote:
HOPE THE "POLICE" FIND OUT "PAGE A" REAL NAME !! THINK THEY WILL WANT TO "TALK" TO HIM ABOUT HIS COMMENTS !! WHY DONT U CALL INTO ARPLEY STREET STATION AND TELL THEM YOUR "VIEWS" !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

!!!!!!!!!!
You clearly have a very low opinion of the police, including their ability to accept criticism from the people they serve.
[quote][p][bold]MAD 4 IT[/bold] wrote: HOPE THE "POLICE" FIND OUT "PAGE A" REAL NAME !! THINK THEY WILL WANT TO "TALK" TO HIM ABOUT HIS COMMENTS !! WHY DONT U CALL INTO ARPLEY STREET STATION AND TELL THEM YOUR "VIEWS" !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!![/p][/quote]You clearly have a very low opinion of the police, including their ability to accept criticism from the people they serve. Nick Tessla

11:44am Sun 12 Jan 14

Anna Fender says...

Voyerism at it best. One rule / law for the piggies and another for the General public.
Voyerism at it best. One rule / law for the piggies and another for the General public. Anna Fender

12:10pm Sun 12 Jan 14

The Maestro says...

Anna Fender wrote:
Voyerism at it best. One rule / law for the piggies and another for the General public.
Do you know what voyerism is?
[quote][p][bold]Anna Fender[/bold] wrote: Voyerism at it best. One rule / law for the piggies and another for the General public.[/p][/quote]Do you know what voyerism is? The Maestro

12:13pm Sun 12 Jan 14

The Maestro says...

The police have used CCTV in cars for years, body cameras are just the next step, if you've done nothing wrong then you've nothing to worry about.
The police have used CCTV in cars for years, body cameras are just the next step, if you've done nothing wrong then you've nothing to worry about. The Maestro

12:27pm Sun 12 Jan 14

Nick Tessla says...

The Maestro wrote:
The police have used CCTV in cars for years, body cameras are just the next step, if you've done nothing wrong then you've nothing to worry about.
That is the same tired out phrase trotted out each time an actual or potential increase in Police powers or their ability to pry/interfere is raised.
[quote][p][bold]The Maestro[/bold] wrote: The police have used CCTV in cars for years, body cameras are just the next step, if you've done nothing wrong then you've nothing to worry about.[/p][/quote]That is the same tired out phrase trotted out each time an actual or potential increase in Police powers or their ability to pry/interfere is raised. Nick Tessla

4:00pm Sun 12 Jan 14

The Maestro says...

No, police have used CCTV for years they have used body cameras in other parts of the world for years, the problem is now the courts want CCTV evidence to support convictions. At least you will see which officers have cameras rather than covert camera being used
No, police have used CCTV for years they have used body cameras in other parts of the world for years, the problem is now the courts want CCTV evidence to support convictions. At least you will see which officers have cameras rather than covert camera being used The Maestro

5:42pm Sun 12 Jan 14

PageA says...

The problem is that surveillance in this country is worse than Soviet Russia ever was. I remember that was one of the ways we differentiated ourselves from that regime.
The problem is that surveillance in this country is worse than Soviet Russia ever was. I remember that was one of the ways we differentiated ourselves from that regime. PageA

7:47pm Sun 12 Jan 14

Karlar says...

PageA wrote:
The problem is that surveillance in this country is worse than Soviet Russia ever was. I remember that was one of the ways we differentiated ourselves from that regime.
Firm factual evidence to back up your first claim? Do you really remember the when we prided ourselves that surveillance here was far worse than in communist Russia?
[quote][p][bold]PageA[/bold] wrote: The problem is that surveillance in this country is worse than Soviet Russia ever was. I remember that was one of the ways we differentiated ourselves from that regime.[/p][/quote]Firm factual evidence to back up your first claim? Do you really remember the when we prided ourselves that surveillance here was far worse than in communist Russia? Karlar

10:12pm Sun 12 Jan 14

Melonfish says...

MAD 4 IT wrote:
IF I WANT TO TYPE IN "BLOCK CAPITALS" I WILL OK !!
Fair enough you're clearly Ok being seen as an **** by everyone who reads these comments.
[quote][p][bold]MAD 4 IT[/bold] wrote: IF I WANT TO TYPE IN "BLOCK CAPITALS" I WILL OK !![/p][/quote]Fair enough you're clearly Ok being seen as an **** by everyone who reads these comments. Melonfish

10:05am Mon 13 Jan 14

PageA says...

