Being filmed like a criminal.

Barny1979

monnagran wrote: »

No plastics? No man made materials? No unethically produced organical materials? No use of fossil fuels? No trips abroad? No wanton use of water? November?

November?

maryb

No sun - no moon!
No morn - no noon -
No dawn - no dusk - no proper time of day.
No warmth, no cheerfulness, no healthful ease,
No comfortable feel in any member -
No shade, no shine, no butterflies, no bees,
No fruits, no flowers, no leaves, no birds! -
November!

monnagran

So sorry. I labour under the misapprehension that well known poems are....um.....well known.

We may have messed up the world but we know our poetry.

Barny1979

Whoosh!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

unrecordings

monnagran wrote: »

So sorry. I labour under the misapprehension that well known poems are....um.....well known.

We may have messed up the world but we know our poetry.

I can't help but thinking of Vogons right now:)

unrecordings

Barny1979 wrote: »

November?

£8k

I actually felt very sorry for him/her at the time

Norman_Castle

Mr_Singleton wrote: »

Could you point me to any reference to the recycling of the millions of tons of plastic/man-made materials that were thrown away in the 60’s & 70’s other than it was put in the bin where the local council collected it and dumped it in landfill? There was no alternative other than landfill for plastics. Individuals reusing items was commonplace.

Also could point me to any information relating to water meters in the 60’s & 70’s or was water charged at a flat rate (water rates) meaning using 100 gallons cost the same as using 10,000 gallons? Just look at how many hugely environmentally damaging reservoirs had to be built in that period because that generation felt there right to unlimited water trumped everything else inc. the environment. I don't think water meters were an option. The reservoirs were necessary and built to supply future demand.

We ended up with beef and butter mountains, milk lakes after ‘modern’ farming was hailed as the next big thing in the 50’s. Land was drenched in pesticides and fertiliser, hedges disappeared....big was good but massive was even better.

So of course that generation was obviously completely innocent of any environment damage. It’s the millennials and there paper cups of coffee and mobile phones.

The "millenials" are benefiting from decades of infrastructure, production and environmental improvements. Where do you think your food or water comes from? Millenials are standing on the shoulders of giants in both positive and negative ways. From personal experience I don't think younger generations are trying to save the planet any more than previous generations. There's currently a lot of noise about the environment with a background of disposable fashion and consumerism. Changes need to be made both in individual behaviour and infrastructure to enable less destructive lifestyles.

Younger generations certainly have a part to play but thinking you or they own environmentalism is just childish. Older generations may have caused more damage, but thats only because they've had more time.

konark

It's not there for your benefit.



If you ever needed it for whatever reason you'd get told they can't show you because of data protection, health and safety, sunspots etc or that it's 'not working' ,

GreyQueen

konark wrote: »

It's not there for your benefit.



If you ever needed it for whatever reason you'd get told they can't show you because of data protection, health and safety, sunspots etc or that it's 'not working' ,

They're also be legally obliged to pixelate/ fuzz out every face apart from yours and every car numberplate before providing it to you. The necessary editing is time-consuming and thus costly and this is the main reason why organisations are unwilling to provide CCTV images on demand, unless it it the Police asking.


What bugs me more than being spotted on CCTVs - often ropey-quality and overwritten on hard drives regularly- is the habit of news organisations to set up a camera taking crowd shots of people walking around the main city centre streets here in broad daylight. Without so much as a by-your-leave or consent form.


There are some people, often female people, who are de facto refugees from violence in other parts of the UK, and who don't need their faces on a news programme where anyone can spot them.

coffeehound

VfM4meplse wrote: »

Why?

I'm sure their CCTV can capture your moosh anyway, having it so obvious might put off the chancers desperate to feed their families rather than addicts determined to feed their habit. I would like to think that they can ID anyone who has swindled the self-service till, make sure their security guards are familiar with these faces so it doesn't happen twice.

I don't dispute the need for surveillance and security, but the corner that has been turned here is that rather than general oversight, this is personal surveillance - they are watching you, and far from being discreet about it, they're slapping the customer in the face with it. The unwritten dialogue goes something like

Right customer, scan your damn stuff now. Come on, move it! Can't you see there's a queue? Don't you dare scan those bananas as carrots now - we're watching you, remember. Put it in the bag faster. Hey staff, this clown's buying alcohol here! And again - is he legit? Don't even THINK about taking that carrier bag without scanning it - we've got our eye on you, Charlie. Alright, now pay your damn money and GTFO, maggot

Okay maybe a little dramatised, but not far from the truth