Gangs and ID Scanning

[porcelianprincess]

So Stella you started this thread asking other perb members for our opinion. At which when I gave my opinion you attempted to hack it down with false facts. You also attacked other members on this board on their opinion which YOU asked for. If this thread was meant for a debate then I wouldn't have offered my opinion

A. Showing your ID to the bouncer worked JUST fine for avoiding underage prostitues.

B. You may not get shot but what's to prevent someone from beating the shit out of you.

C. You can achieve A and B with showing ID and getting wanded for metal

D. You have made a connection with Barwatch and the "Gang Situation" - THERE IS NO LOGICAL CONNECTION . A gang member who wants to take out a rival will enter the Bar and start shooting. Barwatch only gives the cops a list of who entered the bar that day.

E. Are you safer ? The barwatch program has concentrated the roudies to Non-Barwatch establishments ... your local pub. Your local pub didn't need a team of bouncers or the scanners before ... now they have to invest in the program.

F. You have made an inference that Barwatch prrevents killing in a bar. See D.

A) do you have any idea how easy it is to get a fake id. The point of scanning it to deter prostitots(underage minors that cant handle there booze and become extremely easy) who use fake ids that will be red flagged when scanned.

B) I might have taken being shot at the extreme(not likely with the amount of shootings in the past year) but the barwatch program is in effect to prevent the violence
“The intent is to prevent people known to police for criminal or potentially violent behavior from entering nightclubs.”- wikipedia

C)revert to A on fake id's

D)Revert to quote from B. If the member is known to police and flagged in the barwatch program then he wont gain entry to that club or any other club on the program, therefor preventing the incident. Granted it isn't fool proof and isn't 100% effective but it has greatly reduced the amount of club violence.

E) That is a point that I stated in my first post that it is an issue for clubs that don't scan ids having more of the affiliated and violent patrons. It is the establishments choice to enroll in the program they knew what they were getting into by not participating.

Sorry for calling you a Barwatch shill and a moron but your high opinion is just that - your opinion. .

- Did You not invite US here to state OUR opinion.

You have unfairly characterized this particular discussion as immature name calling .. It is not. You have made claims which are your opinion and they are wrong.

-

BC Guy ... Are you a Barwatch shill or just a moron?

- I do believe that it was you and ONLY YOU that did any immature name calling.who are you to tell us that our opinion is wrong. You seem to think the sky is green when clearly it isn't. We all have valid points but you so stubborn and set in your ways. You should read a book called “who moved my cheese” and enlighten yourself.

If you feel umbrage at what I'm saying that's really a shame becuase I'm pretty sure most of Perb is with the anti-Barwatch program.

out of the SIX different posts from different people that are actually concerning the barwatch program and not just gangs FOUR of them are PRO-barwatch so TWO out of the FOUR are anti-barwatch, including yourself. I don't know where you got your “facts” that most of perb is anti-barwatch as clearly the numbers say otherwise

VANCOUVER - Twenty bars and pubs in downtown Vancouver will be sporting a new “Barwatch -- Supporting Public Safety” decal this weekend as part of a Vancouver police initiative to deter gangsters and known criminals from using licensed premises. ----Canada.com

I am an active club goer and I personally feel much safer and as if my personal safety needs are met at clubs that participate in the Barwatch program. IMHO.

I am not claiming that the program is 100% effective and there are ways around it but the program has drastically reduced the rate of crime in our nightclubs. On the privacy issue, if you have an issue with them having your personal information it is your choice to not go to that establishment and to go one that does not participate.

 

[tom t runner]

set up a poll!

That might just a good idea, why don't we set up a poll question, who is for the program and who's against it, I for one would be for the barwatch program.

 

[Stella_Hardon]

That might just a good idea, why don't we set up a poll question, who is for the program and who's against it, I for one would be for the barwatch program.

You are a member of PERB .. You want escorts, stripclubs, drinking, pot, quality pornography. Why are you for Barwatch and the police sniffing into your habits?

Barwatch doesn't work and the privacy commissioner just ruled against it.

Take some time out of your day and reflect on why you support the Barwatch program.
and ask yourself why are you on PERB ??

Your voting for Barwatch is irrational

 

[tom t runner]

You are a member of PERB .. You want escorts, stripclubs, drinking, pot, quality pornography. Why are you for Barwatch and the police sniffing into your habits?

Barwatch doesn't work and the privacy commissioner just ruled against it.

Take some time out of your day and reflect on why you support the Barwatch program.
and ask yourself why are you on PERB

You don't know me! I'm a pretty clean guy. yes, I see escorts! I don't use pot, I don't go to strip clubs and why do I need quality porn when I see ecorts? I sometimes go out for a few drinks with friends. Believe me! the police are not worried about me!

 

[Stella_Hardon]

You don't know me! I'm a pretty clean guy. yes, I see escorts! I don't use pot, I don't go to strip clubs and why do I need quality porn when I see ecorts? I sometimes go out for a few drinks with friends. Believe me! the police are not worried about me!

