CCTV image released after sex attack on young girl in Sholing area of Southampton

CCTV of the man police wish to trace

CCTV of the man police wish to trace

First published in News

POLICE investigating the sexual assault of a 12-year-old girl have released images of a man they want to trace.

As previously reported, the incident happened at around 4pm on Thursday, September 20 as the girl walked home from a shop on Butts Road in Sholing .

She was sexually assaulted by a man who is described as white, 5ft 8, aged 30-40, of medium build with short, 'fuzzy' ginger or blonde hair and wearing a black jumper or jacket and dark trousers.

Detective Inspector Justin Norris said: “We’re keen to speak to the man shown in the CCTV as he was in the area at the exact time the crime took place and we’d like to eliminate him from our enquiries. He may well have just have been passing and if that is the case he could have important information for us about what happened.

“I would urge him or anyone who thinks they know who he is to get in touch with the Western Area CID team at Southampton Central Police Station on 101 or if they want to remain anonymous they can alternatively call Crimestoppers on 0800 555 111.”

“In Southampton these kinds of incidents remain rare and we want to find the person responsible as soon as possible. We have a team of officers working on the case and are carrying out regular patrols in the area.”

Comments (20)

Please log in to enable comment sorting

4:08pm Wed 26 Sep 12

ToastyTea says...

I hope they find the sicko that did this.
I hope they find the sicko that did this. ToastyTea
  • Score: 0

4:17pm Wed 26 Sep 12

Rocket 1 says...

why is it that cctv images are very poor? yet the cameras they use to catch speeding motorist can pick out the driver and number plate from half a mile away,and the images are perfect, improve the cameras and get this perverted scum bag put away before he can strike again.
why is it that cctv images are very poor? yet the cameras they use to catch speeding motorist can pick out the driver and number plate from half a mile away,and the images are perfect, improve the cameras and get this perverted scum bag put away before he can strike again. Rocket 1
  • Score: 0

5:28pm Wed 26 Sep 12

Georgem says...

Rocket 1 wrote:
why is it that cctv images are very poor? yet the cameras they use to catch speeding motorist can pick out the driver and number plate from half a mile away,and the images are perfect, improve the cameras and get this perverted scum bag put away before he can strike again.
CCTV runs round the clock. To record that amount of footage in high definition would be extremely costly. Comparing thousands of cameras running 24/7 to a single camera taking snapshots, isn't a fair comparison.

As for your idea of improving them to catch this guy, we'd also have to invent time travel and go back and re-record the footage. If we're going to that much effort, we may as well prevent the crime in the first place.
[quote][p][bold]Rocket 1[/bold] wrote: why is it that cctv images are very poor? yet the cameras they use to catch speeding motorist can pick out the driver and number plate from half a mile away,and the images are perfect, improve the cameras and get this perverted scum bag put away before he can strike again.[/p][/quote]CCTV runs round the clock. To record that amount of footage in high definition would be extremely costly. Comparing thousands of cameras running 24/7 to a single camera taking snapshots, isn't a fair comparison. As for your idea of improving them to catch this guy, we'd also have to invent time travel and go back and re-record the footage. If we're going to that much effort, we may as well prevent the crime in the first place. Georgem
  • Score: 0

6:02pm Wed 26 Sep 12

Laura85 says...

Sexual assaults are very COMMON in soton not rare.
Sexual assaults are very COMMON in soton not rare. Laura85
  • Score: 0

6:03pm Wed 26 Sep 12

downfader says...

Georgem wrote:
Rocket 1 wrote:
why is it that cctv images are very poor? yet the cameras they use to catch speeding motorist can pick out the driver and number plate from half a mile away,and the images are perfect, improve the cameras and get this perverted scum bag put away before he can strike again.
CCTV runs round the clock. To record that amount of footage in high definition would be extremely costly. Comparing thousands of cameras running 24/7 to a single camera taking snapshots, isn't a fair comparison.

As for your idea of improving them to catch this guy, we'd also have to invent time travel and go back and re-record the footage. If we're going to that much effort, we may as well prevent the crime in the first place.
Whilst true about the data storage - it does flag up a major problem with CCTV if it is intended to be used as evidence it HAS to be of a quality that helps.

That could be anyone in the image, sadly. Otherwise why have such a system in place?
[quote][p][bold]Georgem[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Rocket 1[/bold] wrote: why is it that cctv images are very poor? yet the cameras they use to catch speeding motorist can pick out the driver and number plate from half a mile away,and the images are perfect, improve the cameras and get this perverted scum bag put away before he can strike again.[/p][/quote]CCTV runs round the clock. To record that amount of footage in high definition would be extremely costly. Comparing thousands of cameras running 24/7 to a single camera taking snapshots, isn't a fair comparison. As for your idea of improving them to catch this guy, we'd also have to invent time travel and go back and re-record the footage. If we're going to that much effort, we may as well prevent the crime in the first place.[/p][/quote]Whilst true about the data storage - it does flag up a major problem with CCTV if it is intended to be used as evidence it HAS to be of a quality that helps. That could be anyone in the image, sadly. Otherwise why have such a system in place? downfader
  • Score: 0

6:21pm Wed 26 Sep 12

Georgem says...

