Big brother will be watching you 24/7 (From Swindon Advertiser)
Get involved! Send photos, video, news & views. Text SWINDON NEWS to 80360 or email us
Big brother will be watching you 24/7
9:00pm Friday 8th March 2013 in News
Big brother will be watching you 24/7
CCTV cameras are to be linked up across the town centre as part of a £100,000 project to combat crime and disorder.
Swindon Council intends to use a 4G network to connect the council’s 78 cameras in car parks, plus another five to be installed covering Commercial Road, Canal Walk and Regent Street, with 10 privately-owned cameras at The Parade, eight at Zurich UK Life Centre and eight at the Brunel Centre.
The CCTV images from most sites will be transmitted back in real time, 24/7, to the Swindon Commercial Services Limited control room at Waterside Park, at Rodbourne Cheney Industrial Estate, which already monitors cameras on housing estates.
Staff will be able to monitor the images from the Brunel cameras when the centre is closed but will have to request to access the Zurich images if there is an incident around the Tri Centre area.
Phil Thomas, Swindon Council’s head of public protection and StreetSmart, said the aim was to proactively monitor crime and disorder within the town centre, to aid crowd safety during large events and to manage and direct emergency services in the event of a major incident.
He said: “We could install a new CCTV network right through the town centre but that would cost a lot of money and we would have to install a lot of cameras.
“What we’ve come up with is an agreement to use CCTV that’s in the town centre and that means tapping into privately-owned CCTV and monitoring what’s going on and taking over these CCTV cameras at times when we want to.
“All we’ve had to do is install an additional five more cameras and what we’ve got actually is pretty good coverage across the town centre that we can tap into. We’ve bought the kit, we’ve got the infrastructure. All we’re doing is waiting for permission on the buildings and then we can do installation.”
The CCTV strategy is a partnership between Swindon Council, Wiltshire Police, Swindon Community Safety Partnership, SCS and the town centre management firm InSwindon.
Swindon Council is funding the £100,000 capital cost, and work is due to be completed in the spring. SCS will run the scheme free-of-charge for the first year but thereafter the estimated £30,000 monitoring cost is proposed to be split equally between Swindon Council, Wiltshire Police and InSwindon.
The CCTV strategy currently only covers the Business Improvement District area, but the plan is to extend this to Old Town once funding has been identified.
Several councillors at the safer and stronger overview and scrutiny committee were keen to see the project in other areas, such as Abbey Meads, Wroughton and Covingham.
Chairman Brian Ford (Con Wroughton and Wichelstowe) He said: “Now we’re down to £100,000, probably with the technology coming up as it is, we’re maybe able to get it elsewhere for a lot cheaper.”
Comments(83)
Phantom Poster
says...
9:52pm Fri 8 Mar 13
http://alturl.com/vv
von
Read his post: at:
12:30pm Mon 2 Jan 12. Please read - it's hilarious!
Hmmmf
says...
11:13pm Fri 8 Mar 13
Combat? How, exactly? CCTV doesn't prevent crime and disorder, it doesn't 'combat' it; at best it just records blurred grainy images of hooded figures after an event which even a suspect's own mother wouldn't recognise. It's a cop-out in more ways than one, and like the wifi fiasco, a pointless waste of council taxpayers' money with no possible return on investment.
semitonic
says...
7:47am Sat 9 Mar 13
Phantom Poster wrote:A classic episode of the Bob 'n Messy show!
Maybe itsamess could include his camera feeds:
http://alturl.com/vv
von
Read his post: at:
12:30pm Mon 2 Jan 12. Please read - it's hilarious!
itsamess3
says...
7:57am Sat 9 Mar 13
Not as hilarious as some idiot who transfers an article from the adver to google search leaving a pathway straight back to their computer.
Breaching the T&Cs of this site too.
semitonic
says...
8:02am Sat 9 Mar 13
semitonic
says...
8:06am Sat 9 Mar 13
I can only find the still shots.
Tim Newroman
says...
8:40am Sat 9 Mar 13
semitonic wrote:It's on Wiltshire police Facebook page.
Does anybody have a link to the actual cctv footage released of the suspected tyre slasher?
I can only find the still shots.
As others have pointed out, CCTV is an easy sop to keep the public happy and thinking something is being done about crime. Even NACRO has concluded that better night lighting deters more crime than CCTV does.
At the very best, CCTV is an expensive way of photographing criminals who've already committed their crime. Much of it isn't admissible in court and many criminals know that it is entirely defeated simply by them wearing generic clothing, hoods or caps.
The ONLY way to reduce crime is to put those who commit most of it in prison for long periods of time. Only 90% of offenders jailed last year had previous convictions. Jail to repeat offenders and you see the crime rate plummet. Sadly, our courts and judiciary appear to have little interest in doing it.
Simples!
says...
8:42am Sat 9 Mar 13
semitonic
says...
9:05am Sat 9 Mar 13
Tim Newroman wrote:Thanks, it's not obvious where it is on there though.
semitonic wrote:It's on Wiltshire police Facebook page.
