Southampton City Council appeals taxi cam ruling

Daily Echo: One of the cameras in a Southampton taxi One of the cameras in a Southampton taxi

COUNCIL bosses in Southampton have launched an appeal against a privacy watchdog ruling that it was wrong to record all passengers' and drivers' conversations in taxis.

The Information Commissioner said Southampton City Council had “gone too far” in its desire to ensure people's safety and ordered it to stop making it compulsory to record all conversations in taxis and private hire cars by a November 1 deadline.

But the council said the city's taxis will now continue to be required to use the cameras until a public appeal hearing, expected next spring.

About 450 of the 1,000 cars in Southampton now have cameras which continuously record images and audio and cannot be switched off. They cost up to £700, of which cabbies have to pay about £300.

The controversial “taxicam” policy was brought in three years ago, and has already been challenged through the courts by taxi bosses.

While not giving a legal ruling a judge said he said he thought the policy was “not lawful” and that the recording of every conversation was “invasive”, “disproportionate” and a “violation” of the human right to privacy.

The council said its taxi cameras have cross-party support and have been used as evidence in securing convictions against a number of drivers and passengers.

Councillor Jacqui Rayment, deputy leader of Southampton City Council, said: “What has not been acknowledged in the process so far is the lengths we go to protect the privacy of all drivers and passengers.

“No one sees these videos unless there is an incident that needs investigating and in those cases the footage and audio becomes crucial independent evidence.

“The very fact that the cameras capture everything is a valuable deterrent against attacks, both verbal and physical.

She added: “We will continue to review the use of cameras in taxis although the message we are receiving locally is that both drivers and passengers value them.

“This appeal is an opportunity for us to show the court that we are not using them to snoop on innocent activity, but to deter and take action on criminal offences.”

Comments (27)

Please log in to enable comment sorting

2:21pm Thu 16 Aug 12

hulla baloo says...

So easy to appeal and spend tax payers money. I wonder if they would do the same if it came out of their pockets?
So easy to appeal and spend tax payers money. I wonder if they would do the same if it came out of their pockets? hulla baloo

2:23pm Thu 16 Aug 12

Georgem says...

hulla baloo wrote:
So easy to appeal and spend tax payers money. I wonder if they would do the same if it came out of their pockets?
Are they not also tax payers?
[quote][p][bold]hulla baloo[/bold] wrote: So easy to appeal and spend tax payers money. I wonder if they would do the same if it came out of their pockets?[/p][/quote]Are they not also tax payers? Georgem

2:23pm Thu 16 Aug 12

arthur dalyrimple says...

criminal offences ? thats a laugh ,did,nt voyeurism used to be a criminal offence ?
criminal offences ? thats a laugh ,did,nt voyeurism used to be a criminal offence ? arthur dalyrimple

2:36pm Thu 16 Aug 12

hulla baloo says...

Georgem wrote:
hulla baloo wrote:
So easy to appeal and spend tax payers money. I wonder if they would do the same if it came out of their pockets?
Are they not also tax payers?
Yes, but I think you missed the point. ;)
[quote][p][bold]Georgem[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]hulla baloo[/bold] wrote: So easy to appeal and spend tax payers money. I wonder if they would do the same if it came out of their pockets?[/p][/quote]Are they not also tax payers?[/p][/quote]Yes, but I think you missed the point. ;) hulla baloo

2:42pm Thu 16 Aug 12

Georgem says...

hulla baloo wrote:
Georgem wrote:
hulla baloo wrote:
So easy to appeal and spend tax payers money. I wonder if they would do the same if it came out of their pockets?
Are they not also tax payers?
Yes, but I think you missed the point. ;)
Probably!
[quote][p][bold]hulla baloo[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Georgem[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]hulla baloo[/bold] wrote: So easy to appeal and spend tax payers money. I wonder if they would do the same if it came out of their pockets?[/p][/quote]Are they not also tax payers?[/p][/quote]Yes, but I think you missed the point. ;)[/p][/quote]Probably! Georgem

2:45pm Thu 16 Aug 12

shirley-bill says...

More of our council tax to the lawyers , i thought this council had to save money not waste it . Our great city in falling apart , grass uncut , litter not cleaned up, bin men that do want they want when they want , swimming pool closing . Some one in the council needs to wake up and smell the coffee.
More of our council tax to the lawyers , i thought this council had to save money not waste it . Our great city in falling apart , grass uncut , litter not cleaned up, bin men that do want they want when they want , swimming pool closing . Some one in the council needs to wake up and smell the coffee. shirley-bill

3:32pm Thu 16 Aug 12

loosehead says...

