CCTV costs out of proportion!
January 13, 2010 12:00 AM
By David Chappell in BFP
By David Chappell in BFP
It was disappointing to see an experienced Councillor like Sarah Mildmay-White seek to justify the annual cost of CCTV cameras (BFP 19th January). As Councillors we are guardians of the taxpayers money and have to look hard at the choices available. The Council hope to save £1.64 million over 2010/2011, and may have to cut back much further if George Osbourne has his wicked way with public spending. 'The fact is that the police say 80% of CCTV coverage is unusable in Court' and that is a quote (23rd June 08) from the former Tory Shadow Home Secretary David Davis, so he should know.
When the current administration at St Edmundsbury propose cutting spending on staffing the Abbey Garden toilets, or cutting spending on our Community Centres, but make no proposals to cut ineffective Council services like the CCTV cameras you can only wonder if their priorities are community control, or community cohesion. I believe the commitment to the community our Community Centres represent is a greater contribution to crime reduction than 24 cameras scattered across St Edmundsbury and Forest Heath Council areas.
Hopefully the Council have seen sense and efforts to 'privatise' the Community Centres by transferring financial and legal responsibility to local residents will have been brought to an end by recent meetings. That was never a policy that should have been considered in a recession.
In Britain there is one CCTV camera for every 14 citizens! The Metropolitan Police complained in September last year that it costs £20,000 per case to bring a successful prosecution using CCTV evidence, and that is on top of the £440,000 per year running costs you pay for CCTV in St Edmundsbury! Is this why they issue cautions instead of prosecuting? Camerawatch, the CCTV watchdog has stated there is one crime solved for every 1000 cameras. Since we have only 24 in our area how long would it take for our cameras to solve a serious crime
So the question is whether it is good value for money for you the taxpayer, or just a expensive ploy to make you think you are safer?
What would you like to do next?
-
Subscribe for updates
Follow the party's activity on...
- Twitter:
- Liberal Democrats
- Facebook:
- Liberal Democrats
- YouTube:
- Liberal Democrats