CCTV: Common sense or just Hot Fuzz?
To read comments on this article, please click here
See also item on CCTV in Newcastle Emlyn.
Anyone who has seen the film Hot Fuzz will remember the small fictional town of Sandford in Gloucestershire to which police sergeant Nicholas Angel is exiled by the Metropolitan Police force because he is just too good at his job and shows up his colleagues.
Sandford has a Neighborhood Watch Association (NWA) which through it’s CCTV (Closed Circuit Television) system manned by volunteers, holds the town in its claustrophobic grip, viewing everything outside its comfort zone of white, middle aged and middle class with suspicion and hostility.
Sergeant Angel eventually discovers that anyone seen as threatening the rural status quo is being systematically liquidated for what the NWA sees as “the greater good”. The film ends in an exhilerating Hollywood style shootout. (Contains strong language).
Cut to the UK. We have more CCTV cameras (5 million) per head of population (60 million) than any other nation. We have 1% of the World’s population, but 20% of its video cameras and are the most “observed” country in the World.
Cut to Newcastle Emlyn West Wales, population 1,000 where the Town Council is keen to see the installation of 9 CCTV cameras costing £19,000 in order to observe the comings and goings of it’s inhabitants (although the TC would argue, just the unruly ones). Is this a legitimate response to an increase in vandalism and unruly behaviour, or simply overkill given the nature of the problem? Are there local police crime statistics to support the CCTV proposal?
The main dilemma regarding the use of CCTV is explained by Jonathan Bamford, assistant commissioner at the Information Commissioner’s Office:
“It is clear that use of CCTV enjoys a lot of public support and can have benefits such as helping with the detection of crime, however, it can be extremely intrusive, putting law abiding people under surveillance. It is essential that the public is confident that CCTV is being used responsibly and for a proper purpose.”
Some CCTV operators have even begun to include audio in their CCTV use. Some local authorities have begun fitting speakers beside cameras so that operators can admonish wrongdoers observed on camera in real-time.
The Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO) has warned that CCTV must not be used to record conversations. The Commissioner has proposed a new Code of Practice on the use of CCTV to replace the current code adopted in 2000.
I hope that a similar consultation has been taking place in Newcastle Emlyn amongst shopkeepers and residents about the Town Council’s push for CCTV. A public meeting was held on Friday October 12th about the proposals but it was poorly attended, with less than 10 of the 100 town businesses represented and under 30 people, which includes the whole 10 person Town Council. Absence from that meeting however doesn’t imply consent. A proper survey of opinion should be carried out and the results made public. The enthusiasm of a few people for the surveillance society and the silence of the majority cannot be the basis for the installation of cameras in the town.
Those who see technology as the answer to social problems and who wish to covertly observe the lives of the vast majority of non-rowdy, sober and law-abiding citizens must demonstrate an overwhelming case before being allowed to impose their solutions on the rest of us. They must also explain in detail who will have access to recordings or live broadcasts of the comings and goings of towns people. Will everyone having access to the system be Criminal Records Bureau checked? Who will own the recordings? Wireless video systems such as the one being proposed are also vulnerable to their wireless signal being intercepted by hackers working from laptop computers.
It is up to the CCTV enthusiasts to demonstrate that the electronic surveillance approach is vital to keep law and order on Newcastle Emlyn High Street from the Bridge Street to Emlyn Square (for that is the only area of the town which would be covered by the CCTV) and that the thousands of pounds going into the project couldn’t more effectively be spent on other crime prevention measures.
Have your say below and let’s have the debate first, followed by the decision, rather than vice-versa.
We are already well down the slippery slope of a Big Brother society; virtually everything in our lives can be monitored -e-mails, mobile phones, impending ID cards, speed cameras and the ubiquitous CCTV cameras etc. We need to think very carefully about how our society is developing. The recent film The Lives of Others is a perfect example of what can happen to a society which becomes totally controlled by the State. And ultimately who watches the watchers?
Having been born in Newcastle Emlyn, I have noticed the difference in the town over the last 50 yrs. Change is all around us, regardless of if we like it or not, things change. Thirty years ago I could walk through the town any day or night at whatever time and not even think of being in danger, the same twenty years ago, but in the lat ten years the change has been phenomenal, especially on Friday and Saturday nights.
Having had occasion to drive through town on a number of Friday and Saturday nights during the last twelve months I was glad that I was not a pedestrian. Even driving through the town one feels intimidated, being confronted by twenty or even thirty drunken people meandering all over the road in front of the car. Is this “normal” behaviour?
It appears to be in Newcastle Emlyn on these nights of the week, as it appears to be in other towns accross the country.The main difference is that the other town s have CCTV and people who cause damage can be seen and apprehended, while in Newcastle Emlyn, they can smash windows and be abusive etc andnothing is done, they have free range to behave as they wish without any fear of reprisals.
