London Police Seek To Install CCTV In Pubs 293
JCWDenton writes "The Met Police got a short sharp rap over the knuckles yesterday, as the Office of the Information Commissioner questioned what looks very much like a blanket
policy to force CCTV onto public houses in certain parts of London. The story begins with a letter to the Guardian last week, from Nick Gibson. He is currently renovating Islington pub The Drapers Arms, after its previous owners allowed it to go insolvent and then disappeared. In his letter, he argues that if he had merely taken over an existing licence, the police could not have imposed any additional conditions. However, because this was now a new licence, the police were able to make specific requests, including one particular request in respect of installing CCTV."
Follow the letter of their request... (Score:3, Interesting)
Install the camera, but switch off its power-supply, or spray-paint the lense, or...
You get the idea. As long as their wording is so vague as to simply stipulate "install... a camera" it seems pretty simple to me.
'Course its trickier if they're more specific about the camera's operation, data connections, power-supply, etc.
Re: (Score:3)
FTA
"I was stunned to find the police were prepared to approve, ie not fight, our licence on condition that we installed CCTV capturing the head and shoulders of everyone coming into the pub, to be made available to them upon request."
Capturing the head (and shoulders?) of everyone who walked into the bar is fairly specific. Of course, you could interpret that as "The cameras must behead (and beshoulder?) everyone who walks into the bar" but I think that would be bad for buisness as well...
You could still get away with using an extremely low resolution or out of focus camera that would show heads (and shoulders) but not anything identifyable. Of course they'd remedy that quickly.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Follow the letter of their request... (Score:5, Insightful)
Do that, and it's just a matter of time until they fix whatever loophole allowed you to disable it while following the letter. If you disagree in principle, then fight the principle, not the letter. Even if you beat the letter, their principle remains in law, and will bite you in the ass next time round.
Re:Follow the letter of their request... (Score:5, Insightful)
Or just do what is requested.
I post a comment on Slashdot and it's a standard condition on this site to have profile with a photo to log in that is accessible by the police upon request. It's helped Cowboy Neil (and every website I've run) no end when problems have happened.
Only website that have Anonymous Cowards that they are unwilling to tackle have need for concern. If you have a well run website then where's the problem?
--Anonymous Coward
Re: (Score:2)
Install the camera, but switch off its power-supply, or spray-paint the lense, or...
You get the idea. As long as their wording is so vague as to simply stipulate "install... a camera" it seems pretty simple to me.
At least one guy modded you 'interesting' somehow, but this sort of defense would not avail you, Flame of Udun.
;)
Check out this previous Slashdot story from two weeks ago, entitled You Are Not A Lawyer [slashdot.org].
saw that done (Score:2, Interesting)
They did that to a pub in my town (UK) once. Granted it was a really dodgy pub that most people avoided.
The result though was not only did the known nasty types stop going there, no-one else wnet there either, because we knew there were cameras in it.
Its since closed and reoppened under new ownership, a gay bar I beleive, sans cameras. I suspect the change in customer focus is because even though its almost ten years later, its still remembered by most as the pub that had cctv everywhere.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
I much as I dislike being filmed all the time, I must call bullshit on this. I live in England and worked for four years in a pub that had CCTV and it did not detour one customer.
Re: (Score:2)
I guess you reached this scientifically valid result by asking the people who were drinking there. The question is, did it detour (I mean deter) any potential customers? Selection bias, look it up.
Re: (Score:2)
Bullshit. I know one person who thinks you're wrong.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:saw that done (Score:4, Interesting)
It's not exactly unusual for pubs to have CCTV, like anonymous, I call BS.
Re: (Score:2)
It's not exactly unusual for pubs to have CCTV, like anonymous, I call BS.
I'll bet its unusual to have individual and undisguised cctv camaras pointed at every table and cubicle. I've not known it be as bad as the pub in question. I'm disregarding the usual unobtrusive cctv presence.
Not that I wish to detract from your obvious need to refute my claim, after all, thats half the fun of slashdot, or all of it, for you...
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Not at all. Most pubs install discreet cctv of their own volition *especially* to places like out of the way cubicles.
It gets silently recorded, and most of the time eventually discarded.. but if something happens it's invaluable evidence.
