|
|
Topic Originator: BouncyPar
Date: Fri 21 Aug 07:14
"The head of the Scottish police watchdog is calling for the introduction of live facial recognition technology and drones to help combat football-related disorder.
HM Chief Inspector of Constabulary in Scotland (HMICS) Craig Naylor has used the publication of his annual report to highlight the need for better use of technology to help fight crime.
Naylor described recent football violence, like the disorder between Celtic and Rangers fans at Ibrox in March, as "a situation that cannot continue to be tolerated."
He also said the increasing violence in Scotland outside football grounds was likely to require more police deployments." - BBC
I`d like to know everyone`s opinion on this. I`m all for most measures that reduce trouble, and enhance the safety and enjoyment of the 99% who behave, but this seems like an intrusion on every fans freedom and civil rights.
(not sure if this belongs here or in the politics forum)
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: General Zod
Date: Fri 21 Aug 07:20
Not going to help if all the wee schooligans that are usually involved are hiding behind daft wee masks.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: Berry
Date: Fri 21 Aug 07:59
Quote:
General Zod, Fri 21 Aug 07:20
Not going to help if all the wee schooligans that are usually involved are hiding behind daft wee masks.
And we are just as bad as that as most other clubs unfortunately albeit smaller scale in comparison to bigger clubs. Too many times last season kids from the SNW with the masks on running towards the away buses after game.
Just don’t understand it personally.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: BouncyPar
Date: Fri 21 Aug 08:03
Considering a large amount of the trouble involves those wearing masks, I presume there would therefore also be a law introduced giving police power to remove face masks, or simply no entry to the stadium without your full face showing?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: P
Date: Fri 21 Aug 08:31
Wouldn’t need a change to law, just change terms of the ticket
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: MinnesotaAndy
Date: Fri 21 Aug 09:21
To prevent pitch invasions, clubs could install fan cages.
Personally I`d prefer more was spent on regular policing and stewarding than spending to create the surveillance state.
Several years ago I did a tour of the Johan Cruyff arena in Amsterdam. They have an extensive security setup. They can zoom in on any seat in the stadium at the touch of button.
In China, some cities operate mass surveillance, and crime rates are very low in these cities as a result.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: Andrew283
Date: Fri 21 Aug 09:33
Id ban any wee tool wearing balaclavas. And not just in stadiums
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: Indiapar1
Date: Fri 21 Aug 10:20
I think that this is very much an "end of pipe" solution i.e. its an easy way to address the issue as it occurs rather thanthe more complex and difficult (but better long term) issues in society that bring about the problems in the first place. I am sure the Chief Constable is looking for solutions, but these are very much through the lens of policing, available resoirces, cost etc. The more holistic approach is to identify and address the causes in society, knowing you rights is one thong but also knowing your responsibilities and taking accountability for your actions. If they are under 16, perhaps parents should be responsible and accountable for their actions, more and better policing, better police intelligence, police officers rather than stewards in key crowd management functions, better powers of arrest at football matches, harsher sentances or community service, naming and shaming individuals etc. CCTV does not prevent crime, it aids in the identification and prosecution of those responsible hence "facial recognition".
Unfortunately these measures are a result of the tick box approach that is taken these days due to a lack of joined up thinking and lack of vision of those who make decisions on a societal level.
Example - you introduce facial recognition, they get arrested and go through the court system or to childrens panels and are fined, or given suspended prison sentances, or made the subject of a supervision order. If they go to prison they are unlikely to serve a full sentance. What stops them doing it again I wonder.
G Wardrope
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: parsmad68
Date: Fri 21 Aug 10:38
Quote:
MinnesotaAndy, Fri 21 Aug 09:21
To prevent pitch invasions, clubs could install fan cages.
Personally I`d prefer more was spent on regular policing and stewarding than spending to create the surveillance state.
Several years ago I did a tour of the Johan Cruyff arena in Amsterdam. They have an extensive security setup. They can zoom in on any seat in the stadium at the touch of button.
In China, some cities operate mass surveillance, and crime rates are very low in these cities as a result.
Any misdemeanours caught on camera affect life options. It is like a black mark against the person and affects job prospects, loans, etc.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: thebear
Date: Fri 21 Aug 11:12
It`s needs to be double ended, better education, better parenting - just look at schools.
And if that fails show them publicly and throw the book at them
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: Dave_1885
Date: Fri 21 Aug 19:33
Im surprised its taken this long to introduce them. They are used in casinos etc already and thats just to catch folk that beat the gaming systems.
Is it really an intrusion of privacy?
They are just a more sophisticated CCTV system that you are on every day of your life anyway.