YES we do need CCTV in Newcastle Emlyn.
There has without doubt been a worsening of “on street” behaviour over the years in Town. My arguments against CCTV are that (a) In the majority of cases, according to the Home Office, it does not improve bad behaviour or crime and (b) The bad behaviour is directly related to pubs, clubs and the alcohol consumed therein. So why get obsessed by CCTV, when what is required is for the police and licensing authorities to oblige these businesses to regulate their customers, under threat of their licenses being suspended, or their opening hours restricted. It is these root causes which need to be tackled head on. CCTV will merely attempt, and fail, to address the symptoms.
Given also that it is highly unlikely in my opinion that traders in town will be prepared to stump up thousands of pounds every year to finance the CCTV installation, service contract etc etc, I would start looking at the alternatives sooner rather than later.
I think that we all know that the problem stems from alcohol and yes the problem should be sorted by the publicans in refusing to serve a person who is already intoxicated. However, the main purpose for going out on a Friday and Saturday night, for most of the youngsters, is to get “bladdered” and as they seem to succeed it is obvious that they get served.
Removing the licence from the landlord has always been an option, so why hasn’t it happened? I should think that if they did it in one pub they would have to do it in every pub, which would mean that they would all be closed, so that is never going to happen. In the meantime one does not go walking through town on friday or saturday nights. There will come a time soon, when insurance companies will refuse to offer cover for shop windows.
How much a year will the repair bill be for the shopkeeper then. A £1000 every time a window is broken or more in some circumstances. think on Jeremy, you don’t have a window to break in town.
I think one has to question what the real motive of CCTV is all about. Is it really aimed at cutting crime!!! Often in politics one has to look in the other direction to seek the truth about the apparent ideas behind these new ideas that keep flooding down from those in apparent control.
I have to wonder if CCTV and crime is a subtle way of introducing the ability of watching and managing the masses for the long term. After all once these things are introduced they never seem to be removed if the original need has subsided.
I also think its a shame that Wales a place offering an alternative to living in the heavily populated areas of the country is following along with the needs that a large city may justify.
Time will reveal all I guess, but not normally for the publics benefit.
Funny, reading the initial home page, I immediately thought of the film ‘Hot Fuss’, personally I find the grapevine round here is pretty damn effective, it seems to know what I’m doing before I do. For CCTV to effective it would need to installed at eye level (the hoody effect). This would probably be an IP (Internet protocol) CCTV system, which means modern cameras can be viewed centrally (from any location via the Internet-is this what we really want), even automatically/facially tracked between cameras-overkill? Well depends on the type of society you want to live one of trust or one of distrust.
Recent studies have found most camera systems do not prevent crime and are used to a)Prevent false compensation claims i.e so called trips on Pavements, b)Repositioned to generate revenue via fixed penalties/motoring offences, ie. a camera view down Sycamore street would probably positioned to issue parking tickets to cars parked outside Somerfield. CCTV is not a deterrent to the YouTube generation, most are well informed (via the internet) of the consequence of their actions - which is generally either a controlling order ASBO, or caution, it doesn’t solve the age old problems - boredom/alcohol/drugs.
I cannot understand the objection to CCTV. If you are a law abiding citizen what have you to fear? As you are on camera everywhere else in the country, what difference is CCTV going to make to you in Newcastle Emlyn?
Mark Savage says “It’s a shame that Wales a place offering an alternative to living in the heavily populated areas of thr country is following along with the needs that a large city may justify”. It’s in order to keep this area from becoming like a big city problem, that we need the CCTV. If there were no problems in the town, it would not have raised it’s ugly head. If it helps to catch one thug or criminal it may deter others. I wonder if you would be so negative if a member of your family was injured and the person concerned was not apprehended?
Newcastle Emlyn is a popular place because of its sense of community and trust, its lack of crime, that why you’ve seen house prices rise, people aspire to that type of community. (H Morgan you need to put things in perspective, it really doesn’t get much safer) Do we really want shuttered windows/CCTV overkill, is it really justified?
I’ve never felt threatened ever on my walk to Spar on a Saturday night, let along seen more than 1-2 persons pass me (who more often than not return a smile/say hello) I dropped my key the other night nr Spar, and asked the so called ‘youths’ sitting on the bench if they had seen it, and they were more than helpful and polite. They helped me look and offered to drop it into either Spar,or the Police Station if they subsequently found it. (Subsequently I found it as I’d heard it drop)
If your not happy with the level of protection offered take it up with the local police,instead of scaremongering the population into accepting an unnecessary intrusion into their daily lives. CCTV everywhere else in the Country is not a justification for it here, it actually more a reason not to have it, learn from the costly mistakes, happily live on the fringes of ‘Britain’s Open Prison’ and be thankful we can. If you want the modern day securities and convenience that the city offers, why not move there if that makes you feel safer, where per head of population - it can be justified.
