Council appeals taxi cam ruling (From Daily Echo)

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 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?

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

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. ;)

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!

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.

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?

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

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?

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.

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?

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

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.

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!

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.

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!

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
/

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 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.

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.

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 .

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.

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.

...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...

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.

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.