Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Aqizzar]

Surprised nobody's linked to this thing from 2004.  Dig it.

I'd say the reason to keep police instead of just putting cameras everywhere (which is still sort of viable, except you're still relying on humans to watch them) is that a physical police presence does more than just have someone ready to respond.  It creates an air of observation in the area, and discourages people from committing crimes (at least public crimes), psychology being more powerful than any system or weapon.  Does lead to the unfortunate irony that cops are where there's no crime, and crime is where there's no cops.

[Torak]

Surprised nobody's linked to this thing from 2004.  Dig it.

Thing about those Bunny-cops are, they wouldn't be using AKs, they'd be using Lasguns or Chainsaw rifles in 2084.

[Cthulhu]

Freaks me out.  I hope this never happens.

[Creamcorn]

Did anyone post any linkes to Daleks on wikipedia, because while surfing I mysteriously found myself looking through this article. Not that I have a problem with it.

[Heavy Flak]

You guys have it all wrong.  THIS is the face of our Robotic law enforcement. 

Peter Weller?  Arnold Schwarzenegger?  Please, this guy puts them all to shame.

[Torak]

You guys have it all wrong.  THIS is the face of our Robotic law enforcement. 

That's the most epic thing I've seen in a long time.

[Cymro]

Nah. Don't worry its getting worse, Britains slowly becoming a police state, ID cards with EVERYTHING you are on them, and like 1 CCTV camera to ever 14 people.

I may not be the biggest fan of ID cards eiher, but since when was your name, address, a bland photo and your date of birth "everything"?

CCTV is great: it means that you don't need someone keeping an eye on somewhere all the time, and in the event of a crime, you have the exact detail of what happened - you can't just bribe a policeman to turn a blind eye now. Were it not for CCTV in our school, for example, it would have lost almost £3000-4000 from someone trying to steal computer equipment

[Cthulhu]

Today your school halls, tomorrow the bathrooms, the next day your house, the next day your mind!!(Da da dummmmm!)

[Tormy]

You guys have it all wrong.  THIS is the face of our Robotic law enforcement. 

Peter Weller?  Arnold Schwarzenegger?  Please, this guy puts them all to shame.

Oh my god.....

[LeoLeonardoIII]

Did anyone post any linkes to Daleks on wikipedia, because while surfing I mysteriously found myself looking through this article. Not that I have a problem with it.

Wasn't me ...
<_<
>_>

One source examines the methodology of the "1 camera per 14 British" claim and argues there isn't enough information to make such a claim.

1: Nobody, not even the government of England, is actually counting the CCTV cameras in England.

2: The study examined two streets in London and averaged based on population for all of the UK. Problem is, you'd expect there to be more cameras in downtown London than a small town.

3: The two streets in question had wildly different amounts of cameras. It suggests that either one could be the norm, or neither, and so further study is absolutely required before publishing any findings. The sample is just too small.

4: The cameras were often inside businesses that really ought to have security systems, such as banks and corner stores. This isn't an invasion of privacy so much as a camera on the street is.

5: The paper upon which the quote is based was written in 2002. Six years later a lot has changed.

Overall I think the 1:14 ratio isn't supportable. I'll dig around to find something better. I heard on an episode of Bullshit a ratio of 1:5 but I can't remember if they were saying that was in all of the UK, just England, or just London.