Businesses in town are being asked by the “Newcastle Emlyn CCTV Fund Committee” to shell out the majority of the £20,000 for first two years of the CCTV system. I heard a nominal figure of £100 from each business. This is simply a fantasy. I know of several shop owners for a start who think it is a waste of time and money, which will put a greater burden on the others left paying for it.
The reality is, that without some substantial government or other central funding, this brainchild of a well-meaning but misguided mayor and a few enthusiastic camp-followers is still-born.
Nevertheless, I have to return to the case being sold to us for CCTV, which continues to be presented as a panacea for the problems of bad behaviour on Friday and Saturday nights by a relatively small number of drunken young men spilling out of pubs and, in particular, “Hookers” night club.
A letter dated 26th October 2007 was distributed by the “CCTV Fund Committee” containing the following arguments:
“Having CCTV would be a fantastic asset to our town. We need to concentrate on making our town a friendly, safe and welcoming place to visit, where as a present you constantly hear tourists and local people commenting on how unpleasant it is to walk the streets during the evenings. Loss of tourism to the town will affect us all”
“Statistics point to major reductions in the amount of crimes being committed where there are cameras installed. An article in ‘New Scientist’ Magazine recently showed that simply installing a system can reduce crime in the areas covered by 95%”
“Locally towns such as Carmarthen have seen a significant fall in crime rates since having CCTV”
So how about some references for these assertions? I’ve searched the New Scientist and the Carmarthenshire CC websites in vain for the studies to which they are referring.
If, for the sake of argument, studies showed that CCTV installation is likely to reduce drunken and anti-social behaviour by only 15%, not 95%, would the enthusiasts reconsider their support for the scheme? I would hope so, but I suspect not, because I believe this campaign is more about fear and frustration than about reality and reason.
The letter concludes:
”..we all use Newcastle Emlyn Town whether we are shopping, socialising or taking our children to activities and should be able to do this without feeling fear and intimidation, which we are aware a number of people do feel”
Well who can argue with that? Bring on the cameras in abundance…
Ok, first of all how many of the people on this discussion actually live in town and how many have had property (either vehicle or house/shop) damaged?? I have and its not all caused by drunks from pubs. There is also a problem with underage drinking and drugs in the park and surrounding area. These are also problems that need to be addressed, but sadly the police never seem to be around when needed.
I think CCTV is a great idea and I hope the town gets it !!
Also it would be interesting to see how quickly someone who was against cctv would come and ask to see footage of their property being damaged if it ever happened to them. Would those who are against it suggest another way. Watch this space I think !?
OK, well the person spearheading the campaign for CCTV – the mayor – doesn’t live in town either, so does that invalidate his arguments? Of course not.
Secondly, you don’t need to live in the town and have damaged property to object to being fed ludicrous statistics from untraceable research projects supporting the case for CCTV.
Thirdly, if I knew someone had witnessed my property being damaged, of course I would want them to reveal what they had seen, but that doesn’t mean I would want to pay them to stand watching my house 24 hours a day. What a silly argument…
Mr Clulow and Mr Jones are scared stiff of having CCTV in Newcastle Emlyn. Why? I cannot see what difference it would make to law abiding citizens. I welcome it because it would make me feel safer and my children. If it were just a deterrent it would be worth it for peace of mind. Scaremongering? What planet are you living on? The scarry side is walking through tiown after 11pm and coming face to face with a group of loud mouthed youngsters.
Today, in broad daylight one youth speeding around the clock tower stopped and shouted at an elderly driver, who has heart problems and walking problems, to shift his bloody vehicle, because it slowed him as he went around. The gentleman concerned pointed to his Blue Badge, which he is entitled to, only to be told you are a bloody nuisance, I’m fed of this parking. This was done in front of other people at 3pm. I wonder what he is like late on Friday or Saturday night, with possibly a group of youngsters with him?
I dont have an opinion…I have no facts of the necessary and thorough research needed to have one…of all the for’s and against and statistics to quote…
But I have a belief…We sometimes see things as we are, rather than as they are… and we sometimes attract towards us what we envision and focus upon.
And I have my own experience.
When I worked as a mediator in neighbourhood disputes,I saw peoples lives revolve around CCTV cameras and they were increasingly wracked with fear, anger, and hatred and endless time spent in proving who was the good victim and who was the bad evil one… (mediation sometimes could succeed in getting people to see each other as people again… and work out what was needed and felt on both sides)
The drunks, the speedy youth are all daughters and sons and the elderly and frail can equally be violent and intolerant. All of us are good and bad.
I hope the eye of the surveillance camera looks with those eyes if we ever have any…. and I hope that other forms of community building are being looked at in the debate.