It's been years since I've seen a city centre pub without its own CCTV in the entrance ways to watch people coming in. This is a non-story, really.
Re: (Score:3)
They did that to a pub in my town (UK) once. Granted it was a really dodgy pub that most people avoided.
The result though was not only did the known nasty types stop going there, no-one else wnet there either, because we knew there were cameras in it.
Its since closed and reoppened under new ownership, a gay bar I beleive, sans cameras. I suspect the change in customer focus is because even though its almost ten years later, its still remembered by most as the pub that had cctv everywhere.
You don't happen to
Priva ground ? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Try to run a pub without an alcohol licence, see what happens. If it's known that the pub causes a lot of trouble, the police can set conditions otherwise they'll strip their licence. A pub that lets clients get heavily drunk , violent and cause problems for the town.
They can't make them put in a camera but they have a very strong way of persuading them. One of the conditions of getting an alocohol licence is ensuring your customers aren't a nuisance.
Re:Priva ground ? (Score:5, Insightful)
>>>Since when can police install camera on private ground or private shop ?
Ever since the politicians redefined "private shop" as "public facility" and thereby extended antidiscrimination laws over stores, bars, hotels, et cetera. And now they are extending their power even further. If they can force you to stop discriminating against blacks or females, then they can also force you to meet other requirements - like installing cameras.
Again as 1984 demonstrated, redefine words to extend power. Your store may be privately owned, but it's now a "public facility" under the law and therefore must meet whatever rules the politicians decide, almost the same as if it were publicly owned.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I want to give this anonymous coward the stupid reply his stupid question deserves:
>>>Shouldn't you be masturbating to posters of Ron Paul or something? ...unf unf unf oh Ayn Rand oh yes Ayn...
Those old farts? No way. Give me some nice, fresh roses that are not wilted/wrinkled. Like the Jonas Brothers. Or the Disney women - mmmm Emily Osment: http://i.somethingawful.com/m3imgs/streetlamp.gif [somethingawful.com] http://i256.photobucket.com/albums/hh179/11hawkdown/ChrisHanson.jpg [photobucket.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Hit options and select "plain old text".
Post Orwellian... (Score:2)
He should ask them to reconsider if he promises to sell beer and not stock gin.
At least (Score:2, Funny)
now we know the reason for the ban on smoking in pubs.
Re: (Score:2)
Worse than that - people are banned from wearing "obstructive headwear".
Flat-caps as traditionally worn by the most senior members of the community are banned.
There was a case where a women suffering from alopecia was denied entry unless she removed her hat.
The real problem is with "hoodies", but the Police can't be seen to be discriminating against a single ethnic group so they target the easy to pick on groups instead.
And they wonder why people are voting BNP?
I was going to post... (Score:5, Insightful)
... a lengthy rebuttal of the hopeless summary, but then I noticed it was the UK-hating Timothy that posted.
Timothy, why do you feel the need to misrepresent every story about the UK in the worst possible light? Did you even read the article in question?
Perhaps you should. The police aren't installing CCTV cameras in pubs. One police chief is recommending to the licensing board that grants licences to pubs that they require new licensees to fit CCTV. The police would not have access to the CCTV unless they came down and requested the tapes (or more likely DVR drive, these days).
Now - here's the important bit - are you paying attention? They were told that they couldn't do that. Let's just say that again to make sure you've got it - the police were told that they could not ask the licensing board to make installing CCTV a condition of the licence.
So, in fact, the police are *not* installing CCTV in pubs, for several different reasons.
It's called literacy, Timothy. You should try it.
you did post... (Score:4, Interesting)
The row comes a week after a House of Lords report stated that the steady expansion of the "surveillance society" risked undermining fundamental freedoms including the right to privacy.
Peers said that Britain, with an estimated 4m CCTV cameras in use, had constructed one of the most extensive and technologically advanced surveillance systems in the world in the name of combating terrorism and crime and improving administrative efficiency.
However, the cross-party committee warned that "pervasive and routine" electronic surveillance was almost taken for granted adding that privacy is an "essential prerequisite to the exercise of individual freedom".
Lord Goodlad, the former Conservative chief whip and committee chairman, said that there could be no justification for this gradual but incessant creep towards every detail about an individual being recorded and pored over by the state.