Laura85 wrote:
Sexual assaults are very COMMON in soton not rare.
Sources, please.
[quote][p][bold]Laura85[/bold] wrote: Sexual assaults are very COMMON in soton not rare.[/p][/quote]Sources, please. Georgem
  • Score: 0

6:21pm Wed 26 Sep 12

auntsally2 says...

Sexual assaults on children in the city are actually very rare they are not common at all.
Sexual assaults on children in the city are actually very rare they are not common at all. auntsally2
  • Score: 0

6:23pm Wed 26 Sep 12

Georgem says...

downfader wrote:
Georgem wrote:
Rocket 1 wrote:
why is it that cctv images are very poor? yet the cameras they use to catch speeding motorist can pick out the driver and number plate from half a mile away,and the images are perfect, improve the cameras and get this perverted scum bag put away before he can strike again.
CCTV runs round the clock. To record that amount of footage in high definition would be extremely costly. Comparing thousands of cameras running 24/7 to a single camera taking snapshots, isn't a fair comparison.

As for your idea of improving them to catch this guy, we'd also have to invent time travel and go back and re-record the footage. If we're going to that much effort, we may as well prevent the crime in the first place.
Whilst true about the data storage - it does flag up a major problem with CCTV if it is intended to be used as evidence it HAS to be of a quality that helps.

That could be anyone in the image, sadly. Otherwise why have such a system in place?
It's a puzzler, isn't it. Maybe something to do with the fact that CCTV footage alone isn't enough to convict, regardless of the quality. I dunno. It's not being used as evidence here, though. Just as an aid for people to help identify the guy.

I'd still agree it needs to be better quality.
[quote][p][bold]downfader[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Georgem[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Rocket 1[/bold] wrote: why is it that cctv images are very poor? yet the cameras they use to catch speeding motorist can pick out the driver and number plate from half a mile away,and the images are perfect, improve the cameras and get this perverted scum bag put away before he can strike again.[/p][/quote]CCTV runs round the clock. To record that amount of footage in high definition would be extremely costly. Comparing thousands of cameras running 24/7 to a single camera taking snapshots, isn't a fair comparison. As for your idea of improving them to catch this guy, we'd also have to invent time travel and go back and re-record the footage. If we're going to that much effort, we may as well prevent the crime in the first place.[/p][/quote]Whilst true about the data storage - it does flag up a major problem with CCTV if it is intended to be used as evidence it HAS to be of a quality that helps. That could be anyone in the image, sadly. Otherwise why have such a system in place?[/p][/quote]It's a puzzler, isn't it. Maybe something to do with the fact that CCTV footage alone isn't enough to convict, regardless of the quality. I dunno. It's not being used as evidence here, though. Just as an aid for people to help identify the guy. I'd still agree it needs to be better quality. Georgem
  • Score: 0

6:32pm Wed 26 Sep 12

Rocket 1 says...

Georgem wrote:
downfader wrote:
Georgem wrote:
Rocket 1 wrote:
why is it that cctv images are very poor? yet the cameras they use to catch speeding motorist can pick out the driver and number plate from half a mile away,and the images are perfect, improve the cameras and get this perverted scum bag put away before he can strike again.
CCTV runs round the clock. To record that amount of footage in high definition would be extremely costly. Comparing thousands of cameras running 24/7 to a single camera taking snapshots, isn't a fair comparison.

As for your idea of improving them to catch this guy, we'd also have to invent time travel and go back and re-record the footage. If we're going to that much effort, we may as well prevent the crime in the first place.
Whilst true about the data storage - it does flag up a major problem with CCTV if it is intended to be used as evidence it HAS to be of a quality that helps.

That could be anyone in the image, sadly. Otherwise why have such a system in place?
It's a puzzler, isn't it. Maybe something to do with the fact that CCTV footage alone isn't enough to convict, regardless of the quality. I dunno. It's not being used as evidence here, though. Just as an aid for people to help identify the guy.

I'd still agree it needs to be better quality.
so why is it ok to use a speed camera where evidence alone is enough to convict a motorist? always the same, money comes before the safety of the general public, I rest my case.
[quote][p][bold]Georgem[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]downfader[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Georgem[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Rocket 1[/bold] wrote: why is it that cctv images are very poor? yet the cameras they use to catch speeding motorist can pick out the driver and number plate from half a mile away,and the images are perfect, improve the cameras and get this perverted scum bag put away before he can strike again.[/p][/quote]CCTV runs round the clock. To record that amount of footage in high definition would be extremely costly. Comparing thousands of cameras running 24/7 to a single camera taking snapshots, isn't a fair comparison. As for your idea of improving them to catch this guy, we'd also have to invent time travel and go back and re-record the footage. If we're going to that much effort, we may as well prevent the crime in the first place.[/p][/quote]Whilst true about the data storage - it does flag up a major problem with CCTV if it is intended to be used as evidence it HAS to be of a quality that helps. That could be anyone in the image, sadly. Otherwise why have such a system in place?[/p][/quote]It's a puzzler, isn't it. Maybe something to do with the fact that CCTV footage alone isn't enough to convict, regardless of the quality. I dunno. It's not being used as evidence here, though. Just as an aid for people to help identify the guy. I'd still agree it needs to be better quality.[/p][/quote]so why is it ok to use a speed camera where evidence alone is enough to convict a motorist? always the same, money comes before the safety of the general public, I rest my case. Rocket 1
  • Score: 0

6:34pm Wed 26 Sep 12

auntsally2 says...

