IPB

Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

5 Pages V   1 2 3 > »   
Reply to this topicStart new topic
> CCTV Turned off, Makes National news
gel
post May 4 2016, 05:14 PM
Post #1


Advanced Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 863
Joined: 11-September 09
From: Thames Valley
Member No.: 337



http://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/666986/Co...-centre-Newbury

Our Switched off CCTV capability, makes the first letter of CCTV stand for closed down
in the operational sense!

angry.gif

Meanwhile our International Aid Dept. desperately seeks dubious projects for us to fund in
foreign lands, so they can meet their spending targets.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Simon Kirby
post May 4 2016, 06:56 PM
Post #2


Advanced Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 6,300
Joined: 20-July 10
From: Wash Common
Member No.: 1,011



QUOTE (gel @ May 4 2016, 06:14 PM) *
http://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/666986/Co...-centre-Newbury

Our Switched off CCTV capability, makes the first letter of CCTV stand for closed down
in the operational sense!

angry.gif

Meanwhile our International Aid Dept. desperately seeks dubious projects for us to fund in
foreign lands, so they can meet their spending targets.

Has CCTV been shown to do any good? It's been helpful in a number of high-profile murders and such, but is there good criminological research that shows the social benefit of CCTV to be value for money?

Comparing Newbury's CCTV with the UK's overseas aid budget is a little bit apples and oranges as it's difficult to put a social value on our support for developing economies, but there are a couple of ways of making a meaningful comparison.

One way of looking at it is to compare overseas aid and defence and to think of overseas aid as soft power to the hard power of defence. The UK spends a little less than 2% of GDP on defence, and around 0.7% of GDP on overseas aid. We get little social benefit from our defence spending because to some extent the countries interested in belligerence are the ones we've provoked militarily in the first place. For sure, we have done some limited good, in Kosovo for example, but generally our military spending delivers little social benefit. Foreign aid spending on the other hand promotes UK interests abroad and gives us some small leverage over otherwise hostile foreign regimes so it has all the strategic advantages of military spending, but none of the down-sides. Also, the way that 0.7% of foreign aid spending is calculated, much of it is spent domestically, so it's not like we're giving money away - you'd be right to be incredulous at a Tory government doing just that, and of course they don't.


--------------------
Right an injustice - give Simon Kirby his allotment back!
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Biker1
post May 4 2016, 07:55 PM
Post #3


Advanced Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 4,651
Joined: 26-May 09
Member No.: 103



You can sign here if you disagree with Simon, or read the response from the government which, after reading, would suggest there is little point in having the debate.

I can assure you that the cctv system in Newbury does help to prevent and detect criminal and anti social behaviour. Whether one regards this as value for money I would think depends on which walk of life you may come from and how much you value the above.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
gel
post May 4 2016, 08:07 PM
Post #4


Advanced Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 863
Joined: 11-September 09
From: Thames Valley
Member No.: 337



QUOTE (Biker1 @ May 4 2016, 08:55 PM) *
You can sign here if you disagree with Simon, or read the response from the government which, after reading, would suggest there is little point in having the debate.

I can assure you that the cctv system in Newbury does help to prevent and detect criminal and anti social behaviour. Whether one regards this as value for money I would think depends on which walk of life you may come from and how much you value the above.

HERE HERE. wink.gif
And Crims will surely favour a town without CCTV for obvious reasons Simon K.

Already signed that petition needless to say smile.gif
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Andy Capp
post May 4 2016, 09:05 PM
Post #5


Advanced Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 11,142
Joined: 3-September 09
Member No.: 317



I think Simon made quite a sensible and rational argument, but I also think it is incumbent on the town to provided CCTV. A large minority at the last election supported withdrawing central funding so I guess we will have to pay for it another way.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Turin Machine
post May 4 2016, 09:18 PM
Post #6


Advanced Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 1,850
Joined: 23-September 10
From: In the lower 40
Member No.: 1,104



Guns before Lollypops!
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Turin Machine
post May 4 2016, 09:23 PM
Post #7


Advanced Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 1,850
Joined: 23-September 10
From: In the lower 40
Member No.: 1,104



QUOTE (Simon Kirby @ May 4 2016, 07:56 PM) *
Has CCTV been shown to do any good? It's been helpful in a number of high-profile murders and such, but is there good criminological research that shows the social benefit of CCTV to be value for money?

Comparing Newbury's CCTV with the UK's overseas aid budget is a little bit apples and oranges as it's difficult to put a social value on our support for developing economies, but there are a couple of ways of making a meaningful comparison.

