CCTV essay commentary

The origin of my idea was Channel 4's T.V. series reality documentary 'The Hunted' which followed both voluntary fugitives and Britain's finest 'Dci's' and CCTV operators. From both perspectives the audience can see the power and control the Government and Police have over us ( the public) and the challenge of freedom in a world heavily dominated by technology. The ease of capturing mre than half if the fugitives the Police gad and the degree of authority and the depth of how much they can access gave me a fresh perspective on how our country is governed and watched. I felt that we had little freedom at all and began to research the laws of CCTV and how frequent their presence is. The knowledge I had acquired made me want to inform others by weighing up the benefits and negatives. Their is a lot of speculation about making sacrifices of our human right of privacy to catch terrorists therefore I felt it was relevant. A huge factor in the the programme which I forgot is that they are treating them like real fugitives, however all the information about their lives was so easily accessed and monitored 24/7. Writing the article allows me to communicate my opinion and the positive and negative effect of Britain owning 40% of the worlds surveillance.

Another inspiration for my article was the musical preference I have in. 90's hip hop and modern/underground grime has a frequent mention of criminal injustice and Police presence. For example the infamous song from the 90's N.W.A- fuck the police demonstrates the message of derogatives towards the law perfectly. With this cocktail of anger towards the Police and the London riots in my mind after an exercise we had done in lesson a strong opinion for both sides of the argument had evolved and inspired me to write the article.

More influences come from the book ' An evil cradling' by Brian Keenan. The autobiography about being held captive and the suffocation of no freedom because of a greater presence ( this was compatible with all of my other inspirations). In a sense I felt his story was a metaphor for how the people of the United Kingdom had been living in some cases. He lives with the presence of kidnappers but what all of us live with is presence of CCTV. There was no difference between his story and our lives in the sense he was monitored all day every day as are we.

The news and on-line articles have also been an inspiration in the creation of the article, particularly footage and arrests made involved with the London riots and the NSA and Snowden case. The London riots were heavily covered majority of the footage from CCTV which opened my eye and then when I read an article in the guardian about how Snowden exposed the American government of how they keep track everything we do online- I felt obliged to inform others as I informed myself. A pattern had emerged and it became apparent that I enjoyed reading about personal experience. When I read 'Touching the void' this yet again enforced the idea about writing about being in captivity in the modern day.  Using my writers journal I enjoyed writing my daily experiences, this also influenced my decision to write an article.

In an interview with Tupac he spoke about how he is making more money but the Police and Government gave him more law suits so he had to pay out more money to the courts ' They got this cool way to keep a brother broke, I got 7 law suits against me for nothing. But I still gotta pay the lawyers still gotta pay everybody to go court, still gotta pay for bodyguards- I gotta have one, still gotta pay. They give me more cheques but they also give me more bills' I wanted to touch the element of Government control controversially he was speaking about. Initially I had wrote a about the London riots in a biographical form in the early stages but was influenced by my wider reading. The genre- protest writing had appealed to me from the early stages and from the books I was reading which were all based upon extreme personal experience and lives what are extraordinary.

Brian Keenan specifically impacted my choice of form specifically, I was planning to do a biography of a man in the London riots about him getting caught, but there was no element of captivity in there which I was passionate about involving. When reading ' An evil craddling' it occured to me that I would prefer to make an article about the lack of privacy or something around that area. When I remembered watching 'The hunted' and seeing CCTV cameras watching me everyday not just on the streets but also in my school. The problem was personal to me and everyone else in this country, the same genre I liked to read I was going to articulate in an Article form about CCTV - the idea was born. My writing in the Article is more factual, opinionated and thought provoking. Compared to the authors I had read they were able to touch an emotion of anger and enlightenment. I wasn't in any extreme predicament but I wanted to make effect others the same way they had given me a platform to think and obsess.

The biggest difference between my drafts have been having a different angle or adding more information and swapping it with current information I had in my article. For example I thought it would be right to include the London riots as it was a huge event and success for CCTV and police. However my argument was balanced therefore I had to go and research some more and include an opposing case which was against CCTV. Keeping the balance each time took a lot of time and adjustment with each draft. Also the alteration of view points between drafts had an impact on my piece. At the start I was very pro CCTV because I didn't have ,many points against it but as I researched and kept writing I found a flair to balance it. I also used a wider range of vocabulary and punctuation after receiving feedback from my teacher ' basic technical control but not consistent' therefore I had to go back over my work and tweak/include lexis, grammar and punctuation.

I emailed my Article to a university student studying Journalism and a university student studying International relations. From the feedback from both I changed parts of my article, for example the counter argument against CCTV is much stronger to balance my argument out. The Journalism student told me to hook the reader in and that's what I tried to incorporate in my first paragraph. The International relations student told me to speak evenly about the governments abuse of power as it has its positives and negatives. The decision to include some more case studies and facts I feel was important as it will make the reader think about the realism of the article. Furthermore the teachers gave me advice to focus more on the technical elements of CCTV for example the cost and businesses who use it and why. This enabled me to to expand further on my article and improve it with more information.

