Central London CCTV ruled ILLEGAL - ahead of G20 summit

Something that is Happening.

Residents who live close to the Excel Centre (host venue) have been put under effective lock-down. They are only being allowed in and out of their homes (by which I guess street) if they have suitable I.D.

Three of my work colleagues live there and one is having to stay at a friends as he does not satisfy criteria.

Originally posted by Nirgal
Something that is Happening.

Residents who live close to the Excel Centre (host venue) have been put under effective lock-down. They are only being allowed in and out of their homes (by which I guess street) if they have suitable I.D.

Three of my work colleagues live there and one is having to stay at a friends as he does not satisfy criteria.

Wow, that sounds pretty sinister. Keep us informed Nirgal.

So I guess everyone is a terrorist unless they have a valid ID then

[edit on 31-3-2009 by dodgygeeza]

Residents
Residents at the western end of the ExCeL estate will have difficulty accessing their homes, whether by vehicle or on foot, because of road closures at the site and also with searching and screening taking place. They will be required to carry two forms of identification/proof of address (one of which must be photographic) to gain entry through security cordons.

Residents in surrounding areas will not be required to carry ID unless they are planning to travel into the ExCeL estate for work.

Newham Council Website - News 25th March 2009

Many associates I have in central london have been advised by their employers Not to go into central tomorrow or Thursday.............

That may not be cause for concern, but all of a sudden deeming Big Brother impotent for a couple days.......................................

TPTB want nothing untowards turning up on CCTV this week thats for sure.

Have no fear.............their will be more than enough media sources out there to insure nothing of too much signifficance will be missed............

Fingers crossed.................

Originally posted by bugsybond

Many associates I have in central london have been advised by their employers Not to go into central tomorrow or Thursday.............

I returned from work to find my Canary Wharf-working neighbour sitting outside. Having gone to work in "civvies" had managed to put his house-keys in an abnormal place. Consequently he was weighing up returning to pick them up over waiting for a house-mate to get back.

I think there might be a lot of that.

As an aside I heard someone remark that city workers' suits had been called a "uniform."


Never a truer word spoken...

[edit on 31-3-2009 by Nirgal]

If you think the cameras are off you should also believe the security won't have bullets too.

reply to post by dodgygeeza


I completely forgot about this earlier when looking at earlier posts. I think the OP has the right idea but unless someone can prove me wrong this is a non-issue. Why?

Because...

London is carved up into several boroughs. Example Southwark, Newham, Tower Hamlets, Lambeth, Westminster, Kensington & Chelsea.

Okay, now ExCel is in Newham. Bishopsgate Climate Exchange is in City of London.

Are these areas in Westminster? Er... No.

Map

Originally posted by Nirgal

Residents in surrounding areas will not be required to carry ID unless they are planning to travel into the ExCeL estate for work.

Newham Council Website - News 25th March 2009

Now that is something I do object to in the strongest terms!

I'm really not sdure what I;d do in that situation as I have no photo ID - and I will be making the situation general knowledge!

Anyone remember this?

Princess Diana and CCTV?

The absence of CCTV images showing the Mercedes' journey from the hotel to the crash site has been frequently cited as evidence of an organised conspiracy. In a submission to the Minister for Justice, Scotland for Public Inquiry in February 2003, Mohammed Fayed stated that there were approximately 10 video cameras on the route taken by the Mercedes, including one on the entrance to the tunnel itself, yet there are no recordings from any of these cameras for the night in question. In December 2006, The Independent newspaper published an article stating there were more than 14 CCTV cameras in the Pont de l'Alma underpass, yet none have recorded footage of the fatal collision.

Though apparently at that time as well according to the official inquiry, Judge Hervé Stéphan the magistrate found that

There would be no reason for those in the overnight control room in Paris to be viewing that camera in particular, before the crash.

Source


Mmmm sounds a bit familiar?

Is there a

Exercise

On over the next few days also?

Anyone remember this? The 7/7 bombings in london

But the investigation received a serious setback when it was discovered the CCTV cameras on the bus that blew up were not working so detectives will not get vital images of the bomber.

The Insider

And further

To date, no CCTV images of the four alleged suicide bombers have ever been released showing all four of the accused in London on July 7th 2005. In fact, only one CCTV image has ever been released which purports to show all four of the accused together outside Luton Station, approximately 30 miles from the scenes of the crimes, in which three faces are completely unidentifiable.

Of the three images released by the authorities since July 7th 2005, none of them offer any sort of proof that all, or indeed any of the alleged perpetrators, were in London at the time of the attacks.

Furthermore, the images, as released to the general public by the authorities, would be inadmissible as evidence in a court of law and could not be used to secure a successful prosecution against anyone.

