Camden Talking Camera Instructs Residents to Get Off the Streets or Face Prosecution… In Their Own Gardens!
By Helena Handbasket – Sovereign Independent UK Contributor –
Before watching the video below and as you do view the utter criminality and enslavement of you and yours, keep these few words in mind:-
You get the idea… now watch the video…
Raising your voice in total indignation should spring to mind immediately if not the application of a few of the basic tools above in a manner conducive to hacking or beating to a pulp this spy apparatus from the streets of our towns and cities. I’m not one to call for violence in any way but at times you do wonder if lamp posts and a length of rope could be put to a far better community common purpose than cameras ordering you to stay away from your own property with the treat of criminal sanctions should you fail to comply to Big Brother and cower in fear on your own doorstep. To do so will simply invite the control freaks, who are obviously terrified of you, into your home with their next generation of spy equipment to observe you and yours in the non-existent privacy you lost a long time ago by allowing such devices to be installed all over the country at YOUR expense!
At least one concerned gentleman, Jim Jepps, took matters into his own hands and posted the video above to the extent that it garnered a response from Camden Council, who’d installed the talking camera, and an articles in The Guardian and the Telegraph. Hats off to you Jim… we need more like you!
But let’s look at this Guardian article and expose the hypocrisy and obvious contradictions therein to prove that this was a test by Camden Council to gauge the reaction of residents to this invasion of their privacy and right to walk their own gardens without the spy network of the state constantly monitoring their movements.
Firstly, let’s give a bit of credit to The Guardian for publishing this but let’s not be too hasty in praising their journalistic prowess as it’s obvious they haven’t even considered the contradictions in their own article against the facts. The Guardian is there for your safety right?
http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2012/feb/06/camden-apology-automatic-robocamera (Video report included)
‘Robo-camera’ threatens residents with prosecution: Camden council says sorry for installing flash-equipped camera with robotic American accent that takes indiscriminate pictures.
“A council has apologised for installing a “robo-camera” in a housing estate garden which indiscriminately takes pictures of anyone entering, residents included, before warning them they are in a restricted area and face prosecution.
London‘s Camden council said it recently installed the flash-equipped cameras in the borough to tackle antisocial behaviour but mistakenly activated the robotic voice message for one in the communal gardens of the Walker House estate, near Euston station.”
Ok, the first thing to notice here is that they’ve apologised for installing this device, apparently without consulting the residents in the first place, and only because the voice message was ‘mistakenly activated’. This is an important point and we’ll come back to it later.
“In darkness the camera automatically takes a photo when triggered by a motion sensor. A voice then warns: “Stop! This is a restricted area and your photograph was just taken. We will use it to prosecute you. Leave the area now.””
“In a statement the council said the Walker House camera was installed in September last year in response to an increasing number of complaints of antisocial behaviour. All of its similar cameras, manufactured by Q Star Technologies, can issue the verbal message but this was normally deactivated, it added.”
One has to wonder why they supposedly paid for a camera with this type of technology, which one has to assume is more expensive if it wasn’t their ultimate intention of utilising such technology? As we read later, they fully intended to use this from the start. The spokesperson??? went on to say…
“All flash cameras have the capacity to deliver voice messages when activated but in this instance it appears that voice messages were inadvertently activated when the camera batteries were replaced four to five weeks ago,” the statement said.”
Again, one has to ask the question as to when they intended ‘activating’ this aspect of the technology which they obviously purchased, courtesy of the already beleaguered and ‘austeritied’ taxpayer, with the deliberate intent of using such technology in the future, at a time of their choosing without it appears informing the residents of this intrusive, Orwellian device.
“Camden said the cameras themselves were installed as “a temporary measure”, and added: “We do not want to stop residents from enjoying their open spaces and communal areas and under no circumstances would we want voice messages to be used in areas where they may be disturbed. The voice messages will be deactivated as soon as possible.””
It never fails to exasperate me when I hear the term ‘temporary measure’ being applied to anything rolled out by a council or other interfering busy body organisation. Such a ‘temporary measure’ was applied through a one-way system in a town where I had a business. That business was ultimately destroyed, as were others, by a 6 month ‘temporary measure’ which has now been in place for 8 years yet it’s never ceased to be a ‘temporary measure’. In terms of the installation of cameras, I’m sure all of us have seen the so called ‘temporary’ speed cameras on motorways up and down the country which have been there, embedded in massive concrete blocks, for years. These ‘measures’ are never ‘temporary’. In the case of the talking camera in Camden, it’s only a temporary delay as to when this technology will officially be rolled out, not just in Camden, but right across the country. Do you seriously think that Camden are the only council buying these cameras? It’s also been known for years that a lot of these cameras were installed with facial recognition software. I would guess that aspect of the technology has been ‘activated’ since the installation.
For those who think the BBC is a bastion of impartial news reporting I’ll use them as a source here.
This report goes back to 2003 but also reveals that CCTV cameras were on the streets of London as far back as 1953. How good were ordinary cameras in those days? Do you really think that the latest digital camera rolled out every Christmas is the peak of technology? And at a cost of £500 million pounds in a decade, don’t you think we deserve a refund as crime rates skyrocket with cameras preventing none of it? Here are just two articles from The Guardian of all places and one from The Telegraph to prove the point.
“CCTV cameras: If they do not stop crime or catch criminals, what are they for?” “Telegraph View: There is plenty of evidence that people are not safer because of the presence of CCTV.”
Indeed, The Telegraph asks the question as to what are they for if their intended purpose has been proven to be an abject failure? Isn’t it time the public started asking that same question and demanding answers?