Methodology

How you will select and collect data
How you will annotate your data
How you will analyse each – what frameworks will you use and what features will you be looking at.
How you will compare the texts 
How you will present your findings.

english language inv draft 2

Explore the different relationships amongst prison officers and prisoners through instrumental and influential power in the TV drama Prison Break

I expect to see Instrumental power used by characters that are figures of authority in the T.V programme Prison Break to create entertainment and a sense of prison hierarchy. I expect to see characters that are prison inmates to use Influential power in order to create entertainment and drama.

Imperatives

In source C we see gender playing a big part of power in discourse within the T.V show ‘don’t come any closer else I’ll shoot’ the character Nikka uses the imperative to insert her authority and power now she has the gun and can instruct Michael around. This creates the drama within the scene now one of the characters has an advantage it creates tension in the programme. The writers used language such as imperatives when Nikka has the gun therefore can assert her power in discourse and instruct the other characters what to do. This subverts gender stereotypes that expect males to be more dominant in conversation, this is what creates the entertainment in the scene. The verb ‘shoot’ within the declarative sentence suggests aggression within the scene which adds to the tone- creating entertainment and tension. The writers chose specifically to use the verb to show the characters influential power now she has the gun and to show the element of violence. This on the other hand subverts Robin Lakoff’s theory of women use super polite forms in discourse as she is using a direct command to boss other characters around. This proves my hypothesis as she is using her influential power which the writers have given her in order to assert authority. Furthermore the character Nikka gives an option ‘else I’ll shoot’ the noun phrase gives the other characters an option which also adds to the excitement and tension of the scene because the audience will have to eagerly anticipate what decision the characters will make.

 In source B we see instrumental power used; the character ‘Bellick’ who plays a prison officer in the T.V programme demands the prisoners to do what he says ‘open it’ the imperative used here the instrumental power he has within the T.V show and because he has the authority he cannot be challenged. This creates entertainment for the audience because the growth of hatred towards him continues as their presumed favourite character ‘Michael’ cannot do anything against the power he has. The writers make ‘Bellick’ use so many imperatives to show his position and to provoke derogatory thoughts against him due to his language being arrogant and ill-mannered. This supports Waering’s theory of influential and instrumental power, this is an example of the characters hierarchy set out early to create the entertainment. The effectiveness of the imperatives used by the characters are massive as the other characters abide by the rules when in contact with him. On the other hand this subverts Deborah Tannen’s theory that men negotiate status through discourse and search for power as the prisoner within the programme are passive because they have to comply with the rules. The writers of the programme have deliberately done this to show Bellick’s instrumental power and to create the persona of his character.

The character Sara uses an imperative ‘start an investigation’ the writers have chosen the character to use a command to highlight the different levels of power within the programme. The discourse is between characters Sara- the prisons nurse and Bellick- one of the prisons officers. This creates humour within the scene as the writers have subverted gender stereotypes because Sara is challenging the alpha male. She commands the prison officer to ‘start’ which shows the urgency of the situation and the idea that she is challenging his authority by giving him an order. The writers have chosen Sara to do this to give the the T.V. shows social power hierarchy a new perspective. Sara is asserting her instrumental power over the character Bellick. The writers have created a character whose arranance annoys the majority of the inmates and the audience therefore he doesn't like that he is being told what to do 'oh there's no need. We know what happened' this shows Bellick asserting his power in discourse. The personal pronoun 'we' suggests he is in charge of the other prison guards in the show and therefore demonstrates his big ego. The search for power between the two authoratative figures proves my hypothosis further as it shows both characters using imperatives for power over each other in discourse and this very competition creates the entertainment.

Modal verbs

In source C we see the use of modal verbs to regain power in discourse. Using modal verbs Michael gains control of the situation again. Michael uses his power to patronise Nikka 'no you won't' the personal pronoun makes it direct to Nikka and will make her think about what she is doing. Due to the writers characterisation of Michael this is effective because he is made out to be on a higher intellect level than any of the other characters in the show. This creates the entertainment because of the power of lexis used and the sentence mood. Also the auxiliary verb 'won't' used by the character Michael shows that he is in control which proves Fairclough's 'modal verb' theory to be true in this case in the show.