The CCTV footage is actually quite clear, the camera is just quite far away from the man. Once you pause it and zoom in on the image that's when the quality decreases. I think if you knew this man you would identify him ie if it was your dad, neighbour or whatever I think you'd know.
The CCTV footage is actually quite clear, the camera is just quite far away from the man. Once you pause it and zoom in on the image that's when the quality decreases. I think if you knew this man you would identify him ie if it was your dad, neighbour or whatever I think you'd know. auntsally2
  • Score: 0

6:41pm Wed 26 Sep 12

Georgem says...

Rocket 1 wrote:
Georgem wrote:
downfader wrote:
Georgem wrote:
Rocket 1 wrote:
why is it that cctv images are very poor? yet the cameras they use to catch speeding motorist can pick out the driver and number plate from half a mile away,and the images are perfect, improve the cameras and get this perverted scum bag put away before he can strike again.
CCTV runs round the clock. To record that amount of footage in high definition would be extremely costly. Comparing thousands of cameras running 24/7 to a single camera taking snapshots, isn't a fair comparison.

As for your idea of improving them to catch this guy, we'd also have to invent time travel and go back and re-record the footage. If we're going to that much effort, we may as well prevent the crime in the first place.
Whilst true about the data storage - it does flag up a major problem with CCTV if it is intended to be used as evidence it HAS to be of a quality that helps.

That could be anyone in the image, sadly. Otherwise why have such a system in place?
It's a puzzler, isn't it. Maybe something to do with the fact that CCTV footage alone isn't enough to convict, regardless of the quality. I dunno. It's not being used as evidence here, though. Just as an aid for people to help identify the guy.

I'd still agree it needs to be better quality.
so why is it ok to use a speed camera where evidence alone is enough to convict a motorist? always the same, money comes before the safety of the general public, I rest my case.
You may very well rest your case, but you'd be somewhat premature.

Speed cameras can be used as evidence, because they take TWO pictures of the subject, a known time apart - half a second, typically. From this, it's possible to detect - from the photographs alone, and nothing else - that the vehicle in the photograph was exceeding the speed limit.

Now, looking at the CCTV footage above, is it possible to tell - just from that, with no other information whatsoever - that he's committed a crime? Remember, no other information whatsoever, not even the knowledge that this assault took place. Can you tell, just from the image, that he's committed a crime? No.

THAT, is why CCTV evidence alone won't get a conviction, but a speeding camera will suffice.

It's always the same. Wanting to feel hard done-by in order to fuel a rant always comes before applying some reason and thought.

I rest my case.
[quote][p][bold]Rocket 1[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Georgem[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]downfader[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Georgem[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Rocket 1[/bold] wrote: why is it that cctv images are very poor? yet the cameras they use to catch speeding motorist can pick out the driver and number plate from half a mile away,and the images are perfect, improve the cameras and get this perverted scum bag put away before he can strike again.[/p][/quote]CCTV runs round the clock. To record that amount of footage in high definition would be extremely costly. Comparing thousands of cameras running 24/7 to a single camera taking snapshots, isn't a fair comparison. As for your idea of improving them to catch this guy, we'd also have to invent time travel and go back and re-record the footage. If we're going to that much effort, we may as well prevent the crime in the first place.[/p][/quote]Whilst true about the data storage - it does flag up a major problem with CCTV if it is intended to be used as evidence it HAS to be of a quality that helps. That could be anyone in the image, sadly. Otherwise why have such a system in place?[/p][/quote]It's a puzzler, isn't it. Maybe something to do with the fact that CCTV footage alone isn't enough to convict, regardless of the quality. I dunno. It's not being used as evidence here, though. Just as an aid for people to help identify the guy. I'd still agree it needs to be better quality.[/p][/quote]so why is it ok to use a speed camera where evidence alone is enough to convict a motorist? always the same, money comes before the safety of the general public, I rest my case.[/p][/quote]You may very well rest your case, but you'd be somewhat premature. Speed cameras can be used as evidence, because they take TWO pictures of the subject, a known time apart - half a second, typically. From this, it's possible to detect - from the photographs alone, and nothing else - that the vehicle in the photograph was exceeding the speed limit. Now, looking at the CCTV footage above, is it possible to tell - just from that, with no other information whatsoever - that he's committed a crime? Remember, no other information whatsoever, not even the knowledge that this assault took place. Can you tell, just from the image, that he's committed a crime? No. THAT, is why CCTV evidence alone won't get a conviction, but a speeding camera will suffice. It's always the same. Wanting to feel hard done-by in order to fuel a rant always comes before applying some reason and thought. I rest my case. Georgem
  • Score: 0

6:59pm Wed 26 Sep 12

Rocket 1 says...

