Which is why we shouldn’t fear these trials Jane. The software has glitches that so far haven’t been solved which could lead to the use of the cameras being ditched.
Well, it’s not all doom, gloom, and over-heavy use of surveillance in the western world 
Edit: Oops - I see Jane already mentioned this, all the same I’ll leave the post here for the link link.
They are still using FRC at airports and ports !
One older man that covered his face in the Click prgramme was fined £90.00.
That is because they are operated Federally.
With respect anyone who deliberately hides their face in contravention of a police instruction or law is foolish IMO, the irony was he willingly stood in front of a BBC camera so his image has now gone global.
1 Like
He wasn’t fined for covering his face at all, he was given a fixed penalty notice for being abusive,threatening and swearing at the police when they stopped him to speak to him
If he hadn’t been forced to remove the cover on his face, there would have been no problem.
If it is test it should be voluntary.
Was he forced to remove the cover from his face? Or was he asked to ? and then kicked off. The press reports I can find don’t mention force but I haven’t watched the programme. If he was forced to for no reason then even I will say it was wrong The press reports are all third party and hardly unbiased but as I say I haven’t seen the programme
Also you haven’t answered my question about the police apparently taking people to court to earn money and neglecting none profit making crimes
2 Likes
I watched the prog and the guy was clearly being abusive, the officers were just doing their job as instructed but as usual get all the stick.
The police as a body would far rather be catching real criminals and keeping the country safe than issuing fixed penalty notices to idiots like this gentleman.
2 Likes
I’ve said it before and I will say it again. If ever these people or their loved ones were in danger the one thing they would want to see is a copper coming round the corner
3 Likes
Not would, should.
Because the police should just take abuse, in front of the public who maybe offended
1 Like
I’m not sure you appreciate how much c**p UK police officers face on a daily basis Jane, this is from my local paper at home -
2 Likes
Our village bobby in Minchinhampton was assaulted twice by thugs and went on to protection at Highgrove.
I was very pleased to see him when I was in a serious road accident.
This does not negate the police intruding more and more on people’s civil liberties.
Jane, if people didn’t commit crime they’d be no need of FRC, CCTV etc.
3 Likes
Nellie, i dont seem to be able to understand your posting
“Because the police should just take abuse, in front of the public who maybe offended”
Do you mean The police should just accept the abuse handed out in their direction, just so that no onlookers are offended,
Please clarify.
Mass surveillance is not the answer though.
No I meant that Jane seemed to be implying the police should just take abuse ,but there could have been members of the public who overheard this and would find it offensive ,and the police should respond to that
There are issues in the UK as to the police being ‘offended ‘ by bad language as the nature of their job makes them more likely to hear it but obviously if the public are nearby they can be offended.
They aren’t going to be use it for mass surveillance though