Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Walking to the bus today I spotted new yellow signs on every lamp post stating that concealed CCTV cameras were operating in my area - they may have been there for a while but I was seeing them for the first time.


As they are concealed I couldn't find a camera - but it being a simple road of normal house & flats there's nowhere to conceal anything. So the camera is either in someone's house / flat or in a council vehicle posing a a normal parked car.


I am not in favour of burglary, dog fouling, graffitti etc that the sign claims will be deterred by the CCTV but I am against the surveillance society and do not wish to be filmed as I make my sleepy way to the No. 63 bus stop or wobble off on my bike.


Has anyone else seen such signs in their road?


I intend to call the number displayed tomorrow to find out more.

Link to comment
https://www.eastdulwichforum.co.uk/topic/4140-cctv-in-marmora-road/
Share on other sites

MM. You and I agree on little (or at least the methods to obtain it) but on this I am 100% behind you.


In my opinion CCTV is an abhorrent waste of public money, an intrusion into my private life and collosally inefficient at doing good.


What it does achieve, in those too cosseted to notice, is a reduction in "fear of crime". When all it really does is displace crime to other locations. And that's presuming these cameras are decent enough to even record anything watchable enough to be of use as evidence in a court of law. On high streets I unhappily tolerate their presence, but in residential environs I am certainly on your side, and would feel equally horrified if they were on my road.


Please let me know how you get on.


Oh, and if you fancy a spot of guerilla action in the name of liberty well, all I can say is a know a good balaclava and wire cutter stockist.

This is outrageous.

Please don't take this the wrong way, but I have been down your street. It's a nice street. Big expensive houses. Why does Southwark think you need cameras? To get your votes? I am on the Police Ward Panel. Burglaries are down. Street crime is down. Southwark's budgets are down (hence closing the Spike?), and if anyone wants CCTV it is some of the residents of my small estate where even there - as part of the same ward - we have little crime and not any car theft I am aware of, and we have been asking for CCTV around our garage areas for years. I shall try and make enquiries.



Come on Steve use your imagination


the definition of "anything" has changed and will change over decades and governments.


At present the balance remains with "the people" but with sufficient power "the state" can take control and start to dictate. This government already stands accused of being too busy-bodyish and all political parties seem far too supine when faced with demands to do something, anything. Have a look at the controls introduced at airports since the escalation of terrorism. I'm not doing anything wrong but I'm certainly affected. Do I think measures such as 100ml containers have the SLIGHTEST impact on my actual safety? None whatsoever - but I am forced to comply anyway


Extrapolate that much power via CCTV and what do we end up with?

SteveT Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> If you are not 'up to anything' what does it

> matter, they wont affect you, will they?


Presumably you think it would also be 'okay' for the authorities to install cameras in every sitting room occupied by families with children, just to make sure the parents are not beating up their kids? After all, if they are not up to anything, they have nothing to fear, huh?


(I'm not a parent.)

I think you're all overreacting and comparing CCTV to the Holocaust is bordering on offensive.


I'm with Steve on this, just ignore it and go about your business - if it's not criminal then you shouldn't be affected. Besides, it's more fun to break rules than get upset about it.

I don't agree, SteveT and PGC. I don't agree at all, and think that the argument you're making is actually quite a dangerous one. This article sets out much better than I could ever do why this is so.


http://www.wired.com/politics/security/commentary/securitymatters/2006/05/70886

I just don't think CCTV in the street is a big deal. Two days ago my neighbour had extremely offensive graffiti sprayed on his van; two weeks ago he had three tyres of his car slashed. I think they were random acts, not connected, and since he is an extremely affable bloke assume it is bad luck and not a concerted attack on him.


