We are to pay to be observed?

Yes, I know. I covered this in the last post but –  hey – it’s my blog.

To put it more succinctly: Those in control should learn to recognise when things are appropriate and when they are going way over the top in the direction of police state.

Guys – they want to be able to view our every move, ensure they enforce parking fines etc because the rose gardens were vandalised. Of course we would like to prevent vandalism but at what cost?

The police have told us we live in a very safe place with a low crime rate and a high detection rate. Are we going to erect further ugly and expensive surveillance equipment to apprehend litter louts next? Where does it stop? As mentioned in the last post we are the subject of excessive snooping. We have more CCTV cameras than many other countries. These countries have not fallen prey to anarchy and mob rule.

Stop this utter nonsense. Stop following the UK which isn’t a good example of successful law enforcement anyway. Earlier generations fought wars for our freedom. Are we worthy of the sacrifices they made? We are handing our freedom over on  a plate. Duh!

Are we exposed to more danger in Douglas than in Amsterdam?

Douglas Corporation, unhappy with the present coverage of CCTV facilities, such as the quayside cameras which enable immediate action involving motorists unaware of the  variation in paving colour in the parking area –  I speak from experience – wish to extend the coverage of snooping facilities. However, it seems they must now go cap in hand to seek finance for the project. I suppose it could be argued that the use of CCTV to persecute motorists could actually eventually pay for itself in parking fines. Does anyone know how much dosh is involved?

It would be interesting to discover the actual cost of this project. It seems that the Department of Home Affairs is to be contacted in an effort to obtain funding. Could it be that in these cash-strapped times Douglas Corpy is looking to the taxpayers to fund Orwellian projects? What exactly is the projected return from the expenditure? It sounds as if the concern mostly relates to possible vandalism. Don’t forget folks – the police themselves repeatedly tell us what a safe place we live in. 

Vandalism has always been around. Yet we managed without snooping programmes and equipment. Did all the CCTV in the UK prevent the recent riots? How many of those whose images were obscured will actually be apprehended as a result? Other countries cope perfectly well without the extent of Orwellian snooping we now see as normal. The UK has become paranoid and intrusive in its dealings with the mostly-law-abiding general public. Must we follow suit yet again?  

Amsterdam is a pretty safe city to be in. A city with coffee shops legally supplying a chill-out weed, a red-light district where prostitutes openly display their wares. The people of Amsterdam must really need to be kept under surveillance – David Ashford of Douglas Corpy might think this. Well, guess what? The city isn’t swarming with fluorescent jacket wearers and cameras at every corner. Most visitors report a feeling of safety in Amsterdam. People who feel happy and trusted generally behave better it seems. Or is it that we secretly have a phenomenal crime rate in the Isle of Man which the police aren’t divulging? Come on Corpy if Amsterdam can cope without it so can we. Get real and stop spying on the motorists  and wasting our money in the process.