Karlar wrote:
PageA wrote:
The problem is that surveillance in this country is worse than Soviet Russia ever was. I remember that was one of the ways we differentiated ourselves from that regime.
Firm factual evidence to back up your first claim? Do you really remember the when we prided ourselves that surveillance here was far worse than in communist Russia?
I do remember. I remember the point in the cold war when the USSR was at its most powerful. I remember watching Nationwide whilst eating my tea and seeing pictures of Russian Nuclear warheads pointing at London and Warrington. I remember my maths teacher asking the class to work out how long it would take for residents of Warrington to be vaporised following a nuclear strike against Burtonwood. I remember Two Tribes by Frankie goes to Hollywood, Spitting Image and When the wind blows. I remember we talked a lot about it..I remember that on some days it was all we talked about. I'm not supplying firm factual evidence here today Karlar I'm offering opinion and comment as is required on this forum. I can also give you the opinion of a former CIA employee and NSA contractor who considers the uk government surveillance to be far worse than Orwell imagined and a London based correspondent of the state owned Russian Channel One TV station, Irada Zeinalova, who is appalled by the levels of intrusion into the private lives of the Brits. Much worse than her experience of Soviet Russia in her experience..as a journalist in Soviet Russia
[quote][p][bold]Karlar[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]PageA[/bold] wrote: The problem is that surveillance in this country is worse than Soviet Russia ever was. I remember that was one of the ways we differentiated ourselves from that regime.[/p][/quote]Firm factual evidence to back up your first claim? Do you really remember the when we prided ourselves that surveillance here was far worse than in communist Russia?[/p][/quote]I do remember. I remember the point in the cold war when the USSR was at its most powerful. I remember watching Nationwide whilst eating my tea and seeing pictures of Russian Nuclear warheads pointing at London and Warrington. I remember my maths teacher asking the class to work out how long it would take for residents of Warrington to be vaporised following a nuclear strike against Burtonwood. I remember Two Tribes by Frankie goes to Hollywood, Spitting Image and When the wind blows. I remember we talked a lot about it..I remember that on some days it was all we talked about. I'm not supplying firm factual evidence here today Karlar I'm offering opinion and comment as is required on this forum. I can also give you the opinion of a former CIA employee and NSA contractor who considers the uk government surveillance to be far worse than Orwell imagined and a London based correspondent of the state owned Russian Channel One TV station, Irada Zeinalova, who is appalled by the levels of intrusion into the private lives of the Brits. Much worse than her experience of Soviet Russia in her experience..as a journalist in Soviet Russia PageA

11:26am Mon 13 Jan 14

MAD 4 IT says...

PAGE A YOUR COMMENTS ARE THAT LONG NO-ONE IS READING THEM INCLUDING ME !
PAGE A YOUR COMMENTS ARE THAT LONG NO-ONE IS READING THEM INCLUDING ME ! MAD 4 IT

12:23pm Mon 13 Jan 14

PageA says...

You're not my intended audience daft lad, you're the village idiot and you're not even funny any more. My opinion...you didn't need that hyphen.
You're not my intended audience daft lad, you're the village idiot and you're not even funny any more. My opinion...you didn't need that hyphen. PageA

2:31pm Mon 13 Jan 14

Karlar says...

