Racist clubber in Plymouth gets knocked the fuck out

[magisme]

I think KK has hijacked Len's account.

[Dazey]

Why not taken them to their logical extent and place them in their house to catch paedos? You mother could use it to catch your little brother wanking?

Or why not comprehend the difference between public and private?

[Len Cnut]

Nah man It's just interesting to see how far people can take their perspectives and whether they're actually like, thought out or not. Maybe you'll find yourself out some new shit too.

Anyway right, another example, the street I'm on now comes off the main high street in my town. There are three main camera spots here one right down the bottom, one right up the top and one in the middle above some traffic lights in the middle where there's a crossing. Right at the bottom there's a cycle shop right and there used to be a lad working there, proper nice lad, like couldn't say a word against him, proper library boy and that...and one day he's walking down the street and some mad junkie bastard comes running up behind him, literally no reason at all, like zero reason, smacks him really hard right on the back of his neck, drops him, he falls funny, ends up dying. Now this crackhead cunt would've basically gotten away with that scot free were it not for those cameras. I could probably find you a newspaper article on it.

And you know who else those cameras trouble? People selling gear, every fuckin' fella i pick up off now has to see you in a motor or around 'x' place cuz it's just too hot on the street, now thats personal experience but it's applicable to every drug dealer going, every one that don't wanna go to jail anyway.

[Dazey]

What are the limits of state interference on civic liberties - quis custodiet ipsos custodes? That was the point I was trying to make. Why not just go the whole way and have one in every room in the country? Presumably crime will be completely eradicated?

I do not have a problem with them in proximity to obvious hot spots of crime such as high streets and outside football stadia. It is the sheer prevalence that concerns me, an average of one camera per 32 people in the United Kingdom. It is estimated that you are filmed by seventy cameras on a typical day in a city. That is frightening.

But thats the point, if they were in just the main spots that'd do criminals a favour. Like look, example right, i know for a fact that i can't fuckin' like...mess about in town anymore. i know every little alleyway and back road and everything in this town and every time just before something would kick off in the high street it got to a point where it is really not worth it. There are four clear ways and 9 back alleys and duck spots that i know out of the high street and each last one of em now is camera'd up. What that means is that if i do someone on the high street or whatever i know for a fact that the minute the description of 6'4, asian lad, black jacket, white trainers, grey tracksuit bottoms is out I'll be tied to some degree to the scene of the crime, literally the only people effected by it (as opposed to bothered) are criminals. If there ain't cameras in the actual duckspots there's cameras where they come out, there's cameras by the car park where the dealers used to hang out, the pub courtyards, everywhere.

But all this is kinda avoiding the proposition being put forward here and that is, you as a person, when have you ever been effected by a camera negatively unless you were breaking a law?

The actual recording of your activity, in itself, possesses a negative connotation - at least in a society that claims it is a free and functioning democracy. Further, there is something remarkably anti-British about CCTV. It is difficult to put into words but it does not feel terribly British.

But it's not specifically recording YOUR activity is it? That's kinda the point. Ego much? >_> Edited December 2, 2014 by Dazey

[Len Cnut]

What do you call a high street in America, do they have em?

[Dazey]

You call it Northumberland Street in Newcastle and having seen what goes on there I'm not surprised that Dies' can't tell the difference between public and private.

[Len Cnut]

Unfortunately skipper I've not had the pleasure!

[jekylhyde]

You shouldn't shout racist insults to anyone, but you definitely shouldn't punch someone because he calls you names. Just walk away. He got to punch him, but now he's the bad guy. An adult should be able to control his or hers anger and to walk away from pathetic (racist) douchebags.

[magisme]

What do you call a high street in America, do they have em?

Don't know what a high street is.

....

This took .53 seconds to google, so don't give us any of that "no one who isn't a criminal has been hurt" bullshit.

Demonstrator Jake Smith was charged with two counts of violent disorder. These charges were later dropped when Smith's solicitor, Matt Foot, viewed the original CCTV footage and discovered that the police video had been edited to show events out of sequence, at one point implying another man was Smith while omitting footage showing Smith being assaulted by a police officer without provocation.

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2010/jul/19/gaza-protests-inquiry-police-cctv

Edited December 2, 2014 by magisme

[Len Cnut]

What do you call a high street in America, do they have em?

Don't know what a high street is.

....

This took .53 seconds to google, so don't give us any of that "no one who isn't a criminal has been hurt" bullshit.