July 7th campaign

Or the subsequent shooting of Jean Charles De Menzes?

"The BBC has also learned the shooting was not captured on Stockwell Tube's CCTV because police officers had removed the cameras' disks for their investigation into the suicide bomb suspects who boarded the train at the same station the previous day."

Spy Blog

And of what is available,

well where is it?

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/files/f9e852b0e591cefb.jpg[/atsimg]

Very good question in fact....Especially considering the above

Further, despite this intense investigation and the acknowledgement by DAC Andy Trotter of the "CCTV-rich" environment that would reveal the identity of the alleged perpetrators, which should have yielded thousands of images showing the movements of the four men, only three still-images, purporting to be CCTV stills from July 7th, have ever been released into the public domain.

The official Home Office report has outlined numerous places where the men were captured on CCTV camera. It has also described situations where it is implied that they were captured on CCTV camera, as well as occasions where it claims they should have been captured on CCTV, but that, curiously, no CCTV exists to support such a statement.

Or that is coincided with this?

The blood was hardly dry when Tony Blair went on TV at the G8 summit in Scotland to blame "Muslim extremists". This tells us everything.

The attack was carried out:

* To sabotage the G8 meeting, which was in danger of actually producing some progress toward debt relief in Africa and dealing with global warming.

Elf- Sometime in april 09?

The attack was carried out to distract the world from the financial rape of our generation and our children, by the leaders, their advisers, and friends? and fellow club members

Serendipity

Starting to fit together?

Patterns beyond probability and credibility emerging?

You bet

How about a Pan Continental Dimensional look?

Oklahoma Bombing?

leaked to John Solomon, a Washington-based Associated Press reporter, in 2004—including a Secret Service file

containing the extraordinary revelation that government agents had access to security videotapes of the Murrah Building in which “the suspects” (more than one) are seen exiting the Ryder truck containing the bomb three minutes before the explosion.
When Terry Nichols was retried on state murder charges in Oklahoma that same year—in an ultimately unsuccessful attempt by prosecutors to get him sentenced to death—the defense team tried to use the Solomon documents as exculpatory evidence for their client on the basis that the more others were involved, the less significant Nichols’ own role would appear to have been. They also made a passionate case

And even more amazingly given the above!!!

that Nichols had been denied a fair trial because the FBI and other agencies had improperly concealed relevant evidence.
The judge in the Oklahoma case, Steven Taylor, refused to grant them satisfaction on that front, saying he simply did not believe the official documents stating that the government had access to security video footage of the Murrah Building

Truth Dig!!!!

Well well how about 9/11

It is striking that there is neither video footage nor any photographic evidence in the public domain showing a jetliner approaching or crashing into the Pentagon

Many threads on ATS and elsewhere examining what footage is available, and showing obvious time/date and manipulation errors.

Furthermore:

With the release of the two video clips, the Pentagon claims to have supplied all of the footage it has of the attack. Although the number and positions of security cameras monitoring the Pentagon is not public knowledge, it seems unlikely that only two security cameras captured the attack. Isn't it reasonable to assume that there were dozens, if not hundreds, of security cameras ringing the huge building that is the heart of the United States military establishment?

The subsequent action by the authorities outside of the Pentagon brings much concern to!

Not only has the government refused to release footage that would clearly show how the Pentagon was attacked, it has also seized footage not belonging to the military. The FBI confiscated video recordings from several private businesses near the Pentagon in the immediate aftermath of the attack. Those recordings, if they still exist, might provide decisive evidence about the attack.

* The FBI visited a hotel near the Pentagon to confiscate film from a security camera which some hotel employees had been watching in horror shortly after the attack. The FBI denied that the footage captured the attack. 1
* The FBI visited the Citgo gas station southwest of the Pentagon within minutes of the attack to confiscate film that may have captured the attack. According to Jose Velasquez, who was working at the gas station at the time of the attack, the station's security cameras would have captured the attack. 2

9/11 research

If anything at all happens on this particular stretch of monitored, or as it now seems likely, not monitored part of London it is blatant, even as an access or escape route for "operatives" if not an event.

They keep doing the same thing their habits and modus operandi, don't need to be changed, as everyone just goes on as normal, and accepts whitewashed inquiries.


Kind Regards,

Elf

[edit on 31-3-2009 by MischeviousElf]

Originally posted by MischeviousElf

To date, no CCTV images of the four alleged suicide bombers have ever been released showing all four of the accused in London on July 7th 2005. In fact, only one CCTV image has ever been released which purports to show all four of the accused together outside Luton Station, approximately 30 miles from the scenes of the crimes, in which three faces are completely unidentifiable.