CCTV would have gone a long way to preventing this. I'm more concerned by things like wiping out hundreds of years of our constitution by felling the House of Lords with nary a peep from anyone.

i,m afraid i fall into the if you,re not doing anything wrong...... category. while i can understand others concerns to be brutally honest what intrusion does a camera have on ones life, unless one is a serial nose picker all they are going to pick up (no pun intended) is persons walking and up and down the street going about their daily business. they don't make me feel any safer and as we already know they don,t necessarily stop crime. however they do fill a function in that they will make others feel safe, prevent some crimes and for those they don,t there is a chance the perpetrators will be recognised when the tapes are reviewed and hopefully brought to justice. peoples views on this subject are damned if you do, damned if you dont, however they,re here and they,re here to stay and there isnt a thing we can do about it, vote labour out, tories in the policy will remain the same, so get used to it.

You're aware of the phrase Designing Out Crime?

Well this is "designing in crime".

Sorry, but this is NOT a good thing.

And I stand by my earlier statement that where it COULD be useful, Southwark are choosing not to install it there despite years of requests by locals, because the housing is cheaper here than it is on Marmora Road.

Marmora Man - are you going to call the Council and find out why it has been installed? As a rate payer I am sure you are entitled to find out! Do let us know.

Blimey the Staasi would have been delighted if East Germany had more citizens like Steve, PGC and jimbob


Here is what camera's will achieve: Should you be the victim or perpetrator of a crime in the future, you will need to have thought ahead and at least look good for when ITV 57 shows the CCTV Crimes - LIVE!!!.


Have a look at some of the most crime-affected areas in the country. See all the cameras there? Gazillions of them. So who is it helping? Do people really feel safer because of them? And is that a good enough reason anyway - should my life be affected by someone elses timidity?


Any government can wash their hands of social ills if they say "well, we have invested x million in CCTV upgrades" etc - and never once address the reasons behind the crime in the first place.

Blimey Sean, now who's spoiling for a fight? I don't think timid is an epithet that could be applied to me - CCTV really doesn't impinge on my life one way or another.


I think PeckhamRose's question is valid - it would be interesting to see why a salubrious street has 'protection' - do we know where our councillors live?. I rather think the whole thing may be a wind-up or more in the vein of erecting speed cameras with no film in them.

ooops - I didn't mean to call you timid PGC - you are many things but not that!


I was referring to the statement made earlier by jimbob

"they do fill a function in that they will make others feel safe"


That's not a function - that's just appeasing people who believe everything they read


But I'm not spoiling for a fight - just aghast that people are so acquiescent. I can't think of anything positive about cameras at all - and plenty of negatives. Expensive, intrusive (and just because they don't impact on general citizens lives now doesn't mean they won't - who knows what action would have been taken if that mystery smoker INSIDE the Clockhouse had been caught on camera ;-) )

