police stations, cctv in towns

[corydoras]

do agree with using cameras and ID as i think that if you're doing nothing wrong then you've nothing to worry about.

You lose me when you use that old 'if you have done nothing wrong you have nothing to fear' argument. Was that not the mantra of the SS, NKVD, KGB and the Stasi?

Edited October 3, 2006 by corydoras

[chesters1]

why cant police helicopters carry a large weight strung underneath (a big pyramid one with "5 tons" like in the cartoons would do) if they want to stop a stolen car they just swoop down and drop it on the car ,driver hopefully squashed thus ensuring his crime spree ends.

the police have little say in what goes to court as the government decides who's up before the beak ,if theres a busy day at the office its far quicker to chuck paperwork in the bin than see if theres enough evidence to go further.

although the speed cameras are "supposed" to stop accidents all they do is get revenue from speeders , 1 out of 20 accidents are due to speeding unfortunately the greater numbers of non speed related occurences dont have camera's that detect them unlike the "real" police we used to have.

rather than place camera's at accident spots the roads "natural" speed limit is artificially reduced by signage and the cameras placed there to catch people.i believe more than 1 death needs to be the criteria for a camera at a particular spot so every speed camera should actualy be a "gravestone" for at least two dead people (theoretically).strangely the accident rate has risent at these spots as it has everywhere else since their introduction so its apparent cameras are for money not safety.mobile or hand held cameras in theory shouldnt even exist unless dead people move.

 

 

" do agree with using cameras and ID as i think that if you're doing nothing wrong then you've nothing to worry about."

 

unfortunately both will give enough evidence to prosecute an innocent person just as it will a guilty one by relying solely apon it (probably why the board appeared in my first post) ,as in many cases circumstantial evidence when employed by clever prosecution lawers is enough to get the guilty verdict for even the best aliby.

Edited October 3, 2006 by chesters1