Demonstrator Jake Smith was charged with two counts of violent disorder. These charges were later dropped when Smith's solicitor, Matt Foot, viewed the original CCTV footage and discovered that the police video had been edited to show events out of sequence, at one point implying another man was Smith while omitting footage showing Smith being assaulted by a police officer without provocation.

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2010/jul/19/gaza-protests-inquiry-police-cctv

Right but thats an instance of evidence tampering, that could happen with fingerprints too, all sorts of things, you can't sit there and write out there importance in the history of criminal investigations based on that alone, thats ridiculous.

On the other hand though, the positive benefits of that kinda shit is kinda unquantifiable it's so huge. I mean in the field of policework it's almost like the invention of the wheel or something, almost like...every celebrated crime of lore, in history, could've been solved had stuff like CCTV existed. (obviously every is an overstatement, I'm sick and i can't think of the words right now, a shit-ton, you know what I'm saying )

There is potential for the negative manipulation of any tool used by the filth to catch criminals, don't mean that, according to principles of law and order, it is a negative.

Look, i hate the fuckin' police and i hate surveillance and all that shit but then again, according to the principles of law and order, i don't see it in its current incarnation as a negative thing.

And a high street is like...the main street running through any town, the one where all the shops are.

Edited December 2, 2014 by Lennie Godber

[Dazey]

This took .53 seconds to google, so don't give us any of that "no one who isn't a criminal has been hurt" bullshit.

Demonstrator Jake Smith was charged with two counts of violent disorder. These charges were later dropped when Smith's solicitor, Matt Foot, viewed the original CCTV footage and discovered that the police video had been edited to show events out of sequence, at one point implying another man was Smith while omitting footage showing Smith being assaulted by a police officer without provocation.

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2010/jul/19/gaza-protests-inquiry-police-cctv

So CCTV exonerated him then?

[magisme]

Right but thats an instance of evidence tampering, that could happen with fingerprints too, all sorts of things, you can't sit there and write out there importance in the history of criminal investigations based on that alone, thats ridiculous.

Obviously that's not what I'm doing. I was addressing the specific, and incorrect, point that no one besides criminals had anything to worry about.

Go back to what Bumblefeet and DD have said for broader scope, or go read the homework I gave you if you want to talk with me about it.

[Len Cnut]

Right but thats an instance of evidence tampering, that could happen with fingerprints too, all sorts of things, you can't sit there and write out there importance in the history of criminal investigations based on that alone, thats ridiculous.

Obviously that's not what I'm doing. I was addressing the specific, and incorrect, point that no one besides criminals had anything to worry about.

Go back to what Bumblefeet and DD have said for broader scope, or go read the homework I gave you if you want to talk with me about it.

Yeah but to be fair i never made the point that no one besides criminals had anything to worry about, if you look McLeod said that, i just asked for that question to be answered i.e. name an instance where they have been fucked over...and you did.

As far as Bumblefeet and Dies' i read those and addressed em too, in saying that they were kinda broad non-specific stuff based on people who enjoy the works of George Orwell and y'know, there is a lot to that and those perspectives deserve respect but i think people really reach for those types of associations when talking about like, cameras in town that catch shoplifters and people selling skunk

It's kinda like the difference between the way politicians talk about issues and the way people who live the reality of them percieve them. I'm the last person who'd call for a de-intellectualising of the populus to where everybody just goes by what they see in front of them but to be honest in this instance it's kinda more relevant.

Edited December 2, 2014 by Lennie Godber

[Dazey]

Right but thats an instance of evidence tampering, that could happen with fingerprints too, all sorts of things, you can't sit there and write out there importance in the history of criminal investigations based on that alone, thats ridiculous.

Obviously that's not what I'm doing. I was addressing the specific, and incorrect, point that no one besides criminals had anything to worry about.

Go back to what Bumblefeet and DD have said for broader scope, or go read the homework I gave you if you want to talk with me about it.

Okay then. To satisfy the pedants in the room let's change that to 99.99% of law abiding people have nothing to fear from security cameras in public places.

Yeah but to be fair i never made the point that no one besides criminals had anything to worry about, if you look McLeod said that......

No I fucking well didn't!

[Len Cnut]

Right but thats an instance of evidence tampering, that could happen with fingerprints too, all sorts of things, you can't sit there and write out there importance in the history of criminal investigations based on that alone, thats ridiculous.

Obviously that's not what I'm doing. I was addressing the specific, and incorrect, point that no one besides criminals had anything to worry about.

