Conspiracy or lobbying?

Oh hell not the CCTV thing again it seems like every month or so that’s brought up, often by people that have views that would actually spread the use of them.

Most of the cctv cameras in the uk are privately owned, so should the government be able to force such people as shop keepers not to have a camera if they want one? (An aside: The insurance companies in an effort to boost short term profits increased the insurance for shops that didn’t have a system installed, do you think government should make laws to stop such action?)

Thing is the great growth in the use of cctv’s by local authorities (government) came from Thatcher’s desire to limit the power of local authorities, basically what libertarians want to do when they talk of ‘small government’. Her governments put the authorities under financial restraint. They found that their biggest financial burden was people’s wages and that’s when cctv companies stepped in. When I was younger every estate, even building, of public housing had a custodian to keep an eye on the buildings, every local authority building or car park had wardens, to stop vandalism and robbery. They were made unemployed and cameras installed instead, with one person in a control room doing the job of 10 or more it was just a lot cheaper.

That’s when the private sector took notice and did the same thing, banks, hotels, shops, etc etc all have reduced costs by using relatively cheap cctv’s rather than paying for human wages.

The local police forces were also put under pressure in the drive for ‘smaller government’ and they also turned to cctv technology. They found they could reduce the number of patrols or redirect them to other duties, for example if they used speed cameras, you don’t need a patrol car physically there to capture the speeder (and you actually catch more speeders and make more money from fines), or you don’t need a police presence outside a night club just in case something happens, you only need to respond if something does happen. And traffic surveillance is another area were savings were made and improvements to road safety and traffic congestion, it is also used in things like monitoring the congestion charge.

**

Are you saying you would make laws getting rid of the cameras and bringing back the human wardens, hire more police and force commercial companies to take on more staff, even when that would mean an increase in taxes and the amount paid for services and products?


**

 

Doesn't it hurt the economy to remove so many jobs? I think that I would prefer an actual person watching over me, near me, than a few guys in a control room.

I think everything would be a lot safer having people near a crime rather than just a piece of machinery. It would be helpful in a crime investigation, but I don't see how it would be helpful in actually preventing the crime other than the deterrence these cameras impose on criminals. But regardless of how many camera's their are, crime is going to happen.

 

I doubt the jobs were there in the first place. But, many people wish for more "bobbies on the beat", true. This also feeds in to how effective they may or may not be. I imagine the same kind of arguments were made during the industrial revolution. Seems our economy mangaged to overcome that hurdle within time. In the UK CCTV has been with us for about 50 years, so, any reduction in the economy has been absorbed, if indeed that was ever an issue, which i doubt. If there are headlines proclaiming "CCTV hurts the economy" I'm sure some intrepid sole could find them, I, have not. Our economy is staling but thats nothing to do with the use of CCTV. Thats all GWBs fault I imagine (sarcasm).

 

If it doesn't hurt the economy, would it not still be better to have 'bobbies on the beat' then not? I don't see how that is very safe.

 

There has been an increase in Police Officers and Police support officers. I can only give my personal opinion. If the police are being forced to fill in endless amount of forms, it might be a wise dicision to give them the tools to reduce this. Then deploy them more effectively. Has crime increased with the increase in CCTV? Too a nebulous question to really answer.

 

"Has crime increased with the increase in CCTV? Too a nebulous question to really answer."

Why would it be unclear to determine that? That doesn't really require an answer, just wondering.

 

Balbus points to a particular direction, and a cause and effect. I don't think it is quite that simple.

 

Led

So you would make it against the law for property owners to try and protect their property using any type of cctv?

You would support higher taxation and are very willing to pay a premium for service and products?

So you are not a libertarian then, yet you seem to favour right wing libertarians, such as Ron Paul?

**

As to hurting the economy by laying people off from government posts that’s at the heart of the many right wing view (including the libertarian one) of the policy of ‘smaller government’, as is turning over what government services that would be offered over to the cheapest tender.

 

oden

It never is that simple but if you have specific questions i'll try to help.

 

FFS. Pressed_Rat, please stop posting in this thread unless you have something to actually say about lobbyists and the conspiracy that surrounds them. I'm sick of you derailing topics worth talking about with "The Sky is falling" antics.

*shakes fist*

 

You have pretty much covered most of what buzzes around my head about this. I think it is time we got back to the topic at hand. Might be a plan.

 

I knew he was a person who left the ring wing politics. I can tell that's where he comes from based on his views.

And thank you Balbus. I agree on everything you said about him in that post, but perhaps not so much with the fact that he is a lobbyist of sorts. Although, he certainly does lobby people here for not being smart enough to stop voting and accuses people of lacking critical thought.

Like I have said, waking people up and throwing information in their faces can only get a movement to overthrow the overlord oppressors so far.

There are ways for the worker to rise up and seize the means of production from the clutches of corporate control; there are ways to organize and fight back - but he seems to be stuck like a broken record on "waking" people up instead of actually moving forward to collaborate the necessary platform for the people to stand on in order to take back the worker's rights to self-governance, self-determination, and self-control in their lives that everybody deserves.