Georgem wrote:
Rocket 1 wrote:
Georgem wrote:
downfader wrote:
Georgem wrote:
Rocket 1 wrote:
why is it that cctv images are very poor? yet the cameras they use to catch speeding motorist can pick out the driver and number plate from half a mile away,and the images are perfect, improve the cameras and get this perverted scum bag put away before he can strike again.
CCTV runs round the clock. To record that amount of footage in high definition would be extremely costly. Comparing thousands of cameras running 24/7 to a single camera taking snapshots, isn't a fair comparison.

As for your idea of improving them to catch this guy, we'd also have to invent time travel and go back and re-record the footage. If we're going to that much effort, we may as well prevent the crime in the first place.
Whilst true about the data storage - it does flag up a major problem with CCTV if it is intended to be used as evidence it HAS to be of a quality that helps.

That could be anyone in the image, sadly. Otherwise why have such a system in place?
It's a puzzler, isn't it. Maybe something to do with the fact that CCTV footage alone isn't enough to convict, regardless of the quality. I dunno. It's not being used as evidence here, though. Just as an aid for people to help identify the guy.

I'd still agree it needs to be better quality.
so why is it ok to use a speed camera where evidence alone is enough to convict a motorist? always the same, money comes before the safety of the general public, I rest my case.
You may very well rest your case, but you'd be somewhat premature.

Speed cameras can be used as evidence, because they take TWO pictures of the subject, a known time apart - half a second, typically. From this, it's possible to detect - from the photographs alone, and nothing else - that the vehicle in the photograph was exceeding the speed limit.

Now, looking at the CCTV footage above, is it possible to tell - just from that, with no other information whatsoever - that he's committed a crime? Remember, no other information whatsoever, not even the knowledge that this assault took place. Can you tell, just from the image, that he's committed a crime? No.

THAT, is why CCTV evidence alone won't get a conviction, but a speeding camera will suffice.

It's always the same. Wanting to feel hard done-by in order to fuel a rant always comes before applying some reason and thought.

I rest my case.
Rant?? and no, I am not feeling hard done- by, because I don't speed, all I am saying is get the pictures right to either arrest this person or eliminate from enquiries, this or any other Government have always valued money before People, i.e. Armed Robbery minimum of 30 years in prison, no appeal, Murder, Life, minimum, in some cases 12 Years or appeal after 7 years
[quote][p][bold]Georgem[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Rocket 1[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Georgem[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]downfader[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Georgem[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Rocket 1[/bold] wrote: why is it that cctv images are very poor? yet the cameras they use to catch speeding motorist can pick out the driver and number plate from half a mile away,and the images are perfect, improve the cameras and get this perverted scum bag put away before he can strike again.[/p][/quote]CCTV runs round the clock. To record that amount of footage in high definition would be extremely costly. Comparing thousands of cameras running 24/7 to a single camera taking snapshots, isn't a fair comparison. As for your idea of improving them to catch this guy, we'd also have to invent time travel and go back and re-record the footage. If we're going to that much effort, we may as well prevent the crime in the first place.[/p][/quote]Whilst true about the data storage - it does flag up a major problem with CCTV if it is intended to be used as evidence it HAS to be of a quality that helps. That could be anyone in the image, sadly. Otherwise why have such a system in place?[/p][/quote]It's a puzzler, isn't it. Maybe something to do with the fact that CCTV footage alone isn't enough to convict, regardless of the quality. I dunno. It's not being used as evidence here, though. Just as an aid for people to help identify the guy. I'd still agree it needs to be better quality.[/p][/quote]so why is it ok to use a speed camera where evidence alone is enough to convict a motorist? always the same, money comes before the safety of the general public, I rest my case.[/p][/quote]You may very well rest your case, but you'd be somewhat premature. Speed cameras can be used as evidence, because they take TWO pictures of the subject, a known time apart - half a second, typically. From this, it's possible to detect - from the photographs alone, and nothing else - that the vehicle in the photograph was exceeding the speed limit. Now, looking at the CCTV footage above, is it possible to tell - just from that, with no other information whatsoever - that he's committed a crime? Remember, no other information whatsoever, not even the knowledge that this assault took place. Can you tell, just from the image, that he's committed a crime? No. THAT, is why CCTV evidence alone won't get a conviction, but a speeding camera will suffice. It's always the same. Wanting to feel hard done-by in order to fuel a rant always comes before applying some reason and thought. I rest my case.[/p][/quote]Rant?? and no, I am not feeling hard done- by, because I don't speed, all I am saying is get the pictures right to either arrest this person or eliminate from enquiries, this or any other Government have always valued money before People, i.e. Armed Robbery minimum of 30 years in prison, no appeal, Murder, Life, minimum, in some cases 12 Years or appeal after 7 years Rocket 1
  • Score: 0

7:06pm Wed 26 Sep 12

Georgem says...