"The huge rise in surveillance and data collection by the state and other organisations risks undermining the long-standing traditions of privacy and individual freedom which are vital for democracy," he said.
Well, undeniably the UK has slowly let itself become dominated by the mentality that maintaining a grid of CCTV cameras is the answer to reducing 'crime' and 'terrorism', and constantly stoking those fears in the public to allow for this 'creep' against personal privacy.
Funny when one looks at the statistics, but being that so many, many more people die of preventable car accidents and of heart attacks from eating too much junk food, why is it that the same expenditures aren't lavished on those areas?
Simple.
Arguably, there are many who sense that it has little to do with protecting the lives of citizens, but rather far more to do with the government jealously guarding its symbol of 'authority' and not wanting to lose face... If the goverment's mission was to truly protect the constituency (rather than its own authority), I imagine a lot of things would be done differently.
There is such a thing as the amount of acceptable risk one takes by doing everyday things like going to a pub, walking in the street and such. It is very telling, however, that these sorts of ideas are constantly being floated by the police, as in the example of some UK clubs having to submit an application form in advance listing the names and addresses of the artists and performers scheduled to appear, as well as style of music, in order to be allowed to have dance music event without being shut down.
Death by a thousand paper cuts of bureaucracy, which in the end doesn't truly prevent anything, but most certainly sets an aura of hysteria around every aspect of everyday life.
Z.
It's not authority, it's what the populace fears. (Score:2)
Funny when one looks at the statistics, but being that so many, many more people die of preventable car accidents and of heart attacks from eating too much junk food, why is it that the same expenditures aren't lavished on those areas?
You go on to say that it's based around the government's desire for "authority" but I don't think this is true - the government is not incompetent or evil enough for this.
I think people are genuinely more fearful of being knifed in the street, intimidated by threatening teena
Re: (Score:2)
Even if it's true that you're more likely to die of bad nutrition than getting knifed by hoodies, people's perception of risk isn't rational. Just look at how many nervous flyers there are, even though it's safer than driving.
Fear of crime is a big quality of life issue.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
In which case you presumably wouldn't mind it installed in your living room. Care to post your address and I'm sure some
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Well, undeniably the UK has slowly let itself become dominated by the mentality that maintaining a grid of CCTV cameras is the answer to reducing 'crime' and 'terrorism', and constantly stoking those fears in the public to allow for this 'creep' against personal privacy.
Really? Because most of the articles I see in the mainstream press here about CCTV cameras in public places take one of two angles:
Generally the right-leaning papers take the first line (taxpayers' money being wasted) while the left-leaning ones take the second. I can't think of anything I've read supporting them for a long time, unless you count the BBC who say things like 'privacy activists have raised these complaints' and 'concerns h
Re:I was going to post... (Score:4, Informative)
Umm.. JCWDenton wrote the summary. Timothy is just the Slashdot "editor" who selects the high voted stories from the firehose, checks that it is in the right category and, maybe, that it has a link, and then pushes it to subscribers so they can tell him if it is a dupe.. and after 20 minutes or so, it goes live. He's in no way responsible for the summary, or the popularity of the story due to that selection.. if you don't like what is getting through to the front page, go to the firehose and vote. Maybe it would be nice if Timothy did read the story and did some fact checking or whatever, but that's not what Slashdot "editors" are paid to do.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
And you are clearly naive if you don't see the very real concern that the police were a) trying to do this and b)believe they wouldn't make every opportunity of getting tapes.
There was nothing wrong with the summary. The police want to get the cameras installed. They tried and they failed.. this time.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I don't disagree with what you say, but you're refusing to acknowledge the slippery slope argument. If you have enough police chiefs asking pubs and other regulated businesses to add CCTV "for their protection" as part of their licensing scheme, eventually one is going to relent and then you have your legal precedent to do this in other pubs when their license comes up for renewal.
Yes, it is a little sensationalistic, but a) If you shame public figures into not making such requests, hopefully they'l
Re: (Score:2)
Police don't grant the license, the licensing authority (part of the local council) do. If pub has a bad reputation then 'install this long list of crime prevention measures or close down' is a reasonable line to take... it nearly always forces the errant pub back into line.