 

"So you would make it against the law for property owners to try and protect their property using any type of cctv"

I never said this.

I just want to ensure that better checks and balances are put into place if they haven't already. I'm worried that these videos may be confiscated by the government for illegal and wrongful purposes. "We're here to help you" just doesn't satisfy me.

"You would support higher taxation and are very willing to pay a premium for service and products?"

How much of a hike are we talking here? Some services are very useful and necessary. If there is a realistic way of having these services without much taxation, then I'm all for that. I am just wondering if there isn't some clever way of approaching this.

"So you are not a libertarian then, yet you seem to favour right wing libertarians, such as Ron Paul?"

Honestly, I don't really know where I 'belong' politically. Frankly, I feel that encroaches the ability to consider every possibility. If I HAD to say where I 'belong' then I would say that my beliefs are similar to the Dalai Lama (The answer I was given at politicalcompass.com) But yes, I do favor Ron Paul, not entirely on his methods on running the country but the way he has presented his arguments in debates, way he handles himself overall, and the fact that he is a strict constitutionalist (very important that the constitution be honored because it safeguards our inalienable rights). I feel that he was one of the few candidates that told the truth and made any sense.

"There are ways for the worker to rise up and seize the means of production from the clutches of corporate control; there are ways to organize and fight back - but he seems to be stuck like a broken record on "waking" people up instead of actually moving forward to collaborate the necessary platform for the people to stand on in order to take back the worker's rights to self-governance, self-determination, and self-control in their lives that everybody deserves."

Would that not first require people to 'wake-up' ? Why would we collaborate on anything unless we first know that their is something wrong?

 

odon

Well the irony that strikes me is that if people in the US wanted to do something about curbing lobbying they would probably have to form a lobby group to lobby against lobbying.

To get any of the things I’ve mentioned passed would need a campaign that all the other lobby firms and a hell of a lot of politicians would fight tooth and nail to stop.

The wealthy elite like to have influence and they have been allowed to have it for a long time, taking it away from them would not go down very well, but I believe it could be done, if it was desired.

 

Since the 24th October 2001 it has been a criminal offence to use an unregistered CCTV system to record people in a public or private place unless it meets certain criteria.
The introduction of the Data Protection Act 1998 and other related legislation has had far reaching consequences for those who own, manage or operate CCTV systems in the United Kingdom. Every aspect of this new legislation impacts upon your use of CCTV.
The Code of Practice contains 62 legally enforceable 'Standards' that must be met to ensure compliance with the Data Protection Act 1998. The Commissioner includes a further 30 points of good practice, which together with the standards, are designed to build and maintain public confidence in CCTV systems and to ensure that they operate within the law.
The Data Protection Act 1998 came into force on March 1st 2000 and the Information Commissioner has issued a Code of Practice for CCTV systems. This Code was updated on July 14th 2000 and again in January 2008 and is available from us as part of our Data Protection Information Pack.

http://www.cctv-information.co.uk/c...w.cctv-information.co.uk/data-protection-act/


http://www.crimereduction.homeoffice.gov.uk/cctv/cctvminisite30.htm


Public space surveillance in light of the European Convention on Human Rights

Experience in those European countries where the European Convention on Human Rights has already been incorporated into domestic legislation shows that surveillance systems are subject to strict statutory controls. Even allowing for the fact that the European legal system is codified and our own system is based upon the common law, it is likely that the Courts may view the way in which images have been captured to be unlawful. This will lead to evidence being excluded, where there is no statutory or common law right for such material to be gathered to the detriment of the individual’s newly established right to privacy in Article 8 of the Human Rights Act 1998:

http://www.crimereduction.homeoffice.gov.uk/cctv/cctv13.htm

Who we are

The Information Commissioner's Office is the UK's independent authority set up to promote access to official information and to protect personal information

http://www.ico.gov.uk/

 

I don't think it is really desired.

 

Thanks.

 

I just don't understand how the corruption can be missed... I don't understand how any of this is an act of incompetence. Torture, lying to get into war, changes made by the Patriot Act, Military Commissions Act, Homegrown Terrorist Act... How is that incompetence?

Before anyone says it, yes, I can clearly see how Balbus' comment about Rat can also be used to describe me, which explains why Balbus would ask me if I support Ron Paul (It didn't make sense at the time). The thing is this: I never knew Rat, but once I read his posts I have felt that his beliefs were greatly inline with mine. (Even going into this feels a bit strange, but I still feel the need to set things straight. Sorry if any of this is awkward).

1. I do believe that I don't fall into any ideology, yes. I don't believe that I have found a new ideology, but an ideology that mixes an idea here and there (like Rat, and many others, I feel that there is an unecessary split in ideals). If Chris Rock believes in this then why can't I? Should I be labeled a 'lobbyist' or someone that doesn't want to admit his true political views? I don't think so. There are some issues that I am republican about and some issues that I am liberal about. I don't exactly see why ideas can't be moved around. I believe that each problem deserves its own special solution (confucism).