Rocket 1 wrote:
Georgem wrote:
Rocket 1 wrote:
Georgem wrote:
downfader wrote:
Georgem wrote:
Rocket 1 wrote:
why is it that cctv images are very poor? yet the cameras they use to catch speeding motorist can pick out the driver and number plate from half a mile away,and the images are perfect, improve the cameras and get this perverted scum bag put away before he can strike again.
CCTV runs round the clock. To record that amount of footage in high definition would be extremely costly. Comparing thousands of cameras running 24/7 to a single camera taking snapshots, isn't a fair comparison.

As for your idea of improving them to catch this guy, we'd also have to invent time travel and go back and re-record the footage. If we're going to that much effort, we may as well prevent the crime in the first place.
Whilst true about the data storage - it does flag up a major problem with CCTV if it is intended to be used as evidence it HAS to be of a quality that helps.

That could be anyone in the image, sadly. Otherwise why have such a system in place?
It's a puzzler, isn't it. Maybe something to do with the fact that CCTV footage alone isn't enough to convict, regardless of the quality. I dunno. It's not being used as evidence here, though. Just as an aid for people to help identify the guy.

I'd still agree it needs to be better quality.
so why is it ok to use a speed camera where evidence alone is enough to convict a motorist? always the same, money comes before the safety of the general public, I rest my case.
You may very well rest your case, but you'd be somewhat premature.

Speed cameras can be used as evidence, because they take TWO pictures of the subject, a known time apart - half a second, typically. From this, it's possible to detect - from the photographs alone, and nothing else - that the vehicle in the photograph was exceeding the speed limit.

Now, looking at the CCTV footage above, is it possible to tell - just from that, with no other information whatsoever - that he's committed a crime? Remember, no other information whatsoever, not even the knowledge that this assault took place. Can you tell, just from the image, that he's committed a crime? No.

THAT, is why CCTV evidence alone won't get a conviction, but a speeding camera will suffice.

It's always the same. Wanting to feel hard done-by in order to fuel a rant always comes before applying some reason and thought.

I rest my case.
Rant?? and no, I am not feeling hard done- by, because I don't speed, all I am saying is get the pictures right to either arrest this person or eliminate from enquiries, this or any other Government have always valued money before People, i.e. Armed Robbery minimum of 30 years in prison, no appeal, Murder, Life, minimum, in some cases 12 Years or appeal after 7 years
The pictures could be razor sharp, he could be waving a flag with his name and address on it, and it still wouldn't be enough to get a conviction.
[quote][p][bold]Rocket 1[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Georgem[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Rocket 1[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Georgem[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]downfader[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Georgem[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Rocket 1[/bold] wrote: why is it that cctv images are very poor? yet the cameras they use to catch speeding motorist can pick out the driver and number plate from half a mile away,and the images are perfect, improve the cameras and get this perverted scum bag put away before he can strike again.[/p][/quote]CCTV runs round the clock. To record that amount of footage in high definition would be extremely costly. Comparing thousands of cameras running 24/7 to a single camera taking snapshots, isn't a fair comparison. As for your idea of improving them to catch this guy, we'd also have to invent time travel and go back and re-record the footage. If we're going to that much effort, we may as well prevent the crime in the first place.[/p][/quote]Whilst true about the data storage - it does flag up a major problem with CCTV if it is intended to be used as evidence it HAS to be of a quality that helps. That could be anyone in the image, sadly. Otherwise why have such a system in place?[/p][/quote]It's a puzzler, isn't it. Maybe something to do with the fact that CCTV footage alone isn't enough to convict, regardless of the quality. I dunno. It's not being used as evidence here, though. Just as an aid for people to help identify the guy. I'd still agree it needs to be better quality.[/p][/quote]so why is it ok to use a speed camera where evidence alone is enough to convict a motorist? always the same, money comes before the safety of the general public, I rest my case.[/p][/quote]You may very well rest your case, but you'd be somewhat premature. Speed cameras can be used as evidence, because they take TWO pictures of the subject, a known time apart - half a second, typically. From this, it's possible to detect - from the photographs alone, and nothing else - that the vehicle in the photograph was exceeding the speed limit. Now, looking at the CCTV footage above, is it possible to tell - just from that, with no other information whatsoever - that he's committed a crime? Remember, no other information whatsoever, not even the knowledge that this assault took place. Can you tell, just from the image, that he's committed a crime? No. THAT, is why CCTV evidence alone won't get a conviction, but a speeding camera will suffice. It's always the same. Wanting to feel hard done-by in order to fuel a rant always comes before applying some reason and thought. I rest my case.[/p][/quote]Rant?? and no, I am not feeling hard done- by, because I don't speed, all I am saying is get the pictures right to either arrest this person or eliminate from enquiries, this or any other Government have always valued money before People, i.e. Armed Robbery minimum of 30 years in prison, no appeal, Murder, Life, minimum, in some cases 12 Years or appeal after 7 years[/p][/quote]The pictures could be razor sharp, he could be waving a flag with his name and address on it, and it still wouldn't be enough to get a conviction. Georgem
  • Score: 0

7:22pm Wed 26 Sep 12

bazzeroz says...

