NEWS: 'Asbo TV': Your Neighbors May Be Watching You

A pilot program in east London will allow Shoreditch residents to subscribe to a new channel monitoring local CCTV cameras. Services will include on-screen mugshots of suspects wanted by police. Some oppose the new service, citing potential abuses.



I think most Americans forget about the UKs CCTV system. Almost everything is observed.

There is no question that there have been some benefit to the system...

But I think it still makes most people uncomfortable.

Can you imagine how this new service would work? The parallels to "neighbor spying on neighbor" are somewhat disturbing.

I'd be curious to hear what some of you in the UK think.

Any takers?

[edit on 12-1-2006 by loam]

[edit on 1-13-2006 by Valhall]

This is very interesting, especially the bits about "anti-social behaviour orders."

...Britain seems to be criminalizing "antisocial behavior."

Check out this thread, not the same topic, but related to enforcement of antisocial behavior orders.

Police Getting Powerful Enough to Evict People from Their Homes

I'm sure this is a direct breach of the Data Protection Act.
CCTV Control rooms have to adhere to strict procedures for recording and distributing images and video taken in public places.

This just looks like a cynical attempt to claw back some money to pay for the installation costs of the system.

While I don't live in the UK I would like to say the USA needs to adopt this. Anti-social behaviour should be criminalized, it doesn't benefit society, leads to criminal activity in some cases and just generally not needed in today's world.

Nope. I can't get on board with this, and maybe it's my Southern US roots showing, but my first question is... Who defines "anti-social behaviour"? Is there a handbook where I find out I can play my music at level 8, but if goes up to 9 then I'm in non-compliance with anti-social behaviour laws? Or is it totally based on neighborhood busy-bodies?

One man's anti-social behaviour is another man's cultural norm. We can't all be the same act the same talk the same walk the same. We've got to learn to live with each other and if you have an annoying neighbor that makes life hell for the neighborhood, then you have a couple of options. 1) If they actually do something illegal, report it. Everytime. Complaining to your other neighbor doesn't count as "doing something about it". 2) Move. 3) Deal with it.

My parents had some dope smoking nere-do-wells move in across the street in their little suburban enclave. The neighborhood went ballistic. These losers were stealing stuff out of garages, throwing loud parties, smoking pot openly on the front porch. Within a year or so one pothead accidently ran over another pothead causing brain damage and coma, and then they moved on. Darwin took care of what the cops couldn't.

It sorts itself out without the government deciding if we're "nice" enough.

I think most of the people have a bit of a misunderstanding of the term "Anti-Social Behaviour".

Anti Social Behaviour is classed as people who behave...basically, like absolute prats. Urinating in the street, causing fights, causing disorder, vandalism...All all of these are crimes individually, they come all under the umbrella of anti-social behaviour.

Don't worry kids, you can still wear your Cradle of Filth t-shirt with the offensive slogan on it walk down the street and not be arrested. While an offence under the Public Order Act, you'd be hard pressed finding a copper willing to drag you in for that.

Look at the flip coin, you get mugged. You report it to the police straight away, CCTV operators have witnessed it and are following the offenders via the CCTV. The offenders get caught. Sure, you've got a bloody nose, but at least they wont attack anyone else that night, or maybe even worse.

I'm sure without CCTV even if you reported the incident, the chances of catching the culprits are minimal. Even with good descriptions. What then? It's all the Police's fault. They don't do enough, their useless, etc.

Where's the happy medium?

The only reason you have to fear CCTV is if your out there doing naughty things. Yeah, have a grumble about it, no-one likes being watched. I'm sure it's a psychological thing anyway, the CCTV operators aren't following your every move...I know it's hard to believe, but your not *that* important!

Edit: I really don't see what the probelm is with broadcasting this on a public channel either! Do you object to me watching people watching past my window where I live? Completely the same principle!

[edit on 13/1/2006 by FactoryLad]

Prod...What about anti social B dealing with the US going it alone in Iraq. I am more worried about what the world neighbors think. why doesn't aAmerica follow the rules oof international courts and the world body of the UN.
On the average we are already on the average seen on camera 25 times a day in our car, at shopping centers, atm machines, entering businesses, and camera phones. I am use to it already. Baltimore was one of the first cities to start using cameras in crime and basic monitoring. In LA they have cameras that follow noise such as gunshots and car crashes.

Yes and no...on the Data Protection Act.

If they are doing it outside on a public estate, than the people who "own" the CCTV cameras will actually be the residents of the estate so they will do it through a loop hole.

Should this happen? Well to be honest, ASBO's are a joke. I've been threatened four maybe more times with one for doing nothing, being drunk in public and stumbling over was one of them. The last one was a case of me and my friends rapping/beat boxing outside a local store, while one of my friends went in to get some smokes. We got in nobodies way, caused no hassle and because they were rapping/beat boxing, he told us we were being anti-social.

It's a joke and it is why ASBOs do not work.

Odium, what your describing is not anti-social behaviour. You and your friends sounds like completely normal teenagers.

People tend to spurt out crap such as that, "that's anti-social behaviour" when nothing of the sort is happening.

If you were constantly hassassing people coning out of the shop, swearing, acting in a threating manner, throuwing bottles arounds...That's a completely different matter.

Edit: On the Data Protection act, it doesn't apply as it's a public place. The only thing that could apply is the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act (RIPA)...However that only applies for goverment bodies. In this case, the estate is seen as a private body and therefore would not apply

[edit on 13/1/2006 by FactoryLad]

FactoryLad, it was Police who said it.

I'm a Law Student, I know what is and isn't Anti-Social behaviour the problem is, 12 to 15 year old kids do not. The Police use ASBO's as a almost fear tactic, that has no backfired. You can buy the ASBO papers on the internet and have your naem put on it - kids think they are a joke and worse yet they are not solving the problem.

