Are CCTV cameras in school toilets and changing rooms acceptable?

[Robbie Loving]

Two words.... Ian Huntley....Wasn't he a caretaker in a school?

 

No system is infallible.

[DerbyTup]

Pete mate, give in. You're fighting a lost cause.

 

You came at this topic from an angle of inferring that privacy was at stake - then when it's pointed out to you that this wasn't the case you've adopted the position of 'well, it could be if the camera's were adjusted to point in a different direction'.

 

It isn't and they aren't.

 

I agree with you - they could be. But that's a different argument altogether.

 

I have 2 kids in school - the school has CCTV everywhere - quite happy with that - and I trust that it's not pointing in the wrong direction!

[Guest sibon]

With regard to toilets, the problem is being designed out of most new buildings by taking a more open plan approach. I'm not sure what sort of madness inspired the idea of building rooms around rooms in the first place.

 

If putting CCTV in acceptable areas around sites which generate bullying (toilets and changing rooms do this), then I'm all in favour.

 

Joan is correct though, up there ^^^ somewhere. It is a shame that we have to do this.

[PeteMorris]

Not necessarily. There are plenty of camera's out there which are vandal proof*, which I would imagine would also include some kind of protection from being adjusted after it's been installed.

 

Also, you are correct in that even then it may have to be adjusted again - but I would send you back to my original point that there are cameras which can accomodate such.

 

 

 

I see what you're getting at here, but again not necessarily. I've seen plenty of cameras mounted on walls which are out of reach.

 

 

 

I don't know you, so I can't really comment on your level of weirdness. You are perfectly entitled to have a differing view to me, but it would be nice if you could argue sensibly, presenting facts to support your position, rather than just saying the opposite.

 

*Like this one: Amazon

 

Ok Ok, I accept that there are probably cameras which are probably designed to be non-moveable once the field of vision has been set. But that still wouldn't stop some little irk from whacking it with a bag full of books or covering it with a jumper, or simply dragging his victim (assuming the case of bullying) into one of the unmonitored cubicles and giving his victim what for.

 

These kids now days are very savvy, and bullies usually work in packs, so in my view it's easy for them to circumvent the whole point of the camera being there anway. All that's needed is a record of who goes in there and who comes out. A camera on it's own inside a toilet or changing room is not going to stop bullying, or vandalism for that matter.

 

With all due respect, it was you who came on here arguing the opposite point to me! It works both ways my friend

[PeteMorris]

Pete mate, give in. You're fighting a lost cause.

 

You came at this topic from an angle of inferring that privacy was at stake - then when it's pointed out to you that this wasn't the case you've adopted the position of 'well, it could be if the camera's were adjusted to point in a different direction'.

 

It isn't and they aren't.

 

I agree with you - they could be. But that's a different argument altogether.

 

I have 2 kids in school - the school has CCTV everywhere - quite happy with that - and I trust that it's not pointing in the wrong direction!

 

Hahahha...yeah you're probably right Derby.....I'm outnumbered! I feel so persecuted sometimes on here. I have an opinion, and the world and his wife systematically try to destroy my own perception about things.

 

To me it is an issue of privacy. Regardless of where it's pointing. Yes it can be tampered with maliciously. No it's not going to stop or catch bullying. But what do I know eh? It's been 40 years since I was at school!

[Stomp]

Ok Ok, I accept that there are probably cameras which are probably designed to be non-moveable once the field of vision has been set. But that still wouldn't stop some little irk from whacking it with a bag full of books or covering it with a jumper, or simply dragging his victim (assuming the case of bullying) into one of the unmonitored cubicles and giving his victim what for.

 

Ok, a couple of points here.

 

Firstly, these vandal proof cameras are designed to take a beating and still work. So if some irk whacked it with their books - they'd have to be pretty tall, and it probably wouldn't do too much damage to the camera.

 

Secondly, would it not look a bit suspicious when on camera an individual drags another into a cubicle? I'd say that was a pretty strong indicator of something untoward happening.