Exactly the same as what happened during investigation into the 1996 Manchester Bomb.

The only footage ever released, by the Manchester Evening News, of two suspects was of such similar poor quality. And as a result of the publication of stills from the camera footage, the newspaper found itself bound by court order, no-one one ever arrested, and the case now closed.

I strongly believe that that incident was allowed to happen as a collusion between the IRA and those who made huge fortunes in the subsequent redevelopment of the city...but thats for another time

[edit on 31-3-2009 by citizen smith]

All I'm saying is that although it would be a pretty good excuse,

"Oh, the cameras were ordered off."

This excuse, with reference to the story cited by the OP, is only relevant to activity that occurs within the boundary of Westminster Borough Council. I expect my fellow Englishers to appreciate this fact so I aim this slightly further afield.

Westminster does not equal the whole of London. Moreover it does not equal the majority of areas being targeted by the protests.



mmm'kay?

Originally posted by JRSB
It is still suspicious that 160 other cameras are kept turned on for the reason that they are "permanent"

Well, expect a "hijacked plane" to crash into the building, and really crappy footage to "prove it".

Or something like that, I guess...

I think the easiest way for somone to commit an attack would be flase cameramen/reporters.

One of those big T.v cameras could be easily gutted and filled with a high explosive/petrol/gas/radioactive or whatever. or even have a shotgun inside it.

[color=limegreen]CIA camera gun

(sauce=http://home.earthlink.net/~dannygoodwin/22.html)

im one of spy theis meeting will no secret
[email protected]
[email protected]
leeds

reply to post by WinstontheDog


In other words, they create a problem to give you a 'solution'.

How many times is mankind to bear witness before he is to fix his spear?

It seems most today are willing accomplices to slavery whether they are aware or not.

While the tyrant attempts to take from his Brother, his cancer devours himself from within, by design.

Man is often his own worst enemy.

reply to post by MischeviousElf


Serendipity?

Seldom spoken though quite a powerful word when 'realized'.

wireless cameras are hackable its beacuse the dont want potential terroists having the same ability as the forces note there wireless cameras what have probably been hacked before

Something that's not sitting right with me is the poor guy who died yesterday. The BBC news website reported that he'd been hit by bottles thrown by protesters and collapsed due to his injuries and police would be watching the CCTV to see what happened.

I think we'll see if the CCTV was working or not based on their findings.
If there's nothing nefarious, the CCTV will have been working.
If there's something the PTB need/want to hide, the CCTV will not have been working.

reply to post by Now_Then


I agree; if you read the story it seems that it is for the purposes of 'parking enforcement' - I.e. from a legal perspective the standard says that they are not high enough resolution to consider an enforcement notice safe.

Since Westminster council spent their money on these 'non-fit-for-purpose' cameras and they are hoping to make lots of revenue off parking fines from them, you would expect them to be a bit against this as they don't care if there are a few false accusations against illegible number plates on illegally parked cars.

It's all in the way the story is told...

I just stumbled across something and my mind came back to this thread - specifically the suggestion that these wireless cameras should be fairly easy for someone with a bit of knowledge to hack... and perhaps this had a hand in the timing of this ban on using them... It would of been a great extra source of youtube fodder - and of course we've all seen some of that from the G20.

Well look what I found! Detailed instructions on how to do just that!!!

Now, here is the important bit. If you capture the network traffic while running

.exe, you’ll notice that when the user is asked to enter the admin username and password after the camera is discovered, there are NO requests sent from the wizard to the camera in order to verify that the entered username/password combination is correct!

“How is this possible? What the heck is going on?!” I thought. I was terrified to confirm my worst fear: the wizard already “knows” the camera’s admin username and password at this point, thus there is no need to ask the camera again. Indeed, at this point - before the user enters the admin username and password that is - the camera’s credentials are already loaded into the memory of the

.exe process. This is because the camera has previously transfered the admin credentials along with other configuration data!

Now I wont link the article... And I wont put the juicy bits in this post (and I'm do need to cross check this, see if I can find out if this does indeed apply to the specific model of camera this thread is all about) - but you can rest assured it is a detailed and well written seemingly credible piece of work by a clever chappy

So the long and short of it is with a wireless enabled computer and a peice of software ACTUALLY SUPPLIED BY THE CAMERA MANAFACTURERS ON THE SITE! you can hack your way in... seems more like walking in actually... he/she says there is no way to do it through the web, but never say never as he put it.

Any way, moot point now, that was another black hole for tax pennies, but I found it interesting.

Edit: - I was actually a bit misled by the picture used in the article - this particular attack is not exactly aimed at these traffic cameras... But hey, interesting anyway - you never know it could translate.

[edit on 21/4/2009 by Now_Then]