Does anybody have a link to the actual cctv footage released of the suspected tyre slasher?
I can only find the still shots.
As others have pointed out, CCTV is an easy sop to keep the public happy and thinking something is being done about crime. Even NACRO has concluded that better night lighting deters more crime than CCTV does.
At the very best, CCTV is an expensive way of photographing criminals who've already committed their crime. Much of it isn't admissible in court and many criminals know that it is entirely defeated simply by them wearing generic clothing, hoods or caps.
The ONLY way to reduce crime is to put those who commit most of it in prison for long periods of time. Only 90% of offenders jailed last year had previous convictions. Jail to repeat offenders and you see the crime rate plummet. Sadly, our courts and judiciary appear to have little interest in doing it.
This links directly to the video of the suspect - and it's a really clear shot of him. I'm surprised he wore some quite distinctive clothing, striped shouldered top with a pointy hood.
http://goo.gl/MsYZ8
Remember people there is a reward to catch this аrsehole.
LordAshOfTheBrake
says...
9:08am Sat 9 Mar 13
Maybe the latest generation of camera's are better, but this isn't replacing existing camera's.
Most people up to no good, generally minimise the amount of their face that can be picked up by wearing hoodies etc.
Even if the camera's do capture someone in the act of committing a crime, and they can be identified; the criminal justice system is so weak and broken to addresses the criminal behaviour properly anyway.
LordAshOfTheBrake
says...
9:12am Sat 9 Mar 13
Phantom Poster wrote:Thats brilliant given his claims on another thread about monitoring property etc.
Maybe itsamess could include his camera feeds:
http://alturl.com/vv
von
Read his post: at:
12:30pm Mon 2 Jan 12. Please read - it's hilarious!
Tim Newroman
says...
10:02am Sat 9 Mar 13
semitonic wrote:Oh no! You've now left a direct path straight to your computer. itsamess3 knows who you are!
Tim Newroman wrote:Thanks, it's not obvious where it is on there though.
semitonic wrote:It's on Wiltshire police Facebook page.
Does anybody have a link to the actual cctv footage released of the suspected tyre slasher?
I can only find the still shots.
As others have pointed out, CCTV is an easy sop to keep the public happy and thinking something is being done about crime. Even NACRO has concluded that better night lighting deters more crime than CCTV does.
At the very best, CCTV is an expensive way of photographing criminals who've already committed their crime. Much of it isn't admissible in court and many criminals know that it is entirely defeated simply by them wearing generic clothing, hoods or caps.
The ONLY way to reduce crime is to put those who commit most of it in prison for long periods of time. Only 90% of offenders jailed last year had previous convictions. Jail to repeat offenders and you see the crime rate plummet. Sadly, our courts and judiciary appear to have little interest in doing it.
This links directly to the video of the suspect - and it's a really clear shot of him. I'm surprised he wore some quite distinctive clothing, striped shouldered top with a pointy hood.
http://goo.gl/MsYZ8
Remember people there is a reward to catch this аrsehole.
L.O. and, indeed, L.
semitonic
says...
10:06am Sat 9 Mar 13
I'm in serious guano now!
Tim Newroman
says...
10:14am Sat 9 Mar 13
semitonic
says...
10:18am Sat 9 Mar 13
Tim Newroman
says...
10:27am Sat 9 Mar 13
semitonic wrote:Say his name five times while looking into a mirror and you will never be heard from again.
It's Gordon Chalmers I'm most afraid of.
Hmmmf
says...
11:02am Sat 9 Mar 13
Adver wrote:
SHOCKING CCTV footage shows an 18-year-old man being floored with one punch in an unprovoked attack from behind.
SHOCKING CCTV footage shows exactly how CCTV does not 'combat crime and disorder' and why 100k of council tax would be better spent on street art and street furniture for all the good it does.
Localboy86
says...
11:29am Sat 9 Mar 13
Tim Newroman
says...
11:40am Sat 9 Mar 13
Localboy86 wrote:Nobody is 'missing' that rather pointless information. Criminal commits crime, CCTV operator spots it and by the time they've even contacted the police the criminal is nowhere near the scene of their crime.
What u guys are missing is the cameras will be monitored so they can direct the police to the crims so they can be caught red handed. You not seen the street crime uk Typre programs
dukeofM4
says...
4:10pm Sat 9 Mar 13
roberto5
says...
6:07pm Sat 9 Mar 13
Davey Gravey
says...
7:34pm Sat 9 Mar 13
Phantom Poster
says...
9:52pm Sat 9 Mar 13
itsamess3 wrote:You really know nothing about computers or the internet, do you? A bit surprising if as you claim you are an internationally renowned nuclear scientist. Not really a Tim Berners Lee type, are you?
P.P.
Not as hilarious as some idiot who transfers an article from the adver to google search leaving a pathway straight back to their computer.
Breaching the T&Cs of this site too.