When the Tory council introduced these & the Taxi drivers protested against these & labour supporters came onto these posts slagging down the Tory council how come the likes of SotonDave didn't come on here supporting the cameras use?
Why didn't they write an article of support in the echo?
When the Tory council introduced these & the Taxi drivers protested against these & labour supporters came onto these posts slagging down the Tory council how come the likes of SotonDave didn't come on here supporting the cameras use? Why didn't they write an article of support in the echo? loosehead

4:01pm Thu 16 Aug 12

Severntrent says...

Not sure what use the council think they will gain from recording hours of footage of swivel-eyed, wheres wally look-alike equestrian eventing fans dribbling incomprehensible nonsense to each other... but i'm sure they have their reasons
Not sure what use the council think they will gain from recording hours of footage of swivel-eyed, wheres wally look-alike equestrian eventing fans dribbling incomprehensible nonsense to each other... but i'm sure they have their reasons Severntrent

4:18pm Thu 16 Aug 12

Family Man says...

Isn't Jacqui Rayment, the Deputy Leader of SCC and the one quoted above who is apparently so supportive of this scheme which is, according to the Information Commissioner is "going to far" in eroding civil liberties and privacy also the same Jacqui Rayment who is the official Labour candidate for Police Commissioner for Hampshire Police in the forthcoming election?

Wow! What a choice! An almost octogenarian Tory and Jacqui.

What a shame there isn't a box on the voting form to say "Neither of the above" and which would count as a vote against them, because one way or another, one of these people will be foist upon us!

Can I hear three cheers for democracy?
Isn't Jacqui Rayment, the Deputy Leader of SCC and the one quoted above who is apparently so supportive of this scheme which is, according to the Information Commissioner is "going to far" in eroding civil liberties and privacy also the same Jacqui Rayment who is the official Labour candidate for Police Commissioner for Hampshire Police in the forthcoming election? Wow! What a choice! An almost octogenarian Tory and Jacqui. What a shame there isn't a box on the voting form to say "Neither of the above" and which would count as a vote against them, because one way or another, one of these people will be foist upon us! Can I hear three cheers for democracy? Family Man

4:57pm Thu 16 Aug 12

thinklikealocal says...

hulla baloo wrote:
Georgem wrote:
hulla baloo wrote: So easy to appeal and spend tax payers money. I wonder if they would do the same if it came out of their pockets?
Are they not also tax payers?
Yes, but I think you missed the point. ;)
I think you are the one who has missed the point. When in public office, you don't make decisions as you would for yourself, you do what is best for citizens of the area. That is certainly what this policy is about.
[quote][p][bold]hulla baloo[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Georgem[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]hulla baloo[/bold] wrote: So easy to appeal and spend tax payers money. I wonder if they would do the same if it came out of their pockets?[/p][/quote]Are they not also tax payers?[/p][/quote]Yes, but I think you missed the point. ;)[/p][/quote]I think you are the one who has missed the point. When in public office, you don't make decisions as you would for yourself, you do what is best for citizens of the area. That is certainly what this policy is about. thinklikealocal

5:26pm Thu 16 Aug 12

thinklikealocal says...

Severntrent wrote:
Not sure what use the council think they will gain from recording hours of footage of swivel-eyed, wheres wally look-alike equestrian eventing fans dribbling incomprehensible nonsense to each other... but i'm sure they have their reasons
Que?
[quote][p][bold]Severntrent[/bold] wrote: Not sure what use the council think they will gain from recording hours of footage of swivel-eyed, wheres wally look-alike equestrian eventing fans dribbling incomprehensible nonsense to each other... but i'm sure they have their reasons[/p][/quote]Que? thinklikealocal

7:09pm Thu 16 Aug 12

arthur dalyrimple says...

thinklikealocal wrote:
hulla baloo wrote:
Georgem wrote:
hulla baloo wrote: So easy to appeal and spend tax payers money. I wonder if they would do the same if it came out of their pockets?
Are they not also tax payers?
Yes, but I think you missed the point. ;)
I think you are the one who has missed the point. When in public office, you don't make decisions as you would for yourself, you do what is best for citizens of the area. That is certainly what this policy is about.
1984
[quote][p][bold]thinklikealocal[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]hulla baloo[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Georgem[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]hulla baloo[/bold] wrote: So easy to appeal and spend tax payers money. I wonder if they would do the same if it came out of their pockets?[/p][/quote]Are they not also tax payers?[/p][/quote]Yes, but I think you missed the point. ;)[/p][/quote]I think you are the one who has missed the point. When in public office, you don't make decisions as you would for yourself, you do what is best for citizens of the area. That is certainly what this policy is about.[/p][/quote]1984 arthur dalyrimple

7:34pm Thu 16 Aug 12

opera phantom says...

