What's happened to the UK?

[Holdfast]

So why can't ITV fund local news through advertising then? Why sponge off the taxpayer?

 

[Bob The Skutter]

So why can't ITV fund local news through advertising then? Why sponge off the taxpayer?

Because the government limit the money they can charge advertisers, to level the playing field for the other commercial channels, since ITV went from being a network of regional broadcasters to 1 national entity (or at least that's what they say).

 

[Holdfast]

That's even more retarded.

Let me get this logic straight

1) The government stop ITV charging a market rate for advertising.
2) ITV can't fund programming that is actually popular as a result.
3) The government then wants to step in and subsidise this programming
4) They do this by siphoning money off a non-commercial broadcaster.

Net result - inefficient market created by the government, subsidised by the government. Potentially free programming now becomes feepayer-dependent programming through governmental interference in two areas.

What a state.

 

[Captain Shaw]

I say let itv charge what it can get for its ad space and if it can't make the news pay let them scrap it.
I mean ITN are just as good/bad as sky and we have the BBC not to mention the web and local papers.
On the rare occasions i do watch the local news its on the bbc and i want to hit Ann Davies she talks to people like there stupid.
I think she worked on GMTV for too long. http://www.bbc.co.uk/eastmidlandstoday/content/articles/2006/09/19/anne_davies_feature.shtml

 

[Bob The Skutter]

That's even more retarded.

Let me get this logic straight

1) The government stop ITV charging a market rate for advertising.
2) ITV can't fund programming that is actually popular as a result.
3) The government then wants to step in and subsidise this programming
4) They do this by siphoning money off a non-commercial broadcaster.

Net result - inefficient market created by the government, subsidised by the government. Potentially free programming now becomes feepayer-dependent programming through governmental interference in two areas.

What a state.

You've got it. ITV have said they don't want subsidies and top slicing they would rather the government loosen the restrictions so they can get market rate for their ads, and allow product placement or longer ad breaks. The government responded by allowing them the same amount of ad space they have now, but allowing them to distribute it more like the digital channels do, so they can have 4 breaks in prime time hours and more evenly distributed breaks in shows over an hour, rather than limited. Which I suppose is a start, but why subsidise them when they're artificially limiting them in the first place?
In fact ITV have said they would rather hand back the PSB licence and go totally commercial/digital than take public money.
Five and Sky also agreed with them about not wanting public money, although (perhaps unsurprisingly) Five said they think ITV needs limiting for the competition to survive.

I also had to agree with the MP who questioned the "shortfall" money. Only 5% of digital switchover is done, and they're already planning on spending the short fall? Who's to say there will be any once they get done with all of the thousands of transmitters? As well as the fact that he questioned why they're saying there'll be a shortfall in the BBC funds after 2013 so the licence fee will have to go up, yet they're talking about using BBC switch over fund underspend, and top slicing the fee..

 

[FPAlpha]

"Oh.. we'll just violate this part of the constitution once for the greater good. You don't mind do you? We need to observe these potential terrorists to keep ypu safe!"

I think the problem with your argument is here.

First of all, the UK doesn't have a "constitution," as you or I would understand it. But let's put that issue aside.

Your argument assumes, essentially, that people have some kind of fundamental right to not be photographed while in public--and that CCTV cameras violate this right.

To the best of my knowledge, no such right exists, anywhere. Or ever has existed, anywhere.

Not only is there no such constitutional guarantee in Western countries--I'm not even sure that it's against the ordinary laws of most countries to photograph people while they're out in public. Not only is the slope not slippery--there is no slope.

I know there's no such law here in Canada. I found that out when my teaching assistants' union went on strike. Some asshole drove his car right through our picket line, and then parked it nearby. I happened to have a camera, so I went over and took a picture of his car and license plate.

At that point, the asshole got out of his car, got in my face, and demanded that I hand over my film , claiming that I was violating the Criminal Code: he even quoted a numbered section. I told him that, to the best of my knowledge, I was acting perfectly within my rights, and if he thought I had committed a crime, then we could go down to the cop shop and let them sort it out. Eventually, he backed down.

I looked it up afterward. Not only could I not find a section of the Criminal Code dealing with photographing people in public--I couldn't find the section to which the asshole had referred. He just made it up.

When you're out in public, you're just that: out in public. People can watch you. People can listen to you. People can photograph you. If you don't want anyone observing you, then stay in your private residence, with the curtains closed. That's where the limit lies.

Some kind of legal right to privacy while out in public would actually be an intolerable infringement on other people's freedoms. It would essentially give you the right to tell other people where they can look, and where they can't; what they can photograph, and what they can't.

It would essentially give you the power of a king to command that his subjects avert their eyes, and not look directly at him. Now, where would that power come from?

You misunderstood me.

It's not about the cameras in question but the usage of them.

I'll use an exaggerated example which would be totally valid in a dictatorial state run by a madman (not that i believe that it would ever come to this on the UK but then Germany, nation of thinkers and philosphers, was once ruled by a Madman who was responsible for millions of dead and an entire World War).