In source A the character Lincoln uses modal verbs to show his influential power over his little brother in the show ' It can't be done' the modal verb 'can't' suggests that Lincoln is more powerful and has more authority between the two as he is dictating what Michael does which is popular for an older brother. The characterisation of Lincoln in the show shows him to be strong and agrressive which ultimately adds to the entertainment when seeing the brother have an argument.This furthermore complies with Fairclough's theory theory of auxilliary verbs demonstrate power as they are the mood of the subject in this case it happens to be a declarative sentence. This shows the audience that in the show physical presence can have advantages which is an indication to the future and an insight into actual prison life. Furthermore, Lincoln shows the prison the audience that in the show it is important to have intelligence and that status is a powerful aspect when it comes to the programmes reflection of prison life 'those plans you can't show people. Guys like Abruzzi' he is giving his little brother advice with an order, we can tell its an order from the use of the modal verb ' can't' which shows Lincoln has some intelligence which takes the light off of Michael and creates the entertainment for the audience as the brothers are now competing for power over one another.Linking back to my hypothesis as we see the brothers searching for supremacy in the programme which is showing the audience a sense of prison heirarchy in the show which creates tension between characters.The writers created a violent character and others like Abruzzi to create the sense of prison life within the show and therefore Lincoln is using his influential power to protect Michael although Michael feels opposed which creates the drama within the scene.

Lexical choice

In source C the script writers have chose the words carefully to portray Sara the prison doctor in the show as an authoratative figure but at the same time polite 'thanks guy, I'll take it from here' the lexis 'I'll take it from here shows her instrumental power in which complies with Waering's theory. But also supports Robin Lackoff's theory that females are more polite in discourse. The lexis 'thanks' shows her appreciation and which can be related to her characters nature of being polite and as she is a doctor in the programme the audience would expect  that from a characters whose job is to help people.

In source B Michael uses interrogatives lexis to show power 'So?' the rhetorical question shows Michael’s total disregard to the problem at hand almost to say he is better than that he doesn't need to worry about the little things. It also suggests that people of lower intelligence should be working with the toilets as he is too good for that, this reflects his character as he the audience value him because he is the main character and expect him to be doing dramatic scenes and important scenes.  Michael’s response gives an impression as to say 'fix it then' this shows his social power among the prisoners because he is deemed more intelligent than the rest of them and they need his intelligence therefore respect him and listen. This creates the drama in the scene because for the first time we are introduced to the rude side of Michael in the programme in which complies theory of politeness. Linking back to the hypothesis this proves it further as we see Michael using his influential power to create the drama within this scene.

On the other hand 'Sucre' responds by calling Michael 'fish' this is a derogatory term in prison for when someone is new in this is used effectively in the programme to show elements of real prison hierarchy and make it realistic . Usually fishes won’t have much 'street smart' in prison and won't know the ropes. Sucre is challenging Michael's power because he is new and doesn't know much about prison. This complies with Brown and Levinson's theory of positive and negative face. Sucre is negative face as has the desire to not have his actions impeded. Sucre is using a saving face method by being insulting towards Michael therefore searching for social power amongst the prisoners even though he has more of a social reputation in the programme. The search for power in discourse relates back to my hypothesis as they are both using their ifluential power to create power and entertainment.

We can also tell this by Michael's response 'boss' this shows he knows he is in a higher position than him but there is a sense of sarcasm portrayed consequently it shows that Bellick may have authoritative power but not any power socially as prison guards are number one enemy to the prisoners. Also we see another social class involved when the Pope asks Bellick a question ' is there a problem here, deputy?' this suggests that the Pope is reminding Bellick of his social class within the prison. The word 'deputy' patronises him and makes the Pope look even more powerful in an authoritative sense. This also complies with Waering's theory of instrumental power as the Pope has over ruled the prison officer.

Declaratives

Declaratives are also used to insert power Michael uses declaratives effectively ‘It's a two man job’ this suggests that the other prisoners should listen to him. The prisoners know he is intelligent therefore he is using his power to influence what the other prisoners do. Asserting his intelligence is being used to insert his influential power amongst the other prisoners. We also see Abruzzi use declaratives to insert his power in a different way ‘Demolition runs in the family’ this is to try and scare the other prisoners to make him more powerful, it’s an intimidation strategy. If the other prisoners are afraid of him it means he can instruct other inmates around. The effect it has on the audience makes us think that he is violent which is stereotypical of prisoners which the script writers have done to create the element of entertainment due to the characterisation of Abruzzi the audience will expect to see violence which also emulates real life prison heirarchy, The fact that he states that ‘demolition ‘ runs in his family makes us as the audience feel like he is in charge because he has the ability to hurt people which is important in prison. George Keith and John Shuttleworth said that men compete in discourse and we see Abruzzi doing this here therefore this complies with their theory as he is competing for power. This relates back to my hypothesis as the competition amongst the characters using influential power is used again to create the entertainment.

Conclusion


To conclude I think that my hypothesis has been proved correct by the research I have conducted. We see multiple times in the programme the characters of authoritative figures and prison inmates search for power amongst the social prison hierarchy within the programme. The authoritative figures such as the characters 'Bellick' and 'Sara' and the 'pope' all show their instrumental power using linguistic devices such as imperatives and modal verbs what we would be expect to see in the programme to create that sense of entertainment and to show where each character stands. On the other hand we see that the characters 'Lincoln' 'Sucre' 'Michael' and 'Abruzzi' are al; searching for power over one another constantly with the use of imperatives. modal verbs, declaratives. This creates the entertainment and drama as we see arguments unveil and reflects a sense of reality as stereotypically we would expect prison inmates to fight for the alpha male position within the wing which also creates the drama within the programme. The limitations of my language investigation is that it was hard to find transcripts to analyse therefore had to do my own. Another limitation is that it was hard not to refer to the characters as if they were real. If I were to do this again I would chose different elements to investigate and narrow down the amount of episodes I used to transcript

CCTV essay

CCTV: Everything you do leaves a trail.
In London there are four cameras per 1,000 people, everywhere the public go and everything we do is being watched by closed circuit television. It’s a scary thought that we are being watched without realising but does it do more harm than good? This article will take you through the positives and negatives of being the most watched country in Europe. 