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Latest Discussions

    • The is very low water pressure in the middle of Friern Road this morning.
    • I think mostly those are related to the same "issues". In my experience, it's difficult using the pin when reporting problems, especially if you're on a mobile... There's two obvious leaks in that stretch and has been for sometime one of them apparently being sewer flooding 😱  
    • BBC Homepage Skip to content Accessibility Help EFor you Notifications More menu Search BBC                     BBC News Menu   UK England N. Ireland Scotland Alba Wales Cymru Isle of Man Guernsey Jersey Local News Vets under corporate pressure to increase revenue, BBC told   Image source,Getty Images ByRichard Bilton, BBC Panorama and Ben Milne, BBC News Published 2 hours ago Vets have told BBC Panorama they feel under increasing pressure to make money for the big companies that employ them - and worry about the costly financial impact on pet owners. Prices charged by UK vets rose by 63% between 2016 and 2023, external, and the government's competition regulator has questioned whether the pet-care market - as it stands - is giving customers value for money. One anonymous vet, who works for the UK's largest vet care provider, IVC Evidensia, said that the company has introduced a new monitoring system that could encourage vets to offer pet owners costly tests and treatment options. A spokesperson for IVC told Panorama: "The group's vets and vet nurses never prioritise revenue or transaction value over and above the welfare of the animal in their care." More than half of all UK households are thought to own a pet, external. Over the past few months, hundreds of pet owners have contacted BBC Your Voice with concerns about vet bills. One person said they had paid £5,600 for 18 hours of vet-care for their pet: "I would have paid anything to save him but felt afterwards we had been taken advantage of." Another described how their dog had undergone numerous blood tests and scans: "At the end of the treatment we were none the wiser about her illness and we were presented with a bill of £13,000."   Image caption, UK pet owners spent £6.3bn on vet and other pet-care services in 2024, according to the CMA Mounting concerns over whether pet owners are receiving a fair deal prompted a formal investigation by government watchdog, the Competition and Markets Authority (CMA). In a provisional report, external at the end of last year, it identified several issues: Whether vet companies are being transparent about the ownership of individual practices and whether pet owners have enough information about pricing The concentration of vet practices and clinics in the hands of six companies - these now control 60% of the UK's pet-care market Whether this concentration has led to less market competition and allowed some vet care companies to make excess profits 'Hitting targets' A vet, who leads one of IVC's surgeries (and who does not want to be identified because they fear they could lose their job), has shared a new internal document with Panorama. The document uses a colour code to compare the company's UK-wide tests and treatment options and states that it is intended to help staff improve clinical care. It lists key performance indicators in categories that include average sales per patient, X-rays, ultrasound and lab tests. The vet is worried about the new policy: "We will have meetings every month, where one of the area teams will ask you how many blood tests, X-rays and ultrasounds you're doing." If a category is marked in green on the chart, the clinic would be judged to be among the company's top 25% of achievers in the UK. A red mark, on the other hand, would mean the clinic was in the bottom 25%. If this happens, the vet says, it might be asked to come up with a plan of action. The vet says this would create pressure to "upsell" services. Panorama: Why are vet bills so high? Are people being priced out of pet ownership by soaring bills? Watch on BBC iPlayer now or BBC One at 20:00 on Monday 12 January (22:40 in Northern Ireland) Watch on iPlayer For instance, the vet says, under the new model, IVC would prefer any animal with suspected osteoarthritis to potentially be X-rayed. With sedation, that could add £700 to a bill. While X-rays are sometimes necessary, the vet says, the signs of osteoarthritis - the thickening of joints, for instance - could be obvious to an experienced vet, who might prefer to prescribe a less expensive anti-inflammatory treatment. "Vets shouldn't have pressure to do an X-ray because it would play into whether they are getting green on the care framework for their clinic." IVC has told Panorama it is extremely proud of the work its clinical teams do and the data it collects is to "identify and close gaps in care for our patients". It says its vets have "clinical independence", and that prioritising revenue over care would be against the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons' (RCVS) code and IVC policy. Vets say they are under pressure to bring in more money per pet   Published 15 April 2025 Vets should be made to publish prices, watchdog says   Published 15 October 2025 The vet says a drive to increase revenue is undermining his profession. Panorama spoke to more than 30 vets in total who are currently working, or have worked, for some of the large veterinary groups. One recalls being told that not enough blood tests were being taken: "We were pushed to do more. I hated opening emails." Another says that when their small practice was sold to a large company, "it was crazy... It was all about hitting targets". Not all the big companies set targets or monitor staff in this way. The high cost of treatment UK pet owners spent £6.3bn on vet and other pet-care services in 2024 - equal to just over £365 per pet-owning household, according to the CMA. However, most pet owners in the UK do not have insurance, and bills can leave less-well-off families feeling helpless when treatment is needed. Many vets used not to display prices and pet owners often had no clear idea of what treatment would cost, but in the past two years that has improved, according to the CMA. Rob Jones has told Panorama that when his family dog, Betty, fell ill during the autumn of 2024 they took her to an emergency treatment centre, Vets Now, and she underwent an operation that cost almost £5,000. Twelve days later, Betty was still unwell, and Rob says he was advised that she could have a serious infection. He was told a diagnosis - and another operation - would cost between £5,000-£8,000.   