Arthur Figgis wrote:
On 18/09/2017 13:34, Recliner wrote:

It seems he was arrested at Dover on other grounds. Only later did they
discover he was wanted fir the attempted bombing.

"They" would say that, wouldn't they...?

Why? "They" would look smarter if they'd claimed to have caught him
through their superior intelligence, rather than catching him through lucky
accident.

On Mon, 18 Sep 2017 21:19:32 +0100, Roland Perry
wrote:

In message , at 18:47:06 on
Mon, 18 Sep 2017, Charles Ellson remarked:

The moveable cameras tend to be at strategic points where they can cover
may different routes. The panning and tilting can be automatic on a timer.
Such cameras are more for preventing crime than detecting it.

each moveable camera is likely to augment several fixed cameras depending
on purpose. When you get to the point of needing to track a specific
target then you probably are needing more moveable cameras (and zoom
lenses).

You've been watching too much "Spooks".

No, I've been working in one of many areas where that is exactly what
is done when an offender leaves the scene of their crime. They're
generally too thick to go off down a side street so we've often
watched the police with us just waiting for them to walk/run past.

How are the police alerted to the flight of the alleged offender so
soon?

Through a set of the local authority's radios used by door staff,
police, street wardens and others.

Meanwhile, I was looking at one of the pan/tilt cameras on a street
corner (T-junction) earlier today, and it simply cycles between each of
the three directions every 15-20 seconds.

That would suggest it is mainly for observing the traffic when in that
style of use. It might be findable on one of the various websites that
get feeds from cameras.

On 18/09/2017 22:01, Recliner wrote:
Arthur Figgis wrote:
On 18/09/2017 13:34, Recliner wrote:

It seems he was arrested at Dover on other grounds. Only later did they
discover he was wanted fir the attempted bombing.

"They" would say that, wouldn't they...?

Why? "They" would look smarter if they'd claimed to have caught him
through their superior intelligence, rather than catching him through lucky
accident.

They don't need to look smart, just to get the right person. There might
be less paperwork and fewer awkward questions if it was seemingly lucky
chance, rather than something which could give some vague clue as to how
they knew.

ISTR once reading about an aircraft being sent to fly past a major
German warship, in the hope that when the ship came under attack shortly
afterwards the Kriegsmarine would think that the plane had happened to
stumble across it, rather than suspect that someone might be reading
their messages and finding them that way.

--
Arthur Figgis Surrey, UK

In message , at 23:11:45 on
Mon, 18 Sep 2017, Charles Ellson remarked:

I've been working in one of many areas where that is exactly what
is done when an offender leaves the scene of their crime. They're
generally too thick to go off down a side street so we've often
watched the police with us just waiting for them to walk/run past.

How are the police alerted to the flight of the alleged offender so
soon?

Through a set of the local authority's radios used by door staff,
police, street wardens and others.

I'm surprised to find that's the idea behind the cameras where I live.
Surprised because I know the police station (where the feeds end up) is
unmanned at the times when they would be most useful.

Meanwhile, I was looking at one of the pan/tilt cameras on a street
corner (T-junction) earlier today, and it simply cycles between each of
the three directions every 15-20 seconds.

That would suggest it is mainly for observing the traffic when in that
style of use.

Antisocial behaviour.

It might be findable on one of the various websites that get feeds from
cameras.

No, and the pictures it takes are virtually inaccessible to the public
even under SAR. I've never seen quite such a lots of bogus reasons why
they could refuse
--
Roland Perry

wrote in message news
On Mon, 18 Sep 2017 13:58:21 +0100
"tim..." wrote:
wrote in message news
On Mon, 18 Sep 2017 13:39:38 +0100
Because as a couple of hundred people are sitting in a train with a
green
light waiting for the relief driver to turn up to take over, perhaps
having
an alarm bell in the mess might remind him that he's paid to drive the
damn
thing.

well having grown up on a route where turns started at the terminus
(Morden)
I suppose that I never experienced that problem

Congratulations, you had utl post 80000 on the aioe server

does that win me some spurious "free" prize that I have to spend more on an
a 0900 phone number to collect, than it is worth?


tim

"Arthur Figgis" wrote in message
o.uk...
On 18/09/2017 13:34, Recliner wrote:

It seems he was arrested at Dover on other grounds. Only later did they
discover he was wanted fir the attempted bombing.