Its spying pure and simple.
We are the most photographed and spied on country.
Its spying pure and simple. We are the most photographed and spied on country. opera phantom

7:35pm Thu 16 Aug 12

opera phantom says...

Its spying pure and simple.
We are the most photographed and spied on country.
Its spying pure and simple. We are the most photographed and spied on country. opera phantom

7:51pm Thu 16 Aug 12

thinklikealocal says...

arthur dalyrimple wrote:
thinklikealocal wrote:
hulla baloo wrote:
Georgem wrote:
hulla baloo wrote: So easy to appeal and spend tax payers money. I wonder if they would do the same if it came out of their pockets?
Are they not also tax payers?
Yes, but I think you missed the point. ;)
I think you are the one who has missed the point. When in public office, you don't make decisions as you would for yourself, you do what is best for citizens of the area. That is certainly what this policy is about.
1984
Is that when you last went out? Surely you cannot be referring to a work of fiction when debating a serious policy issue. These camera's, their purpose, and who has access to the recordings bears no resemblance. You would do better to complain about CCTV. Footage of YOU is toutinely scrutinised!
[quote][p][bold]arthur dalyrimple[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]thinklikealocal[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]hulla baloo[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Georgem[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]hulla baloo[/bold] wrote: So easy to appeal and spend tax payers money. I wonder if they would do the same if it came out of their pockets?[/p][/quote]Are they not also tax payers?[/p][/quote]Yes, but I think you missed the point. ;)[/p][/quote]I think you are the one who has missed the point. When in public office, you don't make decisions as you would for yourself, you do what is best for citizens of the area. That is certainly what this policy is about.[/p][/quote]1984[/p][/quote]Is that when you last went out? Surely you cannot be referring to a work of fiction when debating a serious policy issue. These camera's, their purpose, and who has access to the recordings bears no resemblance. You would do better to complain about CCTV. Footage of YOU is toutinely scrutinised! thinklikealocal

8:55pm Thu 16 Aug 12

arthur dalyrimple says...

thinklikealocal wrote:
arthur dalyrimple wrote:
thinklikealocal wrote:
hulla baloo wrote:
Georgem wrote:
hulla baloo wrote: So easy to appeal and spend tax payers money. I wonder if they would do the same if it came out of their pockets?
Are they not also tax payers?
Yes, but I think you missed the point. ;)
I think you are the one who has missed the point. When in public office, you don't make decisions as you would for yourself, you do what is best for citizens of the area. That is certainly what this policy is about.
1984
Is that when you last went out? Surely you cannot be referring to a work of fiction when debating a serious policy issue. These camera's, their purpose, and who has access to the recordings bears no resemblance. You would do better to complain about CCTV. Footage of YOU is toutinely scrutinised!
must lead very boring lives , hav,nt seen al kaida down the taxi rank lately , just a police state,get it straight.
[quote][p][bold]thinklikealocal[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]arthur dalyrimple[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]thinklikealocal[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]hulla baloo[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Georgem[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]hulla baloo[/bold] wrote: So easy to appeal and spend tax payers money. I wonder if they would do the same if it came out of their pockets?[/p][/quote]Are they not also tax payers?[/p][/quote]Yes, but I think you missed the point. ;)[/p][/quote]I think you are the one who has missed the point. When in public office, you don't make decisions as you would for yourself, you do what is best for citizens of the area. That is certainly what this policy is about.[/p][/quote]1984[/p][/quote]Is that when you last went out? Surely you cannot be referring to a work of fiction when debating a serious policy issue. These camera's, their purpose, and who has access to the recordings bears no resemblance. You would do better to complain about CCTV. Footage of YOU is toutinely scrutinised![/p][/quote]must lead very boring lives , hav,nt seen al kaida down the taxi rank lately , just a police state,get it straight. arthur dalyrimple