If your neighbour has CCTV installed but is using it for any other purpose than surveillance within the law for example if they are pointing it at your property or someone else’s property you can take further action- under the human rights act and if you have sufficient grounds of evidence you can take them to the court and press charges. There are several arguments for and against CCTV surveillance so frequent in Britain. In some parts of Britain for example the Shetland island council a rural area in Scotland and Corby borough council a congested area in East-Anglia have more CCTV cameras than the San Francisco police department, is this really necessary? The fact that some councils in Britain with low crime levels have more surveillance cameras than a police department in one of America’s main cities will be overwhelming for some, it goes to show that no matter where you are in Britain you will always be surveyed. Some might say are we really free? The upsetting element to some people who want privacy is that it is all completely legal referring to the data protection act 1998 and the freedom of information act 2000. Even though it is completely legal, there is a way of beating CCTV.  

It is a frightening thought that even your neighbour could be watching everything you do and have it on record. This completely takes away the comfort, privacy and freedom of your own home. Your own house is meant to be a safe haven but with cutting edge technology CCTV surveillance it can be exploited and you will not be able to do anything about it.

 Alternatively it helps prevent anti-social behaviour taking place on the streets also will help prevent it if they see a camera. In addition to this it acts as a crime repellent for the rest of the street. There are always positives and negatives of every argument for example millions of criminals are caught through the use of CCTV footage, surveillance also helps catch fugitives on the run and is a great crime deterrent for residential areas although it can be seen as a violation of privacy, uncomfortable for some of the public and makes the public feel like they have no freedom- everything the public do is being watched.

Positive aspects 

CCTV has revolutionised the way the police solve crime, making their job much easier. It allows authorities to see exactly what happened and when it happened. The police now have eyes everywhere and are able to bring criminals to justice using evidence from CCTV. From muggings to murders, the cameras will catch it all. The basics of how they work are very simple and easy to understand- the cameras survey the area they have been positioned to face all day every day however a selected few more modern cameras can be moved to the surveyor’s preference at any the click of a button. Therefore, if any crime is being committed or has been committed it can be referred to in court or to help identify the criminal. CCTV evidence is perfect for the police and plays a vast role in bringing criminals to justice in the court room as it is hard evidence of the criminal committing the crime. Police can use the surveillance cameras in several ways to their advantage. For example, the benefit of CCTV surveillance on the streets means the police can track a person all the way to the scene of the crime after it has happened (how the great Hatton Garden robbery criminals were found) even if they are covered up when the crime is committed CCTV enables police to track their moves from earlier on in the day.

Another benefit is the building the crime happened in may not have CCTV so there is no evidence but having CCTV outside will show hard evidence of trespassers entering and exiting at the precise moment the crime was committed. On the other hand if Business’ do have CCTV inside their building that footage can be passed onto the police to solve the crime which is very beneficial in solving crime. With the new introduction of body cameras police can record every incident they experience to also further evidence against the illegal. Another massive advantage police and the government have is using CCTV on motorways, this allows police to find stolen cars by monitoring the motorways, streets and parkways. It also helps to solve who was to blame if a crash occurs and it can be quicker to send out response units if they identify the crash happening live which saves lives. It also helps to spot who runs red lights. To summarise CCTV is an instrumental tool used in the UK in order to prevent and solve crime and without the surveillance and monitoring a large proportion of crime that was committed wouldn't be solved; the CCTV gives hard evidence of what happened.

London riots

In the summer of 2011 CCTV helped assist the police to make 2,006 arrests and 1,135 of them were charged according to the Met Police service. A survey conducted by ‘The Independent’ revealed that three quarters feel safer with CCTV being on streets after the London riots after its effectiveness in finding criminals and prosecuting them. Azadar Shah, managing director of surveillance firm Synaptic said "In the past, there's undoubtedly been public apprehension about the use of CCTV, but it appears people now recognise the positive role it can play within their community," In all, some 94% of those surveyed backed the police using CCTV footage to identify those involved in the looting and disorder which swept through English cities in August.

