Nottingham City Council defends use of CCTV
NOTTINGHAM City Council has defended its use of CCTV after a campaign group said too much cash had been spent on cameras.
Figures put out by the group Big Brother Watch revealed Nottingham is one of only five local authorities in England and Wales to have more than 1,000 cameras.
-
The council's response to a Freedom of Information request by the group stated that the total number of cameras controlled by the authority in August last year was 1,120. The council had spent a total of £4.7 million on CCTV over four years.
Nick Pickles, the campaign group's director, said: "Surveillance is an important tool in modern policing but it is not a substitute for policing.
"There is no credible evidence that more cameras will reduce crime, yet councils nationally have poured enough money into CCTV in just four years that would have put more than 4,000 extra police officers on the streets."
The figures were released following responses to requests for information made to 428 local authorities. Leicester topped the list with 2,083 cameras after spending £4.8 million over four years.
Emma Boon, campaign director at the Tax Payers' Alliance, said: "There is no sense in councils pouring taxpayers' money into CCTV if it is doing nothing to reduce crime.
"Local authorities across the country have to find millions in savings in the coming years and part of that means ensuring value for money in existing spending."
But Councillor Alex Norris, Nottingham City Council's portfolio holder for community safety, said there was a distinction between CCTV cameras used within buildings and in open areas.
He said: "There are only 200 public space cameras in Nottingham. The cameras are monitored 24 hours a day and have been used to secure convictions for serious crimes such as murder to stopping anti-social behaviour such as graffiti and fly-tipping. We know they act as a deterrent to criminals and that residents feel more secure and reassured when there are CCTV cameras operating in their areas.
"All the other CCTV cameras are operated on behalf of Nottingham City Homes in their high-rise flats and housing complexes. They monitor the public areas such as stairs, landings, entrances and exits and are there at the request of tenants, who pay for them through their rent."
Pat Thomas, chairman of the Meadows Partnership Trust, said that CCTV had made a huge difference to the area.
She said: "I live on a small cul-de-sac and there is a CCTV camera at each end. They have made a tremendous benefit in reducing drug dealing on the streets and anti-social behaviour, alongside strong community policing. I definitely would not want to see the cameras removed."
10 Comments
by catwomansue
Wednesday, February 22 2012, 5:30PM
“In fact we pay four times when taking into account Council tax payments and taxes paid to subsidise for residents in receipt of Council tax benefits”
by catwomansue
Wednesday, February 22 2012, 4:09PM
“I repeated because someone removed my first post and then it was placed back.There is no need to be rude.
And in our case as one of a proportion of people living here who are in work,we pay -twice once through our service charges and again via our taxes to subsidise housing benefit payments made for the service charge element of CCTV”
by Smith1980
Wednesday, February 22 2012, 3:44PM
“Catwomansue
If and but......................
No need to repeat yourself we heard you the first time. Who do you think ultimately pays for the other cameras? The fairy's?”
by catwomansue
Wednesday, February 22 2012, 1:59PM
“Other cameras in flats and housing complexes,, will be ultimately be paid for by the tax payer if the tenant is in receipt of Housing benefit.”
by catwomansue
Wednesday, February 22 2012, 1:51PM
“"All the other CCTV cameras are operated on behalf of Nottingham City Homes in their high-rise flats and housing complexes. They monitor the public areas such as stairs, landings, entrances and exits and are there at the request of tenants, who pay for them through their rent."
t
BUT IF A TENANT IS IN RECEIPT OF HOUSING BENEFIT THIS IS PAID FOR BY THE TAX PAYER!”
by mattgaltress
Wednesday, February 22 2012, 1:42PM
“I'm afraid Bigbrother Watch are just wrong.”
by catwomansue
Wednesday, February 22 2012, 12:54PM
“I would think that CCtv on NON Council estates or areas are also left out of the figures.
We are leaseholders on a large mixed tenure Housing Association estate in Wollaton.Services provided have to be paid by the residents who live here.
CCTV was installed on parts of our estate in order to monitor a new park (paid for via Big Lottery grant) However the yearly up keep is now down to residents to pay.Approx £21 per year for each of the 350 residents. Total waste of money. Even if offenders causing ASB ,vandalism or trashing the park are seen by the agency paid to monitor,they are frequently wearing hoodies, so can't be identified and have obviously left the area of the cameras by the time the Police decide to attend. They know they are being watched or recorded,but this makes no difference, as they know they can't be recognised so can't be brought to account.
The only People benefiting by the installation are the People who persuaded the Housing Association to buy the equipment and the People paid to monitor and secure any recorded data.No real benefit to residents at all and we are left paying a rising Service charge for CCTV on aswell as the cost of fixing any damage caused which would have occurred whether CCTV installed or not.Non of this is covered by our Council Tax which we also pay even though in the main most offenders do not live here.”
by starving
Wednesday, February 22 2012, 11:56AM
“I'm with Conversation on this one . . . and good quality microphones too!
It is probably the tip of the iceberg and I'm not holding my breath that anything will be done.
My experience of the City Council proved to me that they close ranks and only see what they want to see. And if in doubt and all else fails, lie!”
by globy00l
Wednesday, February 22 2012, 10:21AM
“This is rubbish. Numerous studies including those commissioned by the Home Office and police have demonstrated that crime rates are largely unaffected by the presence of CCTV, with the exception of vehicle crime in car parks with CCTV. CCTV has acutally been shown to increase people's fear of crime. Meanwhile our ability to go about our lives without being monitored by the state is diminished. So why do they keep putting them up? Because it looks like they are doing something and, in the infrequent occasions when they actually catch someone it makes them look good. Of course, the media don't report all of the instances when CCTV proves to be useless so we get a biased picture of this intrusive technology.”
by Conversation
Wednesday, February 22 2012, 9:09AM
“They ought to put some CCTV cameras inside the Council House, and Nottingham City Finance Department.”