11:26pm Thu 16 Aug 12

andysaints007 says...

arthur dalyrimple wrote:
thinklikealocal wrote:
arthur dalyrimple wrote:
thinklikealocal wrote:
hulla baloo wrote:
Georgem wrote:
hulla baloo wrote: So easy to appeal and spend tax payers money. I wonder if they would do the same if it came out of their pockets?
Are they not also tax payers?
Yes, but I think you missed the point. ;)
I think you are the one who has missed the point. When in public office, you don't make decisions as you would for yourself, you do what is best for citizens of the area. That is certainly what this policy is about.
1984
Is that when you last went out? Surely you cannot be referring to a work of fiction when debating a serious policy issue. These camera's, their purpose, and who has access to the recordings bears no resemblance. You would do better to complain about CCTV. Footage of YOU is toutinely scrutinised!
must lead very boring lives , hav,nt seen al kaida down the taxi rank lately , just a police state,get it straight.
Ah so you are one of those that likes to bolt the stable door AFTER the horse has bolted! Please tell us all what you have to hide!
[quote][p][bold]arthur dalyrimple[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]thinklikealocal[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]arthur dalyrimple[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]thinklikealocal[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]hulla baloo[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Georgem[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]hulla baloo[/bold] wrote: So easy to appeal and spend tax payers money. I wonder if they would do the same if it came out of their pockets?[/p][/quote]Are they not also tax payers?[/p][/quote]Yes, but I think you missed the point. ;)[/p][/quote]I think you are the one who has missed the point. When in public office, you don't make decisions as you would for yourself, you do what is best for citizens of the area. That is certainly what this policy is about.[/p][/quote]1984[/p][/quote]Is that when you last went out? Surely you cannot be referring to a work of fiction when debating a serious policy issue. These camera's, their purpose, and who has access to the recordings bears no resemblance. You would do better to complain about CCTV. Footage of YOU is toutinely scrutinised![/p][/quote]must lead very boring lives , hav,nt seen al kaida down the taxi rank lately , just a police state,get it straight.[/p][/quote]Ah so you are one of those that likes to bolt the stable door AFTER the horse has bolted! Please tell us all what you have to hide! andysaints007

10:13am Fri 17 Aug 12

Georgem says...

arthur dalyrimple wrote:
thinklikealocal wrote:
hulla baloo wrote:
Georgem wrote:
hulla baloo wrote: So easy to appeal and spend tax payers money. I wonder if they would do the same if it came out of their pockets?
Are they not also tax payers?
Yes, but I think you missed the point. ;)
I think you are the one who has missed the point. When in public office, you don't make decisions as you would for yourself, you do what is best for citizens of the area. That is certainly what this policy is about.
1984
What about it? Oh, right. 1984. Got it. A complex treatise on the nature of socialism can be boiled down to "it's about cameras, innit". Of all the ways Ingsoc controlled the proles, ubiquitous cameras were small potatoes, yet it seems to be the only thing that ever prompts a '1984' reference. Makes me wonder if anyone who quotes it ever actually read it.

Aside from the amount of surveillance, the modern world bears little resemblance to what Orwell wrote.

http://www.egodialog
ues.com/2009/aldous-
huxley-george-orwell
/
[quote][p][bold]arthur dalyrimple[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]thinklikealocal[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]hulla baloo[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Georgem[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]hulla baloo[/bold] wrote: So easy to appeal and spend tax payers money. I wonder if they would do the same if it came out of their pockets?[/p][/quote]Are they not also tax payers?[/p][/quote]Yes, but I think you missed the point. ;)[/p][/quote]I think you are the one who has missed the point. When in public office, you don't make decisions as you would for yourself, you do what is best for citizens of the area. That is certainly what this policy is about.[/p][/quote]1984[/p][/quote]What about it? Oh, right. 1984. Got it. A complex treatise on the nature of socialism can be boiled down to "it's about cameras, innit". Of all the ways Ingsoc controlled the proles, ubiquitous cameras were small potatoes, yet it seems to be the only thing that ever prompts a '1984' reference. Makes me wonder if anyone who quotes it ever actually read it. Aside from the amount of surveillance, the modern world bears little resemblance to what Orwell wrote. http://www.egodialog ues.com/2009/aldous- huxley-george-orwell / Georgem

11:28am Fri 17 Aug 12

Private Hire Services - Notts says...

