Full scale of council CCTV cameras in Hampshire revealed (From Daily Echo)
When news happens, text SDE and your photos or videos to 80360. Or contact us by email and phone.
Full scale of council CCTV cameras in Hampshire revealed
10:36am Friday 18th December 2009 in News
Full scale of CCTV cameras in Hampshire revealed
THE number of CCTV cameras controlled by Hampshire councils has swelled to at least 2,686, a privacy watchdog has revealed.
A study by Big Brother Watch named Portsmouth City Council as the most intrusive authority in the country with the largest network of CCTV cameras alongside Nottinghamshire.
Its survey revealed Portsmouth council was using 1,454 cameras - four times as many as Southampton City Council, with 339, and more than all other Hampshire councils put together. Winchester City Council controls 104 cameras, Fareham council has 75, and Eastleigh has 74.
Big Brother Watch warned councils were creating enormous surveillance networks at great expense with only "sketchy" evidence CCTV deterred or solved crimes.
Numbers of council cameras had trebled in the past decade, the watchdog said.
But it said the quality of the footage was commonly too poor to be used in courts, the cameras were often turned off to save money and control rooms were rarely manned 24-hours-a-day.
Director of Big Brother Watch Alex Deane said: "With crime on the increase, it is understandable that some people want more CCTV, but we would all feel safer with more police on the beat, there would be fewer crimes and those crimes that do occur would be solved faster."
Southampton City Council's community safety boss Councillor Royston Smith said: "It's a balance between community safety and erosion of civil liberties.
"We think we have the balance about right making our residents feel safer while not being overly intrusive."
Portsmouth City Council said CCTV made residents and visitors feel safer and played an important role in deterring and convicting criminals, with over 18,905 arrests made in the city in the past 13 years where cameras have collected evidence for prosecution.
Comments(16)
silent one
says...
11:39am Fri 18 Dec 09
Jerry Parsons
says...
11:59am Fri 18 Dec 09
Why is it that we always get the same response...Oh you can't do it because it would invade the privacy/human rights of the scum bag wanting cause you problems.
If the problem was around their house/area I'm sure a CCTv/more patrols would be whistled up in a trice.
hulla baloo
says...
12:40pm Fri 18 Dec 09
Jerry Parsons wrote:But if you read the report, most of the filming is of bad quality and cant be used in court anyway, is turned off or not always manned, so is not effective as a deterrent.
Silent one, agree entirely. Why is it that we always get the same response...Oh you can't do it because it would invade the privacy/human rights of the scum bag wanting cause you problems. If the problem was around their house/area I'm sure a CCTv/more patrols would be whistled up in a trice.
Has been a cheap option for policing which does not work.
Better off saving the money and putting real police out and about.
Ozmosis
says...
12:54pm Fri 18 Dec 09
silent one wrote:It's maybe not so much the "now" but what will they do with it next. Monitor your every movement? It's not as far-fetched as it sounds with this government in place!
What price can be put upon personal safety, you may have felt less safe had the cameras not been installed. I welcome the chance to find out what scum continues to break into my car 15 time in one year and stolen it once and attempted to get into my home. My BC refuses to instal CCTV due to privacy invasion, but it's ok for MY privacy to be invaded. If you have nothing to hide what's the issue??
Bartonian
says...
1:17pm Fri 18 Dec 09
Ozmosis wrote:The answer to your question is YES, they are. The growth of RFID chips means that your every movement can be followed whether in your car, your mobile, even when it is swtiched off and even your passport, which being chipped, can pick up your location within sixty feet anywhere that has a wireless receiver. Cameras are being fitted with both sound and face recognition and can be programmed to focus on scenes where there is suspicious activity. Most alarmingly RFID chips are being implanted into people and this is happening as we speak in the US. Each chip, contains a sixteen bit identifier that holds one's personal details, such as name, address, age, occupation, even medical records. Our privacy is steadily being detroyed in what is now the NEW WORLD ORDER! The likes of George Bush, Gordon Brown and Barack Obama have said this term on numerous occasions and the EU integration, and the formation of other world regions is the last step in the plan to create a one world goverment. This is all about controlling a rising population by an elite who want to destroy democracy and our own personal freedoms. Don't believe me? Read the book "Shadow Government" by Grant Jefferies and look up New World Order on YouTube.