Let's say you have a dispute with the government over taxes.. you claim they have took to much and the government basically told you to STFU. You went to court and the legal battle began and it looks like you're winning.

Now the government, evil as they are, decide to use camera footage of you meeting your mistress somewhere in the city while your wife with your newborn kid is at home and it decides to slip the footage to your wife as payback for making trouble.

I want to stress again that this is an exaggeration but the point stands.. the cameras sure did good, especially in the aftermath of a crime where they helped to identify the guy (happened a few times in Germany as well in subway stations and the like).

What i have a problem with is that i don't trust a government fully to use this responsibly and make sure it isn't abused. What i meant by my post earlier is that once you start crossing some lines for the greater good it is infinitely harder to step back over the line instead of drawing up a new line (which can be overstepped should a new crisis evolve).

 

[Bob The Skutter]

^There have already been cases of using CCTV (Not only that but using investigators to follow people) to prove a family was living in a different catchment area to the school they were sending their child to, without even asking the family directly, or confronting them in anyway about it. Also to follow suspected benefits cheats, and to fine people who have parked their car so the bumper is just slightly outside the lines and other petty things.
When they use them for petty things like this I don't see it as paranoid to worry about what they may do in the future (or are already doing).

 

[Goliath]

^But in both of those cases, the government is just doing what private citizens are free to do.

A suspicious wife, for example, is free to hire a private investigator to have her husband followed and photographed.

And I have a hard time seeing the force behind FPAlpha's example. It sounds to me like he's arguing that people should have a right to keep their public indiscretions private, which is a contradiction in terms.

Just as an aside: my father has actually done the equivalent of suing the government over taxes, and eventually won his case. In my experience, in such situations, a large institution like a government would be more likely to try to punish a successful plaintiff by simply dragging its heels, and making the whole process as expensive and difficult as possible. That, after all, is what large institutions are best at.

The examples cited by Bob the Skutter are interesting because they illustrate something that Michel Foucault talked about in his book Discipline and Punish: namely, the "margin of tolerated illegality."

Bob may regard his examples as "petty" offences--mere illegalities, instead of actual crimes.

But who decides what's petty? If I can't find a place to park, then the selfish and thoughtless people who parked just a little outside the lines may be causing me an enormous inconvenience. And their pig-like squealing when they got tickets based on CCTV evidence would be music to my ears.

Similarly, people who send their children to schools without paying taxes to support those schools, or who commit welfare fraud, may not seem to be committing very serious crimes individually. But these seemingly petty individual acts can snowball into very serious drains on the finances of the institutions involved.

In such a case, it seems to me that using CCTV evidence would be a cost-effective way of cracking down. Essentially, it would substitute cheap technology for expensive manpower. It's no different, in principle, from substituting speed cameras for police constables manning speed traps.

 

[Bob The Skutter]

^But in both of those cases, the government is just doing what private citizens are free to do.

A suspicious wife, for example, is free to hire a private investigator to have her husband followed and photographed.

And I have a hard time seeing the force behind FPAlpha's example. It sounds to me like he's arguing that people should have a right to keep their public indiscretions private, which is a contradiction in terms.

Just as an aside: my father has actually done the equivalent of suing the government over taxes, and eventually won his case. In my experience, in such situations, a large institution like a government would be more likely to try to punish a successful plaintiff by simply dragging its heels, and making the whole process as expensive and difficult as possible. That, after all, is what large institutions are best at.

The examples cited by Bob the Skutter are interesting because they illustrate something that Michel Foucault talked about in his book Discipline and Punish: namely, the "margin of tolerated illegality."

Bob may regard his examples as "petty" offences--mere illegalities, instead of actual crimes.

But who decides what's petty? If I can't find a place to park, then the selfish and thoughtless people who parked just a little outside the lines may be causing me an enormous inconvenience. And their pig-like squealing when they got tickets based on CCTV evidence would be music to my ears.

Similarly, people who send their children to schools without paying taxes to support those schools, or who commit welfare fraud, may not seem to be committing very serious crimes individually. But these seemingly petty individual acts can snowball into very serious drains on the finances of the institutions involved.

In such a case, it seems to me that using CCTV evidence would be a cost-effective way of cracking down. Essentially, it would substitute cheap technology for expensive manpower. It's no different, in principle, from substituting speed cameras for police constables manning speed traps.

You misunderstand, they still lived in the city, still owned a house in the catchment area and were still paying their council tax in the area, one child was already at the school and wanted their younger child to go there. There was no fraud involved, they weren't dodging taxes. They were simply trying to keep their kids at the same school, and if they'd been asked about it they could have explained. Instead they had them investigated.

And while we're at it, I think those sorts of things should have limits placed on them for the general public too.

Also the parking thing I was talking about was automated (I believe), It didn't matter if they simply had the bumper on the white line, or actually covered 2 spaces automatic fine.

And while we're at it, I disagree in general with speed cameras too. A police officer can make a judgement of whether you're driving safely, and just going with the flow of traffic, a camera just sees you're doing 55 in a 50 zone and you get a fine. Which personally I believe is wrong, because you could be driving dangerously if you're not keeping up with traffic.