Hi,
What I cannot understand from having read the above comments, is this.

What price do you out on a drivers life and his families well being, given what appears to be an increase Nationally on attacks against 'taxi' drivers?

Secondly, if the 'taxi' drivers licensed by S'ton council want to be regarded as being professional, why would they not want to promote the fact that their vehicles have CCTV + Audio fitted for the safety and CONFIDENCE of PASSENGERS!!

What have drivers to fear?
Hi, What I cannot understand from having read the above comments, is this. What price do you out on a drivers life and his families well being, given what appears to be an increase Nationally on attacks against 'taxi' drivers? Secondly, if the 'taxi' drivers licensed by S'ton council want to be regarded as being professional, why would they not want to promote the fact that their vehicles have CCTV + Audio fitted for the safety and CONFIDENCE of PASSENGERS!! What have drivers to fear? Private Hire Services - Notts

11:50am Fri 17 Aug 12

Georgem says...

Private Hire Services - Notts wrote:
Hi,
What I cannot understand from having read the above comments, is this.

What price do you out on a drivers life and his families well being, given what appears to be an increase Nationally on attacks against 'taxi' drivers?

Secondly, if the 'taxi' drivers licensed by S'ton council want to be regarded as being professional, why would they not want to promote the fact that their vehicles have CCTV + Audio fitted for the safety and CONFIDENCE of PASSENGERS!!

What have drivers to fear?
Quite why so many rational people keep falling for the 'security' red herring is beyond me.
[quote][p][bold]Private Hire Services - Notts[/bold] wrote: Hi, What I cannot understand from having read the above comments, is this. What price do you out on a drivers life and his families well being, given what appears to be an increase Nationally on attacks against 'taxi' drivers? Secondly, if the 'taxi' drivers licensed by S'ton council want to be regarded as being professional, why would they not want to promote the fact that their vehicles have CCTV + Audio fitted for the safety and CONFIDENCE of PASSENGERS!! What have drivers to fear?[/p][/quote]Quite why so many rational people keep falling for the 'security' red herring is beyond me. Georgem

1:00pm Fri 17 Aug 12

Vonnie says...

Private Hire Services - Notts wrote:
Hi, What I cannot understand from having read the above comments, is this. What price do you out on a drivers life and his families well being, given what appears to be an increase Nationally on attacks against 'taxi' drivers? Secondly, if the 'taxi' drivers licensed by S'ton council want to be regarded as being professional, why would they not want to promote the fact that their vehicles have CCTV + Audio fitted for the safety and CONFIDENCE of PASSENGERS!! What have drivers to fear?
Read the article and you might understand what the privacy issues are here. The cameras cannot be turned off so when the driver uses his taxi as an ordinary car as most do outside working hours, then, potentially, all the world and his wife could be privy to very personal things.
Would you like to have a permanently turned on camera to be fitted to your vehicle?? The reason, quite plausibly, being that it would provide evidence in the case of an accident or incident.
[quote][p][bold]Private Hire Services - Notts[/bold] wrote: Hi, What I cannot understand from having read the above comments, is this. What price do you out on a drivers life and his families well being, given what appears to be an increase Nationally on attacks against 'taxi' drivers? Secondly, if the 'taxi' drivers licensed by S'ton council want to be regarded as being professional, why would they not want to promote the fact that their vehicles have CCTV + Audio fitted for the safety and CONFIDENCE of PASSENGERS!! What have drivers to fear?[/p][/quote]Read the article and you might understand what the privacy issues are here. The cameras cannot be turned off so when the driver uses his taxi as an ordinary car as most do outside working hours, then, potentially, all the world and his wife could be privy to very personal things. Would you like to have a permanently turned on camera to be fitted to your vehicle?? The reason, quite plausibly, being that it would provide evidence in the case of an accident or incident. Vonnie

5:23pm Fri 17 Aug 12

arthur dalyrimple says...