 

 

These kids now days are very savvy, and bullies usually work in packs, so in my view it's easy for them to circumvent the whole point of the camera being there anway. All that's needed is a record of who goes in there and who comes out. A camera on it's own inside a toilet or changing room is not going to stop bullying, or vandalism for that matter.

 

Kids are very savvy, and always have been. You will always find those in society who go out of their way to continue to do things against the law, and know where CCTV "blind" spots are. Simply recording who goes in, and who goes out is no good. You will see that Johnny and Joey go into the toilets, and that the same two come out of the toilets. However what you dont see is that when inside Joey decides to beat the hell out of poor old Johnny.

 

A camera won't prevent crime, bullying or any other event from happening. They are passive devices - they simply watch. However CCTV cameras are very useful in obtaining proof beyond doubt about what actually occured.

 

With all due respect, it was you who came on here arguing the opposite point to me! It works both ways my friend

 

Indeed, however my argument is based upon reason, fact and explaination whereas yours simply seems to be an automatic response to say the opposite.

 

"CCTV Cameras are good because they prove who comitted a crime"

"CCTV Camera are bad because they just are"

[Stomp]

Hahahha...yeah you're probably right Derby.....I'm outnumbered! I feel so persecuted sometimes on here. I have an opinion, and the world and his wife systematically try to destroy my own perception about things.

 

That's how SF operates sometimes i'm afraid. If you dare to have an opinion which is different to someone else's they will try any trick to make you look an idiot. Just make sure that your arguments are backed up with facts (where appropriate).

[PeteMorris]

Ok, a couple of points here.

 

Firstly, these vandal proof cameras are designed to take a beating and still work. So if some irk whacked it with their books - they'd have to be pretty tall, and it probably wouldn't do too much damage to the camera.

 

Secondly, would it not look a bit suspicious when on camera an individual drags another into a cubicle? I'd say that was a pretty strong indicator of something untoward happening.

 

No I'm not deliberately being obtuse or deliberately taking an opposing view to you, but. If the cameras inside a toilet are not pointing at cubicles or urinals, then it's so easy for a bully to do his worst in the blind spots. He/she doesn't need to drag aybody anywhere!

 

Kids are very savvy, and always have been. You will always find those in society who go out of their way to continue to do things against the law, and know where CCTV "blind" spots are. Simply recording who goes in, and who goes out is no good. You will see that Johnny and Joey go into the toilets, and that the same two come out of the toilets. However what you dont see is that when inside Joey decides to beat the hell out of poor old Johnny.

 

See my comment above

 

A camera won't prevent crime, bullying or any other event from happening. They are passive devices - they simply watch. However CCTV cameras are very useful in obtaining proof beyond doubt about what actually occured.

 

I admit, in rare instances it 'may' catch someone with irrefutable video evidence. But if two lads are seen to go in and both come out followed by a blood soaked victim, then that's pretty irrefutable too!

 

 

Indeed, however my argument is based upon reason, fact and explaination whereas yours simply seems to be an automatic response to say the opposite.

 

You know this is not true...I have my own opinion!

 

"CCTV Cameras are good because they prove who comitted a crime"

"CCTV Camera are bad because they just are"

 

I have not said that CCTV is bad. All I'm saying is that they shouldn't be in a toilet or chaging room. Other places are fine.

[SaabMan]

Not really as I have nothing to hide.

 

Neither have i, but i want to protect my privacy as is my right.

[alchresearch]

A camera won't prevent crime, bullying or any other event from happening. They are passive devices - they simply watch. However CCTV cameras are very useful in obtaining proof beyond doubt about what actually occured.

 

And once the kids know that the CCTV works and catches students who damage stuff, word gets out that the parents have been billed and the damage stops.

 

No I'm not deliberately being obtuse or deliberately taking an opposing view to you, but. If the cameras inside a toilet are not pointing at cubicles or urinals, then it's so easy for a bully to do his worst in the blind spots. He/she doesn't need to drag aybody anywhere!

 

The blind spots aren't really of any concern. The camera will easy see Nelson Muntz pushing little Millhouse into the cubicle, and Nelson running away and Millhouse coming out beaten up.

 

Like has been said, it won't stop the crime, but it will ensure its punished. No CCTV means its just one pupils word against another.