Thousands of looters took the streets in cities such as Manchester, Birmingham and the capital city- London. There were far too many looters and vandals for the Police to arrest. The Polices main priority was protecting buildings and themselves as the riot was based upon police brutality with a strong undercurrent off opportunists out for stolen goods and trouble. This ultimately meant that the Police couldn't make any arrests when the rioting was going on a selected few were arrested and taken to the station but the majority got away with the crimes they were committing on the days the events happened. However thanks to CCTV surveillance camera's being on the majority of streets in these big cities and in majority of the shops targeted, it allowed police across the country to review the evidence recorded and bring them to justice. The Police used images recorded to advertise the pictures in local newspapers and encourage the public to inform if they knew of their where about or who they are in order for an arrest to take place. This demonstrates the huge the advantage the police have on criminals and the advantage of CCTV being heavy in this country. Many said they feel safer with CCTV now they have seen the benefits of CCTV and what it can do. Despite the controversy around CCTV the London riots is a perfect example of what heavy surveillance can do for the country and the public. 

A colossal pre conception that many of the public have is that CCTV is used only for crime, which is very wrong. The police often rely on CCTV to find people on the run or people who are missing. The cameras on the streets are very useful within this field of work too: detectives will monitor the CCTV of streets 24/7 if they are searching for a fugitive. They specifically monitor the areas in where they predict the fugitive will go. For example, they will want to return back to their home therefore Police will covertly monitor the house; without being in sight it gives the police an advantage because they are not going to give their position away. The CCTV of public transport will also be used in a search for a fugitive as they will have to move around. A group of professional detectives will have a rough idea of the fugitives where-about from looking at their background, social media and internet history (all accessed at a click of a button) therefore monitoring the CCTV on any local trains or buses will be very beneficial in finding the fugitive.

The search for a person who has a warrant out for their arrest or an escaped prisoner will be easily rescued due to the heavy CCTV operations in Britain. This is important in keeping the public safe and perverts the police and detectives from running around and making a commotion. The work can be done watching cameras for the subject. On the other hand the CCTV operations can be used to find people who have gone missing which is important. With the same approach as finding criminals they will monitor cameras to find the missing person and return them home.  Police will contact the local council and both will monitor the area and be able to locate the person and bring them back home. CCTV helped Thames Valley Police to make more than 5,000 arrests and assisted in the search for 2,600 missing people which is an amazing figure and proves CCTV is effective and works.

CCTV can also be used by the public for security reasons. CCTV cameras can be purchased from local electronic stores for an average of around £50. Paying that small fee will save citizens a and potentially the whole street a lot of money. If a criminal sees houses that have CCTV installed they are less likely to try and rob the house or rob any of the neighbouring houses. The most frequent buyers of CCTV kits are businesses because of the security it gives. If anything happens then they can send the footage to police to find and get their stolen goods back as soon as possible. It is amazing the sense of security simple cameras give businesses or even houses. It gives out the effect to the public that they are safe which is very important in looking at the positives of CCTV and its effect on the public. Securing business parameters is very important to the businesses the cost of crime is currently at 12.6 billion as found by the British Chamber of Commerce. 

All footage can easily be reviewed and stored to help solve the crime. The whole point of CCTV is to protect against theft, trespass, vandalism or to protect valuable goods or high frequencies of lower value goods. Installing CCTV will do just that therefore it’s very beneficial when business or homes have CCTV and will very much save you money.  For businesses and the customers the CCTV adds an element of fear reduction and make the customers and workers feel safer as they know they are being watched and looked after. With a recognizable sign showing that CCTV is in operation or a big camera in everyone’s view will encourage customers of their safety.

The public and businesses both benefit when businesses buy CCTV or when people purchase CCTV it has a dual effect. Businesses that sell CCTV packages earn a lot of money. From private companies to cooperate companies you can buy surveillance anywhere. A high definition kit costs approximately  £650 and that includes 4 high definition cameras but there are cheaper options, you can buy a single CCTV camera for around £50 from local shops. So not only do the cameras prevent crime they also help create business opportunities and jobs for other people which is beneficial in every way. Anyone can buy them as long as you stay within the law when using and setting them up. Cameras are very common with businesses and the councils but there soon will be a rise from civilians using them to protect their homes. Not only do people buy them for personal use, schools also use them to monitor pupils or as a reference if the child has been misbehaving or broken the law. CCTV in schools also help to prevent crime/ help solve crime, when looking for items being stolen the CCTV will be able to detect the criminal. 


On the other hand CCTV in many of the public's eyes isn't as popular as you would expect. Many feel intimidated and feel like a sense of privacy and freedom has been lost due to the new technology developed in the last decade. Referring back to the previous points about house owners being well within the law, using surveillance, this can be violated. Some people break the law and use the cameras to purposely survey their neighbours or a specific person/persons. This is against the law and is a violation of their privacy to be watched without your consent and it not being permitted by the government. It is a scary thought that someone could be spying on you ( a normal citizen ) and your family monitoring, every move. The fact that someone could easily set up their cameras so they can see in your house, even in some cases to watch you shower, is very scary. Whilst you may think they're using it as a deterrent you could be very wrong and as a consequence your privacy. A perfect example of this was recent when two neighbours went to court to solve the issue and it wasn't solved and the feud is still going on. It all started when the neighbours pointed their CCTV cameras facing into their garden and the daughter stressed that she felt very uncomfortable and felt she couldn't bathe in the sun because she felt as if her privacy was being exploited. Thousands of complaints get submitted to the police concerning their neighbours CCTV invading privacy resulting disputes courts. Not only is it just residents of houses worried it is also worrying to know that almost every street in Britain has CCTV cameras watching our every move. In London there’s just under four cameras per 1,000 people which is an intimidating statistic. One man I interviewed said ' a simple 10 minute walk from my house to the local shops I will be caught on at least 6 cameras' the frightening thing is the public don't know where the footage is going or who is watching so do we really have privacy?