Hey! That's me. Oh! no it's not it's Jamie Oliver, ahh! no it's my neighbour. Could be Sid Snott. ffs get these cctv pictures sorted. What a waste of privacy! Just catch the scum.
Hey! That's me. Oh! no it's not it's Jamie Oliver, ahh! no it's my neighbour. Could be Sid Snott. ffs get these cctv pictures sorted. What a waste of privacy! Just catch the scum. bazzeroz
  • Score: 0

7:26pm Wed 26 Sep 12

BlackbirdFly says...

sexual assults on children may be rare but sexual assaults/ rapes in general seems to be common here, can't go more than two weeks without hearing of another one
sexual assults on children may be rare but sexual assaults/ rapes in general seems to be common here, can't go more than two weeks without hearing of another one BlackbirdFly
  • Score: 0

4:17pm Thu 27 Sep 12

loulou2008-2121 says...

Georgem wrote:
Rocket 1 wrote:
Georgem wrote:
Rocket 1 wrote:
Georgem wrote:
downfader wrote:
Georgem wrote:
Rocket 1 wrote:
why is it that cctv images are very poor? yet the cameras they use to catch speeding motorist can pick out the driver and number plate from half a mile away,and the images are perfect, improve the cameras and get this perverted scum bag put away before he can strike again.
CCTV runs round the clock. To record that amount of footage in high definition would be extremely costly. Comparing thousands of cameras running 24/7 to a single camera taking snapshots, isn't a fair comparison.

As for your idea of improving them to catch this guy, we'd also have to invent time travel and go back and re-record the footage. If we're going to that much effort, we may as well prevent the crime in the first place.
Whilst true about the data storage - it does flag up a major problem with CCTV if it is intended to be used as evidence it HAS to be of a quality that helps.

That could be anyone in the image, sadly. Otherwise why have such a system in place?
It's a puzzler, isn't it. Maybe something to do with the fact that CCTV footage alone isn't enough to convict, regardless of the quality. I dunno. It's not being used as evidence here, though. Just as an aid for people to help identify the guy.

I'd still agree it needs to be better quality.
so why is it ok to use a speed camera where evidence alone is enough to convict a motorist? always the same, money comes before the safety of the general public, I rest my case.
You may very well rest your case, but you'd be somewhat premature.

Speed cameras can be used as evidence, because they take TWO pictures of the subject, a known time apart - half a second, typically. From this, it's possible to detect - from the photographs alone, and nothing else - that the vehicle in the photograph was exceeding the speed limit.

Now, looking at the CCTV footage above, is it possible to tell - just from that, with no other information whatsoever - that he's committed a crime? Remember, no other information whatsoever, not even the knowledge that this assault took place. Can you tell, just from the image, that he's committed a crime? No.

THAT, is why CCTV evidence alone won't get a conviction, but a speeding camera will suffice.

It's always the same. Wanting to feel hard done-by in order to fuel a rant always comes before applying some reason and thought.

I rest my case.
Rant?? and no, I am not feeling hard done- by, because I don't speed, all I am saying is get the pictures right to either arrest this person or eliminate from enquiries, this or any other Government have always valued money before People, i.e. Armed Robbery minimum of 30 years in prison, no appeal, Murder, Life, minimum, in some cases 12 Years or appeal after 7 years
The pictures could be razor sharp, he could be waving a flag with his name and address on it, and it still wouldn't be enough to get a conviction.
This is a local residents personnel cctv footage, regardless to quality its better to have something to show public, then a few descriptive words typed in the paper, someone somewhere will recognise this person, as long as he's found they'll have enough evidence to convict him once they have located him, and he's arrested. I'm sure this poor girl will never forget what he looks like. Surely it's better to have something to show the public fuzzy or not, than nothing, i hope this image brings an arrest followed by a conviction for the girls and her family's piece of mind.
[quote][p][bold]Georgem[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Rocket 1[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Georgem[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Rocket 1[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Georgem[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]downfader[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Georgem[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Rocket 1[/bold] wrote: why is it that cctv images are very poor? yet the cameras they use to catch speeding motorist can pick out the driver and number plate from half a mile away,and the images are perfect, improve the cameras and get this perverted scum bag put away before he can strike again.[/p][/quote]CCTV runs round the clock. To record that amount of footage in high definition would be extremely costly. Comparing thousands of cameras running 24/7 to a single camera taking snapshots, isn't a fair comparison. As for your idea of improving them to catch this guy, we'd also have to invent time travel and go back and re-record the footage. If we're going to that much effort, we may as well prevent the crime in the first place.[/p][/quote]Whilst true about the data storage - it does flag up a major problem with CCTV if it is intended to be used as evidence it HAS to be of a quality that helps. That could be anyone in the image, sadly. Otherwise why have such a system in place?[/p][/quote]It's a puzzler, isn't it. Maybe something to do with the fact that CCTV footage alone isn't enough to convict, regardless of the quality. I dunno. It's not being used as evidence here, though. Just as an aid for people to help identify the guy. I'd still agree it needs to be better quality.[/p][/quote]so why is it ok to use a speed camera where evidence alone is enough to convict a motorist? always the same, money comes before the safety of the general public, I rest my case.[/p][/quote]You may very well rest your case, but you'd be somewhat premature. Speed cameras can be used as evidence, because they take TWO pictures of the subject, a known time apart - half a second, typically. From this, it's possible to detect - from the photographs alone, and nothing else - that the vehicle in the photograph was exceeding the speed limit. Now, looking at the CCTV footage above, is it possible to tell - just from that, with no other information whatsoever - that he's committed a crime? Remember, no other information whatsoever, not even the knowledge that this assault took place. Can you tell, just from the image, that he's committed a crime? No. THAT, is why CCTV evidence alone won't get a conviction, but a speeding camera will suffice. It's always the same. Wanting to feel hard done-by in order to fuel a rant always comes before applying some reason and thought. I rest my case.[/p][/quote]Rant?? and no, I am not feeling hard done- by, because I don't speed, all I am saying is get the pictures right to either arrest this person or eliminate from enquiries, this or any other Government have always valued money before People, i.e. Armed Robbery minimum of 30 years in prison, no appeal, Murder, Life, minimum, in some cases 12 Years or appeal after 7 years[/p][/quote]The pictures could be razor sharp, he could be waving a flag with his name and address on it, and it still wouldn't be enough to get a conviction.[/p][/quote]This is a local residents personnel cctv footage, regardless to quality its better to have something to show public, then a few descriptive words typed in the paper, someone somewhere will recognise this person, as long as he's found they'll have enough evidence to convict him once they have located him, and he's arrested. I'm sure this poor girl will never forget what he looks like. Surely it's better to have something to show the public fuzzy or not, than nothing, i hope this image brings an arrest followed by a conviction for the girls and her family's piece of mind. loulou2008-2121
  • Score: 0