I lived years ago in a city where my house was often burgled and front window smashed… so I do not underestimate the distress of vandalism and feeling unsafe. What victim support groups are in our community? Id be happy to offer my therapy or counselling skills if someone was interested in setting one up
I’d also be happy to contribute a tenner towards replacing the very occasionally smashed windows in town.. if insurance doesnt cover it… anyone up for organising an easy contribution point if/when it happens? Can we come up with creative solutions for our own community?
The youtube generation understand CCTV technology and its limits; poor lighting, poor focus, weather conditions;fog,rain grainy images, images taken from 20ft above the ground (no sound recorded). There is a constant stream of videos uploaded to youtube, if points of conflict (ie. skating boarding on private property) they will often film the incident themselves using handheld cameraphones to show their side of the story, i.e they are quite happy to be on camera - knowing full well that the owner has a duty to act reasonably in asking them to leave the property, they then use this footage to put their side of the incident, if the owner makes allegations that are untrue.
Most people understand the technical limits ie. need to be fairly close to obtain a good image, and unless recorded in a secure enviroment - can’t be used as evidence. Cameras are not a deterrent and they don’t give you piece of mind. A strong trusting community does, which NE still is. Neither of the examples given by H Morgan, cameras would have no effect. The height and position of the camera (this is not blanket coverage) would lucky to pick up number plates, secondly a group of ‘loud mouthed’ youths even if they were verbally abusive would not be picked up as no sound is recorded.
I say it again, but if you not happy or feel safe walking through NE at night raise the matter with the police, either that or actually walk through the town after 11pm because your view of it is very different to mine. £21,000 could get 7% interest, more than enough to pay for a door, window or two, add the £100 per shop and it pretty much covers the crimes that do occur.
After reading Mr Jones’s coment, I feel that he is advocating, “sweeping the problem under the carpet”. No problem exists? but if it does, lets pay for it!!!
I will say it again, to those that have a view and M/s Gaunt, who does not have an opinion, Why do law abiding citizens object to CCTV? Why do you not want to be protected?
To have a constable cover the same time would cost far more I would have thought, or does Mr Jones think that the 7% interest; on money not yet raised, would cover the cost?
Let us have a few more views.
Ive not been involved in a website discussion before…can someone clarify the purpose please?…are we attempting to really hear and understand each other in order to gather some points/issues to help those interested in CCTV cameras have a wider view…or are we simply trying to bully others into thinking an individual opinion/view is ‘right’?
Then I imagine others will know whether it is safe or worthwhile saying anything?
I now have formed a personal opinion…Im not interested in CCTV because I have never once felt in need of protection or unsafe on the streets of Newcastle Emlyn. I hope that those who feel unsafe can get what they need to feel differently. And I wish then well. Thats all.
Hi Pamela,
The reason I made this discussion facility available is so that people would express an opinion and this and other issues. The nature of web-based discussions I’m afraid is that people tend to be more forthright and polarised in their opinions than they would be if it were a face-to-face discussion. It can be a bit of a dialogue of the deaf.
This site gets an a average of 60 visitors a day (not hits, that’s a much higher number – see http://tinyurl.com/3d4f7f ) and only a tiny number feel strongly enough/think it worthwhile to participate.
I’m very grateful to all the participants – both for and against CCTV cameras in NCE - for taking the time to join in.
The decision to go for CCTV has already been taken by the Town Council and pushed on by the action group. Whatever we say here won’t change that, but at least we can air some opinions.
My questions about the possibly bogus statistics used to persuade townsfolk of the effectiveness of CCTV will probably go unanswered, but then perhaps I should have been at the public meeting to ask some difficult questions.
After all, as Harry Rogers once told me, the world is run by those who turn up…
The only way to fight unnecessary technology is with technology Use a cameraphone/or similar and film a walk through NE after 11pm (or other times), upload it to Youtube, maybe do this for several nights (ie. Mon,Wed, Sat). Post a link to the footage here. It would be better if I didn’t do it as I would be accused of filming a ‘blank page ie. nobody/nothing happens’ so to speak. To show what a waste of time and money the whole project is.
The idea behind it for CCTV seems more about having a nice picture for someone on the front of ‘community news’ (yes it goes in the bin as soon as it enters our door), to say ‘look what I’ve done for you all’. I find it very strange in that these people are proud that they managed to get CCTV installed in the town. CCTV is not something that you strive for - its last resort when communities have broken down and property thefts/damage effect the daily lives of the inhabitants.
Newcastle Emlyn is NONE of these things, crime needs to be put in perspective, many of the incidents are probably related to an argument/break up of a relationship where a door has been kicked in sheer frustration, alcohol related possibly. There will always be (and always have been) this type of ‘heat of the moment’ crime in NE. It is very difficult to prevent, and likely punishments minimal, but fines generate revenue, so is that the motivator? and do we really need it or will it cause as many problems it is supposed to solve.