Of course I don't know you ... so I ask again why are you for Barwatch ?

 

[tom t runner]

Look. no system is perfect, but it's been my experience that the only ones that worried about their rights being violated are the criminals or people with something big to hide. My name will not pop up on their list, big brother is watching but he's not looking for me, he doesn't care that I see escorts. I've never been in trouble with the law and if I'm going out to the club with friends why not keep the bad apples out. extra security is never usually a bad thing. The police have a tough job, they put their lives on the line and put up with tons of shit. At least, this should help them know when these scum buckets are entering the clubs.

 

[Stella_Hardon]

Look. no system is perfect, but it's been my experience that the only ones that worried about their rights being violated are the criminals or people with something big to hide. My name will not pop up on their list, big brother is watching but he's not looking for me, he doesn't care that I see escorts. I've never been in trouble with the law and if I'm going out to the club with friends why not keep the bad apples out. extra security is never usually a bad thing. The police have a tough job, they put their lives on the line and put up with tons of shit. At least, this should help them know when these scum buckets are entering the clubs.

BARWATCH DOESN"T WORK. Read the Commissioners report.

Here is an exerpt ...

[84] The reply submission includes a memo from the VPD‟s Youth Gang
Squad, which says that those who go to downtown bars and restaurants are
exposed to a substantial risk of violence associated with gang members.
The memo‟s author says numerous nightclub door employees have told him they
have a „no-hands-on‟ policy with gang members. This is to say that gang
members are not searched because a failure to show proper respect could result
in serious assaults on them or in their being targeted for shooting. The memo
does not say nightclub door staff have been assaulted or shot because they
searched gang members, but it speaks to a concern of some risk this might
happen.

BARWATCH DOESN"T WORK.

Why are you supporting a program that doesn't work and has the Privacy Commissioner ruling against it ??

 

[CJ Tylers]

Why ARE we still giving respect to gang members? Let's just line them all up in prison and let some bubba have his way with them. Repeatedly. Better yet, bullets are cheaper :|

 

[Evilsince81]

As a doorman in the nightclub industry for the past 10 years I can honestly say that ID scanning has IMPROVED the leve of safety for my staff and for the patrons.
If you don't want to scan your ID then you don't have to come in. Simple as that.
I've been stabbed twice, shot once and had 82 stitches in my head after being bottled. I'll gladly accept ANY form of deterring trouble from my workplace.

I think that knowing we can access your information and find out who you are and where you live if you cause problems makes the idiots think twice before getting out of line.

Just my 2cents.

 

[Stella_Hardon]

As a doorman in the nightclub industry for the past 10 years I can honestly say that ID scanning has IMPROVED the leve of safety for my staff and for the patrons.
If you don't want to scan your ID then you don't have to come in. Simple as that.
I've been stabbed twice, shot once and had 82 stitches in my head after being bottled. I'll gladly accept ANY form of deterring trouble from my workplace.

I think that knowing we can access your information and find out who you are and where you live if you cause problems makes the idiots think twice before getting out of line.

Just my 2cents.

Your company has barwatch. What about the local pub who suddenly have your dis-carded customers ?

Were the injuries recent or pre-Barwatch?. As a doorman you meet the customer before DL scanning ... Were you able to ID the guy bottling you ?

If a customer causes problems are you actually able to find out who he is and where he lives ? And you decide what a problem is right ? John Teti claims that the high level access is limited to senior management.

Here is what the Privacy Commissioner said about the Barwatch Crowd claim to better security.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Analysis
[85] It is troubling that, despite the repeated assertions that TreoScope‟s
system has dramatically improved safety and security, no material such as
statistics has been presented that persuasively demonstrates an actual reduction
in violent incidents in the Wild Coyote

[86] Section 73 of the Liquor Act requires licensees to produce prescribed
records to an inspector on demand, with s. 34(j) of the Liquor Regulation
prescribing for this purpose “records of any incidents or events that occurred in or
adjacent to the licensed premises”. In light of this, it is reasonable to conclude
that evidence of numbers of incidents before and after adoption of the TreoScope
system could have been produced in order to demonstrate the system‟s claimed
efficacy in reducing numbers of incidents.

[87] According to Wild Coyote, however, it would be more appropriate for
expert opinions and data on the need for security systems to come from the
VPD, rather than relying on the records of one small business.
While I appreciate that Wild Coyote may not be able to produce city-wide
statistics, I would have thought that, in light of its above-described
incident-logging and reporting obligations under the Liquor Act and Liquor
Regulation, it would have been able to provide some level of detail about the
claimed reduction in actual incidents in its own establishment. It is after all, the
establishment whose practices and experience are under review in this inquiry.
As I noted earlier, Wild Coyote originally asserted an 80% reduction in violent
incidents, but this was an estimate only, one that on further investigation turned
out to be inconsistent with Wild Coyote‟s own incident logs.