One way of looking at it is to compare overseas aid and defence and to think of overseas aid as soft power to the hard power of defence. The UK spends a little less than 2% of GDP on defence, and around 0.7% of GDP on overseas aid. We get little social benefit from our defence spending because to some extent the countries interested in belligerence are the ones we've provoked militarily in the first place. For sure, we have done some limited good, in Kosovo for example, but generally our military spending delivers little social benefit. Foreign aid spending on the other hand promotes UK interests abroad and gives us some small leverage over otherwise hostile foreign regimes so it has all the strategic advantages of military spending, but none of the down-sides. Also, the way that 0.7% of foreign aid spending is calculated, much of it is spent domestically, so it's not like we're giving money away - you'd be right to be incredulous at a Tory government doing just that, and of course they don't.

Two opinions, one belongs to you and the other to the 230,000 people who disagree!
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Turin Machine
post May 4 2016, 09:24 PM
Post #8


Advanced Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 1,850
Joined: 23-September 10
From: In the lower 40
Member No.: 1,104



QUOTE (Andy Capp @ May 4 2016, 10:05 PM) *
I think Simon made quite a wubble and typical leftie argument, but I also think it is incumbent on the town to provided CCTV. A large minority at the last election supported withdrawing central funding so I guess we will have to pay for it another way.

There, fixed that for you!
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Simon Kirby
post May 4 2016, 09:50 PM
Post #9


Advanced Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 6,300
Joined: 20-July 10
From: Wash Common
Member No.: 1,011



QUOTE (Turin Machine @ May 4 2016, 10:24 PM) *
There, fixed that for you!

I don't know about leftie as such, it's really just an appeal to reason.

The council CCTV does pretty much nothing to deter crime, so if that's the concern, don't be. If there's any deterrence from CCTV it's from the cameras inside shops, and pretty much every shop in the country has CCTV.

Municipal CCTV is almost exclusively about reassuring the public and reducing the fear of crime rather than addressing criminality itself.


--------------------
Right an injustice - give Simon Kirby his allotment back!
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Biker1
post May 4 2016, 10:16 PM
Post #10


Advanced Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 4,651
Joined: 26-May 09
Member No.: 103



QUOTE (Simon Kirby @ May 4 2016, 10:50 PM) *
I don't know about leftie as such, it's really just an appeal to reason.

The council CCTV does pretty much nothing to deter crime, so if that's the concern, don't be. If there's any deterrence from CCTV it's from the cameras inside shops, and pretty much every shop in the country has CCTV.

Municipal CCTV is almost exclusively about reassuring the public and reducing the fear of crime rather than addressing criminality itself.

How do you know all this?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Simon Kirby
post May 4 2016, 10:17 PM
Post #11


Advanced Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 6,300
Joined: 20-July 10
From: Wash Common
Member No.: 1,011



QUOTE (Biker1 @ May 4 2016, 08:55 PM) *
I can assure you that the cctv system in Newbury does help to prevent and detect criminal and anti social behaviour. Whether one regards this as value for money I would think depends on which walk of life you may come from and how much you value the above.

Your assurance doesn't carry any weight in an argument because I don't know who you are and I can't judge your credibility.

But yes, CCTV may well deter criminality and antisocial behaviour, though as you say it's rather more useful in its detection, but the question is to what degree does Newbury's municipal CCTV do that, and should other public services suffer so we can afford it?

Compare the cost/benefit of municipal CCTV with say mental health services which are being cut in West Berkshire. I haven't seen any great protest against these cuts, but poor mental health is a bigger burden on the health service than both cancer and heart disease, and there's a good correlation between poor mental health and criminality so the case for spending more on mental health services is a strong one whether your concern is for the welfare of people or the affect of their criminality on your own quality of life.


--------------------
Right an injustice - give Simon Kirby his allotment back!
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Biker1
post May 4 2016, 10:21 PM
Post #12


Advanced Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 4,651
Joined: 26-May 09
Member No.: 103



QUOTE (Simon Kirby @ May 4 2016, 11:17 PM) *
Your assurance doesn't carry any weight in an argument because I don't know who you are and I can't judge your credibility.

I cannot say any more but, believe me, my credibility is sound.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
motormad
post May 4 2016, 11:25 PM
Post #13


Advanced Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 1,964
Joined: 29-December 09
From: Dogging in a car park somewhere
Member No.: 592



I can see Simons point.

But I don't think the CCTV cameras should have been turned off. I was not aware of it at all.