‘Law abiding citizen’; Derisive term. I currently equate it to going about my daily life with schedules and times we need to keep to; walking/running along under a series of high jump poles in sucession, each slightly lower than the first - depending on the height the pole is set eventually I’m going to bang my head. It seems to me the current trend is set the pole just high enough to clip enough heads while people go about doing what they do - to generate enough in fines to fund schemes like this, which in turn can generate more fines, from rubbish collection fines, parking fines, speeding fines. Schemes have to be ‘cost effective’ in terms of revenue generated. Parking in NE is a prime example, the fine is not in proportion to the offence, not paying 20p for 20min stay = £60 fine.
If it wasn’t about revenue I’d been given ‘points’ for all the times I did obey the speed limit,sorting my rubbish,parked/paid in the correct bay so on the off chance I did make a mistake I wouldn’t be penalised. Seems to be all stick and no carrot.
For nearly 30 years I lived in Coventry, West Midlands, but for many years have either lived near NCE or visited it regularly at weekends. Coventry has (and always has had) a crime problem. Knifings were common throughout the 80s and in the early 90s one street in particular had more armed assaults on pedestrians than any other street in europe, if the media is to be believed! Not a happy statistic! It is important to note that this was a street that had been fitted with CCTV cameras some years previous.
CCTV does not work as a deterrent to petty crime or organised crime, it merely raises awareness of crime wihin the rest of the community, thus making people paranoid and un-trusting.
There is such a thing as ‘moral panic’ which is caused by a small number of people (often the media) blowing stories of crime and misbehaviour out of all proportion and then calling for (often inappropriate and knee-jerk) measures to get around them.
I don’t believe that anyone in this discussion has shown any fear of CCTV cameras, rather they simply don’t want the stigma that goes along with them attached to what is actually a very peaceful, law-abiding community.
One thing I have personally noted from my regular trips into NCE at night is that the police are in vans or in cars. While the police have no face there will be less respect for them. Where police have been put on streets either on push bikes or on foot the local populous normally react positively and the crime rate drops. The more you remove the peace-keeping element from the scene of the potential trouble (either through sitting them in cars or in a CCTV control room in another part of the county) the more respect for peace will dwindle.
CCTV does not prevent the crime from happening… it merely gives you a vague chance of being able to point the finger after the fact.
In a nutshell, I would happily walk through NCE on a Saturday night holding a wad of fivers and feel pretty confident I’d get to my destination without anything more than a nod and a greeting. I wouldn’t consider walking through the centre of Coventry on a Saturday evening, period, even with more CCTV cameras per capita than most other cities in the UK!
So to avoid polarisation and thus hostile conflict…may I summarise thus far?…Seems like all of us who have spoken have the same need …to feel safe in our town and community.
Most of us already do…and a small number who dont look to meet this need through CCTV …The problem with that is, CCTV cameras make many of us feel more unsafe in our town,because they take away our rights to privacy and autonomy when we walk about.
So I thus far conclude that as a cross section of our community in discussion..we have not come to an agreement of what would we ALL feel happy about, and many dont want to be scared into feeling we need outside protection from either benevolent CCTV Protectors who may also be Big Brother controllers.
As a leading peace activist said..what makes us safe is having strong caring communities, and good relationships within it,
Many of us feel we already have this,(with the normal low level issues that drink or frustration can add to)and a few feel we have a very aggressive and unsafe community. Big difference of starting point, it appears… I think I stand somewhere in the middle…Several suggestions have been made which possibly we ALL feel are useful ones?… re adressing landlords and drinking, different style of peace keeping policing, victim support, fundraising for the occasional damage… and theres probably more ideas we could come up with… how do we now move along on the things we could agree on, and take the heat out of the negative polarisation over blessed CCTV cameras?
My belief is that looking to external people/police/CCTV cameras to protect us takes our power away from saying ‘we are an intelligent and strong community who have the wits and self determination to sort out our own problems, to find a better way of communicating and feeling we can all be on the same side… Just as we all breathe the same air and all want the best for our kids’. Thats the community I want to create and believe in so I will keep holding that vision.
By the way, what if CCTV cameras are vandalised… either by law abiding citizens as an act of political protest, or by the unruly youth (like the car park meters were consistently glued up as an expression of someone not wanting the town to be suffering from a decision made by Carmarthenshire which reduces business for traders and convenience and ease for parents of schoolchildren.) oh my gosh… the CCTV story could run and run… ike apparently it does in Coventry).
I better stop this now…it get can get addictive, cant it!!
I regret to say, that “our” community is agressive. I have two children, who are just out of the teenager phase and I have been very fortunate, in that neither one has brought their mother or myself a minute of worry with regards to their behaviour. However, being involved with them and their friends, I have also been very close to the fringe element of their peers, who’s parents have not been so fortuate as I have been. They will remain nameless, but I have spent many hours in their company and I still do not fully understand their way of thinking.
