CCTV image released after sex attack on young girl (From Daily Echo)

I hope they find the sicko that did this.

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 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.

Sexual assaults are very COMMON in soton not rare.

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?

Laura85 wrote:
Sexual assaults are very COMMON in soton not rare.

Sources, please.

Sexual assaults on children in the city are actually very rare they are not common at all.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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 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.

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/