4:50pm Thu 27 Sep 12

Georgem says...

loulou2008-2121 wrote:
Georgem wrote:
Rocket 1 wrote:
Georgem wrote:
Rocket 1 wrote:
Georgem wrote:
downfader wrote:
Georgem wrote:
Rocket 1 wrote:
why is it that cctv images are very poor? yet the cameras they use to catch speeding motorist can pick out the driver and number plate from half a mile away,and the images are perfect, improve the cameras and get this perverted scum bag put away before he can strike again.
CCTV runs round the clock. To record that amount of footage in high definition would be extremely costly. Comparing thousands of cameras running 24/7 to a single camera taking snapshots, isn't a fair comparison.

As for your idea of improving them to catch this guy, we'd also have to invent time travel and go back and re-record the footage. If we're going to that much effort, we may as well prevent the crime in the first place.
Whilst true about the data storage - it does flag up a major problem with CCTV if it is intended to be used as evidence it HAS to be of a quality that helps.

That could be anyone in the image, sadly. Otherwise why have such a system in place?
It's a puzzler, isn't it. Maybe something to do with the fact that CCTV footage alone isn't enough to convict, regardless of the quality. I dunno. It's not being used as evidence here, though. Just as an aid for people to help identify the guy.

I'd still agree it needs to be better quality.
so why is it ok to use a speed camera where evidence alone is enough to convict a motorist? always the same, money comes before the safety of the general public, I rest my case.
You may very well rest your case, but you'd be somewhat premature.

Speed cameras can be used as evidence, because they take TWO pictures of the subject, a known time apart - half a second, typically. From this, it's possible to detect - from the photographs alone, and nothing else - that the vehicle in the photograph was exceeding the speed limit.

Now, looking at the CCTV footage above, is it possible to tell - just from that, with no other information whatsoever - that he's committed a crime? Remember, no other information whatsoever, not even the knowledge that this assault took place. Can you tell, just from the image, that he's committed a crime? No.

THAT, is why CCTV evidence alone won't get a conviction, but a speeding camera will suffice.

It's always the same. Wanting to feel hard done-by in order to fuel a rant always comes before applying some reason and thought.