I read somewhere it was brought up in some sort of open public meeting, but honestly, who goes to those? Certainly not anyone I know, except perhaps Simon :-)

If they took 1/100th of the money that the Government spent sending us those stupid "we're all going to die if we leave the EU" letters, and put it towards running the CCTV systems in the whole of Berkshire that could quite easily pay for that department.
Data recording doesn't cost much and you don't need many people to watch actively unless a crime is reported or you can easily look back through recorded footage.

I think that knowing you are on CCTV prevents quite a few incidents, or certainly delays them - you are quite unlikely to be mugged outside Natwest for example because of the CCTV that (was) there.
But now - well, you better don your stab vests!


--------------------
:p
Grammar: the difference between knowing your poop and knowing you're poop.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Andy Capp
post May 4 2016, 11:54 PM
Post #14


Advanced Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 11,142
Joined: 3-September 09
Member No.: 317



QUOTE (Biker1 @ May 4 2016, 08:55 PM) *
You can sign here if you disagree with Simon, or read the response from the government which, after reading, would suggest there is little point in having the debate.

I can assure you that the cctv system in Newbury does help to prevent and detect criminal and anti social behaviour. Whether one regards this as value for money I would think depends on which walk of life you may come from and how much you value the above.

And whether people are prepared to listen to arguments before making minds up.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-12...-cut-crime.html
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Andy Capp
post May 5 2016, 12:08 AM
Post #15


Advanced Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 11,142
Joined: 3-September 09
Member No.: 317



QUOTE (Biker1 @ May 4 2016, 08:55 PM) *
You can sign here if you disagree with Simon, or read the response from the government which, after reading, would suggest there is little point in having the debate.

Judging by yours and other comments, it looks like you're right.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Andy Capp
post May 5 2016, 12:10 AM
Post #16


Advanced Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 11,142
Joined: 3-September 09
Member No.: 317



QUOTE (motormad @ May 5 2016, 12:25 AM) *
I can see Simons point.

But I don't think the CCTV cameras should have been turned off. I was not aware of it at all.

I read somewhere it was brought up in some sort of open public meeting, but honestly, who goes to those? Certainly not anyone I know, except perhaps Simon :-)

If they took 1/100th of the money that the Government spent sending us those stupid "we're all going to die if we leave the EU" letters, and put it towards running the CCTV systems in the whole of Berkshire that could quite easily pay for that department.
Data recording doesn't cost much and you don't need many people to watch actively unless a crime is reported or you can easily look back through recorded footage.

I think that knowing you are on CCTV prevents quite a few incidents, or certainly delays them - you are quite unlikely to be mugged outside Natwest for example because of the CCTV that (was) there.
But now - well, you better don your stab vests!

It looks like CCTV works for certain crime like car crime, but is less effective on spontaneous crime, like crime fuelled by drink.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Andy Capp
post May 5 2016, 12:13 AM
Post #17


Advanced Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 11,142
Joined: 3-September 09
Member No.: 317



QUOTE (Turin Machine @ May 4 2016, 10:23 PM) *
Two opinions, one belongs to you and the other to the 230,000 people who disagree!

Appeal to popularity is a poor argument for decisions.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Andy Capp
post May 5 2016, 12:14 AM
Post #18


Advanced Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 11,142
Joined: 3-September 09
Member No.: 317



QUOTE (Turin Machine @ May 4 2016, 10:24 PM) *
There, fixed that for you!

A good argument is a good argument whether left, right, or up wing.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Andy Capp
post May 5 2016, 12:19 AM
Post #19


Advanced Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 11,142
Joined: 3-September 09
Member No.: 317



QUOTE (Biker1 @ May 4 2016, 11:21 PM) *
I cannot say any more but, believe me, my credibility is sound.

You might help to enhance that reputation with some rational argument? My view on CCTV is that it is an important tool for certain types of crime, but it shouldn't stop us scrutising its cost and implementation. The same goes for overseas aid too, but to say we should or shouldn't do something without testing evidence is daft.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
newres
post May 5 2016, 05:31 AM
Post #20


Advanced Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 948
Joined: 27-November 12
Member No.: 8,961



QUOTE (Biker1 @ May 4 2016, 11:21 PM) *
I cannot say any more but, believe me, my credibility is sound.

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.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post

5 Pages V   1 2 3 > » 
Reply to this topicStart new topic
1 User(s) are reading this topic (1 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
0 Members:

 

Lo-Fi Version Time is now: 26th June 2017 - 09:00 AM