Image caption, Betty's owners were told an operation on her would cost £12,000 However, on the morning of the operation, Rob was told this price had risen to £12,000. When he complained, he was quoted a new figure - £10,000. "That was the absolute point where I lost faith in them," he says. "It was like, I don't believe that you've got our interests or Betty's interests at heart." The family decided to put Betty to sleep. Rob did not know at the time that both his local vet, and the emergency centre, branded Vets Now, where Betty was treated, were both owned by the same company - IVC. He was happy with the treatment but complained about the sudden price increase and later received an apology from Vets Now. It offered him £3,755.59 as a "goodwill gesture".   Image caption, Rob Jones says he lost faith in the vets treating his pet dog Betty Vets Now told us its staff care passionately for the animals they treat: "In complex cases, prices can vary depending on what the vet discovers during a consultation, during the treatment, and depending on how the patient responds. "We have reviewed our processes and implemented a number of changes to ensure that conversations about pricing are as clear as possible." Value for money? Independent vet practices have been a popular acquisition for corporate investors in recent years, according to Dr David Reader from the University of Glasgow. He has made a detailed study of the industry. Pet care has been seen as attractive, he says, because of the opportunities "to find efficiencies, to consolidate, set up regional hubs, but also to maximise profits". Six large veterinary groups (sometimes referred to as LVGs) now control 60% of the UK pet care market - up from 10% a decade ago, according to the CMA, external. They are: Linnaeus, which owns 180 practices Medivet, which has 363 Vet Partners with 375 practices CVS Group, which has 387 practices Pets at Home, which has 445 practices under the name Vets for Pets IVC Evidensia, which has 900 practices When the CMA announced its provisional findings last autumn, it said there was not enough competition or informed choice in the market. It estimated the combined cost of this to UK pet owners amounted to £900m between 2020-2024. Corporate vets dispute the £900m figure. They say their prices are competitive and made freely available, and reflect their huge investment in the industry, not to mention rising costs, particularly of drugs. The corporate vets also say customers value their services highly and that they comply with the RCVS guidelines.   Image caption, A CMA survey suggests pet owners are happy with the service they receive from vets A CMA survey suggests pet owners are happy with their vets - both corporate and independent - when it comes to quality of service. But, with the exception of Pets at Home, customer satisfaction on cost is much lower for the big companies. "I think that large veterinary corporations, particularly where they're owned by private equity companies, are more concerned about profits than professionals who own veterinary businesses," says Suzy Hudson-Cooke from the British Veterinary Union, which is part of Unite. Proposals for change The CMA's final report on the vet industry is expected by the spring but no date has been set for publication. In its provisional report, it proposed improved transparency on pricing and vet ownership. Companies would have to reveal if vet practices were part of a chain, and whether they had business connections with hospitals, out-of-hours surgeries, online pharmacies and even crematoria. IVC, CVS and Vet Partners all have connected businesses and would have to be more transparent about their services in the future. Pets at Home does not buy practices - it works in partnership with individual vets, as does Medivet. These companies have consistently made clear in their branding who owns their practices. The big companies say they support moves to make the industry more transparent so long as they don't put too high a burden on vets. David Reader says the CMA proposals could have gone further. "There's good reason to think that once this investigation is concluded, some of the larger veterinary groups will continue with their acquisition strategies." The CMA says its proposals would "improve competition by helping pet owners choose the right vet, the right treatment, and the right way to buy medicine - without confusion or unnecessary cost". For Rob Jones, however, it is probably too late. "I honestly wouldn't get another pet," he says. "I think it's so expensive now and the risk financially is so great.             Food Terms of Use About the BBC Privacy Policy Cookies Accessibility Help Parental Guidance Contact the BBC Make an editorial complaint BBC emails for you Copyright © 2026 BBC. The BBC is not responsible for the content of external sites. Read about our approach to external linking.
    • What does the area with the blue dotted lines and the crossed out water drop mean? No water in this area? So many leaks in the area.
Home
Events
Sign In

Sign In



Or sign in with one of these services

Search
×
    Search In
×
×
  • Create New...