You see those islands over there? (Score:3, Insightful)
Yeah, those islands. That's where Great Britain used to be. A shame, really.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Yeah, those islands. That's where Great Britain used to be. A shame, really.
FYI, 'Great Britain' is just the name for the big island, the one with England, Scotland, and Wales. It's 'Great' as in 'big' not 'awesome' as you can, by now, probably tell.
The 'United Kingdon' includes GB, Northern Ireland, and a large number of itty bitty bitesize islands.
Re: (Score:2)
Good to know. Thanks.
Why do I feel like... (Score:3, Interesting)
Our countries agenda seems to mostly be simple, business at all cost, with a good dose of racism (terrorists!), protectivism (teh fearz!) and homophobia, masqueraded naturally as Gods will (OMG! they wantz deh pinux!).
It's almost like you're over there trying to make me feel better, but I know enough to know you're as intelligent and concerned about your rights as we are.
Re: (Score:2)
but I know enough to know you're as intelligent and concerned about your rights as we are.
Actually, the majority here supported 90 days detention [wikipedia.org] without charge for terrorist suspects.
Perhaps, on reflection, you're right.
I can understand the Islington pub... (Score:5, Funny)
If someone named Ford walks in claiming the world is about to end, we can snag him before he leaves us all to die.
Fucking wanker.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
(Score:3, Insightful)
What is it lately with people modding things that are clearly going for 'funny' with other tags.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
To throw some karma love on the poster. For example:
Make a comment, get modded '+1-Funny'== no karma change for the poster. Mod '+1 insightful, informative, or interesting' ==build some positive karma points for poster.
Not saying it is right, but for those that think there should be positive karma for funny comments, it acts as a work around.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Can we have a bit less old news? (Score:4, Funny)
I read this when it went up on The Register, 5 days ago. Can people please check the timestamp before submitting/approving stories? The normal 2 or 3 days old news is just about passable, but 5 days is getting silly.
I'm psychic, your post is about 6 days old to me, you hypocrite.
Furthermore... (Score:5, Informative)
... I know the misleading summary helps with the old /. "ZOMG BRITAIN IS A POLICE STATE" propaganda, but if you actually *read* the article (an unpopular idea, I know) you'll see that the police were swiftly kicked into touch over it. I believe the actual phrase used was "Not now, not ever."
Re:Furthermore... (Score:5, Insightful)
Because no one read the article:
However, a spokeswoman for the Office of the Information Commissioner said: "Hardwiring surveillance into the UKâ(TM)s pubs raises serious privacy concerns. We recognise that CCTV plays an important role in the prevention and detection of crime, and can help to reduce crime in areas of high population density, such as city boroughs.
"However, we are concerned at the prospect of landlords being forced into installing CCTV in pubs as a matter of routine in order to meet the terms of a licence. The use of CCTV must be reasonable and proportionate if we are to maintain public trust and confidence in its deployment.
"Installing surveillance in pubs to combat specific problems of rowdiness and bad behaviour may be lawful, but hardwiring in blanket measures where there is no history of criminal activity is likely to breach data protection requirements. We will be contacting the police and others involved to establish the facts and discuss the situation in Islington.â
Re:Furthermore... (Score:5, Insightful)
Hardwiring surveillance into the UKâ(TM)s pubs raises serious privacy concerns. We recognise that CCTV plays an important role in the prevention and detection of crime...
And that role is?
I watched a short segment on MSNBC last night - it contained crystal clear footage of someone robbing a fast-food restaurant, holding one person at gunpoint - even putting the gun to his head and pulling the trigger (for whatever reason, the gun didn't go off). There were two cameras - one in the back room where the safe was, and another in the dining area. Fortunately this individual was able to wrestle the intruder out the door, at which point he ran. The perpetrator was never caught - apparently there's this weird limitation that cameras have - the guy was wearing a ski mask and was fully covered in dark clothing. But the point is, that even under the best of circumstances, cameras can easily be rendered useless. The crime won't stop, it will just change how crimes are committed.
There is the Age Old Solution - Don't Look! (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
It could be worse. This could be the 1st duplicate post in this thread after 1 day.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
It's called privacy, you dipshit.