Shall I repost my link so that you can check whether your Bob stalking posts have breached the site T&C?
Phantom Poster
says...
10:01pm Sat 9 Mar 13
itsamess3 wrote:By the way, to save you some time in tracking me down - I used Bing, not google to search for the article! But then you probably already know that, together with my name, address, telephone number and inside leg measurement :-)
P.P.
Not as hilarious as some idiot who transfers an article from the adver to google search leaving a pathway straight back to their computer.
Breaching the T&Cs of this site too.
Phantom Poster
says...
10:06pm Sat 9 Mar 13
Eastcott
says...
7:42am Sun 10 Mar 13
Tim Newroman
says...
8:18am Sun 10 Mar 13
Eastcott wrote:Quelle surprise.
They should set a camera up outside that Foyer place on Bath Road. A lot of the scrotes who live there are often up to no good. In fact a little dicky bird tells me that place is where the police are focussing their investigation into the recent tyre slashings on.
Empty Car Park
says...
8:46am Sun 10 Mar 13
Tim Newroman
says...
9:13am Sun 10 Mar 13
Empty Car Park wrote:Obviously you don't care about the near 100 people who had their tyres slashed by a criminal vandal, causing tens of thousands of pounds worth of expense to innocent people and untold inconvenience.
Yawn
How considerate of you to ignore all of that just so you can post your usual inane and pointless rubbish.
It's YOU who is the most tiresome, boring and snoozeworthy contributor here - but please do stop dismissing the victims of the tyre slasher and other criminals in Swindon.
Not your best move.
semitonic
says...
10:10am Sun 10 Mar 13
http://goo.gl/MsYZ8
RichardR1
says...
12:03pm Sun 10 Mar 13
itsamess says...
12:30pm Mon 2 Jan 12
Bob
Do try to report what i say--not your out of context comments.
On your claim the sisters would be coming for lunch i installed a motion sensed camera close by which picked out any visitors. I hear you shouting breach of human rights--only if its used--a friend is copying it blanking out number plates and faces--no breach--guess who was not on it?
I don't recall having seen the video osted anywhere Mr Itsamess, so what happened to it.
Localboy86
says...
12:03pm Sun 10 Mar 13
Tim Newroman wrote:No Tim that title went to you when old bobby left. Judges blah blah blah . I know everything blah blah blah . I'll use different logins to back up my own narrow minded view blah blah blah
Empty Car Park wrote:Obviously you don't care about the near 100 people who had their tyres slashed by a criminal vandal, causing tens of thousands of pounds worth of expense to innocent people and untold inconvenience.
Yawn
How considerate of you to ignore all of that just so you can post your usual inane and pointless rubbish.
It's YOU who is the most tiresome, boring and snoozeworthy contributor here - but please do stop dismissing the victims of the tyre slasher and other criminals in Swindon.
Not your best move.
semitonic
says...
12:12pm Sun 10 Mar 13
Tim Newroman
says...
12:15pm Sun 10 Mar 13
Localboy86 wrote:Don't think so.
Tim Newroman wrote:No Tim that title went to you when old bobby left. Judges blah blah blah . I know everything blah blah blah . I'll use different logins to back up my own narrow minded view blah blah blah
Empty Car Park wrote:Obviously you don't care about the near 100 people who had their tyres slashed by a criminal vandal, causing tens of thousands of pounds worth of expense to innocent people and untold inconvenience.
Yawn
How considerate of you to ignore all of that just so you can post your usual inane and pointless rubbish.
It's YOU who is the most tiresome, boring and snoozeworthy contributor here - but please do stop dismissing the victims of the tyre slasher and other criminals in Swindon.
Not your best move.
I've never claimed to know everything, and I comment on far fewer articles than I don't comment on.
As for using different logins, nope, sorry, not the case. I have one login on here and one only.
I would imagine that concept is difficult for you and Empty Car Park / I Could Do That to fathom.
Hmmmf
says...
1:13pm Sun 10 Mar 13
semitonic wrote:How? It's impossible to tell that person's sex, much less recognise who it is. About the only thing someone might recognise from that CCTV image is the make of that person's clothing. Maybe.
Somebody must recognise this person;
http://goo.gl/MsYZ8
Yes, we really need to shell out 100k for more of this kind of crime and disorder combat kit.
semitonic
says...
8:23pm Sun 10 Mar 13
Hmmmf wrote:Impossible to tell for certain what sex they are but I'd say it was a male about 20 years old. Thing is someone will have seen him wearing those clothes, that combination of clothes, and will likely recognise him.
semitonic wrote:How? It's impossible to tell that person's sex, much less recognise who it is. About the only thing someone might recognise from that CCTV image is the make of that person's clothing. Maybe.
Somebody must recognise this person;
http://goo.gl/MsYZ8
Yes, we really need to shell out 100k for more of this kind of crime and disorder combat kit.
I realise a lot of youths wear the same type of clothes but it's the whole lot together that's important.