The government and councils can access or survey their surveillance cameras at any time or monitor whoever they want and it all be within the law. This takes away freedom for civilians. The House of Lords expressed their view that privacy is an "essential prerequisite to the exercise of individual freedom”. We can no longer say that we live private lives when every move is being watched by one out of the four million CCTV cameras in Britain. Such surveillance strikes fear into the public. Our every move can be traced and information can be gathered about our daily activities. If this information were to be misplaced, which central government seems to do frequently, then who knows what other breaches our freedoms will endure. Local councils are not using their powers of surveillance to stop the crimes which you or I would consider important. Instead, such instruments are being used as a profit making excuse. Local councils are using the cameras to catch people who do not clean up dog foul and fly tip. To discover whether rights are harmed a balancing exercise needs to take place. The minimal criminal protection which local governments are using the CCTV for is not enough to override our freedom of privacy. This freedom is being threatened for local government's financial benefit, clearly this is not a fair exchange CCTV is a threat to freedom as it can often provoke someone to commit a crime. For those people who are not keen on being watched, it can be unnerving and drive someone to take it out on the camera. Nobody likes the speed cameras, for example, which are basically another form of CCTV. These cameras in particular along with a few cameras outside smaller businesses are often damaged or completely destroyed. This constitutes a crime of malicious mischief.

There is also the threat that when there is a chance of being caught on CCTV it gives the criminal a bigger 'buzz' when they think they could commit an illegal act right under the authority’s nose and walk away from it. This all basically falls back on provocation. The criminal can either become more daring with the bigger 'rush' and more risk added to their deviant behaviour or, some people who, under all usual circumstances, are calm, law abiding citizens may be pushed to destroy the cameras to prevent some stranger watching them and thus restricting their freedom of privacy. This destruction is a crime that could be prevented if the cameras were not there.

Furthermore when we are being watched by CCTV cameras it’s not willingly consented by us (the public) therefore can be very uncomfortable. If we don't agree with being watched why should they be allowed? there is no doubt that it does help solving crime and has many advantages but the simple fact is that for some they don't want to be watched yet they are being and its completely legal. This can cause outrage and prevent people from leaving their homes. Even on ATM machines are fitted cameras which suggests you can’t make any movement without being watched or monitored. For the people that don't wish to be seen how are they supposed to live and go about their daily lives? You may argue that the only people that don't want to be seen are the ones with something to hide but I strongly disagree. Some people just want to live a private life and without knowing where the footage is going and without consent it seems rational that they would avoid heavy surveillance areas. Not to fear- for those worried about being watched here are some facts I have gathered; most uses of CCTV will be covered by the Data Protection Act. This gives you the right to see information held about you, including CCTV images of you, or images which give away information about you (such as your car number plate). The Data Protection Act sets rules which CCTV operators must follow when they gather, store and release CCTV images of individuals. The Information Commissioner can enforce these rules. If you are concerned that CCTV is being used for harassment, anti-social behaviour or other matters dealt with under the criminal law, then these are matters for the police. The CCTV operator must let people know they are using CCTV. Signs are the most usual way of doing this. The signs must be clearly visible and readable, and should include the details of the organisation operating the system if not obvious. CCTV should only be used in exceptional circumstances in areas where you normally expect privacy - such as in changing rooms or toilets, and should only be used to deal with very serious concerns. The operator should make extra effort to ensure that you are aware that cameras are in use. Conversations between members of the public should not be recorded on CCTV. (There are some specific exceptions to this, such as a panic button in a taxi cab or the charging area of a police custody suite). You have the right to see CCTV images of you and to ask for a copy of them. The organisation must provide them within 40 calendar days of your request, and you may be asked to pay a fee of up to £10 (this is the maximum charge, set by Parliament). This is called a Subject Access Request. You will need to provide details to help the operator to establish your identity as the person in the pictures, and to help them find the images on their system. CCTV can be very uncomfortable for some and if it isn't made known they are being watched they might act differently to when they are on record therefore it is imperative for organisations to inform the public of the operation taking place. A case that brought my attention in 2010 was a local council in Birmingham the second capital city of England. A set of CCTV cameras were placed around an area which was prominently Muslim area. When the cameras first appeared - there had been no public consultation before - the police said they were for fighting normal crime, like anti-social behaviour and car crime. But it turned out more than £3m from a special government anti-terror fund had paid for them. The system will not be dismantled and despite earlier assurances could yet be used for counter-terrorism purposes. In my eyes I think this is completely wrong that they didn't notify the public and used CCTV based on stereotype of a race which makes me lose faith of the real reason we are heavily watched day to day.