andysaints007 wrote:
arthur dalyrimple wrote:
thinklikealocal wrote:
arthur dalyrimple wrote:
thinklikealocal wrote:
hulla baloo wrote:
Georgem wrote:
hulla baloo wrote: So easy to appeal and spend tax payers money. I wonder if they would do the same if it came out of their pockets?
Are they not also tax payers?
Yes, but I think you missed the point. ;)
I think you are the one who has missed the point. When in public office, you don't make decisions as you would for yourself, you do what is best for citizens of the area. That is certainly what this policy is about.
1984
Is that when you last went out? Surely you cannot be referring to a work of fiction when debating a serious policy issue. These camera's, their purpose, and who has access to the recordings bears no resemblance. You would do better to complain about CCTV. Footage of YOU is toutinely scrutinised!
must lead very boring lives , hav,nt seen al kaida down the taxi rank lately , just a police state,get it straight.
Ah so you are one of those that likes to bolt the stable door AFTER the horse has bolted! Please tell us all what you have to hide!
i always sweep my dust under the carpet ,and turning the uk into stasi east germany is quite a change whatever propaganda you wish to put on it .
[quote][p][bold]andysaints007[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]arthur dalyrimple[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]thinklikealocal[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]arthur dalyrimple[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]thinklikealocal[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]hulla baloo[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Georgem[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]hulla baloo[/bold] wrote: So easy to appeal and spend tax payers money. I wonder if they would do the same if it came out of their pockets?[/p][/quote]Are they not also tax payers?[/p][/quote]Yes, but I think you missed the point. ;)[/p][/quote]I think you are the one who has missed the point. When in public office, you don't make decisions as you would for yourself, you do what is best for citizens of the area. That is certainly what this policy is about.[/p][/quote]1984[/p][/quote]Is that when you last went out? Surely you cannot be referring to a work of fiction when debating a serious policy issue. These camera's, their purpose, and who has access to the recordings bears no resemblance. You would do better to complain about CCTV. Footage of YOU is toutinely scrutinised![/p][/quote]must lead very boring lives , hav,nt seen al kaida down the taxi rank lately , just a police state,get it straight.[/p][/quote]Ah so you are one of those that likes to bolt the stable door AFTER the horse has bolted! Please tell us all what you have to hide![/p][/quote]i always sweep my dust under the carpet ,and turning the uk into stasi east germany is quite a change whatever propaganda you wish to put on it . arthur dalyrimple

7:33pm Fri 17 Aug 12

Ginger_cyclist says...

I don't see the problem, a growing number of motorists are fitting their PERSONAL cars with such cameras, though they point forwards out of the windscreen but many then pick out key events such as a crash or dangerous driving and then either give it to the police or upload it to youtube.
I don't see the problem, a growing number of motorists are fitting their PERSONAL cars with such cameras, though they point forwards out of the windscreen but many then pick out key events such as a crash or dangerous driving and then either give it to the police or upload it to youtube. Ginger_cyclist

10:13pm Fri 17 Aug 12

andysaints007 says...

arthur dalyrimple wrote:
andysaints007 wrote:
arthur dalyrimple wrote:
thinklikealocal wrote:
arthur dalyrimple wrote:
thinklikealocal wrote:
hulla baloo wrote:
Georgem wrote:
hulla baloo wrote: So easy to appeal and spend tax payers money. I wonder if they would do the same if it came out of their pockets?
Are they not also tax payers?
Yes, but I think you missed the point. ;)
I think you are the one who has missed the point. When in public office, you don't make decisions as you would for yourself, you do what is best for citizens of the area. That is certainly what this policy is about.
1984
Is that when you last went out? Surely you cannot be referring to a work of fiction when debating a serious policy issue. These camera's, their purpose, and who has access to the recordings bears no resemblance. You would do better to complain about CCTV. Footage of YOU is toutinely scrutinised!
must lead very boring lives , hav,nt seen al kaida down the taxi rank lately , just a police state,get it straight.
Ah so you are one of those that likes to bolt the stable door AFTER the horse has bolted! Please tell us all what you have to hide!
i always sweep my dust under the carpet ,and turning the uk into stasi east germany is quite a change whatever propaganda you wish to put on it .
That's a bit of a pathetic comparison don't you think! Bit of a difference between Southampton City Council and the Stasi me thinks.
[quote][p][bold]arthur dalyrimple[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]andysaints007[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]arthur dalyrimple[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]thinklikealocal[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]arthur dalyrimple[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]thinklikealocal[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]hulla baloo[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Georgem[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]hulla baloo[/bold] wrote: So easy to appeal and spend tax payers money. I wonder if they would do the same if it came out of their pockets?[/p][/quote]Are they not also tax payers?[/p][/quote]Yes, but I think you missed the point. ;)[/p][/quote]I think you are the one who has missed the point. When in public office, you don't make decisions as you would for yourself, you do what is best for citizens of the area. That is certainly what this policy is about.[/p][/quote]1984[/p][/quote]Is that when you last went out? Surely you cannot be referring to a work of fiction when debating a serious policy issue. These camera's, their purpose, and who has access to the recordings bears no resemblance. You would do better to complain about CCTV. Footage of YOU is toutinely scrutinised![/p][/quote]must lead very boring lives , hav,nt seen al kaida down the taxi rank lately , just a police state,get it straight.[/p][/quote]Ah so you are one of those that likes to bolt the stable door AFTER the horse has bolted! Please tell us all what you have to hide![/p][/quote]i always sweep my dust under the carpet ,and turning the uk into stasi east germany is quite a change whatever propaganda you wish to put on it .[/p][/quote]That's a bit of a pathetic comparison don't you think! Bit of a difference between Southampton City Council and the Stasi me thinks. andysaints007

