CCTV Turned off, Makes National news Options

[On the edge]

Credibility aside, if you are able to assure us you must have some data to prove your point. That's the only way I'd be assured.

The data we do have, as said earlier, demonstrates that the voters round here don't want it. It's the choice they made, putting it bluntly, our peers believe having such things as splash pads, ceremonial robes and flag poles is far more important. OK, even the Council admits that data is a bit dodgy, so we'd be justified in looking at anecdotal evidence too. The media regularly reports that many people are against speed reporting cameras; which are, of course, a species of surveillance camera. So, like it or not, it was a community decision.

[On the edge]

Credibility aside, if you are able to assure us you must have some data to prove your point. That's the only way I'd be assured.

The data we do have, as said earlier, demonstrates that the voters round here don't want it. It's the choice they made, putting it bluntly, our peers believe having such things as splash pads, ceremonial robes and flag poles is far more important. OK, even the Council admits that data is a bit dodgy, so we'd be justified in looking at anecdotal evidence too. The media regularly reports that many people are against speed reporting cameras; which are, of course, a species of surveillance camera. So, like it or not, it was a community decision.

[Biker1]

Credibility aside, if you are able to assure us you must have some data to prove your point. That's the only way I'd be assured.

Likewise is there "good criminological research (data) that shows the social benefit of CCTV NOT to be value for money"?
Unfortunately I cannot enlarge on that which i have already said for good reason. I am just trying to keep folks informed. If you choose not to be convinced that is up to you.

[Simon Kirby]

Likewise is there "good criminological research (data) that shows the social benefit of CCTV NOT to be value for money"?

That's a bit of a Russell's tea pot. If you're advocating the spending of public money on CCTV the burden of proof is on you to show that it is effevtive at delivering social benefit, it's not for me to falsify your claim.

[Rdg]

Actually it is not the case you have to prove "value for money" but instead "better value for money" than an alternative (be that mental health services or improved lighting or more bobbies on the beat), there are only limited funds so we need to ensure every £ spent does as much good as it can.

£80,557 plus VAT gets a Splashpad, £70k some toilets, £90k the mobile libraries back and £224,930 covers the 40 CCTV cameras in West Berks for a year. So basically Toilets, Splashpad and Libraries add up to the same as the CCTV, if you keep that £225k of annual spend what else would have to go instead ?

[On the edge]

In reality we get very little indeed from CCTV. When did you last read of an offender prosecuted on evidence given by CCTV round here? The big cost is having someone watch the screens and call the old bill when they see trouble. That really works doesn't it? After a good Saturday night, the streets are still just as full of puke and broken glass. Frankly, no self respecting crim is going to be deterred by CCTV as the lack of convictions amply demonstrate.

[Simon Kirby]

Actually it is not the case you have to prove "value for money" but instead "better value for money" than an alternative (be that mental health services or improved lighting or more bobbies on the beat), there are only limited funds so we need to ensure every £ spent does as much good as it can.

£80,557 plus VAT gets a Splashpad, £70k some toilets, £90k the mobile libraries back and £224,930 covers the 40 CCTV cameras in West Berks for a year. So basically Toilets, Splashpad and Libraries add up to the same as the CCTV, if you keep that £225k of annual spend what else would have to go instead ?

You're right of course, and I would question the justice of Conservative voters who want their town council to spend £500,000 on the pointless and ceremonial while slashing public services like respite care, mental health services, libraries, and public toilets.

[newres]

Likewise is there "good criminological research (data) that shows the social benefit of CCTV NOT to be value for money"?
Unfortunately I cannot enlarge on that which i have already said for good reason. I am just trying to keep folks informed. If you choose not to be convinced that is up to you.

Yes, I regularly spend hours of my time proving negatives.

[Andy Capp]

Likewise is there "good criminological research (data) that shows the social benefit of CCTV NOT to be value for money"?

From a cursory search, it would seem that evidence is mixed and not clear. CCTV seems to reduces things like car crime, but has little effect on violent crime. I have also seen that it also depends how it is installed. Sometimes CCTV is not as effective as good street lighting.

Unfortunately I cannot enlarge on that which i have already said for good reason. I am just trying to keep folks informed. If you choose not to be convinced that is up to you.

Informed of what and convinced by what? The argument and evidence from you hasn't been particularly forth coming either, other than to say your opinion is shared by some others.