What appears to be paramount, is their dislike of authority, especially the police and if they think that they can “get one over” on the police they will. This can be with driving, drinking or whatever else that comes to mind. What they all seem to have in common, both male and female, is the feeling that a good night out is one wher they get absolutely legless, or in their terms “bladdered” and it is in this state of mind that the problems occur. I have seen best friends being the worst of enemies when they are drunk, because of a percieved look that one has given to another’s boy or girl friend. A word in the wrong place and this manifests itself after leaving the premises and are out on the street. Seeing an adversary, who they may snarl at from a distance when sober, who they will make a bee line for and fight when under the influence of alcohol. This does not happen in their homes, but on the street and because “no one has seen anything” when there is an injury or damage, there is no recourse in law. If there were two or three or more police officers patrolling the streets at these times, trouble might be avoided because of the possibillity of being caught. However, as this is not deemed practical, due to manning levels there has to be another way and the only way is CCTV.
I regret to say, that the “do gooders” can talk and express their views most eloquently but in practice is means nothing.
H Morgan’s view of the town is like a sexed up re-written version in the mold of Iraq Dossier on Weapon’s of Mass Destruction. Not a relative of Alistair Campbell are you?
CCTV is a bit like hiding under the table covered by a white cloth in the event of the (unknown) nuclear bomb, its being drummed into us that this will the best possible and cheapest solution for our survival to give piece of mind to the masses. It is cost effective and will save you from certain death. That it is only being developed as a deterrent, safe in the hands of the powers that be (this on news this week that bicycle key was used to arm them). The are no sinister purposes regarding its development.
When a town like NE needs and requires CCTV, and people are seriously suggesting it - its time to get out, not from the fear of crime, but there really isn’t much hope. For a town the size of NE, why don’t we just cut out this middle phase, as it is all incremental. Get the barcodes tatoo-ed/Chips-RFID Tags implanted (in the under-18s first of course) happy to know we won’t be implemented in anything sinister because of the ‘reliable’ data that can be presented to prove our every whereabout.
In the meantime, while we haven’t being yet caught for anything sinister, and we are still alive. What can we think of and use this for so that this system pays for itself?
If there is no crime/fine revenue (and in NE there is little), the only place the running cost of the system can come from is the ‘law abiding’ citizen, I’d rather pay towards the broken window/door, thanks all the same.
You will be pleased to hear that I’ve found the source of that wonderfully optimistic prediction of the cleansing effect that CCTV will have on Newcastle Emlyn’s crime and disorder figures.
Remember the leaflet circulated by the “Newcastle Emlyn CCTV Fund Committee” in October which stated:
“Statistics point to major reductions in the amount of crimes being committed where there are cameras installed. An article in ‘New Scientist’ Magazine recently showed that simply installing a system can reduce crime in the areas covered by 95%”
I found this website http://www.cctv-information.co.uk run by “The CCTV Advisory Service”. They state their aim as:
“The CCTV Advisory Service is a Web based information company dedicated to disseminating general information concerning CCTV and linking customers to quality organisations who can meet their specific requirements.”
In other words, they are CCTV businesses trying to sell you CCTV systems, not an advisory service providing impartial information about the effectiveness of CCTV.
Under the heading “Cameras Work”, their website states:
“Statistics point to major reductions in the amount of crime being committed where there are cameras installed. An article in ‘New Scientist’ magazine showed that simply installing a system can reduce crime, in the areas covered, by over 95%.”
That looks familiar…so I contacted them to ask for a “New Scientist” reference for this statement and was told that “The quote that you mention comes from New Scientist around 1997. As you will realise this is now very old and we will be removing it in a forthcoming update of our site.”
…Their spokesman said they would be replacing that figure with a lower one, but again failed to provide a reference for the source of that figure. Without a reference, the “statistic” might just as well have been invented. It has no verifiable basis in truth. It is a meaningless slogan aimed at selling CCTV systems.
If we are to have a meaningful discussion about whether CCTV is likely to have the desired effects in Newcastle Emlyn, there has to be some regard paid to the people of the town who are being asked to pay for it. Quoting partial statistics out of context - impressive but meaningless figures generated by the CCTV industry in order to sell its products - is not being honest and exhibits gross disrespect. Why? because it doesn’t credit the townsfolk with the intelligence to be able to make up their own mind based on geniune scientifically conducted studies into how effective CCTV actually is.
The CCTV Committee should demonstrate that it isn’t acting as a sales arm of the CCTV industry by providing references to the research on which its optimistic predictions are based. Then anyone can determine just what a statement like “can reduce crime in the areas covered by 95%” actually means. Does it mean that most of the CCTV schemes studied reduced crime by 95%, or does it mean, that out of 100 schemes studied, one reduced crime by 95%, and the other 99 reduced it by nothing at all. Or are the figures completely bogus? - an invention of “The CCTV Advisory Service”?