Go back to what Bumblefeet and DD have said for broader scope, or go read the homework I gave you if you want to talk with me about it.

Okay then. To satisfy the pedants in the room let's change that to 99.99% of law abiding people have nothing to fear from security cameras in public places.

Yeah but to be fair i never made the point that no one besides criminals had anything to worry about, if you look McLeod said that......

No I fucking well didn't!

Well some cunt said it and it weren't me and you're the only other one on this side of the argument

[magisme]

Right but thats an instance of evidence tampering, that could happen with fingerprints too, all sorts of things, you can't sit there and write out there importance in the history of criminal investigations based on that alone, thats ridiculous.

Obviously that's not what I'm doing. I was addressing the specific, and incorrect, point that no one besides criminals had anything to worry about.

Go back to what Bumblefeet and DD have said for broader scope, or go read the homework I gave you if you want to talk with me about it.

Yeah but to be fair i never made the point that no one besides criminals had anything to worry about, if you look McLeod said that, i just asked for that question to be answered i.e. name an instance where they have been fucked over...and you did.

As far as Bumblefeet and Dies' i read those and addressed em too, in saying that they were kinda broad non-specific stuff based on people who enjoy the works of George Orwell and y'know, there is a lot to that and those perspectives deserve respect but i think people really reach for those types of associations when talking about like, cameras in town that catch shoplifters and people selling skunk

It's kinda like the difference between the way politicians talk about issues and the way people who live the reality of them percieve them. I'm the last person who'd call for a de-intellectualising of the populus to where everybody just goes by what they see in front of them but to be honest in this instance it's kinda more relevant.

Because massive increases in the State's surveillance powers have always worked out so well over history? Nothing to worry about?

Look, if you're going to dismiss thinkers so easily, there's not much for you and I to debate. You make the issue mundane with your perspective, and I guess that's how you see it. I disagree wholeheartedly and think you're being terribly naive.

The only people I've seen who are actually troubled by it though are criminals.

cough cough

[Len Cnut]

Because massive increases in the State's surveillance powers have always worked out so well over history? Nothing to worry about?

Yeah but don't you see how thats not enough of a reason? You simply can't look at contemporary society, say somethings wrong and then do nothing more than cite an instance in the past where a similar thing, broadly speaking, went tits up.

Look, if you're going to dismiss thinkers so easily, there's not much for you and I to debate.

Why is thinking limited to what your doing and not applicable to the notion of actually dealing yourself, with your own ideas, about the world around you, assessing it...and coming to a conclusion? Quite honestly, to my mind at least, that involves a lot more thinking than what you guys are wheeling out here which to be honest is just like a party line.

Yes mass state surveillance is fucked up, yes people should have freedom to privacy...but what has that got to do with the issue at hand, of high streets and main drags and the roads off em and intersections and shit, having cameras? Thats what we're talking about here, this isn't The Running Man.

With respect Mags, what you are proposing is akin to intellectual cowardice, or at the very least laziness, taking the GCSE syllabus way out to save from having to think for yourself. I might be haphazard but i don't think I'm stupid....much

[magisme]

I don't understand. What am I proposing?

[Len Cnut]

Right but thats an instance of evidence tampering, that could happen with fingerprints too, all sorts of things, you can't sit there and write out there importance in the history of criminal investigations based on that alone, thats ridiculous.

Obviously that's not what I'm doing. I was addressing the specific, and incorrect, point that no one besides criminals had anything to worry about.

Go back to what Bumblefeet and DD have said for broader scope, or go read the homework I gave you if you want to talk with me about it.

Yeah but to be fair i never made the point that no one besides criminals had anything to worry about, if you look McLeod said that, i just asked for that question to be answered i.e. name an instance where they have been fucked over...and you did.

As far as Bumblefeet and Dies' i read those and addressed em too, in saying that they were kinda broad non-specific stuff based on people who enjoy the works of George Orwell and y'know, there is a lot to that and those perspectives deserve respect but i think people really reach for those types of associations when talking about like, cameras in town that catch shoplifters and people selling skunk

It's kinda like the difference between the way politicians talk about issues and the way people who live the reality of them percieve them. I'm the last person who'd call for a de-intellectualising of the populus to where everybody just goes by what they see in front of them but to be honest in this instance it's kinda more relevant.

Because massive increases in the State's surveillance powers have always worked out so well over history? Nothing to worry about?