I see that the government and Simon Kirby have tabled reasonable ideas and argument, but the conservative amongst us have simply thrown scorn or cynicism in reply.

[On the edge]

CCTV is a fixed view of a limited area, it needs focussed concentration by humans 24/7 to make even that surveillance, 100% effective. Yes, but again not without significant human intervention, it can be searched to show someone was in the area at a specific time. So without a huge ongoing cost, it's never going to be any real solution. As effective as the French Maginot line as a deterrent against war.

It seems to me that a better and rather more effective solution for public surveillance would be to revert back to the original Police 'walking the beat' model. CCTV does have its place; supporting train guards, car park attendants, supermarket security people etc.

Street CCTV was a worthwhile experiment, which I suspect would have ended, even in less economically straightened times. Simply because without the heavy supporting resource needed and limited area of cover, it's hard to see how it can be effective.

[Andy Capp]

A trained operator is likely to be cheaper than a policeman and is more mobile when called upon. CCTV can help to track movements and to prove whereabouts as evidence. It doesn't have to be looking at the actual incidence to be helpful. Then of course, it will have a small amount of deterrence effect, unless of course it is announced that they are not perminanely manned!

[On the edge]

A trained operator is likely to be cheaper than a policeman and is more mobile when called upon. CCTV can help to track movements and to prove whereabouts as evidence. It doesn't have to be looking at the actual incidence to be helpful. Then of course, it will have a small amount of deterrence effect, unless of course it is announced that they are not perminanely manned!

A trained operator wouldn't expect any less than a PCSO, but the budget the money comes from isn't Police its Council, so the savings are wooden dollars. Again, sure, CCTV can track movements, but that's actually quite resource hungry. Extract archives and manually scan. Yes, just like a five lever lock, or a simple burglar alarm system it might have a minor deterrent effect; but that's marginal and almost unmeasurable. In reality, the biggest benefit is that it reduces 'fear of crime' in certain elements of the population. That fear is often whipped up by the media and so often wholly unjustified. The cost versus even the best intangible benefits would therefore make a very weak business case; even when the economy is less stressed.

[Andy Capp]

A trained operator wouldn't expect any less than a PCSO, but the budget the money comes from isn't Police its Council, so the savings are wooden dollars. Again, sure, CCTV can track movements, but that's actually quite resource hungry. Extract archives and manually scan. Yes, just like a five lever lock, or a simple burglar alarm system it might have a minor deterrent effect; but that's marginal and almost unmeasurable. In reality, the biggest benefit is that it reduces 'fear of crime' in certain elements of the population. That fear is often whipped up by the media and so often wholly unjustified. The cost versus even the best intangible benefits would therefore make a very weak business case; even when the economy is less stressed.

I see CCTV a bit like insurance, it make one feel comfortable to know it is there, but hope not to use it. It would be interesting to hear the police's view on having no CCTV available in Newbury.

[Biker1]

CCTV is a fixed view of a limited area, it needs focussed concentration by humans 24/7 to make even that surveillance, 100% effective. Yes, but again not without significant human intervention, it can be searched to show someone was in the area at a specific time.

The cameras in Newbury are were linked to cover most of the town centre.
They could also move and did not have a fixed view.
They could track an offender as they progressed to bring about an apprehension or identification.
But, fair enough, you guys feel they are ineffective and a waste of money so I'll leave it there.
Better tell the BID team maybe? Wouldn't want them to waste their time or money!

[Andy Capp]

The cameras in Newbury are were linked to cover most of the town centre.
They could also move and did not have a fixed view.
They could track an offender as they progressed to bring about an apprehension or identification.
But, fair enough, you guys feel they are ineffective and a waste of money so I'll leave it there.
Better tell the BID team maybe? Wouldn't want them to waste their time or money!

I think most appear to have made their minds up, but I would like to see the facts and evidence before deciding.



Now then: disadvantaged children or middle classes in their Vogues.

[On the edge]

The cameras in Newbury are were linked to cover most of the town centre.
They could also move and did not have a fixed view.
They could track an offender as they progressed to bring about an apprehension or identification.
But, fair enough, you guys feel they are ineffective and a waste of money so I'll leave it there.
Better tell the BID team maybe? Wouldn't want them to waste their time or money!

