Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Click on images
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
"No link" between CCTV and crime-solving
16 Oct 07
Figures released under the Freedom of Information Act demonstrate ‘no link’ between CCTV coverage and crime-solving rates in London, according to the Liberal Democrats.
A study of the capital’s publicly-funded camera network, owned by local councils and Transport for London, found that police are no more likely to solve crime in areas with the most cameras.
In fact, 80 per cent of the boroughs with the highest number of cameras had below average crime-solving rates.
The statistics were issued to the Liberal Democrats and seem likely to reopen the debate over the effectiveness of public CCTV systems.
Party spokeswoman Dee Doocey called for an ‘open debate’ about the role of CCTV in London.
“Too often calls for CCTV cameras come as a knee-jerk reaction,” she said.
“Too often calls for CCTV cameras come as a knee-jerk reaction.” |
Liberal Democrat spokeswoman Dee Doocey |
“We have estimated that CCTV cameras have cost the taxpayer in the region of £200million in the last 10 years but it's not entirely clear if some of that money would not have been better spent on police officers.
"Although CCTV has its place, it is not the only solution in preventing or detecting crime.”
However, there are exceptions that buck the general trend. Hackney, the borough with the highest number of ‘public’ cameras (1484), does have a higher than average success rate with 22.2 per cent of crimes solved.
But the boroughs of Kensington and Chelsea, Sutton and Waltham Forest have less than 100 public cameras each, and still achieve clear-up rates of around 20 per cent.
Advocates believe CCTV’s real power lies in preventing crime in the first place and that, along with features like street lighting, it can help members of the public feel safer on the streets.
Get the latest stories first with info4security's newsletters: Click to signup
Post and bookmark this story at the following sites:
Readers' comments
The MPS has recognisied this problem and under the command of Mick Neville are setting up dedicated CCTV video evidence teams. This will put the use of CCTV video evidence at the same level of finger-printing and DNA evidence.
I know that this is an old story, however of late I have been reading some by-lines and editorials that got me thinking. Thinking about not only how effective CCTV is in solving crime, but also how effective is security full stop.
If current solutions lead us to investigating more crimes than we prevent, then by default this point’s firmly to the fact that security fails to deliver. Surely to be secure, to feel protected is more about prevention than detection, the later taking place after the act and therefore by definition, after the ‘security’ has failed to secure.
On reading Pete Conway’s article in PSI (Has the BSIA turned its back on Systems) I was left with the profound feeling that the industry just doesn’t get it. The prevention of crime is logically best achieved by collaboration and co-operation between both Manned Guarding and Technology, not by the promotion of either over the other as a total solution.
Having been a soldier for 17 years I learnt that no matter how advanced your technology was, nor how fast it could detect and engage the ‘enemy’, the battle was only ever one by the men on the ground physically securing the position and protecting it.
Like wise in today’s modern security environment, technology will only aid in the fight against crime, by allowing the visual coverage of a large disparate area from a central point, thus speeding up the early detection of an event, but, until the Guard, security Patrol or Police arrive to secure the location, the location will have not been truly secured.
So, please lets not get carried away by which system is better, they should both compliment each other allowing more people to cover a larger area and react faster to events as they are building up, with the common aim of prevention not post mortem.
As the person who provided the Hackney stats to the Lib Dems under the FOIA, this artical just goes to show why the FOIA is such a double edged sword.
The number they have made much fuss about, 1484 cameras, includes all the cameras on housing estates and corporate premises, many of which just sit immovably staring at a fire exit, or communal entrance to a block of flats. These cameras are not really relevant to the debate, which I believe was around Town centre CCTV.
Had the question posed by the Lib Dems been better phrased, or the context explained, then I could have answered more meaningfully. At least once a month we get enquiries that are obviously motivated by a forthcoming sensationalist press or political 'revelation' such as this, and have to answer what are sometimes bizarre and stupid questions.
The best was a recent enquirer who asked 'how many CCT systems does Hackney CCTV Centre monitor". Without some context the question was impossible to answer meaningfully, so we said '1'. Not at all helpful, but people hide behind FOIA to cloak their motives and make it difficult to answer meaningfully.
It's very frustrating and often national debates are fuelled by claptrap such as this.
Andy