For those new to CabbieBlog or readers who are slightly forgetful, on Saturdays I’m republishing posts, many going back over a decade. Some will still be very relevant while others have become dated over time. Just think of this post as your weekend paper supplement.

“Say Cheese” (18.03.09)

There are up to 4.2m CCTV cameras in Britain – about one for every 14 people – making it one of the most watched places on earth.

London alone has 10,000 crime-fighting CCTV cameras which cost £200 million. While England has the distinction of owning 20 per cent of the world’s CCTV cameras.

But an analysis of the publicly funded spy network, which is owned and controlled by local authorities and Transport for London, has cast doubt on its ability to help solve crime.

A comparison of the number of cameras in each London borough with the proportion of crimes solved there found that police are no more likely to catch offenders in areas with hundreds of cameras than in those with hardly any.

In fact, four out of five of the boroughs with the most cameras have a record of solving crime that is below average.

A recent piece of research found that during a journey across London 300 cameras recorded your movements. Police now say they can track potential suspects on their entire transit across the Capital. We have cameras for police detection, red routes, traffic lights, council by-law infringements, monitoring customers in and out of shops, and yes we even have them in cabs.

So with all this monitoring of our movements I was concerned recently when the Government announced the publication of a White Paper which proposes now to monitor all our telephone calls, texting, e-mails and internet activity, to “combat terrorism”.

Now please correct me if I’m wrong but these terrorists seem to have done far less than the IRA, and even at the height of the IRA atrocities when they were killing members of Parliament, such draconian measures were not proposed.

Recently one such “terrorist” has been found guilty after blowing himself up in an Indian restaurant toilet, giving a whole new meaning to having a dodgy curry.

The proceeds from traffic cameras go to National Government and Swindon Borough Council have said it is a blatant tax on motorists and have proposed removing these devices as the borough does not receive any financial benefit from them.

Surveillance now comes in many forms: 4.2 million CCTV cameras in England; 300 CCTV appearances a day; Registration plate recognition cameras; Shop RFID tags; Mobile phone triangulation; Store loyalty cards; Credit card transactions; London Oyster cards; Satellites; Electoral roll; NHS patient records; Personal video recorders; Phone-tapping; Hidden cameras/bugs; Worker call monitoring; Worker clocking-in; Mobile phone cameras; Internet cookies; Keystroke programmes, even in his wildest imagination could George Orwell have dreamt this up. In fact you are probably recorded on over 700 data bases each.

Now forgive me for asking a rather stupid basic question . . . isn’t the tired motorist always being told to take a break on long journeys? A young woman recently thought she was doing the right thing when she pulled into a motorway services at midnight on the way home from London to Preston. Good so far, but then she made a horrendous mistake and caught some sleep. After dozing off in the car park, she awoke at 1.30 a.m. and drove the remaining 35 miles of her journey – only, wait for it, to be sent a £50 fine a few days later. She had been caught by the service station spy cameras, which had snapped her number plate for overstaying the two-hour parking limit at Lymms Services on the M6. The CCTV shows her fast asleep in the car. All motorists who wish to stay longer than the free two-hour period have to pay a flat rate of £15 for up to 24 hours . . . sigh and goodnight!

All look at the camera now, say “Cheese”!

For those new to CabbieBlog or readers who are slightly forgetful, on Saturdays I’m republishing posts, many going back over a decade. Some will still be very relevant while others have become dated over time. Just think of this post as your weekend paper supplement.

A Phoenix Arises (28.08.09)

As part of a series with the imaginative title “Buildings of London” the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom on the south side of Parliament Square is emerging like a phoenix from the old Middlesex Guildhall.

Little did Tony Blair imagine, or care, when he was ingratiating himself with the Americans to guarantee his healthy income stream for when he left office, that copying their idea of a Supreme Court would bring that neglected building to life.

The name Middlesex comes from the kingdom of the Middle Saxons, and has been around for 1,000 years and the Guildhall symbolises that civic pride. The building was built between 1906 and 1913 in an art nouveau gothic theme, and decorated with mediaeval-looking gargoyles and other architectural sculptures. The Guildhall also incorporates in the rear a doorway dating from the seventeenth century which was a part of the Tothill Fields Bridewell prison and moved to the site to be incorporated in the building.