 

[TedShatner10]

CCTV helped to convict my attacker, that twat who broke my leg.

CCTV does not annoy me, but what I find genuinely sinister and unnecessary is the anti photography rule in the Cabot Circus shopping centre. A security goon approached me.

 

[cultcross]

CCTV does not annoy me, but what I find genuinely sinister and unnecessary is the anti photography rule in the Cabot Circus shopping centre. A security goon approached me.

Well that's not government or law, that's a matter for the private company. Cabot Circus is private land and so they can put in place conditions of entry if they wish. Including 'no photography'. No different to a museum putting up a similar sign. It's not illegal, they just set it as a condition of you being on their premises.

 

[Goliath]

You misunderstand, they still lived in the city, still owned a house in the catchment area and were still paying their council tax in the area, one child was already at the school and wanted their younger child to go there. There was no fraud involved, they weren't dodging taxes. They were simply trying to keep their kids at the same school, and if they'd been asked about it they could have explained. Instead they had them investigated.

I don't think I did misunderstand: I think, rather, that your initial post was ambiguous, and open to the interpretation I placed upon it. Certainly none of that information above was in your initial post.

In any case: assuming that I've got the full story now, that doesn't sound like a problem with CCTV in particular. That sounds like a problem of official judgement. Unless you're suggesting that the investigation you mention would not have gone ahead, had no CCTV cameras been present?

And while we're at it, I think those sorts of things should have limits placed on them for the general public too.

Well, on this you and I disagree.

Also the parking thing I was talking about was automated (I believe), It didn't matter if they simply had the bumper on the white line, or actually covered 2 spaces automatic fine.

And while we're at it, I disagree in general with speed cameras too. A police officer can make a judgement of whether you're driving safely, and just going with the flow of traffic, a camera just sees you're doing 55 in a 50 zone and you get a fine. Which personally I believe is wrong, because you could be driving dangerously if you're not keeping up with traffic.

The rules are the rules.

If you don't like the rules, then get together with other people and work to change them.

If you're not willing to do that, then I guess it's just not that important to you.

Personally, I can't bring myself to muster much sympathy for the drivers in question, in either case. I've never owned a car, and in my opinion, motorists are some of the most selfish, spoiled, entitled people in the world.

 

[flandry84]

Just my opinion on the original question..What's happened to the UK is what's happened to most western countries.
The death of common sense.
I'm not going to make a sweeping attack on the cloying death-grip of political correctness,but it seems to me that people have lost the ability to think,feel and act without first refering to some rulebook,mission-statement or set of ministry guidelines.
Therefore you get those news stories that make your jaw drop,those stories regarding social-workers,teachers,police,the kind of things that convince you that the world is disappearing up it's own arse.
I live in Ireland,but we get UK news and TV so I'm familiar with the way things are in your country,believe me,it's no different here.

As for CCTV,relax.The fucking government can't even make the buses run on time,I somehow doubt they are capable of running some giant big brother type operation.

 

[Goliath]

As for CCTV,relax.The fucking government can't even make the buses run on time,I somehow doubt they are capable of running some giant big brother type operation.

That's my first response to any and all conspiracy-theorists.

"Come on--this is the government we're talking about, here."

 

[Lindley]

Exactly. Every camera generates 24hrs of footage a day. No-one watches all that, you'd have to employ half the country to watch the other half all day every day.

Which is one reason why algorithms capable of persistent video tracking and, more importantly, anomaly detection are being researched at the moment. You can train a program with a range of "normal" behaviors and there are ways to decide whether what the camera is seeing now is thus "normal" or not. It can flag for attention anything that doesn't meet its parameters.

 

[Garak]

two Orthodox Jews complain that automatic light sensors in the stairwell area of their apartment are breaching their Human Rights

Guh? That makes me feel all stabby. Most of those articles do actually.

 

[john titor]

Just my opinion on the original question..What's happened to the UK is what's happened to most western countries.
The death of common sense.
I'm not going to make a sweeping attack on the cloying death-grip of political correctness,but it seems to me that people have lost the ability to think,feel and act without first refering to some rulebook,mission-statement or set of ministry guidelines.
Therefore you get those news stories that make your jaw drop,those stories regarding social-workers,teachers,police,the kind of things that convince you that the world is disappearing up it's own arse.
I live in Ireland,but we get UK news and TV so I'm familiar with the way things are in your country,believe me,it's no different here.

As for CCTV,relax.The fucking government can't even make the buses run on time,I somehow doubt they are capable of running some giant big brother type operation.

Common sense is a myth. It didn't reign supreme during WW1 when millions of people consented to dying on behalf of their elite pay masters. It didn't rule during WW2 when Germans decided to get stoopid. It never featured during the dark ages, nor did it surface during the salem witch hunts or the mac carthyist era, but you're right, it certainly doesn't exist now. Oh no, if it did exist then we wouldn't so willingly acquiesce to paying the bills for our elite paymasters, but that would be too much effort. Humanity's story is mostly a grim farce.

As for CCTV, I'm of two minds about it, but if people had common sense we wouldn't need them.