To conclude, in my opinion from weighing up both the advantaged and disadvantages of CCTV in Britain (the most watched city in Europe) I have finally come up with a conclusion. There is no debate or argument against that it helps fight crime and solve it. CCTV is huge in finding criminals and stopping them as it also acts as a deterrent. CCTV has been around for a while now but not to this measure- cameras are everywhere. While on the other hand CCTV has been proven to invade people’s privacy and make them feel uncomfortable. The fear of being watched is frightening but my overall opinion is that I think CCTV is a good thing but should only be used where necessary. There should be less cameras and more police patrolling, this will create jobs and make the public feel a lot safer knowing that they are not far from police will give them a sense of comfort. Cameras should only be set up in shops and places where crime can be committed to a high degree. Crime can be committed anywhere and everywhere but if we had police patrolling areas constantly, doing the same job as CCTV but just a friendly face to look at then it would be more beneficial for people on both sides of the argument. We are all afraid of the unknown and with the public not knowing or being comfortable with who is watching does feel like an invasion of privacy and makes me wander are we really ? We may not be locked up in a prison cell but we are no less being watched. Everybody likes freedom as it allows us to act ourselves but as soon as we bring CCTV into situations people start to behave like they are robots in fear of looking suspicious. Most people walk into a shop or down the street and do not think once about cameras watching them when I feel as if people should be more aware of what others can access about their life. That is why I firmly believe that we should only have CCTV where absolutely necessary and nowhere else. If the public feel like an area or a street needs to be monitored than they should inform the police and have a debate within the community and with the people the cameras would effect if they feel it is required then it is a win for both parties. I was inspired to weigh up both sides of the argument after watching the Channel 4 series ' The hunted' in which follows public volunteers who offer to go on the run. They were to evade capture for 30 days to succeed but where being tracked and watched by some of the top detectives in the world and when watching, it opened my eyes and made me realise that the government have massive control of whatever they want to see and for that reason I wanted to inform other just like me that feel CCTV is very helpful at bringing criminals to justice it just needs to be in moderation.

ucas personal statement

Personal statement

It is all about the first paragraph in journalism, if you can hook the audience to carry on reading. I have always had a passion for writing ever since a young age. The excitement and enjoyment I get from writing is like no other and it could be fair to say I am addicted. From a young age I enjoyed writing stories in my own time. I used to write about my dreams and turn them into fascinating stories. Once I got older I realised my real passion is for journalism. Writing about the news something that always needs to be told. The idea of going out and getting information and turning into my own words to inform and educate others is phenomenal. I wish to be the best journalist in the world not just the U.K.  

My first contact with journalism was when I was 15 on work experience. We were handed booklets to fill out about what we had learned and what we had experienced and I remember completing my work experience sitting down and writing about my journey and thought strongly to myself this is what I dream to do when I am older, to be a journalist.  

-          New start – adapting – new school – better outlook – more rounded – social skills

“Quote” -  

creative writing CCTV

CCTV: Everything you do leaves a trail.

In London there’s just under four cameras per 1,000 people, everywhere we go and everything we do is being watched by closed circuit television (CCTV) it’s a scary thought but does it do more harm than good? This article will take you through the positives and negatives of being the most watched country in Europe. There are several arguments for and several against. In some parts of Britain for example the Shetland island council and Corby borough council have more CCTV cameras than the San Francisco police department, is this really necessary? The fact that some councils in Britain have more surveillance cameras than a police department in one of America’s biggest cities will be overwhelming for some people but its fact. Some might say are we really free? The upsetting element to some people who want privacy is that it is all completely legal referring to the data protection act 1998 and the freedom of information act 2000. Even though it is completely legal, there is a way of beating CCTV. If your neighbour has CCTV installed but is using it for any other purpose than what it was designed for or if they are pointing it at yours or someone else’s property you can take further action- under the human rights act and if you have sufficient grounds of evidence you can take them to the court and press charges. It is a frightening thought that even your neighbour could be watching everything you do and have it on record. This completely takes away the comfort, privacy and freedom of your own home. Your own house is meant to be a safe haven but with cutting edge technology CCTV surveillance it can be exploited and you will not be able to do anything about it. On the other hand it helps prevent anti-social behaviour taking place on the streets also will help prevent it if they see a camera. In addition to this it acts as a crime repellent for the rest of the street. There is always good and bad factors in everything but will good prevail against evil within this topic?