How about me re-wording the Newcastle Emlyn CCTV Fund Committee’s leaflet to reflect the results of actual research on CCTV by the Home Office?
“Home Office research into 14 CCTV schemes points to reductions in the amount of crime being committed in 15% (ie 2) cases, while 85% (12) of the schemes showed either no reduction or an increase in reported crime.”
Reference: http://tinyurl.com/2mkzrx
Talk about mortgage mis-selling, that’s nothing compared to the attempt at CCTV mis-selling going on here. If I had made a contribution to the CCTV Committee’s, fund, I’d be asking for my money back…
I agree with H Morgan that our community is aggressive..I felt agressive when I experienced him as being rude and insulting to others in this conversation by using the term ‘dogooders’. I experience H Morgan as aggressive…I dont expect he has studied ‘non violent communication’?
He may also be an old softie, and sometimes also loving and kind?…As am I, if not feeling patronised …as is our community and a few of our young people who dont know how to handle their drink. And drink escalates their aggression as he describes. Scarily so sometimes, I expect.
(But, H Morgan,,if ‘dogooder’ was meant as a ‘put down’…does it mean its good to be a dobadder???Strange.
So I just want to thank all people that ‘do good’….There they were in Emlyn today…teenagers and children practicing their dance show…a church coffee drop in…charity shops raising money for their worthy causes…sun was shining..lovely.
Our community is both agressive and lovely. In my opinion,a bit more on the lovely side… we have so many things to be grateful for…our river, our castle, our fresh air and countryside.
As H Morgan clearly has close up contact with the youngsters who, it seems, most of this discussion is about (covered behind the smoke screen of should we or shouldnt we get CCTV cameras)I wish him well in using that priviledged and important position to influence their behaviour?, Hope he is determined to give wise counsel to them, empathy and guidance and challenge on the self harm of alcohol abuse,and its effect on others…Even build a relationship and understanding of what ‘bladdering’ means to them, and what are its gains and costs? I’m wondering what he sees are the ways of us older generation doing what we are meant to do for our youngsters? Keeping them safe from the addictive selling and promoting of image and alcohol in our sick Western culture where nationally, young peoples mental health and suicide rate, and drink and drug cultures give clear feedback that things are very unwell. For me,this is a more relevant discussion..the real challenge…….not about cameras.
I imagine H Morgan may see that all as meaningless ‘dogooding? and twadle…to me, its part of my lifes work…I will try to respect our difference and see him as a practical man looking for a practical solution….though I cannot in any way agree that ‘the only way’ is CCTV….it is one option of many possible diverse approaches, some of which have been aired.
Lets not resort to name calling and put downs please.
I live in Bridge street and regularly walk in the town after 11 on a Friday and Saturday night. In general I feel safe, large groups of young people can appear intimidating but they are usually not threatening or aggressive. However, there is a small element, maybe they are new to the town, who seem to have no respect for anyone and can be very unpleasant.
After 1 o’clock when people leave the night club the street becomes very crowded and very noisy. Swearing, shouting and fighting is normal. Even a girl having a fight with her boyfriend can become very annoying when it is in a high pitched screech, every other word begins with f and then others become involved.
I understand the point that CCTV may not prevent this but it may be a deterrent and may identify the troublemakers. I have had windows broken many times, flower baskets stolen, railings thrown in the river.
The real answer is probably for parents to teach their children acceptable behavior and for the police to be present at times when there is likely to be trouble.
Are they any books or websites out there that teach you how to evade CCTV and other security threats. To be honest i feel consistently afraid from the high increase in placing CCTV! I think it is a total privacy threat to the ever day person.
Oh dear. H. Morgan, you really do come across to me both through this line of commentry and the other relating to the Dragon Festival as being almost too good to be true, a real puritan. If only we were all so fortunate in our lives and experiences. However, I really feel that the bigger picture is being overlooked. In recent years the level of agression in Newcastle Emlyn has escalated. Fact. Why? What research has been done to assess the contributory factors?
Why is that individuals both on the Town Council and on this site are expressing opinions that are only that. Opinions. I would like to see some hard facts and figures relating to our town. Only then can the discussion of CCTV begin. What assessments have the Town Council completed to this end? What steps have adults of the community, who have the guardianship of young people taken to encourage those young people to withstand the insipient culture of excessive alcohol consumption? Once Newcastle Emlyn goes the route of CCTV monitoring, we become lazy, relying on ‘big brother’.
The town will lose it’s most valuable asset, that of being community. Communities support and encourage. There should be no spying or condemning of unpleasant behaviour. I agree that the level of agression is unacceptable, but is it not conceviable that this has been encourged by some authority groups? Maybe the Town Council could provide our community with information relating to potential influences that could have some bearing on the increase of abberant behaviour amongst the young people of the town? Without detailed information to make an objective decision on, I really don’t see how it makes any difference what anyone’s opinions are relating to this subject.
