It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Police take control of 3000 CCTV cam's for G20 Summit

page: 1
1

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 31 2009 @ 11:59 AM
link   

Police take control of 3000 CCTV cam's for G20 Summit


news.sky.com

Scotland Yard's Central Communications Command in Lambeth, South London, will become the eyes of the city tomorrow when more than 100 officers monitor live links across the capital.

As the world's most powerful leaders arrive in London, the priority will be to ensure their safety while also keeping an eye on the thousands of protesters expected to turn out.

The surveillance team will be managed by a team of 20 senior officers including tactical advisers and counter-terrorism staff.
(visit the link for the full news article)




posted on Mar, 31 2009 @ 11:59 AM
link   
In a follow up to the thread www.abovetopsecret.com... detailing 160 'illegal' camera's which were to be shut off, the Police have now confirmed that all the CCTV available is to be monitored from Scotland Yard.

I can understand the need for a tight security, but it has to raise questions about why, for the first time I'm aware of, there is a need to commandeer the communications systems?

It's easy to suppress footage when you're the only one's with access to it.

Maybe I'm reading too much into this. What do you think?

news.sky.com
(visit the link for the full news article)

[edit on 31-3-2009 by Pr0t0]


CX

posted on Mar, 31 2009 @ 12:16 PM
link   
I don't think you are reading too much into it, i was going to post the same thread earlier.


Whilst i would love to think that this meant the police could use the cameras to mount a more efficient operation to allow the summit protests to pass peacefully, i have a horrible feeling that this means that the cameras can be conveniently turned the other way when needed too.

CX.



posted on Mar, 31 2009 @ 01:57 PM
link   
The first time I witnessed the police start a riot at a peaceful protest in central London, was March 31st, 1990. When I returned home a few hours later, all tv news coverage depicted scenes where protesters had either resisted, sought to protect other innocent members of the public as they exercised the right to freedom of speech and freedom of association, or actually (and eventually), fought back. There were no reports depicting incidences of affirmative and organised actions initiated by the police against and towards peaceful protesters.

At a protesters meeting later that week, I learned that all media companies, covering the protests that day had had their film, camera and other recording equipment, conviscated by the police. Freelance reporters and camermen where also targeted. The official line was that these items formed vital evidence in identifying the 'ringleaders' and that anyone not handing them over were obstructing the course of justice, in itself a crime in English law. This was later reported in the established media.

The police used the conviscated footage to identify people with cameras etc. This footage, equipment etc, was also taken as 'evidence'.

Whatever the police have planned for the G20 protests, whether this is by their own volition or directed by the establishment or government (I just do not see what it is Jacqui Smith wants me to understand when she says that government have no political control over the police!), they are likely to legally sue for possession of any media recording equipment and resources being used at the protest.

If as suggested in other threads, the police strategy involves creating a riot (to demonstrate their ongoing dominance of the populace?), I would suggest that the police have a vested interest in ensuring that no non police source has access to any media that might identify any police agitator.

After 19 years of further erosion of civil liberties in the UK (that may or may not have ever really existed anyway), I don't think the authorities feel too comfortable with a population of educated, media aware, electronically contected people voicing their concerns and exercising the right to disagree and admonish, en mass and in public.




top topics
 
1

log in

join