"They" would say that, wouldn't they...?

I'm inclined to think that the alternative is the greater deterrent, to be
honest.

Announcing that they did, in fact, manage to identify the perp's name using
normal policing looking at CCTV is going to worry them into stopping
attacking such targets - after all it's no secret that the CCTV is there,
and I doubt that any of theses copycat cells have the resources to disable
it.

Keeping it secret that they can do this, is no deterrent at all.

and it is the deterrent that we need here. Catching the perf after he has
killed 100 people is not a successful outcome.

"Arthur Figgis" wrote in message
news
On 18/09/2017 22:01, Recliner wrote:
Arthur Figgis wrote:
On 18/09/2017 13:34, Recliner wrote:

It seems he was arrested at Dover on other grounds. Only later did they
discover he was wanted fir the attempted bombing.

"They" would say that, wouldn't they...?

Why? "They" would look smarter if they'd claimed to have caught him
through their superior intelligence, rather than catching him through
lucky
accident.

They don't need to look smart, just to get the right person. There might
be less paperwork and fewer awkward questions if it was seemingly lucky
chance, rather than something which could give some vague clue as to how
they knew.

the "vague clue" to how it might be achieved was fully explained on
"Breakfast" the day after the incident

tim

On Tue, 19 Sep 2017 10:02:15 +0100
"tim..." wrote:
wrote in message news
On Mon, 18 Sep 2017 13:58:21 +0100
"tim..." wrote:
wrote in message news On Mon, 18 Sep 2017 13:39:38 +0100
Because as a couple of hundred people are sitting in a train with a
green
light waiting for the relief driver to turn up to take over, perhaps
having
an alarm bell in the mess might remind him that he's paid to drive the
damn
thing.

well having grown up on a route where turns started at the terminus
(Morden)
I suppose that I never experienced that problem

Congratulations, you had utl post 80000 on the aioe server

does that win me some spurious "free" prize that I have to spend more on an
a 0900 phone number to collect, than it is worth?

It entitles you to one free pleasant comment in a reply.

"Have a nice day!"

Roland Perry wrote:
In message , at 16:54:53 on Sun, 17 Sep
2017, Graeme Wall remarked
did they pick him up because they had managed to get a name/face for the
person they were looking for

or did he give himself away

Look at Train CCTV of man with with bag getting on at station xxx
look at CCTV at station xxx for the time period you expect someone on
that train to have entered the station and see same man with same bag
touching in.
Strike lucky and find he used a registered Oyster card.

Or he's a minor criminal with a record and fingerprints/DNA on file.
Get a match from the bucket.

Very little hard information two days later. One arrest in Dover,
another in London; are either firmly linked to forensics from CCTV and
the bucket, or because of something else?

Well, they're still making arrests:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-41327872

On Tue, 19 Sep 2017 07:15:23 +0100, Roland Perry
wrote:

In message , at 23:11:45 on
Mon, 18 Sep 2017, Charles Ellson remarked:

I've been working in one of many areas where that is exactly what
is done when an offender leaves the scene of their crime. They're
generally too thick to go off down a side street so we've often
watched the police with us just waiting for them to walk/run past.

How are the police alerted to the flight of the alleged offender so
soon?

Through a set of the local authority's radios used by door staff,
police, street wardens and others.

I'm surprised to find that's the idea behind the cameras where I live.

Your area might not use them the same way as Lambeth.

Surprised because I know the police station (where the feeds end up) is
unmanned at the times when they would be most useful.

Meanwhile, I was looking at one of the pan/tilt cameras on a street
corner (T-junction) earlier today, and it simply cycles between each of
the three directions every 15-20 seconds.

That would suggest it is mainly for observing the traffic when in that
style of use.

Antisocial behaviour.

That tends to happen at night. If the cameras are available then it
would seem to be sensible to use them for observing the traffic at
other times. In the above case, the cameras are usually "parked"
around 4am after the clubs have closed, not necessarily all aimed at
something as at least one (not at a junction) is just left pointing
down.

It might be findable on one of the various websites that get feeds from
cameras.

No, and the pictures it takes are virtually inaccessible to the public
even under SAR. I've never seen quite such a lots of bogus reasons why
they could refuse