Zonie63
Posts: 2826
Joined: 4/25/2011
From: The Old Pueblo
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: vincentML
quote:
ORIGINAL: Zonie63
quote:
ORIGINAL: vincentML
True, ridiculous examples can be found. However, in one neighborhood I know ABSO is preparing to mount CCTV cameras in response to "anonymous" teen vandalism. Hell, everyone knows who but the police cannot act without proof. So, ABSO can serve a legitimate purpose.
I understand, although vandalism would already be a crime anyway, with or without an Anti-Social Behavior Order. I have mixed views on surveillance cameras, although I can see that they would be practical in this instance.
ABSO does not function quickly. This is subsidised housing. After a number of complaints from neighbors the mother was given 30 days to control her son or get out. He was bringing his frineds into the neighborhood and they were causing disturbances. The disturbances escallated to vandalism and now neighbors live in fear. Hence, the cameras.
Okay, I see what you mean, Vincent, although I know of similar practices here in the United States when it comes to subsidized housing. There's a city-owned low-income apartment building which has pretty strict rules, zero tolerance, security cameras, as well as a security checkpoint which requires visitors to have photo ID to be able to enter. Most of the residents there are elderly, and I actually think it's a good thing that they get that extra protection. That's what I meant about mixed views about surveillance cameras. In some cases, they serve a useful purpose.
Although even with public housing, they have their own internal enforcement system and eviction process if there are rule violations. Even if it's city-owned, the city is still the "landlord," so their right to evict would be based on that; nothing more would be required. But from what you're saying, it sounds like it's different in the UK, that without the ABSO, they wouldn't be able to evict this guy?
quote:
As to your mixed views on surveilence cameras, Zonie, do you suppose we are influenced by living protected by two oceans and not experiencing the terror (Troubles) the British experienced?
As I said, in some instances, I think that surveillance cameras serve a useful purpose. It just depends on how they're used and by whom.
I don't want to compare America's situation to the Troubles faced by the British, but we have had our share of crime in this country, along with some severely violent crime waves in past decades. Crime has actually leveled off and come down steadily in the United States in more recent decades, although I'm not sure how we compare to the UK at present. Still, I suppose the same arguments could be made for more surveillance and stronger security measures in the United States, even if our troubles may not be exactly the same as their Troubles were. We all have our own share of troubles.
But then there's a question of how much security we actually need.
Some of it also a downside of our culture as well. I don't know how it is for teenage delinquents nowadays, but back when I was that age, it was considered somewhat "cool" to be a minor criminal and a vandal, somebody who is feared and hated by the squares. Sadly, it was probably the result of some of the more negative influences and mixed messages which we often send out to the youth. They're nothing more than products of the society and culture in which they were born, and anti-social behavior may be just a side effect of it all. Alcoholism and/or addiction are also major factors in causing a lot of anti-social behavior.
So, they can put up cameras and try to catch people in the act of doing something anti-social, but I don't know if that will deal with the root of the problem.
|
RE: its a crime to annoy somone in the UK - 
Profile
New Messages
No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages
Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages
Locked w/o New Messages
Post New Thread