Re: (Score:2)
I can think of numerous times where putting cameras in pubs is useful in England. The amount of times where people are being glassed (where someone rams a glass into your face, cutting you up) and the total level of drunken violence each week is just asking for more evidence to convict these idiots that go out each week to get drunk then violent on purpose.
Re:This is ... a good thing? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:This is ... a good thing? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
You're at the crux of the matter. The surveillance is very one sided, if these people want to make a surveillance society it needs to be both ways.
Yet sousveillance just took another hit as they're proposing to make a crime of photographing the police [bjp-online.com]
One privacy rule for us, one for them.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
And they will not protest? People who have work want to still have work. They will find ways to still have work (like firefighters who go and put fires, so they can report them as first and have bonuses).
Yeah, because they won't change law ever.
If you think governments want only laws good for people and don't do anything secretly,
Re: (Score:2)
While I
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
What will police do when there is no more crime?
Assuming a spherical cow of uniform density...
Seriously, how on earth did a post starting with that line end up being modded insightful?
Re: (Score:2)
no crime? There's enough laws to make YOU and everyone here a criminal any time they want.
Until they kill or incarcerate all people, there will be plenty of criminals to chase and capture.
Re:This is ... a good thing? (Score:5, Insightful)
Well you see, a pub is private property.
Once police have the power to install cameras in private property, they'll be able to install them anywhere they want... say, in your home.
Think that's far-fetched? The law is constantly being chipped away, bit by bit. First, cameras are put in pubs. Then since hey, we got them installed in pubs, we can probably install them in restaurants too. They sell alcohol, don't they? What's that? You want to stay in business? You're going to need to co-operate with us, then.
Now since cameras are already in pubs and restaurants, what's the harm in having them in workplaces? That'll sure make it easier to establish people's whereabouts and make sure that anyone shredding corporate documents gets the scrutiny they deserve. What's that? You want to stay in business? You're going to need to co-operate with us, then.
Then hey, since everyone is already being monitored at work and everywhere else, the precedent has clearly been set. The government will next want to install cameras in criminal's homes or the homes of their families, and they'll get it, because the law up to this point has said that cameras are allowed on private property.
Well at this point, why don't we just roll the thing out everywhere? If you've got nothing to hide, you've got nothing to fear, right? What are you all doing that means you mind being on camera?
There are direct parallels with the storage of DNA. First, it was just the criminal's DNA. Now, it's everybody who gets arrested, even if they aren't ever charged with a crime. Next, you'll be pulled over by mobile DNA units and have to submit to tests to ensure that you aren't a criminal, without any probable cause whatsoever.
This is EXACTLY how the law is chipped away. Once chipped away, it's difficult if not impossible to go back to the way it was.
Feel free to dismiss that as an "Orwellian circle-jerk fantasy". You clearly don't understand anything about how the law works and how politicians leverage the law to get what they want. Nor do you have any regard whatsoever for the sort of world your children will grow up in.
Re: (Score:2)
Unfortunately your probably right about some things and definitely right on some others. I would hope that the general population would vote out a government at some point who took things too far. But if the steps are small enough and slow enough too far may be further than we would hope.
CCTV does deter criminal activity in the presence of the camera's, it also makes people uncomfortable with being watched and monitored. Thing is that the positive things like a peaceful atmosphere , no fighting nobody getti
Re: (Score:2)
some places will require door staff to ensure nobody gets too far out of line
*some*???
I take it from this you've not been near a city at night for at least 20 years.
Any establishment without door staff would be out of business in no time flat because it'd get trashed by drunk idiots.
Oh, and people will get too far out of line. It goes with the territory. The door staff are there to make sure they're quickly ejected and stopped from entering any other establishment in the city (hence they're linked by radi
Re:This is ... a good thing? (Score:4, Insightful)
Of course you don't understand, the moment you asserted that CCTV had never been abused in the UK you showed you didn't comprehend the concept that you might not know everything that ever happened.
Regardless, even if CCTV hasn't been abused ever it doesn't mean expanding it is a wise idea. It would be hard to argue that implanting people with tracking chips, recording all biometrics yearly and installing ubiquitous CCTV wouldn't cause less crime if the system was used correctly. The arguement against monitoring at that scale is that as the monitoring expands it becomes easier for the system to be used to silence political dissent etc and harder for people to resist.