The distinctive cοcky swagger, baseball cap with a logo on the front under the grey hood, patches on the shoulders, white tassles, dark tracksuit bottoms with elasticated ankles, black trainers with white soles and white laces, sharp cheekbones, vacuum between the ears.
Someone will recognise him.
itsamess3
says...
12:26am Mon 11 Mar 13
semitonic wrote:Regardless of your acid tongue at times you have posted some very helpful links over the years that helped me reach my aim.
Hahaha! - shut up messy! you don't know what you are talking about!
I did wonder why you could not find the link given by PP and athough he claims to have searched via bing it comes up on google search. The reason why my claim is true is because when something is entered onto an original item that is copyright the search engine gathers information which can be accessed with the correct tools--likewise as stated transferring pages to an outside source electronically is not allowed in the site terms. Admittedly i have the tools but not the knowledge to interpret the information-others do that for me. Sites collect information to send cookies.
I do laugh when folk post such links as the poor old chap fell right into traps and gave me more information..
itsamess3
says...
1:03am Mon 11 Mar 13
Agreed cameras are good in trading estates and office areas and shopping areas--however it has taken quite some time for these images to come out.
Forensic services can work wonders with taped images--decent footage can give clues as to walking style etc as others have said. Many police tv shows show some very clear pictures and have zoomed in to see pickpockets dipping pockets and police are there in seconds--not here it seems.
Richard
As you are a relatively new poster you were not here when the link was given--what a shame.
Tim Newroman
says...
9:05am Mon 11 Mar 13
itsamess3 wrote:What absolute, utter gibberish. Who on earth do you think you're fooling?
semitonic wrote:Regardless of your acid tongue at times you have posted some very helpful links over the years that helped me reach my aim.
Hahaha! - shut up messy! you don't know what you are talking about!
I did wonder why you could not find the link given by PP and athough he claims to have searched via bing it comes up on google search. The reason why my claim is true is because when something is entered onto an original item that is copyright the search engine gathers information which can be accessed with the correct tools--likewise as stated transferring pages to an outside source electronically is not allowed in the site terms. Admittedly i have the tools but not the knowledge to interpret the information-others do that for me. Sites collect information to send cookies.
I do laugh when folk post such links as the poor old chap fell right into traps and gave me more information..
Davey Gravey
says...
9:42am Mon 11 Mar 13
Tim Newroman wrote:In his mind, everyone. The reality,himself. I note none of the threats he has made ever came to anything.
itsamess3 wrote:What absolute, utter gibberish. Who on earth do you think you're fooling?
semitonic wrote:Regardless of your acid tongue at times you have posted some very helpful links over the years that helped me reach my aim.
Hahaha! - shut up messy! you don't know what you are talking about!
I did wonder why you could not find the link given by PP and athough he claims to have searched via bing it comes up on google search. The reason why my claim is true is because when something is entered onto an original item that is copyright the search engine gathers information which can be accessed with the correct tools--likewise as stated transferring pages to an outside source electronically is not allowed in the site terms. Admittedly i have the tools but not the knowledge to interpret the information-others do that for me. Sites collect information to send cookies.
I do laugh when folk post such links as the poor old chap fell right into traps and gave me more information..
A.Baron-Cohen
says...
10:39am Mon 11 Mar 13
Another great idea, would be to have a couple of UAVs flying over the town's problem areas.
scottwichall
says...
11:50am Mon 11 Mar 13
A.Baron-Cohen wrote:Thank you for your kind offer of even more big brother surveillance in the sky's overhead.
A great idea in principle, I hope the CCTV's resolution and night vision are good enough to be helpful and useful.
Another great idea, would be to have a couple of UAVs flying over the town's problem areas.
I would have to decline the aforementioned offer on the grounds that it is even more intrusive than the current over reliance on CCTV, and a clear breach of the few remaining civil liberties that we still possess.
Perhaps you would like everyone to have a little microchip embedded for identification or retinal scanning as in the film Minority Report?
Of a great deal more use would be a large increase in police patrols (on foot/bike), and I don't see any reason why the police do not increase the amount of Special Constables they have on the books to help fulfill this need.
scottwichall
says...
11:51am Mon 11 Mar 13
RichardR1
says...
12:13pm Mon 11 Mar 13
LordAshOfTheBrake
says...
12:42pm Mon 11 Mar 13
scottwichall wrote:Are you volunteering to be a special constable then?
A.Baron-Cohen wrote:Thank you for your kind offer of even more big brother surveillance in the sky's overhead.
A great idea in principle, I hope the CCTV's resolution and night vision are good enough to be helpful and useful.
Another great idea, would be to have a couple of UAVs flying over the town's problem areas.
I would have to decline the aforementioned offer on the grounds that it is even more intrusive than the current over reliance on CCTV, and a clear breach of the few remaining civil liberties that we still possess.
Perhaps you would like everyone to have a little microchip embedded for identification or retinal scanning as in the film Minority Report?
Of a great deal more use would be a large increase in police patrols (on foot/bike), and I don't see any reason why the police do not increase the amount of Special Constables they have on the books to help fulfill this need.
