subject: The Performance Of Cctv In London And Kent [print this page] The CCTV User Group recently publicized a report on the August 2011 Riots and the performance of CCTV, in which it was demonstrated that because of the successful police operations following the recent unrest in England 'the real effectiveness of public area CCTV can be shown in such indisputable ways to the Government, the Local Authorities, the media and the public'
Over a month after the August riots and looting in London and the surrounding areas, thousands of people were still being identified and arrested as a direct result of public area CCTV and footage from cameras that were 'body worn' by the police.
Such a positive end result could not have been reached without this CCTV and police camera video clips, along with the endless work of the police back office staff.
Public area CCTV operators are able to point CCTV cameras to enable police to deal with an immediate situation as well as to ensure individuals are recognizable for any further action.
It is because of the capacity to do this that CCTV is of great value worldwide.
From time-to-time there are media articles pooh-poohing the potency of CCTV as a system to oppose criminals such as The Guardian's "CCTV Boom Has Failed to Slash Crime, say Police", the Telegraph's 1000 CCTV Cameras to Solve One Crime Met Police Admits and "CCTV Images Offer No Help In Solving Crimes" from the Times.
Having said that, as Matthew Griffiths' excellent dissertation "Town Centre CCTV: An Examination of Crime Reduction in Gillingham, Kent" reveals, after the arrival of CCTV in Gillingham, Kent they have seen a 35 % decrease in crime over a five year period opposed to a 0.05 % in Strood, also in Kent.
Griffiths surmises that 'CCTV can successfully reduce offences such as shoplifting and vehicle crimes and therefore can be perceived as a good thing' and adds that 'it is best utilised in conjunction with other crime prevention measures, media publicity and the continued support of the Police'.
But, these are hard times for the economy and CCTV is not a statutory obligation for local government, unlike social services or housing, so it is undoubtedly at the front of the queue when cuts are being considered.
Throughout the country cuts are being squeezed through to cope in the on-going recession. Maybe that is what it will take in order to see the true value of CCTV in Kent?