Re: (Score:2)
The fact remains that CCTV has lead to more real criminals behind bars
Do you have a cite for this assertion?
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Total times CCTV coverage in the UK has been abused in some Orwellian circle-jerk fantasy like people are always warning it is:
Really? That's interesting because another forum I'm a member of happens to have someone who's likely to lose his job tomorrow because a store manager handed over CCTV footage in breach of the law.
Granted, what I'm saying is third-hand anecdotal evidence on a website like /. so it's probably not something you want to take as gospel truth - but perhaps if anyone else knows of simil
Re: (Score:2)
You just hurt your own case. He abused his position and lost his job thereby proving that there isn't a problem.
Re: (Score:2)
You just hurt your own case. He abused his position and lost his job thereby proving that there isn't a problem.
Didn't say the person who was likely to lose their job was the manager who handed over the CCTV tapes, did I?
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Neither did he. The one who abused his position is the theif who got caught on camera, i.e. you. I mean, ummm, your friend.
Didn't say anything about him being a thief either, did I?
Re: (Score:2)
1984 - True nature of power... (Score:2, Interesting)
"1984 was supposed to be a cautionary tale NOT an instruction manual!"
1984 was a cautionary tale about the true nature of power. Most people don't seek power, so its a cautionary tale for most people. But for the minority of people who are so driven to seek power over other people; they don't need an instruction manual. Their core psychological behavior defines why they behave the way the do. People who seek power over others, almost by definition seek to control other people, so they seek to remove choices
Re: (Score:2)
Well, I seek power. But I do it for a reason that is not compatible with the methods described by you.
I seek power trough respect. People should follow me because they want, not because they have to.
So I need no control over them.
Maybe this methods and thoughts in your post are true for many people who seek power. But certainly not for all of them.
So please don't talk as if they were inseparable aspects of such people. They are aspects of assholes seeking for power because maybe they got ignored by their m
No, just turn this around (Score:2)
and demand cameras/microphones in the houses, offices, and cars of all public officials, elected or otherwise. Actually, make them wear an ankle bracelet as well.
It seems to me they are far more dangerous and corrupted than the general populace they wish to spy upon.
Make it a mandatory law.
Re:1984 (Score:5, Informative)
This actually goes one 'better' than 1984, where a pub was one of the few public places without a camera, though entering one would be considered a highly suspicious act for a non-prole ('It was horribly dangerous, but at any rate there was no telescreen in the room, a point he had made sure of as soon as he came in.').
Re: (Score:2)
Um. A little bit of an over reaction.
Fact: People go to bars to get drunk.
Fact: Drunk people are either really funny or really dangerous
Fact: Drunk people who commit violence need to be prosecuted
Fact: It's easier to prove guilt when there's proof
Um. A little bit of a stupid reaction.
Fact: People go to bars to socialize
Fact: Drunk people often pass out
Fact: People who have passed out are generally incapable of committing violence
Fact: Its easier to convict the innocent when you can cherry pick from lots and lots of circumstantial evidence
Re:1984 (Score:4, Informative)
I am guessing you have never been out in a major UK town/city after midnight.
Not that I am in support of the CCTV plan but to suggest that drunk people are not causing serious problems in UK towns suggests a woeful lack of experience in the subject matter. It is practically impossible to go out on the town on a Friday or Saturday night, returning after midnight, without seeing at least one act of violence or criminal damage.
Yes, extremely drunk people pass out, it is what they do *before* that happens that is causing the problems.
Re:1984 (Score:4, Insightful)
The solution isn't "more cameras" as the cameras doesn't prevent crime. They might sort of help catch the people, but they're not going to stop crime.
No, the solution is to get rid of violent drunk people. Not by throwing them in jail forever. Just outlaw alcohol.
Then you'll complain about prohibition, but outlawing alcohol is only the first step. Alcohol brings out the worst in people - that's why we'll outlaw it. But to give people a chance to wind down with a nice relaxing substance, we'll legalise cannabis.
Think about it - who'd you rather get run over by? Someone who's had too much to drink or someone who's smoked too much cannabis? Hint, the guy on cannabis is likely to be sitting in the passenger seat, and if he somehow manages to find the driver's seat, he'll be likely to drive at 3 miles an hour.