The Government needs to invest in giving children something to do, in my area for a while we had free classes on Djing, Break Dancing and so on and so fourth with minor local funding but the Council wouldn't fund us even though we had a massive reduction in crime. These kids are so bored on these inner-city estates and so poor they end up hanging around street corners and begin to get treated like criminals even when they are innocent.

The problem won't be solved with ASBO's or CCTV, CCTV doesn't pink up criems unless they are foolish enough to do it around them and normally they just move on to where their are no cameras and if they can't do that they cover their faces up and know the estates better than the Police do.

Edit: The Loop Hole I speak of will be found through PACE

[edit on 13/1/2006 by Odium]

If individual "anti-social behaviors" already are crimes - then why recriminalize them under Federal Legislation?

See here


Also, why make the antisocial behavior of ordinary individuals a federal criminal offense when so many "leaders," corporations' and governments' behaviors are so antisocial that they verge on psychopathic - but are not indictable?

It's like people are being crushed to make way for a takeover.

Odium, The threat of an ASBO, by the Police or otherwise (can be any public body, eg. Fire Service, NHS, MoD), for behaviour you have described is literally that. A threat.

You as a Law Student should know the amount of evidence gathering it takes before an ASBO, CRASBO or ABC are even considered possible by the submitting body and even then it has to be passed by a magistrate.

Behaviour Orders are not given out lightly, however, the threats are. And that's all they are, threats.

Edit: forgot to address this!

[edit on 13/1/2006 by FactoryLad]

Soficrow, bit of a massive knee jerk reation there I think. And where did all this talk of "Federal" business come into it? Last time I checked, this was in reference to the British use of CCTV and Behaviour Orders?

Good job you don't know about the common law arrestable power of "Breach of the Peace"...You'd get your knickers in a right twist over that one!!!

FactoryLad, the problem is a lot of this kids do not under-stand their rights. I've before in a Cell not had my rights listened to and when I kicked up a fuss they droped the charges on me.

The problem is, a lot of children especailly 12 to 15 year olds plead guilty because they believe what they did was a crime, when in fact it wasn't and a lot of Magistrates are...well useless at their job. They have basic training, no understanding of the problem and tend to come from areas with enough money to have no knowledge of why these children are doing it.

I know people who have been assaulted by Police Officers in my town, I know at least two magistrates who have over a 90% conviction rate. The legal system in the U.K. is good, but not as good as it should be. The money wasted in the Courts due to ASBO's, money wasted on the Police Force could have gone on keeping this children off of the streets and being productive...instead they waste their time.

Odium,

I think you'll find if you or someone else has been arrested it's because you have been suspected, have committed or are about to commit a crime.

So when you say, these kids admit to committing a crime which they haven't done, I find it pretty hard to believe. Especially as an under 18 MUST have an appropriate adult with them in interview along with a solicitor or legal representative (free of charge) if they choose too. The solicitor would TELL them what to say in interview. If the solicitor wasn't happy with the conduct of the interview or the officers questions, they can voice their concerns. The appropriate adult can as well.

I find it very hard to believe young people immediately admit to offences in interview when they have not done them.

The only other thing I can think of is that the solicitor has advised them to admit the alleged offence to push for a caution...And that's if they've admitted it to the solicitor in confidence or the evidence is overwhelming that they've done it!

As with the assualt PC allegations. Police officers are allowed to use reasonable force to detain people when under arrest. If you start kicking off and wont come quietly, they can use reasonable force. I.e. you start kicking out at people, you'll get thrown on the floor and cuffed. End of.

If officers are going around punching people in the face for no reason, that's a different story.

Edited for crappy spelling, grammar and the assault PC bit.

[edit on 13/1/2006 by FactoryLad]

Factorylad - It's about bypassing the criminal justice system entirely, and putting the power to determine guilt and levy punishments (fines) directly into the hands of the police, on the street. Just like it works in places like Mexico and Brazil for example.

What happens is the police stop people and threaten sanctions, then the people who can pay their bribe and the ones who can't cough up go to jail. Simple and effective. Just like fascism.

For example, (in the past) somebody spitting at an old lady in the street would not be prosecuted because it used too much police time and the only result was a fine.

Mr Blair accepted that on-the-spot fines for some offences reversed the principle that people were innocent until proven guilty but said in reality such summary powers were needed.

Blair's "Respect Agenda" Proposals

oops - missed a word

[edit on 13-1-2006 by soficrow]

Crow,

There are a multitude of arrestable offences that can be handled by means of an £80 or £50 fine at a police station, these have been around for years. Nothing new at all.

They were introduced to reduce paperwork and court money/time in regards to more less serious offences.

Edit: for the £50 fine reference

[edit on 13/1/2006 by FactoryLad]

So these new changes are needed...

Why?

Factory have you been handled inappropriately by the police before? I find it hard to believe that you think the cops are always right in dealing with these kinds of cases. There has to be some mistakes and pre-judged events. Not most but some. I have been verbally assaulted by cops in DC for looking at them.

To cover more offences with tickets. Common assault (for which spitting at an anyone, let alone an old woman would be classed as) is [now] arrestable under Serious Organised Crime and Police Act.

With enough evidence, a £80 ticket for this sounds okay to me.

Edit: Black Thought - never never ever ever. although, I am a good boy I can only speak for British police officers, being British myself. I cannot speak for any other Police Officers in any other countries.

If someone has a complaint with the way they've been dealt with in the UK, all it takes is a pop down your local nick for a chat with the inspector to lodge a complaint.

[edit on 13/1/2006 by FactoryLad]