Yet we find councils and the higher echelons of government spending billions on such intrusive and quite frankly perpetrating a crime against the people of this country, for the well propagandised purpose of ‘keeping us safe’. But safe from what?
It seems that the only thing we need to be kept safe from are those psychopathic control freaks in positions of power who, on behalf of their paymasters of the international banking cartel, seek to enslave us all , no doubt to their reward from people’s unknown to the general public in much the same way as Tony B Liar has profitted massively agfetr his destructive tenure running Britain into the ground on behalf of his J.P. Morgan paymasters.
Of course we’re told that this is to prevent ‘anti-social behaviour’, that great excuse for removing any semblance of rights away from ordinary people to ensure that not only will they be reliant on a criminal government to supposedly protect them, but as crime increases they can ‘justify’ to the hard of thinking, the imposition and ever increasing intrusive surveillance systems under the guise of ensuring that criminal perpetrators will be brought to justice. The figures speak for themselves to show the myth of this spurious argument. The real ‘perps’ and ‘traitors’ are in control of the cameras.
But back to the Guardian article:-
“One resident, Jim Jepps, who posted a video on YouTube on Saturday protesting against the council’s actions, said he had noticed the camera before but believed the menacing, US-accented voice had been turned on over the weekend.”
So, we here a local resident state quite clearly that the voice on the camera was activated ‘over the weekend’. This is in direct contradiction of the council spokesperson who stated at the start of the article that:- “All flash cameras have the capacity to deliver voice messages when activated but in this instance it appears that voice messages were inadvertently activated when the camera batteries were replaced four to five weeks ago.”
Jim Jepps begs to differ when he goes on to say:-
“There had been a flash camera there before, but they activated [the voice] on Saturday,” he said.
Jepps, 41 who runs the website Big Smoke, and has lived on the estate for eight months, said that most residents were horrified by the camera: “This is not CCTV. This is something completely different. This is something that tells residents that they are in a restricted area and they have to move on.”
“Anyone who goes to work at the normal time [when it is dark] would have had their picture taken. And anyone who goes outside basically after probably half-five will have had their picture taken… It’s a residential area. It’s our community garden. It’s not appropriate.”
“This is a measure that is meant to tackle antisocial behaviour but it is antisocial behaviour. If we had a man in the garden telling everybody to move on and that they were in a restricted area, we’d call the police because it is not on.”
Jim is absolutely correct in his view that if someone stood there shouting at you in the dark to ‘move along, get into your homes and stay there until we tell you it’s safe to come out or you’ll be arrested’ people would be outraged. At least Jim is taking a stance as I’m sure are many other residents. More of them need to vocalise their feelings on the subject so that society as a whole can demand the removal of this spy apparatus, because that’s what it is! If their voices are not heard and their wishes and demands are not adhered to by their respective, elected ‘representatives’, then these so called ‘representatives’ need to be put on the ever growing scrapheap of unemployment savaging the country instead of the public re-electing these parasites and allowing them to spend your money on the shackles of your own enslavement. Only then will the greed of the politician kick in as he smells the rapid departure of his public purse gravy train disappearing down the tracks. That’s not to say you should ever vote for anyone who condones the installation of surveillance equipment in any public place. If they do insist on them then the public must insist that those who advocate CCTV or other spy technology; internet, phone tapping etc. be put under 24 hour surveillance, using the latest high tech equipment and supervised by a network of the electorate on a national basis themselves to see how they feel about it before they decide to test it out on the general public
“I suspect the people who made this decision don’t live anywhere near here. They certainly don’t have a robot outside their house,” adding that he (Jim) welcomed Camden’s decision to switch off the voice.
My point exactly Jim! But the camera with its built in microphone is still there! Don’t you think it hasn’t got a microphone too?
A local Labour councilor, Roger Robinson, who previously voiced support for the camera, said that there had been numerous reports of antisocial behaviour and drug dealing in the area.
Hey, if we acted upon things based on numerous complaints about this or that, how many councilors or politicians would we have in the country? Very few I imagine.
The words of Councilor Roger Robinson below say much, not in the content but in the tone, of the arrogance of this clown and is so transparent that one has to wonder if he would personally lost out in some capacity with the removal of these types of devices; if they are indeed to be removed and/or decommissioned. Unless people continue to protest their installation they’ll remain… It’s that simple!
“For God’s sake, if someone doesn’t want us to do it, then okay, fine… We were doing it as an experiment to try and make sure these young men; these yobbos do not cause harassment to these residents. The idea is to do them [the residents] a favour, to do them a service; if they don’t want it, fine.”
Of course Mr. Robinson also lets slip that this was no accidental ‘activation’ of the camera’s vocal warning system when he states:- “We were doing it as an experiment….”
In other words he and his council lied to the public and this had absolutely nothing to do with a change of batteries 5 weeks previous or any ‘accident’. It was a clear attempt to introduce further Orwellian surveillance technologies online in Britain which is already the most surveilled society in the world.
The council said they had received “positive feedback from residents on the estate” and evidence from the cameras had led to a number of antisocial behaviour orders being obtained.
But they didn’t prevent any crime did they?
Well Mr. Robinson… Jim Jepps and the residents of the Walker House Estate in Camden have given you their feedback so get down there with the imbeciles you employ to install this Big Brother junk and have it removed forthwith… Or how about Jim and the resiodents head down to Mr. Robinson’s house, video cameras and bullhorns at the ready everytime he or his family step into the garden?
We’ll be watching Roger!