2:17am Sat 18 Aug 12

Scrutinizer says...

...but we all ought to be able to see the way this is all going though...the implications for general human interaction I mean. I certainly can. One day, not too far into the future either, I can well imagine that for example every council staff member (and company front-line employee) engaged in a front-line role (and maybe those who are not) will be wearing cameras and mic's. In the end people will be too afraid to speak, watching EVERY word they are thinking of uttering, for fear of worrying that they've breached this rule and that, offended somebody's rights or other, maybe with their own personal freedom or at least their job at stake as an ultimate consequence. Some people on here might that think it's paranoia, but I can well see it coming sometime down the line... The simple fact is that their are plenty of people (individuals and organisations) in life, who, given the power, rather enjoy control over others, and by any means they can get their hands on. It's simply called human nature...
...but we all ought to be able to see the way this is all going though...the implications for general human interaction I mean. I certainly can. One day, not too far into the future either, I can well imagine that for example every council staff member (and company front-line employee) engaged in a front-line role (and maybe those who are not) will be wearing cameras and mic's. In the end people will be too afraid to speak, watching EVERY word they are thinking of uttering, for fear of worrying that they've breached this rule and that, offended somebody's rights or other, maybe with their own personal freedom or at least their job at stake as an ultimate consequence. Some people on here might that think it's paranoia, but I can well see it coming sometime down the line... The simple fact is that their are plenty of people (individuals and organisations) in life, who, given the power, rather enjoy control over others, and by any means they can get their hands on. It's simply called human nature... Scrutinizer

10:34am Sat 18 Aug 12

Georgem says...

Ginger_cyclist wrote:
I don't see the problem, a growing number of motorists are fitting their PERSONAL cars with such cameras, though they point forwards out of the windscreen but many then pick out key events such as a crash or dangerous driving and then either give it to the police or upload it to youtube.
If you can't tell why those cameras are completely different to the ones in this story, you have failed to understand what's being discussed.
[quote][p][bold]Ginger_cyclist[/bold] wrote: I don't see the problem, a growing number of motorists are fitting their PERSONAL cars with such cameras, though they point forwards out of the windscreen but many then pick out key events such as a crash or dangerous driving and then either give it to the police or upload it to youtube.[/p][/quote]If you can't tell why those cameras are completely different to the ones in this story, you have failed to understand what's being discussed. Georgem

1:23pm Sat 18 Aug 12

Ginger_cyclist says...

Georgem wrote:
Ginger_cyclist wrote:
I don't see the problem, a growing number of motorists are fitting their PERSONAL cars with such cameras, though they point forwards out of the windscreen but many then pick out key events such as a crash or dangerous driving and then either give it to the police or upload it to youtube.
If you can't tell why those cameras are completely different to the ones in this story, you have failed to understand what's being discussed.
They aren't too different, some of them are even exactly the same cameras.
[quote][p][bold]Georgem[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ginger_cyclist[/bold] wrote: I don't see the problem, a growing number of motorists are fitting their PERSONAL cars with such cameras, though they point forwards out of the windscreen but many then pick out key events such as a crash or dangerous driving and then either give it to the police or upload it to youtube.[/p][/quote]If you can't tell why those cameras are completely different to the ones in this story, you have failed to understand what's being discussed.[/p][/quote]They aren't too different, some of them are even exactly the same cameras. Ginger_cyclist

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