[88] The only other material of assistance is the submission of the Chiefs‟
Association. As indicated above, the Chiefs‟ Association‟s submissions offer the
views of unidentified members of the VPD, and the opinion of the Chiefs‟
Association, that systems to identify customers deter violent individuals from
entering licensed establishments. As noted above, from this, the Chiefs‟
Association expresses the opinion that collection, use and disclosure of
customers‟ personal information is “demonstrably necessary” to provide for a
“safe and secure environment.”56 The Chiefs‟ Association‟s submissions do not
speak to alternative measures to provide safe and secure environments for
patrons.

[89] As an aside, it is reasonable to think that TreoScope itself would have
data to support the claims it makes for its product. It has asserted that its clients
“report an approximate 75% to 85% drop in violence on their premises through
the use of TreoScope technology”. Yet it refers only to two customer testimonials
in support of these figures. Without specifying claimed percentage decreases in
violence, these testimonials offer opinions, not data, to support the claim that
security-related incidents have decreased through use of the technology.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

You said that you would accept ANY form of deterring trouble from my workplace

Question : Barwatch owners probably have less security staff as the club is counting on the Treoscope system to weed out trouble. Would you rather have an extra staff member to cover your back and the club, and weed out the trouble makers on your own judgement ?

 

[Evilsince81]

We used to use Barwatch but have since switched to a new system developed by an Edmonton firm called "Smartscan" which I think is superior.
All of my serious incidents were pre-scanning, however since implementing scanning we have had a few good scraps that have resulted in people being identified by their picture and subsequently banned.
Dis-carded customers going to the local pub? Good riddance.
And yes, information is restricted to management, I am management.
We ran the same amount of doormen before we implemented the scan system as we do now.
Quote all the stats and figures and newspaper articles you want, I work there, I see what is going on, in my opinion ID scanning makes a safer enviroment.

 

[Stella_Hardon]

We used to use Barwatch but have since switched to a new system developed by an Edmonton firm called "Smartscan" which I think is superior.
All of my serious incidents were pre-scanning, however since implementing scanning we have had a few good scraps that have resulted in people being identified by their picture and subsequently banned.
Dis-carded customers going to the local pub? Good riddance.
And yes, information is restricted to management, I am management.
We ran the same amount of doormen before we implemented the scan system as we do now.
Quote all the stats and figures and newspaper articles you want, I work there, I see what is going on, in my opinion ID scanning makes a safer enviroment.

The Privacy Commissioner just rulled against Barwatch and especially the DL scanner scam.
MANAGEMENT could only put out an opinion, they have no stats or figures to support their claim.

The doorman has access to my personal information and that's because the doorman is management.
Not a strong argument for securing privacy.

DL Scanning DID NOT PREVENT a few good SCRAPS and the consequence was a BANNING ?

Pushing the bad-asses to the local pubs is okay with you ? The local pub didin't have problems before.

So far your commentary has shown that ID scanning isn't working .

You are in good company with the Privacy Commissioner.

 

[bc guy]

without the scan these patrons would not have been identified therefore yes Barwatch DID work. As pointed out before by the porcelineprincess the majoraty of this forum is pro Barwatch so stop quoting the Privacy Commissioner govt biased report and listen to the people who go and work in the pubs or clubs. As for the local pubs, they are free to sign up for the Barwatch program too

The Privacy Commissioner just rulled against Barwatch and especially the DL scanner scam.
MANAGEMENT could only put out an opinion, they have no stats or figures to support their claim.

The doorman has access to my personal information and that's because the doorman is management.
Not a strong argument for securing privacy.

DL Scanning DID NOT PREVENT a few good SCRAPS and the consequence was a BANNING ?

Pushing the bad-asses to the local pubs is okay with you ? The local pub didin't have problems before.

So far your commentary has shown that ID scanning isn't working .

You are in good company with the Privacy Commissioner.

 

[Stella_Hardon]

without the scan these patrons would not have been identified therefore yes Barwatch DID work. As pointed out before by the porcelineprincess the majoraty of this forum is pro Barwatch so stop quoting the Privacy Commissioner govt biased report and listen to the people who go and work in the pubs or clubs. As for the local pubs, they are free to sign up for the Barwatch program too

Thanks for the input.

If Barwatch would have aided in the prosecution of just one troublemaker it would have made headline news. BUT IT DIDN"T .. THE TROUBLE MAKERS WERE BANNED ..
"therefore yes Barwatch DID work" ... is a pretty trivial result. I'd expect more from such a highly touted system.

FYI ... the vast majority of this forum have not expressed an opinion.
FYI ... labelling the Privacy Commissioner's report as biased your opinion ... right ?

Those who have expressed an opinion clearly haven't read the report, and provide more evidence that Barwatch isn't working . Review their comments.

It's tough to find a single postive aspect of Barwatch. The more you find out about the program the more you find serious flaws which just show what a hollow POS it is. I'm sure John Teti would have liked to offer a lot more postive evidence that the system works other than his smoke and bullshit.

Why would the local pubs sign up for a Barwatch program when it has been shot down by the Privacy Commissioner

BARWATCH DOESN"T WORK ...

Why are still supporting this program ?