Secondly - who'd you rather get into a fight with? A drunkard or someone who's high on cannabis? The former is likely to smash you over the head with a beer bottle, the latter is likely to just start laughing and pointing at the pretty rainbows.
Re:1984 (Score:4, Insightful)
Drunk crimes are irrational crimes, so rational deterrents (like cameras) won't work so well.
Being able to stop them in the act (like putting police on the beat) is a good way to stop that sort of crime.
Re: (Score:2)
Something as severe as a night in jail might be enough to make some people think twice before having "one too many."
Similarly, CCTV doesn't seem to be so much of a deterrent as it is an additional piece of evidence to be used in court.
A convenience store clerk who "swears he remembers" the face of the guy who robbed the register cannot provide a convincing eyewitness account (there are thousands of scientific studies to back this up). However, a CCTV image that shows the guy robbing the register is pretty
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Do you seriously believe this? citation [dailymail.co.uk]
Re: (Score:2)
I've never heard of any saying they aren't convincing - and the fact that numerous juries have made decisions on the basis of them seems to indicate the opposite.
But I've seen quite a few saying that eyewitness accounts aren't very reliable.
Cameras don't help catch people (Score:5, Informative)
A few years ago (2002) I was cycling home in Hackney, East London, when a group of teenagers dragged me off my bike, kicked me in and stole my bike. Luckily a woman in a flat opposite heard the noise and called the police. Also I managed to get to my feet and flag down a passing biker who helped me chase down the kids and get my bike back.
Met. police investigated the case and told me they couldn't use the CCTV footage- the event was all captured on CCTV - as the quality was too low to be of any use.
Great bloody use of my council tax that was, putting in all those CCTV cameras if they don't actually work well enough to do what they are supposed to do.
So even beyond all the ethical discussions of whether CCTV cameras should be around to film people, and if it's a worthwhile use of public money, they don't even work!
Re:Cameras don't help catch people (Score:4, Interesting)
My hunch is that the cameras serve more as Orwellian ever-seeing eye. If people believe the CCTVs can actually track them, then it's irrelevant whether, technically, they can or not. Remember, not even in 1984 could the State really watch everyone all the time, but as long as everyone believed that at any moment the State could look in on them, that was enough.
Rather ironic that modern British government is so inspired by one of its greatest writer's greatest fears about where the world could go. What's more ironic is that so few Britons seem to even see that irony.
Don't smoke and drink (Score:2)
Folk who get caned on dope do drive. I've been to a fair few parties where people have been smoking then drive home, on roads where you'll be driving between 30 to 60mph.
Problem with driving stoned is it's like driving drunk - your reaction times will be badly impaired. Like booze, there's not so much a problem with people who are completely out of their head at a party -they aren't going anywhere but to sleep in the corner of the room - it's the folk who've only had a couple and think they are fine enough
Re:Don't smoke and *drive* (Score:2)
sorry, typo, I meant don't smoke and drive! but don't smoke and drink and drive either...! :-)
Re:1984 (Score:5, Interesting)
Except that we have really strong cannabis here.
Hah, the cannabis in the UK is potentially the same strength as cannabis in any other country (with equivalent climates), though most of the cannabis on the black market is often weaker than it could be due to the actions of law enforcement and the consequences of cannabis being illegal.
You are just parroting the bollocks that the prohibitionists speak. Fuck knows what idiot modded you up!
Due to cannabis having been the illegal for about 2 generations now, there have been selectively bred strains of cannabis developed which are indeed much stronger than naturally occurring cannabis, that are adapted for growth indoors, etc..
The line that the cannabis available nowadays is much stronger in the 60s is bollocks. In the 60s and 70s the vast majority of cannabis available in the UK was hashish, Moroccan, Lebanese etc.. Hashish is made by collecting the resins from the surface of the female cannabis flowers, and pure hashish can be maybe 80% or 90% THC, the active ingredient.
As time went on, hashish got cut more and more with adulterants, lowering the strength and making it much more profitable for people selling it (remember it is illegal - no enforceable quality controls). In the UK now you rarely can get real hashish, and the stuff solid as resin is usually known as soapbar - the general consensus is that it contains ground up cannabis plants (flowers, leaves, stems and all), something to dye it dark like henna or coffee, and an oily product like turpentine to give it a bit of a sheen. There are lots of rumours of other stuff that goes into it too to bulk up the weight, such as tyres or dog shit! Soapbar is maybe 5% THC at the very most, but more like 1 or 2%.