Good

CCTV has revolutionised the way the police solve crime and have made their job much easier. It allows authorities to see exactly what happened and when it happened. The police now have eyes everywhere and are able to bring criminals to justice using evidence from CCTV; from muggings to murders the cameras will catch it all. The basics of how they work are very simple and easy to understand- the cameras survey the area in which they are facing all day every day. Therefore if any crime is being committed or has been committed it can be referred to in court or to help identify the criminal. CCTV evidence is perfect for the police and plays a huge role in bringing criminals to justice in the court room as it is hard evidence of the criminal committing the crime. Police can use the surveillance cameras in several ways to their advantage for example. The benefit of CCTV surveillance on the streets means the police can track a person all the way to the scene of the crime after it has happened even if they are covered up when the crime is committed but police will follow them all day to make sure they know who it was or even to find out who it was. Another benefit is the building the crime happened in may not have CCTV so there is no evidence but having CCTV outside will show hard evidence of them entering and exiting at the precise moment the crime was committed. On the other hand if Business’ do have CCTV inside their building that footage can be passed onto the police to solve the crime which is very beneficial in solving crime. With the new introduction of body cameras police can record every incident they experience to also further evidence against the illicit. Another huge advantage police and the government have is using CCTV on motorways, this allows police to find stolen cars by monitoring the motorways, streets and parkways. It also helps to solve who was to blame if a crash occurs or can be quicker to send out response units if they identify the crash happening live which saves lives. It also helps to spot who runs red lights. To summarise CCTV is a massive tool used in the UK in order to prevent and solve crime and without the surveillance and monitoring a lot of crime that was committed wouldn’t be solved. CCTV gives hard evidence of what happened.

A huge pre conception that many of the public have is that CCTV is that it used for only crime which is very wrong. The police often rely on CCTV to find people on the run or people who that are missing. Referring back to the previous paragraph the cameras on the streets are very useful within this field of work too, detectives will monitor the CCTV of streets 24/7 if they are searching for a fugitive. They specifically monitor the areas in which they predict the fugitive will go to. For example they will want to go home therefore be monitoring the house without being there gives them advantage because they are not going to give their position away. The CCTV of public transport will also be used in a search for a fugitive as they will have to move around. The group of professional detectives will have a rough idea of the fugitives where about therefore monitoring the CCTV on any local trains or busses will be very beneficial in finding the fugitive. The search for a person who was a warrant out for their arrest or an escaped prisoner will be easily found due to the heavy CCTV operations in Britain. This is important in keeping the public safe and saves the police and detectives running and around and making a scene. The work can be done watching cameras for the subject. On the other hand the CCTV operations can be used to find people who have gone missing which is important. With the same approach as finding criminals they will monitor cameras to find the missing and return them home.  Police will contact the local council and both will monitor the area and be able to locate the person and bring them back home. CCTV helped Thames Valley Police to make more than 5,000 arrests and assisted in the search for 2,600 missing people which is an amazing figure and proves CCTV is effective and works.

CCTV can also be used by the public for security reasons. CCTV cameras can be purchased from local electronic stores on average around £50. Paying that small fee will save you a lot of money and potentially your whole street. If a criminal sees you have CCTV installed they are less likely to try and rob or rob any of your neighbours. CCTV purchase is grossing because of its effectiveness. The most frequent buyers of CCTV kits are businesses because of the security it gives. If anything happens then they can send the footage to police to find and get their stolen goods back as soon as possible. It is amazing the sense of security simple cameras give businesses or even houses. It gives out the effect to the public that they are safe which is very important in looking at the positives of CCTV and its effect on the public. Securing business parameters is very important to the businesses the cost of crime is currently at 12.6 billion as found by the British Chamber of Commerce. All footage can easily be reviewed and stored to help solve the crime. The whole point of CCTV is to protect against theft, trespass, vandalism or to protect valuable goods or high frequencies of lower value goods. By installing CCTV will do just that therefore it’s very beneficial when business or homes have CCTV and will very much save yourself money.  For businesses and the customers the CCTV adds an element of fear reduction and make the customers and workers feel safer as they know they are being watched and looked after. With a big sign showing that CCTV is operation or a big camera in everyone’s view will encourage customers of their safety. 

creative writing CCTV

CCTV: Everything you do leaves a trail.

In London there’s just under four cameras per 1,000 people, everywhere we go and everything we do is being watched by closed circuit television (CCTV) it’s a scary thought but does it do more harm than good? This article will take you through the positives and negatives of being the most watched country in Europe. There are several arguments for and several against. In some parts of Britain for example the Shetland island council and Corby borough council have more CCTV cameras than the San Francisco police department, is this really necessary? The fact that some councils in Britain have more surveillance cameras than a police department in one of America’s biggest cities will be overwhelming for some people but its fact. Some might say are we really free? The upsetting element to some people who want privacy is that it is all completely legal referring to the data protection act 1998 and the freedom of information act 2000. Even though it is completely legal, there is a way of beating CCTV. If your neighbour has CCTV installed but is using it for any other purpose than what it was designed for or if they are pointing it at yours or someone else’s property you can take further action- under the human rights act and if you have sufficient grounds of evidence