2. I don't want to be labeled a 'followerer' of Rat simply because I believe in the same views as he does. This is just a case of two different people coming up with the same conclusions.

3. How can you decide how certain political views would eventually turn out if enacted? How can you decide how a political view would turn out if we haven't even worked on it?

Some of the things that I believe in:

Wealth caps on the rich, legalization or decriminalization of all drugs(add in many prevention programs, abortion is wrong but making it illegal can cause many problems on its own, universal healthcare, improved education (education that promotes more than just absorption of data, but creativity as well. Focus on science and Math shouldn't be top priority), competitive nature of schools and businesses drains society, Practice of non-intervention and never use preemptive strikes and diplomacy first, always offer aid to anyone who needs it, but they must qualify and must get off of the programs once they can live up to their means.

I would have been happy with a Kucinich, Mike Gravel, or Ron Paul presidency, even Obama or Edwards if they haven't been caught in lies already. Their paths may be a bit different from each other, but they all have the common goal to preserve peace and liberty, just a slightly different way of reaching it. THAT'S what having no political label actually means to me.


---

BACK ON TOPIC:

Incompetence or purposeful?:

1. Is the media free in this country? Reporters hardly ever investigate the news anymore. They go directly to an expert and formulate a story based on that.

2. News outlets are a business. That alone should be alarming.

3. FBI have been caught abusing their powers.

4. Schools and neighborhoods that mostly comprised of black people are mostly ignored and underfunded (A school 4 blocks from the White House were using books from the 50's, the school itself was in shambles, and extra curricular's are nearly non-existent - The principal kept asking for more funding but was denied). Some have gone so far as to blame their genetics for their fate (lol). Is it an accident that nothing is done for these people while suburbanites have the best services and schools?

5. War on Drugs that only allows crime and poverty to flourish, while VICTIMS, or otherwise harmless individuals, are imprisoned for years? While 50% of all people in our prisons are there due to drug possession? Why do we hear about Wars on Drugs and never a War on Poverty or ignorance? War on Drugs is neverending since human desire/need of intoxication is just as neverending.

6. War on Terrorism and whether or not that makes absolutely any sense, since you can't set a war against a noun, or the fact that their are multiple terrorist groups from all nationalities that can spring up absolutely any time for any reason. (Does terrorism have anything to do with religious nuts wanting to destroy the infidels, or rebellions trying to kick out invaders? or both?)

7. Wars (including nonsensical wars [5 and 6]) takes money away from other programs.

8. Expansion of nukes (when we promised to DISMANTLE many)

9. Largest military on the planet with military bases all over the world (just about).

10. What the government wants, it gets. We wanted a war with Iraq, we found the money and the will to do it. Why haven't we found this money or will for important programs, like programs that rebuild impoverished neighborhoods?

11. The projects exist while we spend billions on Iraq.

 

Sorry, but I don't believe in this naively idealistic, tree-hugging, college campus baloney about workers taking the means of production back. That is not my bag. I don't sport a red baret. I understand the truth behind so-called "workers revolutions," so I don't buy into such archaic fluff. Historically-speaking, it was never about the workers -- that's merely how it was sold to the people as a way for the bankers to abolish private ownership using the people (who would later become enslaved) as the vehicle to do this. I am not a Marxist. Marx was employed by the banks to serve their bloody agenda. The people own NOTHING under a socialistic system -- the state does!

Today what we have isn't quite the same as when the state took over the corporations. Today, the corporations have taken over the state. This could best be referred to as corporatism or corporate fascism. But the outcome is exactly the same -- extreme wealth for the few, and extreme poverty for the many under a feudalistic system of scientifically socialistic/fascistic control. No, we may not be seeing this just yet, but we will. The poor are getting poorer and the rich are getting richer. It's rearing its ugly head more and more each day.

As long as people keep buying into the same tired hippy-dippy cliches, there is never going to be a real solution. This is why people have to first wake up and understand the system lording over them. A handful of wannabe revolutionaries wearing Che Guevara t-shirts isn't going to change anything. Masses of people need to wake up and fast. If I was to say the way I think the world should be run, I would be no different than the people I condemn. That's why I say enough people need to wake up so we can come together as informed individuals, only then so we can talk about solutions and not only one person has a say. I don't talk about "solutions" the way people want me to talk about them, because it is not up to one person to say how things should be. I think it is the fascistic nature in people that thinks they should be allowed to have a say in how other people live. That is not me. I am simply pointing out what's wrong, and then once enough people see what's wrong can something be done collectively.

 

Mhm. So, it looks like you believe in democracy my friend.

It is very easy to point out what's wrong and never say a damned thing about a solution. If being critical is such a natural gift, there might be a job for you as a film critic.

But that's also pretty cowardly. Especially when you preach and condemn all the solutions brought forth to you that are workable and much better than some of your altruistic sentiments on freedom.

But perhaps I'm being too harsh. I've always been a leader and good at fixing problems, providing input, collaborating, assisting those in need of some kind of aid and negotiating my way out of serious conflict. There is nothing wrong with that.

The vessel of democracy will take us to wherever our talents and the winds can carry us.