LordAshOfTheBrake
says...
12:48pm Mon 11 Mar 13
RichardR1 wrote:That argument is absolute rubbish.
Civil liberties, what about the civil liberty of the victims of crime. Nothing to hide then nothing to fear.
There may be genuine reasons why some people want to hide certain things away from being spied on; that do not include illegal activities.
At the root of it is that there has to be complete trust in whoever is monitoring and recording. There are numerous examples of an abuse of power by authorities and private companies.
scottwichall
says...
12:57pm Mon 11 Mar 13
RichardR1 wrote:"Nothing to Hide nothing to fear"
Civil liberties, what about the civil liberty of the victims of crime. Nothing to hide then nothing to fear.
That's the cry of the sheep. Run along now, and rejoin your herd :-)
If we were allowed to defend ourselves, rather than having the rely on the state to be the sole arbiter of force, then the civil liberties of the victims of crime would be intact.
Now we have to rely on the police to defend us, perhaps if they could arrive in 30 seconds then this would be a reasonable position to be in.
Lets face it a violent crime is over in seconds, and criminals do not care about the law and are therefore armed.
Also, what use is CCTV to you if you have received a knife in the face? It won't help you if you are dead or disfigured for life will it.
CCTV does not prevent crime. We are the most watched nation on the planet, and you only have to look at the crime (particularly violent) figures to see it doesn't work.
Just wait until you are implanted with a microchip at birth, it will come, and in the not to distant future. ID cards will be a precursor to this.
Government cannot help itself, its sole purpose is to maintain power and grow which is why we are in the insane position of big government central control we are in now.
********************
*********
“When the people fear the government there is tyranny, when the government fears the people there is liberty.”
― Thomas Jefferson
********************
*********
scottwichall
says...
12:58pm Mon 11 Mar 13
LordAshOfTheBrake wrote:I would happily serve as a Special. I am probably far to fat and unfit though.
scottwichall wrote:Are you volunteering to be a special constable then?
A.Baron-Cohen wrote:Thank you for your kind offer of even more big brother surveillance in the sky's overhead.
A great idea in principle, I hope the CCTV's resolution and night vision are good enough to be helpful and useful.
Another great idea, would be to have a couple of UAVs flying over the town's problem areas.
I would have to decline the aforementioned offer on the grounds that it is even more intrusive than the current over reliance on CCTV, and a clear breach of the few remaining civil liberties that we still possess.
Perhaps you would like everyone to have a little microchip embedded for identification or retinal scanning as in the film Minority Report?
Of a great deal more use would be a large increase in police patrols (on foot/bike), and I don't see any reason why the police do not increase the amount of Special Constables they have on the books to help fulfill this need.
Tim Newroman
says...
1:08pm Mon 11 Mar 13
Rather ironic, but very depressing that people are so quick to believe things that are simply not the case at all.
itsamess3
says...
4:50pm Mon 11 Mar 13
9:05am Mon 11 Mar 13
What absolute, utter gibberish. Who on earth do you think you're fooling?”
How very strange--you recently made a big issue out of my archiving my posts stating very clearly it was against site rules.
In the last few days you posted a link that did not work.
You also could not understand the term viral video.
Says a lot about you when you do not understand basics.
CCTV is only as good as the operaters and availabilty of officers to respond to incidents.
Localboy86
says...
8:31pm Mon 11 Mar 13
Tim Newroman wrote:Not noticed that they have made an arrest following the release of CCTV clip of someone viciously assaulting someone in town centre?
Anyone who still thinks CCTV is a worthwhile deterrent for crime and criminals should read the NACRO report findings on the subject, which conclusively proves that the use of CCTV is largely due to the public misconception that it deters crime.
Rather ironic, but very depressing that people are so quick to believe things that are simply not the case at all.
semitonic
says...
7:25am Tue 12 Mar 13
itsamess3 wrote:Even Robbo knows more about the net than you messy, and you could write that on a postage stamp.
Tim Newroman says...
9:05am Mon 11 Mar 13
What absolute, utter gibberish. Who on earth do you think you're fooling?”
How very strange--you recently made a big issue out of my archiving my posts stating very clearly it was against site rules.
In the last few days you posted a link that did not work.
You also could not understand the term viral video.
Says a lot about you when you do not understand basics.
CCTV is only as good as the operaters and availabilty of officers to respond to incidents.
Tim Newroman
says...
8:43am Tue 12 Mar 13
Localboy86 wrote:Yes, I also happen to know exactly why that person was arrested. It was not to do with the CCTV clip.
Tim Newroman wrote:Not noticed that they have made an arrest following the release of CCTV clip of someone viciously assaulting someone in town centre?
Anyone who still thinks CCTV is a worthwhile deterrent for crime and criminals should read the NACRO report findings on the subject, which conclusively proves that the use of CCTV is largely due to the public misconception that it deters crime.
Rather ironic, but very depressing that people are so quick to believe things that are simply not the case at all.