Look, if you're going to dismiss thinkers so easily, there's not much for you and I to debate. You make the issue mundane with your perspective, and I guess that's how you see it. I disagree wholeheartedly and think you're being terribly naive.

The only people I've seen who are actually troubled by it though are criminals.

cough cough

Right, the only people 'I've seen', when coupled with the fact that the rest of what i was doing was asking yous, well then that fits squarely within my description of what i was doing. Obviously what I've seen is gonna be limited to my narrow scope, hence the necessity for the question.

Get outta that one Rommel!

[magisme]

And I'm not dismissing the everyday. I'm saying that the grave issues surrounding such surveillance has very little to do with how an individual today would consciously experience a negative change in their lives, so that's a red herring way of going about the debate.

[Len Cnut]

I don't understand. What am I proposing?

Doing even, dunno why i threw proposing in there

And I'm not dismissing the everyday. I'm saying that the grave issues surrounding such surveillance has very little to do with how an individual today would consciously experience a negative change in their lives, so that's a red herring way of going about the debate.

So you're suggesting that surveillance per se is wrong, of any kind? Not trying to put words in your mouth, just following the line of logic, if it is impossible to guage when altering degrees of surveillance become a negative then surely that would mean to say that surveillance in and of itself is damaging, in any form, no? If you can't tell as a person when it's bad and when it's good then surely its always bad, if only for its potential to go bad without you knowing?

[magisme]

And to clarify, I was using 'thinker' as synonymous with 'philosopher', a tradition begun by Heidegger, a Nazi, and popularized by Arendt, a Jewish student of Heidegger's - she of the "banality of evil". It's all connected.

[magisme]

And I'm not dismissing the everyday. I'm saying that the grave issues surrounding such surveillance has very little to do with how an individual today would consciously experience a negative change in their lives, so that's a red herring way of going about the debate.

So you're suggesting that surveillance per se is wrong, of any kind? Not trying to put words in your mouth, just following the line of logic, if it is impossible to guage when altering degrees of surveillance become a negative then surely that would mean to say that surveillance in and of itself is damaging, in any form, no? If you can't tell as a person when it's bad and when it's good then surely its always bad, if only for its potential to go bad without you knowing?

I'm quite the American Constitutionalist on this one. I think any surveillance without a warrant from a court regarding the specific and restricted area to be surveilled and the specific reason for such surveillance should be illegal. Oh, a specific time frame for the surveillance to take place too.

[Len Cnut]

And I'm not dismissing the everyday. I'm saying that the grave issues surrounding such surveillance has very little to do with how an individual today would consciously experience a negative change in their lives, so that's a red herring way of going about the debate.

So you're suggesting that surveillance per se is wrong, of any kind? Not trying to put words in your mouth, just following the line of logic, if it is impossible to guage when altering degrees of surveillance become a negative then surely that would mean to say that surveillance in and of itself is damaging, in any form, no? If you can't tell as a person when it's bad and when it's good then surely its always bad, if only for its potential to go bad without you knowing?

I'm quite the American Constitutionalist on this one. I think any surveillance without a warrant from a court regarding the specific and restricted area to be surveilled and the specific reason for such surveillance should be illegal. Oh, a specific time frame for the surveillance to take place too.

Doesn't that cover what we're discussing, i mean they are put their by local councils right, according to the law?

[magisme]

And I'm not dismissing the everyday. I'm saying that the grave issues surrounding such surveillance has very little to do with how an individual today would consciously experience a negative change in their lives, so that's a red herring way of going about the debate.

So you're suggesting that surveillance per se is wrong, of any kind? Not trying to put words in your mouth, just following the line of logic, if it is impossible to guage when altering degrees of surveillance become a negative then surely that would mean to say that surveillance in and of itself is damaging, in any form, no? If you can't tell as a person when it's bad and when it's good then surely its always bad, if only for its potential to go bad without you knowing?

I'm quite the American Constitutionalist on this one. I think any surveillance without a warrant from a court regarding the specific and restricted area to be surveilled and the specific reason for such surveillance should be illegal. Oh, a specific time frame for the surveillance to take place too.

Doesn't that cover what we're discussing, i mean they are put their by local councils right, according to the law?

No, that's not what I mean. Mass surveillance shouldn't be allowed under any circumstances in public spaces. There needs to be probable cause for the surveillance, not general paranoia.

Probable cause regarding a specified crime, I should add.

Edited December 2, 2014 by magisme