London SE1 community website

Burglaries in SE1

Join in these discussions today! Log in or register.
Pages:  Previous1 2 3 4 5 Next
Current: 4 of 5
Sunday 13 January 2013 2.07pm
Probably not a good idea Jan. It's more to do with something like kids trying to get a ball back. You can get wall spikes though, like these
which come with signs.

Incedentally, the main reason you see signs saying that cctv is being used is so that you can get access to the footage should you feel you need to.
Other than that, don't let the nonsense about signs or the shape of cucumbers put you off filming a crime. People are convicted with such evidence all the time. A quick look on youtube will show plenty of footage of the police misinforming the public about the law whilst telling the cameranan it's illegal to film them (which it's not).
Monday 14 January 2013 9.57am
The newspaper stand on St George's Road was broken into Saturday night/Sunday morning.
Monday 14 January 2013 10.40am
Please don't let the little gang of bullies, who usually dress their comments and insults in sweet language, put you off from telling the truth and correcting the misinformation that is sometimes put out on this site. To stay silent is to condone such rubbish.
To add to your point about cctv where it is known that there is cctv in operation every member of the public has the right of access to the recording if they believe that they have been recorded at a specific time e.g. getting a ticket for parking too long in Tesco's car park between 1 and 5pm when they know they left at 2.30pm.
Equally any person can photograph or video anything in a public place legally but not in what one assumes to be public such as a shopping mall or even some river frontage along the Thames which are private and you must obey their rules which usually means getting written permission.
Monday 14 January 2013 10.54am
chalkey wrote:
Beetroot, you can have your response.
It's stimulating to have debate, and that's one of the reasons I joined the site. That, and my affection for my old stamping ground. I didn't join it to get involved in nasty little scraps. (Which, history shows, you seem to delight in.) It's a shame that you sometimes have to get your point across waspishly and/or barbed.
I had a PM from someone a while back, in response to something I'd posted. They said they no longer posted on the site itself, because some people are, 'too aggressive.'
I'm not saying your post was aggressive, but it was a little less than pleasant.
Have another saucer of milk, old chap. And lighten up.

I agree, JamesHatts there's a group of about a dozen who continually do this and I know it makes others leave the forum. It's easy to see the serial snide comment makers who think they know everything and feel the need to quote and snipe. I have said it before and think this will be the end of me on this Forum as well. People have far too much time to snipe about people just trying to communicate.
Monday 14 January 2013 10.59am
Thebunhouse wrote:
Please don't let the little gang of bullies, who usually dress their comments and insults in sweet language, put you off from telling the truth and correcting the misinformation that is sometimes put out on this site. To stay silent is to condone such rubbish.

Thank you.
Monday 14 January 2013 11.05am
Data Protection Act 1998 and article 8 of the European convention on human rights (the right to respect for private and family life), both of which have played an important role in providing some regulation but which have inevitable limitations in this context.

The DPA contains an exemption for domestic use, however, so a householder who has a camera on their property for their own personal use would not be covered by the DPA even if the camera overlooks the street or other public areas near their home. This exemption also applies to recreational use, eg by using a mobile phone or camcorder.

If the DPA does apply, the CCTV operator will be required to do a number of things:

Register as a data controller with the Information Commissioner's Office.

Put up signs notifying people that CCTV is in use and who operates it.

Give any individual who requests it copies of footage of them (for a charge of up to 10).

Ensure that any footage stored is kept for no longer than necessary for the purposes for which it is obtained.

Ensure that footage is not disclosed to anyone else without the consent of the individuals shown in it unless it is for a reason permitted under the DPA, such as the prevention or detection of crime.

The information commissioner has issued a code of practice for CCTV operators.

In addition to the obligations under the DPA, the Human Rights Act requires any public authority using CCTV cameras to do so compatibly with Article 8 of the convention. Although filming of individuals in a public place will not usually be considered to engage their right to privacy, the courts have said that it may do in certain circumstances. In the case of Wood v Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis, the court of appeal found that article 8 was engaged by overt photography by the police in a public place because, on the particular facts: "The police action, unexplained at the time it happened and carrying as it did the implication that the images would be kept and used, is a sufficient intrusion by the state into the individual's own space, his integrity, as to amount to a prima facie violation of article 8(1)." Liberty argues that the controversial CCTV and ANPR scheme in Birmingham, which is now under review after it was revealed that it had been funded by the counter terrorism branch of Acpo, engages article 8 because of the sheer number of cameras and the implication that residents were being treated as terrorism suspects.

Article 8 provides much greater protection when it comes to publication of images of individuals without their consent. Not only must any publication comply with the provisions of the DPA, it will only be lawful if it is proportionate and there is a pressing social need to publish. In a case which Liberty took to the European court of human rights, it was held that publishing CCTV footage that showed the applicant attempting to commit suicide violated article 8, even though the footage was taken from a CCTV camera in a public street.
Monday 14 January 2013 11.15am
It also then comes down to company policy. For instance the cctv @ a large offcie complex within SE1 can only be accessed if there is a crime reported to the police and only then they will pass on the images directly to the police not an individual at the police request. They have all of these signs in place as I was also advised by Southwark council to do so in respect of installing cctv on my property after several break ins. Come round have a look not the type of sign that adds value to the property, trust me.
Monday 14 January 2013 12.39pm
Going back to the original post, it's worth noting that South Bermondsey ward is considered to be a burglary hotspot.

On the other petty arguing, please leave it out. It's the sort of bickering that does no-one any credit.

If there's any continuation of the snide remarks, the thread will be closed.

Editor of the London SE1 website.
Subscribe to our SE1 Direct weekly newsletter.
Monday 14 January 2013 1.40pm
Well I hope it's understood that it's not a snide remark to point out that the Data Protection Act quoted above does not support the false claim that footage is not allowed in a court just because signs were not there.
Monday 14 January 2013 1.58pm
Stop going on. It's not there in it's entirety. The act is ambiguous at best but It supports what Chalkey says what is local policy and is in line with my experience.
Pages:  Previous1 2 3 4 5 Next
Current: 4 of 5

To post a message, please log in or register..
We are part of
Independent Community News Network
Email newsletter

For the latest local news and events direct to your inbox every Monday, you need our weekly email newsletter SE1 Direct.

7,000+ locals read it every week. Can you afford to miss out?

Read the latest issue before signing up

Also on the forum
Views expressed in this discussion forum are those of the contributors and may not reflect the editorial policy of this website. Please read our terms and conditions