Tim Newroman
says...
8:44am Tue 12 Mar 13
Localboy86 wrote:Just to add: the CCTV in the town centre very clearly didn't deter the violent GBH attack, which was the point I was actually making.
Tim Newroman wrote:Not noticed that they have made an arrest following the release of CCTV clip of someone viciously assaulting someone in town centre?
Anyone who still thinks CCTV is a worthwhile deterrent for crime and criminals should read the NACRO report findings on the subject, which conclusively proves that the use of CCTV is largely due to the public misconception that it deters crime.
Rather ironic, but very depressing that people are so quick to believe things that are simply not the case at all.
Tim Newroman
says...
8:53am Tue 12 Mar 13
itsamess3 wrote:Let's address your erroneous points one by one:
Tim Newroman says...
9:05am Mon 11 Mar 13
What absolute, utter gibberish. Who on earth do you think you're fooling?”
How very strange--you recently made a big issue out of my archiving my posts stating very clearly it was against site rules.
In the last few days you posted a link that did not work.
You also could not understand the term viral video.
Says a lot about you when you do not understand basics.
CCTV is only as good as the operaters and availabilty of officers to respond to incidents.
1. Yes, you have broken the Adver's T&Cs several times over - and have openly admitted it through your posts. However, the poster you refer to did NOT break the Adver's T&Cs at all. You clearly have absolutely no knowledge of what you're talking about. Do you even know how URL shortening sites work? Of course you don't - very clearly.
2. The link I posted worked entirely correctly. I explained why the origianl link didn't work, shortened the link to the necessary minimum and it then worked fine. Anyone who wishes to can simply go to that thread, copy and paste the link and see, first hand, that it works and you, as ever, are WRONG.
3. Please, spare me your ignorance. I know very, very well what the term 'viral' means in this scenario. Yet again, the fact that you try to imply that I don't gives away a lot about your supposed 'intelligence'.
The reality is that you posted a hysterical comment about a piece of pathetic, and illegal, CCTV footage that you claim you uploaded to the Internet. You, with a straight face, went on to 'explain' why it hadn't gone viral. After rolling around on the floor trying to catch my breath from laughing too hard, I could not resist pointing out just how amusing your utter lack of knowledge on the subject really is.
4. CCTV isn't very useful regardless of the operators (do note the correct spelling - we expect better from top flight international nuclear scientists) or the availability of officers to respond. Do read the publically available NACRO reports concerning CCTV, they know roughly 100% more about the subject than you obviously do.
5. Do stop talking about things you clearly know nothing about. Which, it would seem, is virtually everything.
itsamess3
says...
11:57am Tue 12 Mar 13
1.As a registered member of the site i have every right to save any comments delvered to me. A breach would occur only if i transferred any of that material to another source, I have never done so. However if someone reproduces any part of the adver site to the net-they breach the sites rules-more so if they add comments on the domain site.
1.b Clearly-you--semiton
ic and Richard all posted the link did not work--and now you claim i have no knowledge--quite bizarre.
2. Your revised link did not work and was pointed out by Richard.
3. Clearly you do not understand what you-tube qualifies a video as going viral.
It has to achieve acertain amount of hits.Further had you read the article you would see it was not CCTV and the premise owner was informed prior to the event and raised no objection. Do get your facts correct.
4. First--both spellings are valid. Very surprised you use NACRO as they are a very well known criminal help charity believing rehabilitation works. CCTV is only as good as the operaters and the response times and quality.-and oh dear you must be really put out that someone beat you to reporting someone was arrested.
Your credibility is zero.
Tim Newroman
says...
12:21pm Tue 12 Mar 13
1. You have broken the Adver site's T&Cs. No amount of back-pedalling or squirming will change that. Do read back your own posts, on many occasions, where you have clearly stated you have made copies of information downloaded from the site, stored that information and passed copies to third parties.
2. My truncated version of another's link does work, perfectly. Why you continue to pretend otherwise is nonsensical, given that anyone who cares to use the link knows that it works, pefectly. Maybe the issue here is that YOU cannot get it to work, which, given your lack of knowledge, is of no surprise (or concern).
3. Please, do tell us what you think You Tube's official 'amount of hits' a video has to 'achieve' for You Tube to class it as viral.
Are you now denying that you made a video recording of Bobfm's pub's car park? Or are you saying that you told him you were making such a video recording?
4. I cannot believe you are attempting to pretend your spelling of 'operator' is legitimate. Although, admittedly, your misspelling of it is fairly common. Just chalk this one up to a learning process and try to use the correct spelling in future.
5. NACRO produce some interesting information based on quality research. Unlike you, I prefer to use a wide range of sources to ensure my research is not biased.
Your last, incorrect, point just goes to show that your entire fake persona has been utterly decimated on this website over the last four to five days. It would actually be a little sad to have witnessed, if you'd been a little less rude and arrogant to everyone with your online construct.
itsamess3
says...