Theres a really simple solution if you don’t like them - behave 🤷🏻♂️😂
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: red-star-par
Date: Fri 21 Aug 20:05
Wasn`t aware they had them in Casino`s. More proof that the gambling industry don`t want any winners to play the game, they are only interested in the mug punters
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: veteraneastender
Date: Fri 21 Aug 21:00
If it helps identifying the wee scroats - what’s not to like ?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: veteraneastender
Date: Fri 21 Aug 21:03
Quote:
red-star-par, Fri 21 Aug 20:05
Wasn`t aware they had them in Casino`s. More proof that the gambling industry don`t want any winners to play the game, they are only interested in the mug punters
Casino security have been on the case since Adam was a laddie - clamping down on chancers and organised cheats. Nothing new here.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: AdamAntsParsStripe
Date: Fri 21 Aug 21:33
Big T suits the facial masks to hide his age so I vote to keep them.
Zwei Pints Bier und ein Päckchen Chips bitte
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: Dave_1885
Date: Fri 21 Aug 21:41
Quote:
red-star-par, Fri 21 Aug 20:05
Wasn`t aware they had them in Casino`s. More proof that the gambling industry don`t want any winners to play the game, they are only interested in the mug punters
Im not sure about the UK, but Im pretty sure the US ones are fully rigged up. Never seen 21 before?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: Sacktheref69
Date: Sat 22 Aug 08:20
Would love to see it introduced, as it might stop the wee neds causing trouble while trying to hide under the "ultras" banner.
Every club has them, and we are no different. The pyro last week, with the loud bang, was a disgrace, especially considering how many toddler aged kids were at the game. It also myth busted the "pyro adds atmosphere" argument because, after that, the corner was quiet.
Like it or not, pyro is illegal. Anyone found sneaking it in or using it should be banned. It`s as simple as that. It could also have a financial impact on the club, as if it`s reported to the authorities, we could receive a fine.
This is Andy Tod`s world and we are lucky to live in it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: jake89
Date: Sat 22 Aug 11:01
Appreciate it`s political, but face coverings should be forbidden. Obviously there are exceptions for immuno-compromised but there are ways around that.
Surely the wee boys causing bother don`t have cold faces in August? 😂
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: Milos Drizzle
Date: Sat 22 Aug 11:41
Any covering of the face is instant ejection from the ground. We’d have to exempt momentary coverage of the face with the hands, otherwise I’d be ejected most home games.
This is my signature
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: Polt
Date: Sat 22 Aug 18:57
Quote:
MinnesotaAndy, Fri 21 Aug 09:21
To prevent pitch invasions, clubs could install fan cages.
Personally I`d prefer more was spent on regular policing and stewarding than spending to create the surveillance state.
Several years ago I did a tour of the Johan Cruyff arena in Amsterdam. They have an extensive security setup. They can zoom in on any seat in the stadium at the touch of button.
In China, some cities operate mass surveillance, and crime rates are very low in these cities as a result.
Aye perfect example was Scottish cup final.
The polis and stewards all came from the tunnel. Walking the whole width of the park. If there was a pitch invasion they would be totally ineffective as proven in previously.
half the polis would have been better placed at the segregation zone between fans doubling up. When required to do pitch duty (upon corner, goal or final whistle) they move to meet tunnel polis in the middle.
As for facial recognition I fully support it. No masks or face covering whilst entering ground. Not a fan of cages for safety
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: Indiapar1
Date: Sun 23 Aug 09:24
So, you introduce facial recognition, to compensate for the lack of police oversight and use stewards whom I would assume are not trained in crowd control and dont have any powers of arrest other than a citizens arrest.
What happens if there is a riot in the ground, or a serious incident. Who manages it, who arrests individuals and has the authority to control the crowd to prevent further unrest or ensure people are moved to a place of safety.
G Wardrope
Post Edited (Sun 23 Aug 09:50)
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: DBP
Date: Sun 23 Aug 14:55
Against facial recognition along with most of the other privacy and civil Liberty intrusions many seem to be happy to applaud in
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: neils
Date: Sun 23 Aug 15:05
Yes I tend to be with you regarding civil liberty intrusion.
We have a civilian police force for good reasons, they are allowed temporary measures to deviate from that in certain agreed circumstances - this works pretty well. When they overstep the mark they almost always make a mess of it.
Under no circumstances should private security personnel be allowed.
There are good enough laws that cover this area, people just need to do their job, that`s all.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: Donkerpar
Date: Sun 23 Aug 18:29
The only reservation I have is that whenever any new legislation or equipment is introduced, there is invariably mission creep and overreach. A new law can be brought in by Parliament for a particular purpose but as soon as it comes in it starts being put to a use never intended by Parliament. The anti-terrorism laws are a classic example, whereby the police use them as a way to stop people going about their lawful business.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: jake89
Date: Sun 23 Aug 21:27
Quote:
Donkerpar, Sun 23 Aug 18:29
The only reservation I have is that whenever any new legislation or equipment is introduced, there is invariably mission creep and overreach. A new law can be brought in by Parliament for a particular purpose but as soon as it comes in it starts being put to a use never intended by Parliament. The anti-terrorism laws are a classic example, whereby the police use them as a way to stop people going about their lawful business.
Does that regularly happen? I`ve only ever been stopped by police for speeding!
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: Parfect69
Date: Tue 25 Aug 11:46
Does it recognise a torn face…. That’s usually me at the football
|
|
|
|
|
|