I rest my case.
Rant?? and no, I am not feeling hard done- by, because I don't speed, all I am saying is get the pictures right to either arrest this person or eliminate from enquiries, this or any other Government have always valued money before People, i.e. Armed Robbery minimum of 30 years in prison, no appeal, Murder, Life, minimum, in some cases 12 Years or appeal after 7 years
The pictures could be razor sharp, he could be waving a flag with his name and address on it, and it still wouldn't be enough to get a conviction.
This is a local residents personnel cctv footage, regardless to quality its better to have something to show public, then a few descriptive words typed in the paper, someone somewhere will recognise this person, as long as he's found they'll have enough evidence to convict him once they have located him, and he's arrested. I'm sure this poor girl will never forget what he looks like. Surely it's better to have something to show the public fuzzy or not, than nothing, i hope this image brings an arrest followed by a conviction for the girls and her family's piece of mind.
You're missing my point completely.
[quote][p][bold]loulou2008-2121[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Georgem[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Rocket 1[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Georgem[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Rocket 1[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Georgem[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]downfader[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Georgem[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Rocket 1[/bold] wrote: why is it that cctv images are very poor? yet the cameras they use to catch speeding motorist can pick out the driver and number plate from half a mile away,and the images are perfect, improve the cameras and get this perverted scum bag put away before he can strike again.[/p][/quote]CCTV runs round the clock. To record that amount of footage in high definition would be extremely costly. Comparing thousands of cameras running 24/7 to a single camera taking snapshots, isn't a fair comparison. As for your idea of improving them to catch this guy, we'd also have to invent time travel and go back and re-record the footage. If we're going to that much effort, we may as well prevent the crime in the first place.[/p][/quote]Whilst true about the data storage - it does flag up a major problem with CCTV if it is intended to be used as evidence it HAS to be of a quality that helps. That could be anyone in the image, sadly. Otherwise why have such a system in place?[/p][/quote]It's a puzzler, isn't it. Maybe something to do with the fact that CCTV footage alone isn't enough to convict, regardless of the quality. I dunno. It's not being used as evidence here, though. Just as an aid for people to help identify the guy. I'd still agree it needs to be better quality.[/p][/quote]so why is it ok to use a speed camera where evidence alone is enough to convict a motorist? always the same, money comes before the safety of the general public, I rest my case.[/p][/quote]You may very well rest your case, but you'd be somewhat premature. Speed cameras can be used as evidence, because they take TWO pictures of the subject, a known time apart - half a second, typically. From this, it's possible to detect - from the photographs alone, and nothing else - that the vehicle in the photograph was exceeding the speed limit. Now, looking at the CCTV footage above, is it possible to tell - just from that, with no other information whatsoever - that he's committed a crime? Remember, no other information whatsoever, not even the knowledge that this assault took place. Can you tell, just from the image, that he's committed a crime? No. THAT, is why CCTV evidence alone won't get a conviction, but a speeding camera will suffice. It's always the same. Wanting to feel hard done-by in order to fuel a rant always comes before applying some reason and thought. I rest my case.[/p][/quote]Rant?? and no, I am not feeling hard done- by, because I don't speed, all I am saying is get the pictures right to either arrest this person or eliminate from enquiries, this or any other Government have always valued money before People, i.e. Armed Robbery minimum of 30 years in prison, no appeal, Murder, Life, minimum, in some cases 12 Years or appeal after 7 years[/p][/quote]The pictures could be razor sharp, he could be waving a flag with his name and address on it, and it still wouldn't be enough to get a conviction.[/p][/quote]This is a local residents personnel cctv footage, regardless to quality its better to have something to show public, then a few descriptive words typed in the paper, someone somewhere will recognise this person, as long as he's found they'll have enough evidence to convict him once they have located him, and he's arrested. I'm sure this poor girl will never forget what he looks like. Surely it's better to have something to show the public fuzzy or not, than nothing, i hope this image brings an arrest followed by a conviction for the girls and her family's piece of mind.[/p][/quote]You're missing my point completely. Georgem
  • Score: 0

6:56pm Thu 27 Sep 12

loulou2008-2121 says...

I can assure you I'm not and totally understand each point made, it may not prove a crime, but may lead to an arrest which will therefore lead to a charge due to evidence cid hold, i can assure you this image/footage was streamed for a reason. Just feel we should focus on what this image could do and not what this image can't won't or doesn't, as long as it helps that's all that should matter not the clarity of it or the conviction.
I can assure you I'm not and totally understand each point made, it may not prove a crime, but may lead to an arrest which will therefore lead to a charge due to evidence cid hold, i can assure you this image/footage was streamed for a reason. Just feel we should focus on what this image could do and not what this image can't won't or doesn't, as long as it helps that's all that should matter not the clarity of it or the conviction. loulou2008-2121
  • Score: 0

10:42pm Thu 27 Sep 12

Georgem says...

loulou2008-2121 wrote:
I can assure you I'm not and totally understand each point made, it may not prove a crime, but may lead to an arrest which will therefore lead to a charge due to evidence cid hold, i can assure you this image/footage was streamed for a reason. Just feel we should focus on what this image could do and not what this image can't won't or doesn't, as long as it helps that's all that should matter not the clarity of it or the conviction.
Everybody who has missed a point believes they haven't. As the person making the point, I'm well-placed to say: you missed it. At no point have I said this footage should not be used.
[quote][p][bold]loulou2008-2121[/bold] wrote: I can assure you I'm not and totally understand each point made, it may not prove a crime, but may lead to an arrest which will therefore lead to a charge due to evidence cid hold, i can assure you this image/footage was streamed for a reason. Just feel we should focus on what this image could do and not what this image can't won't or doesn't, as long as it helps that's all that should matter not the clarity of it or the conviction.[/p][/quote]Everybody who has missed a point believes they haven't. As the person making the point, I'm well-placed to say: you missed it. At no point have I said this footage should not be used. Georgem
  • Score: 0

5:26pm Sat 29 Sep 12

Axstrix says...

Strange, He looks exactually like the guy in this article -

http://www.dailyecho
.co.uk/news/crime/99
46981.Sex_attack_nur
se_struck_off/
Strange, He looks exactually like the guy in this article - http://www.dailyecho .co.uk/news/crime/99 46981.Sex_attack_nur se_struck_off/ Axstrix
  • Score: 0

Comments are closed on this article.

Send us your news, pictures and videos

Most read stories

Local Info

Enter your postcode, town or place name

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