1:12pm Tue 12 Mar 13
1. Incorrect-it is within the rules to copy and paste information on the site of origin. Much the same as "quote" as displayed on each post.
2. 3 people claimed the link did not work-inclusive of you. I have no need to check such links as i have all the relevant posts.
3. Already answered that-no CCTV etc.
4.A perfectly legitimate spelling.
5. Pure tosh--your research is very biassed always which has has been shown.
You have no details whatsoever about me-opinions and vitreolic diatribe mean nothing. The reverse does not apply.
I have nothing more to say unless it has directly to do with the topic.
Davey Gravey
says...
1:32pm Tue 12 Mar 13
semitonic
says...
1:37pm Tue 12 Mar 13
Thank goodness for that!
Tim Newroman
says...
1:52pm Tue 12 Mar 13
itsamess3 wrote:This is becoming highly tedious. Your ridiculous inability to know when you're wrong is of Olympic proportions:
Tim
1. Incorrect-it is within the rules to copy and paste information on the site of origin. Much the same as "quote" as displayed on each post.
2. 3 people claimed the link did not work-inclusive of you. I have no need to check such links as i have all the relevant posts.
3. Already answered that-no CCTV etc.
4.A perfectly legitimate spelling.
5. Pure tosh--your research is very biassed always which has has been shown.
You have no details whatsoever about me-opinions and vitreolic diatribe mean nothing. The reverse does not apply.
I have nothing more to say unless it has directly to do with the topic.
1. What you describe above it within the T&Cs. What you stated, many times, that you've actually been doing is not what you've described above and most definitely breaks this site's T&Cs. It's not up for discussion because your violations have not only been blatant but self-confessed.
2. Do let me assist your poor understanding. The original link, posted by another, was fine. However, the site's character limit broke the link. Another contributor who, much like you, doesn't really know what they're doing tried to copy and paste the link (which was on different lines) and, naturally, it didn't work. Several people pointed this out. I then reformatted the link to a version that does work. Again, this is not up for discussion as the link I poster very clearly works, as anyone who has used it - other than you, it would seem - is perfectly able to use it. I am not here to try and train you on basic use of the Internet, so you will have to just accept your inability and move on, or book some remedial instruction on how to grasp the basics of computer use.
3. No, you have not answered either of my two questions. This will come as no surprise to anyone thus far aware of your oeuvre.
4. No, it is clearly NOT a legitimate spelling. Again, there is no point discussing this as you are quite simply WRONG.
How to spell operator?
Correct: operator.
Common misspellings:
operater - 37%
opperator - 18%
5. I have plenty of information about you, and it makes for very interesting reading. It also makes me feel a bit sorry for you, but I really won't let that trouble me too much, I can asssure you.
You have nothing more to say because, once again, I've shown you up and you've lost every argument on every point above.
Do try harder, it's not as if you don't have the time on your hands with which to give your contributions some proper thought. I'm sure you know what I'm referring to.
A.Baron-Cohen
says...
2:40pm Tue 12 Mar 13
scottwichall wrote:As a matter of fact, yes It would be a grand idea, microships and DNA sample for everyone.
A.Baron-Cohen wrote:Thank you for your kind offer of even more big brother surveillance in the sky's overhead.
A great idea in principle, I hope the CCTV's resolution and night vision are good enough to be helpful and useful.
Another great idea, would be to have a couple of UAVs flying over the town's problem areas.
I would have to decline the aforementioned offer on the grounds that it is even more intrusive than the current over reliance on CCTV, and a clear breach of the few remaining civil liberties that we still possess.
Perhaps you would like everyone to have a little microchip embedded for identification or retinal scanning as in the film Minority Report?
Of a great deal more use would be a large increase in police patrols (on foot/bike), and I don't see any reason why the police do not increase the amount of Special Constables they have on the books to help fulfill this need.
The idea that nobody will be able to escape Justice should act as a really powerful deterrent.
But whatever technology we use now or in the future, we need a serious reform of the Justice system: elected judges and 3 strikes Law for example
itsamess3
says...
2:56pm Tue 12 Mar 13
semitonic wrote:do report the full quote.
Messy: "I have nothing more to say.."
Thank goodness for that!
Tim Newroman says...
8:43am Tue 12 Mar 13
Yes, I also happen to know exactly why that person was arrested. It was not to do with the CCTV clip.
and 8-53 tues
”Just to add: the CCTV in the town centre very clearly didn't deter the violent GBH attack, which was the point I was actually making.”
Do you mean the police were not called by the camera operaters/operators? Did the police not arrive after the incident to question witnesses?
Do you really believe cameras are there just to deter crime?
A crime is not committed until it happens--and the police got their man on the same day.
"Do try harder, it's not as if you don't have the time on your hands with which to give your contributions some proper thought. I'm sure you know what I'm referring to.”
On the contrary--you are the most prolific poster here and contradict yourself when making false or incorrect claims. Do note i post on the topic.
Tim Newroman
says...