The conversion has attracted much controversy from conservation groups, which claim that the conversion will be unsympathetic to such an important building. The Middlesex Guildhall is a Grade II* listed building and English Heritage classed the three main Court interiors as “unsurpassed by any other courtroom of the period in terms of the quality and completeness of their fittings”. But the conversion works have involved the removal of many of the original fixtures and fittings with a vague promise to display a few key pieces in the basement and find a home for the rest in some other building not yet designed or built.

Outside the building stands a statute of George Canning whose total period in the office of Prime Minister was at 119 days the shortest on record. If only Tony Blair tenure had been so brief, Britain might not be in the sorry state it finds itself.

For those new to CabbieBlog or readers who are slightly forgetful, on Saturdays I’m republishing posts, many going back over a decade. Some will still be very relevant while others have become dated over time. Just think of this post as your weekend paper supplement.

Nailing my colours to the mast (25.08.09)

When American tourists get into my cab they will ask me questions about the Royal Family, never do they want to know about Gordon Brown or Tony Blair for that matter.

But once again the cost of keeping our Royal is up for debate. Unable to criticise the Queen whose frugality is legendary, these Republicans (including the BBC) seize on the petty extravagance of minor members of the Royal Family, whose only job is to provide us with much entertainment.

At 69p per person in this country, the cost of having our Royal Family is minuscule compared to the extravagance of politicians; their international travel to “summits”, chauffeured cars, and don’t get me on the expenses scandal, which has laid bare the greed at the heart of The Palace of Westminster.

When will we in this country learn to stop spitting on our good luck and to keep the precious possessions our wiser parents fought for and handed to us on a plate?
The question that should be asked is not what do the Royal Family get, but what powers do they stop others from receiving.

For those new to CabbieBlog or readers who are slightly forgetful, on Saturdays I’m republishing posts, many going back over a decade. Some will still be very relevant while others have become dated over time. Just think of this post as your weekend paper supplement.

Sponsor A Pothole (18.08.09)

Now here’s a question for you, and no conferring. How many potholes are there on Britain’s roads? The answer is to be found at the bottom of this post.

Oxford City Council has proposed a plan to “Sponsor A Pothole” because it does not have enough funding to cover the cost of maintaining the streets. A spokesman said the scheme would “reward” businesses and local people who paid for pothole repairs with roadside signs “in honour” of their contribution.

London’s worst offender has to be The City of London its roads are so bad they have better roads in Iraq. As a cabbie, my arms ache with the vibration travelling up the steering column, when traversing the City’s streets.

It’s amazing, isn’t it? One of the wealthiest square miles in the world and the streets that Dick Whittington imagined were paved with gold, now need a 4×4 to negotiate.

So instead of discarded McDonald’s packaging left in the gutter, soon we might have signs proclaiming in no parking yellow “I’m Lovin’ It” stencilled across the tarmac.

For those new to CabbieBlog or readers who are slightly forgetful, on Saturdays I’m republishing posts, many going back over a decade. Some will still be very relevant while others have become dated over time. Just think of this post as your weekend paper supplement.

The Yellow Peril (14.08.09)

Call me a naïve cabbie, but I thought that the yellow police appeal signs were a sensible way of helping to solve crime and not merely a vulgar way to decorate London’s streets. But it would appear the bright yellow police signs appealing for witnesses to serious offences will no longer decorate London’s streets.

In an attempt to reduce “fear of crime”, the Metropolitan Police has effectively banned the use of the distinctive signs in all but exceptional circumstances. Presumably rape, murder and armed robbery don’t constitute “exceptional circumstances”, because they were the only ones to gaily bring colour to the pavements of Brixton and Peckham.

Now officers can request their use in exceptional circumstances, but any such requests must be authorised by a “specialist crime directorate commander”. So I want you all to go down to your local nick and request to talk to your “specialist crime directorate commander”. He’s not to be confused with the odd job crime directorate commander who’s in charge minor crimes like dropping litter and allowing your dog to foul the pavement.

Someone in the higher echelons of the Met has become aware that in crime hotspots several yellow signs were being put up at once and presumably thought it showed the police in a bad light, as if crime was out of control.