PageA wrote:
Karlar wrote:
PageA wrote:
The problem is that surveillance in this country is worse than Soviet Russia ever was. I remember that was one of the ways we differentiated ourselves from that regime.
Firm factual evidence to back up your first claim? Do you really remember the when we prided ourselves that surveillance here was far worse than in communist Russia?
I do remember. I remember the point in the cold war when the USSR was at its most powerful. I remember watching Nationwide whilst eating my tea and seeing pictures of Russian Nuclear warheads pointing at London and Warrington. I remember my maths teacher asking the class to work out how long it would take for residents of Warrington to be vaporised following a nuclear strike against Burtonwood. I remember Two Tribes by Frankie goes to Hollywood, Spitting Image and When the wind blows. I remember we talked a lot about it..I remember that on some days it was all we talked about. I'm not supplying firm factual evidence here today Karlar I'm offering opinion and comment as is required on this forum. I can also give you the opinion of a former CIA employee and NSA contractor who considers the uk government surveillance to be far worse than Orwell imagined and a London based correspondent of the state owned Russian Channel One TV station, Irada Zeinalova, who is appalled by the levels of intrusion into the private lives of the Brits. Much worse than her experience of Soviet Russia in her experience..as a journalist in Soviet Russia
You seem to be mixing and confusing your arguments. Like many others I too remember what you describe, and in seeing By Dawn's Early Light, Fail Safe, The Day After, Threads and Dr Strangelove. All of which describe the futility of nuclear war and in some the mindset of those who might conduct one. But none supports your opinion that surveillance in this country was far worse than in the USSR, or that it was the way we differentiated ourselves from communist regimes. George Orwell fought in the Spanish Civil war for the communists against fascism and came away hating the former as much as the latter. 1984 came out of that realization. Your CIA and NSA sources might have cause to take a different view now surveillance of the American public has raised its ugly head over the pond and during a democratic presidency as well. Ms Zeinalova too seems to have pretty short memory of what went on under Stalin and Beira. We’ve drifted off track and might be making it difficult for MAD 4 IT to follow.
I don’t deny there seem to be pockets of benign fascism in some areas of our Policing so that increasingly it no longer seems to be policing by consent. If CCTV and bobby mounted cameras help in restoring public trust in the Police as well as reducing crime levels so much the better.
[quote][p][bold]PageA[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Karlar[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]PageA[/bold] wrote: The problem is that surveillance in this country is worse than Soviet Russia ever was. I remember that was one of the ways we differentiated ourselves from that regime.[/p][/quote]Firm factual evidence to back up your first claim? Do you really remember the when we prided ourselves that surveillance here was far worse than in communist Russia?[/p][/quote]I do remember. I remember the point in the cold war when the USSR was at its most powerful. I remember watching Nationwide whilst eating my tea and seeing pictures of Russian Nuclear warheads pointing at London and Warrington. I remember my maths teacher asking the class to work out how long it would take for residents of Warrington to be vaporised following a nuclear strike against Burtonwood. I remember Two Tribes by Frankie goes to Hollywood, Spitting Image and When the wind blows. I remember we talked a lot about it..I remember that on some days it was all we talked about. I'm not supplying firm factual evidence here today Karlar I'm offering opinion and comment as is required on this forum. I can also give you the opinion of a former CIA employee and NSA contractor who considers the uk government surveillance to be far worse than Orwell imagined and a London based correspondent of the state owned Russian Channel One TV station, Irada Zeinalova, who is appalled by the levels of intrusion into the private lives of the Brits. Much worse than her experience of Soviet Russia in her experience..as a journalist in Soviet Russia[/p][/quote]You seem to be mixing and confusing your arguments. Like many others I too remember what you describe, and in seeing By Dawn's Early Light, Fail Safe, The Day After, Threads and Dr Strangelove. All of which describe the futility of nuclear war and in some the mindset of those who might conduct one. But none supports your opinion that surveillance in this country was far worse than in the USSR, or that it was the way we differentiated ourselves from communist regimes. George Orwell fought in the Spanish Civil war for the communists against fascism and came away hating the former as much as the latter. 1984 came out of that realization. Your CIA and NSA sources might have cause to take a different view now surveillance of the American public has raised its ugly head over the pond and during a democratic presidency as well. Ms Zeinalova too seems to have pretty short memory of what went on under Stalin and Beira. We’ve drifted off track and might be making it difficult for MAD 4 IT to follow. I don’t deny there seem to be pockets of benign fascism in some areas of our Policing so that increasingly it no longer seems to be policing by consent. If CCTV and bobby mounted cameras help in restoring public trust in the Police as well as reducing crime levels so much the better. Karlar

4:39pm Mon 13 Jan 14

PageA says...

