The loyal and ingenious BBC have come up with a new scheme.
Pretending as hard as they can to be ‘concerned’ about CCTV cameras, they asked shortly before the Radio 4 1800 news for people ’sharing’ this ‘concern’ to write in (naturally), giving a description of their route to or from work, school, etc., and the details of the CCTV cameras which they saw on this route.
Of course nothing will actually be done to change anything.
Except by the local councils, who will in appropriate cases get a list of all their cameras which are so obvious to their victims that they ought to be changed for the new, tiny, fully covert, infra-red ones.
And by the police, who will have a list of names and addresses of ‘people who don’t like CCTV’ for their computer.
Neat.
Those who communicate with, buy from or otherwise support the BBC (e.g. by watching taxed television) have only themselves to blame for the consequences.
All of this media and internet activity however does seem to supply a resource for some kind of new approach to “forecasting:”
http://radioamerikanow.com/?p=126
Cum grano Zyklon-B, it is interesting!
‘Comments are closed.’
Says it all…
You are not forced to provide any personally identifying details to the BBC, when sending them some of your CCTV audit / sousveillance experiences.
The BBC is too large to be entirely a monolithic NuLabour propaganda machine. The Radio 4 iPM team , especially Chris Vallance, seem to be very sensible and experienced investigative journalists. They have dine some innovative listener feedback /internet mapping projects in the past.
They have also held Labour Ministers to account e.g. over the mobile phones in prisons scandal.
No, you are not forced, except by the habit that makes one put one’s address at the top of letters, and sign ‘em. Were one to omit these provisions one’s security would be enhanced, but I bet most people wouldn’t think of that. And the few that did would, I suppose, simply be filed in the wastepaper basket.
I have to say that all I ever listen to on Radio 4 is the weather; as soon as the news starts I have to switch it off, for the sake of my blood pressure. So you may well be right.
My objection to the BBC is mostly a philosophical one; that there is no justification whatsover for the existence of a state-funded and therefore state-controlled broadcasting service, which (with a view to its own survival) cannot help but be state-sympathetic, if not worse.
Though there are of course occasional exceptions it is often so much worse that nowadays I find myself swearing at Radio 3.
I don’t really think that ‘reform’ of the BBC and its outrageous funding mechanism is really possible, which is why I favour its abolition.