As a consequence of hashish turning to shit and law enforcement crack downs on smuggling people in the UK looked more and more at growing here, and herbal cannabis became much more popular. Basically people started to smoke the whole flowers of the female cannabis plant (with tobacco, as is customary in most of Europe) rather than products made from the flowers. Skunk simply refers to any variety or cannabis that has been selectively bred for strength, as they very often are much smellier than natural cannabis varieties. Killer skunk is a myth made up to sell newspapers and to get politicians and law enforcement power. The percentage of THC in even the strongest strains of skunk is only up to 15% or so, significantly less than what was available on the black market in the past.
As time has gone on, the quality of herbal cannabis has gone down too - look up gritweed. Also the major black market suppliers focus on growing the plants with the biggest amounts of saleable bud, not on strength. They choose varieties that produce the largest amounts of plant matter, and as it is a black market quality counts for very little. 70+ years of cannabis prohibition means that most cannabis users are grossly under-informed about what is good or bad weed.
Someone high on that can be very dangerous. I tell you what, you come over here and ask the gang of youths at the back of the bus to turn their mobile phone MP3 players off and stop stinking up the bus with their joints and see how quickly the situation turns ugly.
Now you just sound like an old man. "Kids with their music, smelly skunk.... I'm going to write to the Daily Mail".
Maybe if you approached them with the right attitude it wouldn't be a problem? More than likely they are just twats who would give you shit no matter what state they are in though, but stoned (only) people tend to not actually be very hostile.
I can assure you that the kind of kids that sit on buses smoking will also have been drinking too, maybe have had a line as well or are buzzing from some amphetamine, or have been chugging redbull all day too.
There are problems in society, but don't just blame cannabis. You sound seriously ignorant when you do so.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
This "strong cannabis" argument is fucking retarded. Do you think drunk drivers who stick to beer are less dangerous ?
I'm sure it's true that cannabis today is stronger than in the 60s/70s but so what ? People will carry on taking a drug until they obtain the effect they are looking for, so back then they probably sat around smoking joint after joint until they were properly fucked up. Now they only need a few tokes to get properly fucked up - the main difference is they are causing less damage to their lun
Re: (Score:2)
Recidivism - look it up, you moron (Score:2)
True, even if they get caught and locked up (or put under curfew, or fined enough that they can't afford to drink) it isn't preventing anything.
Because as we all know, getting drunk and being violent is something everybody does once, and nobody ever repeats it.
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
"Barman, would you like to hear a blond joke?" says the man.
The barman leans over with a serious look in his eyes. "Before you tell your joke, let me tell you five things", he said. "I'm blond and I have a baseball bat under the bar. The doorman is blond and weighs as much as a horse. My wife is blond can carry a barrel of beer under each arm. The cleaner is blond with a black belt in karate. And finally, the gentlemen at the end of the bar is blond, ex-SAS with a scr
Re:1984 (Score:5, Insightful)
The joke works a bit better if you remember to mention at the start that the man is blind.
Re: (Score:2)
The joke works even better if you're not trying to clumsily adapt an old Irish/Polish joke.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Well-behaved people have nothing to fear from being seen sitting and drinking.
You've obviously never had a Vindaloo and warm English beer...
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Well-behaved people have nothing to fear from being seen sitting and drinking.
Until the government (regardless of what level) decides that your pal Tony did something that maybe they don't like and decide to haul you and everyone else spotted with him in for a good cavity search. They can even look at the tv and say "That guy beat me at *name of event* back in high school!" and get a bogus warrant so that they can ruin your life as well. There are a LOT of police out there who only became police officers for the power and to feed their ego knowing that they are allowed to carry a g
Re: (Score:2)
I'm telling you, people should just start moving out of London
I'm more in favour of just building a wall around the M25. London can turn into the fascist state it seems to want to be, and we'll just keep telling the Westminster government that we're doing what they want, while ignoring them, and leave the nice bits of Britain to be people who had the sense not to move to London in the first place.