The BIDs input is a very good point. Arguably, the biggest loosens will be the BID members. It has had the chance to take over, indeed actually has the capability, it has also had the chance to campaign or at least enter the debate. It has chosen to do next to nothing; which to my mind speaks volumes!

[Simon Kirby]

If the idea of CCTV is to make communities safer then I really couldn't be more supportive of that, but when looked at objectively in the round CCTV is not necessarily the best answer.

CCTV can be a useful tool in detecting certain crimes in certain areas, but it's not particularly effective at preventing that crime in the first place and for all its popularity with the hot-fuzz generation chattering classes it does nothing to address the underlying causes of criminality or design-out criminality from the built urban environment.

So if safer communities is really the objective here then the first place to start is with social justice, eliminating poverty by paying a living wage and providing a decent standard of living to those who can't work or can't find work. Then invest public money in social services so that fewer children are neglected and abused, provide very much better mental health services, decriminalise drug use, provide much better support for drug and alcohol abusers.

Then design out out crime by building quality homes, and address the social injustice of the unaffordability of housing, and if there is still money left after all that and you want to put something electronic on the top of a pole, install street lighting, because just that alone is more effective at deterring crime than CCTV.

[blackdog]

If the idea of CCTV is to make communities safer then I really couldn't be more supportive of that, but when looked at objectively in the round CCTV is not necessarily the best answer.

CCTV can be a useful tool in detecting certain crimes in certain areas, but it's not particularly effective at preventing that crime in the first place and for all its popularity with the hot-fuzz generation chattering classes it does nothing to address the underlying causes of criminality or design-out criminality from the built urban environment.

So if safer communities is really the objective here then the first place to start is with social justice, eliminating poverty by paying a living wage and providing a decent standard of living to those who can't work or can't find work. Then invest public money in social services so that fewer children are neglected and abused, provide very much better mental health services, decriminalise drug use, provide much better support for drug and alcohol abusers.

Then design out out crime by building quality homes, and address the social injustice of the unaffordability of housing, and if there is still money left after all that and you want to put something electronic on the top of a pole, install street lighting, because just that alone is more effective at deterring crime than CCTV.

Your solutions to the crime problem may well prove wonderfully effective if implemented, but, dare I say it, the cost would be enormous. CCTV is a sticking plaster solution - a cheap (relatively) and easy way to reduce crime a bit.

[Biker1]

So if safer communities is really the objective here then the first place to start is with social justice, eliminating poverty by paying a living wage and providing a decent standard of living to those who can't work or can't find work. Then invest public money in social services so that fewer children are neglected and abused, provide very much better mental health services, decriminalise drug use, provide much better support for drug and alcohol abusers.

Then design out out crime by building quality homes, and address the social injustice of the unaffordability of housing, and if there is still money left after all that and you want to put something electronic on the top of a pole, install street lighting, because just that alone is more effective at deterring crime than CCTV.

Ah yes, the old communist, utopian solution that has been tried and failed by many countries and communities.
Unfortunately doomed to failure because those who purport it fail to incorporate the factor of human greed, which to a greater or lesser extent is built into all of us from prehistoric times.
What would be just as effective, but also as improbable as the your solution Simon, is for people to take responsibility for themselves and their actions.

(Funny how a simple discussion about cctv can evolve into a philosophical debate!)

[Simon Kirby]

Ah yes, the old communist, utopian solution that has been tried and failed by many countries and communities.
Unfortunately doomed to failure because those who purport it fail to incorporate the factor of human greed, which to a greater or lesser extent is built into all of us from prehistoric times.
What would be just as effective, but also as improbable as the your solution Simon, is for people to take responsibility for themselves and their actions.

Communism is a social system in which workers own the means of production and are supported by the collective each according to their needs. I'm a free-market liberal and if you need to shoe-box my argument then it's essentially utilitarianism.

That "responsibility" narrative is an ideological objection, but if you actually want a solution then it needs to be pragmatic. You talk yourself about how people behave (although your argument was a straw man, directed as it was at demolishing communism) and the answer is to recognise that criminality is strongly correlated with poverty, neglect, mental ill-health, substance abuse, urban design, and street lighting - and that's not ideological, it's empirically true.

Of course if this isn't about creating safer communities and is really about the chattering classes catching and punishing people who aren't "taking responsibility", then CCTV is the answer.