silent one wrote: What price can be put upon personal safety, you may have felt less safe had the cameras not been installed. I welcome the chance to find out what scum continues to break into my car 15 time in one year and stolen it once and attempted to get into my home. My BC refuses to instal CCTV due to privacy invasion, but it's ok for MY privacy to be invaded. If you have nothing to hide what's the issue??It's maybe not so much the "now" but what will they do with it next. Monitor your every movement? It's not as far-fetched as it sounds with this government in place!
Ken Hutchinson
says...
2:14pm Fri 18 Dec 09
Bartonian
says...
2:28pm Fri 18 Dec 09
Ken Hutchinson wrote:Well why don't you find out then lazybones?
Oh dear......too much X Files?
Ken Hutchinson
says...
2:37pm Fri 18 Dec 09
Bartonian
says...
2:39pm Fri 18 Dec 09
Ken Hutchinson wrote:You prat.
I'm rather busy at the moment but I've emailed David Icke and he has agreed to look into it for me and report back......
Ken Hutchinson
says...
2:43pm Fri 18 Dec 09
Redback
says...
4:36pm Fri 18 Dec 09
Ken Hutchinson wrote:To some extent maybe, but the central point holds true.
Oh dear......too much X Files?
-
It's not some far-fetched conspiracy. It's driven by commercial marketing interests, not MI5. The commercial sector want as much personal information about us as possible, so that they can target their marketing effectively. See Nectar cards, for one instance.
-
It's also true that the state can very easily piggy-back on this new technology. That's the worrying bit.
-
The idea of trusting the state sector to act appropriately is a non-starter. If you recall, it's not that long ago that councils were exposed for using anti-terror legislation to spy on people for purposes such as separating their litter and applying for schools outside of their catchment area.
-
Paranoid fantasies are not useful, but neither is complacent dismissal.
freemantlegirl2
says...
4:41pm Fri 18 Dec 09
silent one wrote:If you park your car outside your home then why not install your own CCTV? (appreciate this may not be the case) I had similar problems with car being vandalised. I spent £500 (which I saw as good investment as I was shelling out £75 in excess on insurance each time) on good 'court' quality CCTV, with HD recorder that's linked to my pc. It has infra-red and is brilliant. I've already caught one van driver who scratched my car when loading up and didn't bother to come and tell me. As long as the cameras are pointing at your own car and you inform neighbours nearby then you are perfectly 'legal'. I took advice on the Police too beforehand. I have been trouble-free since touch wood ! :)
What price can be put upon personal safety, you may have felt less safe had the cameras not been installed. I welcome the chance to find out what scum continues to break into my car 15 time in one year and stolen it once and attempted to get into my home. My BC refuses to instal CCTV due to privacy invasion, but it's ok for MY privacy to be invaded. If you have nothing to hide what's the issue??
I'd rather have CCTV there than not. Look at that woman in Shirley who robbed the Poppy tin in an undertakers who was caught well and truly by CCTV. It does make me feel safer, it won't prevent crime altogether but if it increases changes of detection I'm all for it.
Redback
says...
5:18pm Fri 18 Dec 09
-
There's CCTV outside of Boots in town. It may help convict the thug I saw beating up a homeless guy the other day, but it didn't do a lot to prevent it.
-
CCTV is reactive, rather than proactive. It protects no one.
col123
says...
8:08pm Fri 18 Dec 09
damien thorn
says...
11:53am Sat 19 Dec 09
mr.southampton says...
11:04am Fri 18 Dec 09