Its official - CCTV is rubbish!
- 7 May 2008 07:511930We all thought didnt we, that the arrival of CCTV cameras all over our society, would keep crime off our streets. Everybody said so, all the experts said it,..it was the new wave in crimefighting..wasnt it? alas sadly no it hasnt turned out that way.The goodwill blip was shortlived.
The cameras have proved to be almost useless. They have cost billions and billions to install all over the country, and even within my own peripheral view a new one has arrived on the Gateway roof. They have only just taken it out of the packaging. But why bother, the police themselves have said that they are effective in less than 3% of cases.
The problem is that they are easily fooled and besides nobody gives a rats ass anymore whether they are photographed or not.The criminals dont anyway. There is no centre image database anywhere, so for example if I go to Nuneaton, chuck a brick thru a jewellers window, grab a rolex or two, smile at the cameras and comeback home to Dover, nobody will ever know who I am. Then of course there is the rise of the hoodie anyway. A low tech design easily able to counteract all the hi tech goldfishery. Wear a hood and cripple the technology!
Sadly now though we have sleepwalkd into a surveilance society, more cameras here than anywhere else in Europe, and the surveilance is useless. It can probaly tell if I go to Tesco or not on a regular basis, but as for crime!? According to the police yesterday.." they have failed to cut crime"email: dover7@msn.com - 7 May 2008 08:021931According to the police yesterday.." they have failed to cut crime"
I could have told them that for an eighth of the price!!
- 7 May 2008 09:241934First of all PaulB I agree that the surveilance society has gone too far. Further Government proposals to increase snooping on our private lives, id cards etc just make it worse.
That said I do think you need to be careful about how you interpret this and look for hidden agendas. The police want more resources and this is clearly part of there agenda to place pressure for those resources. Fair enough, I agree with them and what I have said is not a critisism but you need to be aware of what motivates this publicity.
As always there are grains of truth in what they say but it is possible to be selective to illustrate a point. One part of that is to exaggerate and distort the original motivation for the installation of cameras.
I was responsible for getting through the initial CCTV system in Dover when I was Chairman of what was then the Technical Services Committee. I managed to get the system approved at no extra cost to the council tax with some extra charges only on those car parks protected with cameras. We lost a by-election, and with it Council control, between approving the scheme and it being installed so I was no longer the Chairman when the scheme was opened.
The original idea was to provide increased security for the car parks and after a visit to Kings Lynn we decided to extend it a little to gain extra value from the system by covering much of the pedestrianised area. It was always expected that any impact on crime would be localised and in many ways would merely 'displace it'. In Kings Lynn, the first such system, we found that the cameras, linked to the police, can be a significant help in supporting the police. We always knew then that it would not be so successful if the cameras were to over relied on and if they were used to replace or reduce police patrolling. I fear that human nature being what it is that this has happened and hence a reduction in the effectivness of the system.
Since then it has grown to be a much bigger more extensive system than we then envisaged and perhaps it shows that more is not better. Personally I believe that it has grown too much and what we really now need is more police patrols on the street.
Interestingly though, I see that the Council has won the 'Safer Car Parks Award' as was the hope and intention of the original policy.... - 7 May 2008 09:551937A Rolex!, it's PaulB's special birthday at the end of the month, I'll better get myself off to Nuneaton fast, housebrick in hand!
- 7 May 2008 14:261944Just seen this on The Independent website - interesting that Dover is being quoted nationwide!
"Dover council introduced CCTV in 1993. After 12 years, they found that burglary in the areas covered had halved, car crime was down 87 per cent, but public disorder and crimes of violence had almost trebled.
A study in Gillingham, also in Kent, concluded that crime in the High Street had fallen by a third five years after CCTV was installed, while it was static in areas where there was no CCTV."
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/the-big-question-are-cctv-cameras-a-waste-of-money-in-the-fight-against-crime-822079.html - 7 May 2008 17:111947Well. this has just gone up on Dover.gov
REDUCTION IN CRIME IN DOVER DISTRICT
Successful partnership working has led to a significant reduction in reported crime over the last year, and has led to the performance of the Dover District Community Safety Partnership being congratulated by the Government Office for the South East, (GOSE).
Figures show reported crime is down by 15% (exceeding an already demanding goal of 12.5%). A Fear of Crime Survey also reveals that 91% of people in the district feel safe.
These figures are taken from the results and performance of the Crime and Disorder Reduction Partnership Strategy 2005-2008. This achievement has been acknowledged in a letter from GOSE, the agency representing Central Government in the South East. The partnership, now called the Dover District Community Safety Partnership, is, we understand, one of only 17 in the South East (which is made up of 66 partnerships) that have met the demanding performance targets for crime reduction.
The partnership has now published the Community Safety Partnership Plan 2008-2011.
Nadeem Aziz, Chairman of the Dover District Community Safety Partnership, said: 'These results are excellent and whilst the partnership is justifiably proud of the results, the real measure of success is the 15% reduction in the number of victims of crime. The partnership continues to work for the best interests of the community, and we are pleased to be launching our strategy for 2008-2011, which once again sets targets for crime reduction and community safety that will continue to ensure the district remains a safe place to live, work and visit.'
For more information, or to view the Community Safety Partnership Plan, log onto www.dover.gov.uk/communitysafetyBeen nice knowing you :) - 7 May 2008 19:351950One interesting point. It seems that some police forces are seeking to achieve their Government set crime targets by no longer classifying certain crimes as a crime, such as graffiti...
You never know what to believe when every public body from schools, police and the NHS are having to create statistics to demonstrate that they meet targets. There are so many ways these can be manipulated.... - 7 May 2008 21:241952another point to add here, is that the way of collating crime statistics has changed.
previously if there were 5 offences during one incident, they counted as 5 offences.
now they are counted as 1. - 8 May 2008 00:071956Have to agree with many differing views but make 1 point
yesterday in town a small 5 year old went missing from mother, it was by the help of the CCTV and others that he was found.
just a point - 8 May 2008 07:021957I have said before on these postings - a primary purpose of stats is manipulation in order to support a policy......and "crime" is defined by a legal system that is archaic, horribly complex, and thoughtlessly amended by politicians with an eye to the quick vote-appeal. The recent criminalisation of a fella for stuffing his wheelie bin with rubbish demonstrates beautifully that "criminal" and "crime" can be subjective terms....