‘As a law abiding citizen what have you got to fear’, H Morgan hope you take heed from the events regarding the loss of Inland Revenue Data. Safety comes in different forms - any monitoring/collection of data of the population en masse - you should always ask - Is it necessary? Is it relevant? Could collection of this data in anyway compromise your/your families safety? (The inland revenue loss certainly can) Is this data going to be protected? The idea in today’s world that CCTV is the answer to all your prayers is a misguided one, a very simplistic viewpoint.
Its right to sceptical/wary about monitoring/collection of personal information. Maybe NE might look at this again, and decide actually in the bigger scheme of things - taking recent factors into consideration - maybe the status quo is a safer alternative. As an example, I’d certainly be concerned if CCTV footage showing the regular routines of our children to and from school fell into the wrong hands. There is always two sides to the coin.
I really have stirred up a hornets nest. I am these days of he older generation and having lived in Emlyn for over 50 yrs I have seen the changes. I suspect that a number of people who have had their say are fairly new to the area and possibly experienced worse situations in large cities and towns. Coming to this rural “backwater” I suspect that you had left the effects of the town. Unfortunately, it is catching up with all of us.
As for the charge of being aggressive, I had no wish to offend Pamela or any other participant, but at the end of the day the votes appear to be split 50/50. I say this, as I have been told that the decision to place cameras in the town has been made and that the first of many will be in situation before Christmas.
I look forward to being the devil’s advocate again, one day.
I don’t think H Morgan need defend the charge of being aggressive. I reserve that term for the people who he/she is trying to prevent from bringing their violent ways onto the streets of NCE on Friday and Saturday nights.
I, also, have learned that using the first few thousand pounds of the (new) target of £25,000, the first cameras will be installed at the opposite end of the town to where the trouble tends to happen – ie the junction of College Street and New Road around the Central Cafe. For technical reasons apparently. The CCTV company is obviously keen to get it’s foot in the door by making a start.
However I’m a bit worried by he/she describing him/herself as a “devil’s advocate”, the definition of which is “One who argues against a cause or position, not as a committed opponent but simply for the sake of argument or to determine the validity of the cause or position”.
If we are arguing against someone who is engaging in sport, rather than honest debate, that’s very sad. I thought I was discussing the issues with someone who actually believed what he/she was saying.
There are plenty of people living above the shops, to which these cameras will have field of view. Will these camera’s be subject to planning permission? Interested in what steps are made to secure the data and what the data retention period will be (none/indefinitely probably). In theory, due to the limited numbers of people (<100) likely to be monitored (and more like 10 and often under 18)- surely this could be classed invasion of our right to ‘privacy’ in public under the human rights act, monitoring such small numbers and such a small area with little or no provision in cost about encrypting data. Sounds more like a perverts dream come true, maybe they will find a nice odd jobbing caretaker (with previous allegations) aka. ‘Ian Huntley’ type to run the system for us, once its installed.
I used the term Devils Advocate as an expression because, although I do believe in what I have said, I may have been a little more forceful in some respects in order to get a response. Yes they are coming. Yawhooo.
I do not want to be critical/negative/ or undermining to those who have done the work, raised the money and implemented that which they believe in..i.e. CCTV cameras. I may not share that belief, and it may not fit well with my political, cultural, or spiritual philosophy so I certainly cannot cheer it… however, I choose to respect that they are genuinely doing what they think is good for the town. And they have the political power for their way to be implemented.
I hope they have read and learned from the excellent questions and issues raised in this website discussion by members of the community and take on board other concerns,ideas and suggestions. And I hope that some real facts and information is honestly distributed to us all after say, six months,or a year, to reveal what crime rate or incidents have changed. Not to make anyone ‘right’ or ‘wrong’ but to have intelligent, informed evaluation of an experiment. From that, wise decisions could be made by our future town leaders.
What we all want is for Janet (who so honestly shared her experience) to have more peace and safety in her neighbourhood. We have amongst us many different opinions of how that could best happen.
My feedback to H.Morgan is that I am not interested in devils advocate/forceful to get a reponse/ conflict based/ending up as a cheering winner or a proven loser ways of relating and communicating. For me, those ways are part of the problem. And dont open peoples hearts to each other….which I believe is the only real way of change.
I apologise to our young people of Newcastle Emlyn for the huge challenge of turning around the escalating violence in their world, which we have given them as their inheritance. I also apologise to the young people of Newcastle Emlyn for the failures of the generation of H Morgan and myself to make your world easier and safer and that we have to turn cameras onto you because we dont know how to do it any better or different.
I really apologise. In fact Im quite gutted.
I wish you well as you grow and learn so you may pass on something better to your youngsters…