3:01pm Tue 12 Mar 13
and the police got their man on the same day.
Which crime are you referring to?
As I stated, CCTV provided zero deterrent in the GBH attack crime outside of Subway in the town centre. We know this, as a matter of documented fact, because the CCTV camera recorded it taking place. Surely even you can understand that?
itsamess3
says...
3:58pm Tue 12 Mar 13
In this case -due to cameras being there the police were notified and attended when witnesses were still there. As the police made an arrest later the same day and since put him before the court.
Regarless of any claim by you--had the cameras not been there the offence may not have been detected. One up for the cameras.
Tim Newroman
says...
4:28pm Tue 12 Mar 13
Do you really believe cameras are there just to deter crime?
No, of course not. But, then, I have never claimed that's all they're there for. All I have said is that they're a comparatively poor deterrent - a position which is entirely endorsed by the NACRO research reports on CCTV.
I'll ask again, which crime are you referring to when you write, 'In this case'?
itsamess3
says...
5:26pm Tue 12 Mar 13
Do get a grip of yourself and read what you write-then you would not ask so many really stupid questions.
Tim Newroman
says...
5:38pm Tue 12 Mar 13
itsamess3 wrote:I'll ask again, which crime are you referring to when you write, 'In this case'?
How unobservant of you--by the way-very many have tried to gain personal information--none even got close.
Do get a grip of yourself and read what you write-then you would not ask so many really stupid questions.
Simple question - why are you unable to answer it?
itsamess3
says...
6:06pm Tue 12 Mar 13
Do have a good evening. I have to attend a working meal with colleagues.
Localboy86
says...
6:59pm Tue 12 Mar 13
Course you know, you know everything (inferiority complex - I understand that's quite common when the mrs is the major breadwinner).
During your petty squabble you said you get your research from lots of areas or something along those lines. Please please please tell me you don't really do research before commenting on here, I already feel sorry for you enough as it is, I think you may need some counciling / help
Tim Newroman
says...
10:20pm Tue 12 Mar 13
itsamess3 wrote:Very clearly, you are not answering because you are completely wrong and realise you need room to try and wriggle out of it after your error has been pointed out.
You answered that yourself earlier.
Do have a good evening. I have to attend a working meal with colleagues.
You're fooling precisely nobody.
Tim Newroman
says...
10:22pm Tue 12 Mar 13
Localboy86 wrote:@Localgirl86: I do research for lots of purposes, mainly work related.
@ Tim aka Oliver douchbag
Course you know, you know everything (inferiority complex - I understand that's quite common when the mrs is the major breadwinner).
During your petty squabble you said you get your research from lots of areas or something along those lines. Please please please tell me you don't really do research before commenting on here, I already feel sorry for you enough as it is, I think you may need some counciling / help
Your posts, comments and opinions make it blindingly obvious that knowledge and learning are two things you have very little time for.
Each to their own, I guess.
RichardR1
says...
10:18am Wed 13 Mar 13
Phantom Poster
says...
11:17am Wed 13 Mar 13
If you'd just said you'd made a typo then you'd have got away with it. However when corrected you made the idiotic claim that your misspelling was correct.
Hope you enjoyed your 'working meal' last night. But why did you tell us that? Is it part of your Walter Mitty fantasy world? As has been said before by many - you fool absolutely no one :-)
Tim Newroman
says...
12:46pm Wed 13 Mar 13
Davey Gravey
says...
12:57pm Wed 13 Mar 13
RichardR1 wrote:Can't resist eh Bob? Your feud with messy is the funniest stuff I've ever read in this site. Laugh out loud at the pair of you clowns.
Better than going to a Panto. Didn't Itsamess say he wouldn't post again about 20 posts ago.
Tim Newroman
says...
1:00pm Wed 13 Mar 13
itsamess3
says...
1:05pm Wed 13 Mar 13
1:12pm Tue 12 Mar 13
I have nothing more to say unless it has directly to do with the topic.”
semitonic
says...
1:12pm Wed 13 Mar 13
RichardR1 wrote:Yes he did Robbo, but you used to say that when you made yourself look really daft as well (on those many, many occasions) and then carry on commenting, digging yourself even deeper.
Better than going to a Panto. Didn't Itsamess say he wouldn't post again about 20 posts ago.
Agree with Davey Gravey though, you two have made some very entertaining arguments over nothing, purely to try and prove each other wrong.
Did messy ever actually take you to court in the end?
I would ask him but he's said he won't post again..
RichardR1
says...
3:02pm Wed 13 Mar 13
No idea about the court thing, sorry.
semitonic
says...
6:50am Thu 14 Mar 13
RichardR1 wrote:You are silly Bob, but it's good to see you've had treatment for your NPD.
Nice to be associated with someone who gave you so much pleasure, not sure about the psychological reasons behind such an obsession with Robfm, but each to their own.
No idea about the court thing, sorry.
RichardR1
says...
11:01am Thu 14 Mar 13
Localboy86 says...
9:11pm Fri 8 Mar 13