Karlar wrote:
PageA wrote:
Karlar wrote:
PageA wrote:
The problem is that surveillance in this country is worse than Soviet Russia ever was. I remember that was one of the ways we differentiated ourselves from that regime.
Firm factual evidence to back up your first claim? Do you really remember the when we prided ourselves that surveillance here was far worse than in communist Russia?
I do remember. I remember the point in the cold war when the USSR was at its most powerful. I remember watching Nationwide whilst eating my tea and seeing pictures of Russian Nuclear warheads pointing at London and Warrington. I remember my maths teacher asking the class to work out how long it would take for residents of Warrington to be vaporised following a nuclear strike against Burtonwood. I remember Two Tribes by Frankie goes to Hollywood, Spitting Image and When the wind blows. I remember we talked a lot about it..I remember that on some days it was all we talked about. I'm not supplying firm factual evidence here today Karlar I'm offering opinion and comment as is required on this forum. I can also give you the opinion of a former CIA employee and NSA contractor who considers the uk government surveillance to be far worse than Orwell imagined and a London based correspondent of the state owned Russian Channel One TV station, Irada Zeinalova, who is appalled by the levels of intrusion into the private lives of the Brits. Much worse than her experience of Soviet Russia in her experience..as a journalist in Soviet Russia
You seem to be mixing and confusing your arguments. Like many others I too remember what you describe, and in seeing By Dawn's Early Light, Fail Safe, The Day After, Threads and Dr Strangelove. All of which describe the futility of nuclear war and in some the mindset of those who might conduct one. But none supports your opinion that surveillance in this country was far worse than in the USSR, or that it was the way we differentiated ourselves from communist regimes. George Orwell fought in the Spanish Civil war for the communists against fascism and came away hating the former as much as the latter. 1984 came out of that realization. Your CIA and NSA sources might have cause to take a different view now surveillance of the American public has raised its ugly head over the pond and during a democratic presidency as well. Ms Zeinalova too seems to have pretty short memory of what went on under Stalin and Beira. We’ve drifted off track and might be making it difficult for MAD 4 IT to follow.
I don’t deny there seem to be pockets of benign fascism in some areas of our Policing so that increasingly it no longer seems to be policing by consent. If CCTV and bobby mounted cameras help in restoring public trust in the Police as well as reducing crime levels so much the better.
You asked me if I could remember and I said that I could.
Levels of surveillance is one of the ways that we differentiated from Soviet Russia is what I said Karlar and nothing you have said has changed my opinion. You seem to be discussing everything but my point. Is that what they call a straw man argument?
[quote][p][bold]Karlar[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]PageA[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Karlar[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]PageA[/bold] wrote: The problem is that surveillance in this country is worse than Soviet Russia ever was. I remember that was one of the ways we differentiated ourselves from that regime.[/p][/quote]Firm factual evidence to back up your first claim? Do you really remember the when we prided ourselves that surveillance here was far worse than in communist Russia?[/p][/quote]I do remember. I remember the point in the cold war when the USSR was at its most powerful. I remember watching Nationwide whilst eating my tea and seeing pictures of Russian Nuclear warheads pointing at London and Warrington. I remember my maths teacher asking the class to work out how long it would take for residents of Warrington to be vaporised following a nuclear strike against Burtonwood. I remember Two Tribes by Frankie goes to Hollywood, Spitting Image and When the wind blows. I remember we talked a lot about it..I remember that on some days it was all we talked about. I'm not supplying firm factual evidence here today Karlar I'm offering opinion and comment as is required on this forum. I can also give you the opinion of a former CIA employee and NSA contractor who considers the uk government surveillance to be far worse than Orwell imagined and a London based correspondent of the state owned Russian Channel One TV station, Irada Zeinalova, who is appalled by the levels of intrusion into the private lives of the Brits. Much worse than her experience of Soviet Russia in her experience..as a journalist in Soviet Russia[/p][/quote]You seem to be mixing and confusing your arguments. Like many others I too remember what you describe, and in seeing By Dawn's Early Light, Fail Safe, The Day After, Threads and Dr Strangelove. All of which describe the futility of nuclear war and in some the mindset of those who might conduct one. But none supports your opinion that surveillance in this country was far worse than in the USSR, or that it was the way we differentiated ourselves from communist regimes. George Orwell fought in the Spanish Civil war for the communists against fascism and came away hating the former as much as the latter. 1984 came out of that realization. Your CIA and NSA sources might have cause to take a different view now surveillance of the American public has raised its ugly head over the pond and during a democratic presidency as well. Ms Zeinalova too seems to have pretty short memory of what went on under Stalin and Beira. We’ve drifted off track and might be making it difficult for MAD 4 IT to follow. I don’t deny there seem to be pockets of benign fascism in some areas of our Policing so that increasingly it no longer seems to be policing by consent. If CCTV and bobby mounted cameras help in restoring public trust in the Police as well as reducing crime levels so much the better.[/p][/quote]You asked me if I could remember and I said that I could. Levels of surveillance is one of the ways that we differentiated from Soviet Russia is what I said Karlar and nothing you have said has changed my opinion. You seem to be discussing everything but my point. Is that what they call a straw man argument? PageA

2:26pm Wed 15 Jan 14

fedster says...

maybe they are their for the police protection due to budget cuts
under FOI act there was over 250 claims of racism via the Cheshire police last year. maybe they just want to cut down on the pay outs.
maybe they are their for the police protection due to budget cuts under FOI act there was over 250 claims of racism via the Cheshire police last year. maybe they just want to cut down on the pay outs. fedster

4:28pm Wed 15 Jan 14

PageA says...

fedster wrote:
maybe they are their for the police protection due to budget cuts
under FOI act there was over 250 claims of racism via the Cheshire police last year. maybe they just want to cut down on the pay outs.
That's one every 1.5 days Fedster. Are you sure that's correct? Could you post the link to your information please. Do you have information regarding the payouts made by Cheshire Police following claims of racism? This is all news to me
[quote][p][bold]fedster[/bold] wrote: maybe they are their for the police protection due to budget cuts under FOI act there was over 250 claims of racism via the Cheshire police last year. maybe they just want to cut down on the pay outs.[/p][/quote]That's one every 1.5 days Fedster. Are you sure that's correct? Could you post the link to your information please. Do you have information regarding the payouts made by Cheshire Police following claims of racism? This is all news to me PageA

Comments are closed on this article.

click2find

About cookies

We want you to enjoy your visit to our website. That's why we use cookies to enhance your experience. By staying on our website you agree to our use of cookies. Find out more about the cookies we use.

I agree