Brilliant :-).

Yet another very strong argument for cutting council budgets. Why on earth do we give these people so much money?

Thanks for this.

I’m told these cost £25,000.

Who needs libraries?

Aren’t they all Labour or Lib Dem there?

Oh well, maybe they’ve been playing with the David Blunkett policy maker.

Just be thankful they don’t arrest you, detain you without trial, send you to Guantanamo Bay, and then, to cap it all, give you an entitlement card.

Did that thing have an American accent?

@Don- yes, it is an American accent. Hope it doesn’t turn into ED 209…

I agree it is crazy they must have way to much money for wasting it on things like £1 in every £5 goes to there pensions see for yourself below.

http://www.taxpayersalliance.com/pensioncontributions2012.pdf

I think the guy in the video is being kind of churlish by taking offence at a statement that he must know isn’t actually intended for residents such as himself. It’s a bit like gesturing at a no-smoking sign and whining “WTF? I don’t even smoke!”

But yeah, this is a ridiculous use of funds, and I’m not comfortable with random members of the public being threatened even if the threat is probably empty.

@ 7 Eddy

“I agree it is crazy they must have way to much money for wasting it on things like £1 in every £5 goes to there pensions see for yourself below.”

Whose pensions?

Camden council in petty bureaucratic authoritarianism shocker.

I think the guy in the video is being kind of churlish by taking offence at a statement that he must know isn’t actually intended for residents such as himself.

Eh? ISTM the disembodied voice doesn’t make clear who is being addressed.

@ 11

“Eh? ISTM the disembodied voice doesn’t make clear who is being addressed.”

Yes, but it’s obviously aimed at unauthorised persons. If you were visiting someone who lived at the flats you might genuinely think that you were breaking some kind of rule by crossing the courtyard, but there’s no way that the resident in the vid is genuinely under the impression that he’s being ordered off the property.

Chaise,

But Big Brother seemed to activate when sensing Jim Jepps. If Jim is ‘authorised’, it shouldn’t activate when it senses him. Does it discriminate on the grounds of authorised and unauthorised persons? I doubt it. I wonder how frequently and under what conditions it activates. When, for example, fidgeting on the gazebo? Imagine being told every 10 mins, “Stop! This is a restricted area and your photograph is being taken. It will be sent for processing if you do not leave the area now.”

How can Jim know that his photograph will not be sent for processing or that some government agents will visit him to check he is authorised to enjoy the communal garden?

So why shouldn’t Jim take offence, both at the ludicrous setup and cost and being badgered about his use of something he is entitled to use?

@ 13 ukliberty

“But Big Brother seemed to activate when sensing Jim Jepps. If Jim is ‘authorised’, it shouldn’t activate when it senses him. Does it discriminate on the grounds of authorised and unauthorised persons? I doubt it.”

Nah, it’ll be motion-sensor. Which is kind of the point.

” I wonder how frequently and under what conditions it activates. When, for example, fidgeting on the gazebo? Imagine being told every 10 mins, “Stop! This is a restricted area and your photograph is being taken. It will be sent for processing if you do not leave the area now.””

Annoying, yes, and I’d complain to the council if it were me.

“How can Jim know that his photograph will not be sent for processing or that some government agents will visit him to check he is authorised to enjoy the communal garden?”

Fair enough.

“So why shouldn’t Jim take offence, both at the ludicrous setup and cost and being badgered about his use of something he is entitled to use?”

He’s certainly got grounds to complain about the cost and the irritation. It’s this “I’m being ordered out of my own courtyard” thing I disagree with.

Imagine the camera DID use face recognition / pheromone analysis / precog scanning to identify “outsiders” and hence never said anything to Jim, but only strangers (including any family, friends, delivery people etc. who came to his door). Would you then see this as a notably different issue?

The problem with the camera is that it’s expensive, intrusive and creepy. To suggest that the problem is that it can’t tell residents from strangers (or, more realistically, that someone should have added the words “If you are an unauthorised person” to its spiel) seems to focus on the least important detail.

We win!!!!!

Camden council have agreed to de-active it 🙂

Less than 48 hours from filming to victory.

@ 15

Congrats, mate – glad you got it sorted out.

Chaise,

The problem with the camera is that it’s expensive, intrusive and creepy.

Agreed!

To suggest that the problem is that it can’t tell residents from strangers (or, more realistically, that someone should have added the words “If you are an unauthorised person” to its spiel) seems to focus on the least important detail.

Then thank god I didn’t do that but rather address your comment @8 that it seemed churlish for a resident to take offence to this “expensive, intrusive and creepy” device.

@ 17 UKL

We may be at cross-purposes here. I totally sympathise with Jim objecting to the camera. I just think it’s silly to go down the “It’s telling me to go away when I live here!” route, because obviously nobody expects residents to stay away from their own homes. The camera was genuinely a bad thing, so I don’t see the need to add manufacturered outrage based on a deliberate misunderstanding.