Wednesday, April 29th, 2009...5:08 pm
Report back from the public meeting, and comments on the sham consultation
Around 60 people came to the public meeting on April 23rd about CCTV proposals for Forest Fields, which was organised by the Area 4 Neighbourhood Management Team, police and local council.
We also managed to get an article in the Evening Post to counter the previous completely one-sided pro-CCTV Evening Post article.
As one of the people who opposes the scheme, based on my experience at a previous public meeting (in which I was yelled at by three different people for daring to question the supposed “benefits” of CCTV for Forest Fields) I had been expecting a pretty difficult meeting, in which those who oppose would be in the minority.
I’m glad to say I was pleasantly surprised! People who opposed the CCTV scheme in Forest Fields made up at least two-thirds of those present at the meeting (based on a show of hands), and many had come armed with some tough questions, expecting answers.
Unfortunately, save for a few bits of vital information which should have been on the council’s door-to-door consultation leaflet, we didn’t really get much in the way of answers.
What we did find out:
- The cost of installing the masts is around £3,000 per mast – thus £9,000 for the three masts proposed for Forest Fields.
- Footage is held for 31 days.
- The maintenance of Nottingham’s CCTV network is outsourced privately at the cost of £250,000 each year.
- The CCTV scheme is intended to combat anti-social behaviour, reduce crime, and improve public safety and confidence. (Unfortunately, they still didn’t tell us how it will actually do this, but they assured us repeatedly that it will!)
The meeting was only an hour and a half long, and with most of it taken up with the presentation, there was only half an hour or so allowed for questions – let alone any in-depth discussion or debate. Most non-straightforward questions went unanswered or dodged, and reasons the public might not want CCTV here were at best glossed over, and at worst just dismissed.
As expected, the entire presentation was completely one-sided in favour of CCTV, but with very little (maybe even zero?) in the way of facts or statistics to back up the constant assertion from Inspector Gurmit Kaur that “CCTV does prevent and deter crime”. Perhaps this is because the statistics – from the government, no less – uncomfortably reveal that CCTV has a negligible effect on either of these things? Nearly all of the reasons cited for installing CCTV here were anecdotal, and unsupported by facts.
There was absolutely no mention whatsoever of any alternatives to CCTV in the presentation, and neither was there any mention of civil liberties concerns or other personal (and equally valid) reasons for not wanting CCTV here.
When confronted by one member of the audience with the Home Office CCTV Study (Feb 2005), which contains figures showing that CCTV has a negligible impact on crime, Detective Inspector Rob Griffin said that he had not read the report and therefore couldn’t comment on it.
Clearly, it is a mistake to assume that the police are interested in evidence to back up their claims about the effectiveness of CCTV – especially when that evidence says the exact opposite of their own personal anecdotes.
When another member of the audience said that she didn’t like the idea of her teenage son being treated with suspicion simply because of his age and appearance, and that she didn’t want her children growing up surrounded by CCTV cameras, D.I. Griffin responded (and honestly, I kid you not): “Let me ask you this – what if someone were to come into Forest Fields and take your child?”
He didn’t back down when challenged on the ridiculous nature of this question either!
I found it incredibly telling that one member of the panel who was most keen to persuade us that we should have CCTV here, actually knew the least in terms of a factual basis to back up his claims (because the facts show the opposite), yet was only too happy to resort to fear-mongering rhetorical questions, presumably in order to halt that line of discussion.
I left the meeting with a bemused sense of wonder – at how they could have had literally months to prepare this presentation, in the full knowledge that there is substantial opposition in the area (and already knowing what some of our arguments against CCTV are), and yet still do such an appallingly bad job of it?
Luckily, you don’t have to take my word on how bad it was, because you can take a look at the slides and listen to the audio yourself on Indymedia. (Thanks Tash!)
Nobody in Forest Fields has been given enough information to make an informed decision on whether or not CCTV is a good thing for the area, and therefore the entire consultation must be viewed in this context. Despite it now being on it’s second round, it is still an entirely inadequate sham of a consultation, and I now believe this is deliberate.
From the language used in the consultation and the completely one-sided presentation, it is abundantly clear that we are not being asked to express our views so that the police and council can make a decision, but that this whole thing is an exercise in ticking a few “democratic” boxes, while we roll over and accept their foregone decision that CCTV will be coming to Forest Fields.
I know we can do better than that, and show that if we really do want to make a better Forest Fields for everyone, it has to be through a much more committed long-term process to make positive improvements in the local community, rather than wasting money on negative, externalised technical “solutions” such as CCTV to video our problems.
CCTV is a lot worse than just an intrusive waste of our money – because it actively disempowers the local community and goes against the idea that our community is our responsibility to improve, and ours alone.
We should make no mistake – the meeting may have gone relatively well for opponents of the CCTV scheme, but this is far from over yet.
I sincerely hope that we won’t let the police and the council ignore our concerns, fly in the face of all the available evidence discrediting CCTV, sham their way through a “consultation” and foist their CCTV system on us.
Let’s stand up for Forest Fields and make sure that doesn’t happen!
6 Comments
April 30th, 2009 at 7:30 am
Good for you.
Do some research on the subject of “regression to the mean”. The police and notts community safety so caled experts ae NOT expert in what works in crime reduction. They have no idea what regression to the mean means, which is why they are wasting our money on CCTV and other crime reduction quackery.
Remember once you get these extra cameras in Hyson Greeen you will NEVER be rid of them.
Check out the Smart Water Dumb Idea Quackery posts on the Notttingam Criminology blog Bent Society.
If you’d like more expert advice drop us an email.
April 30th, 2009 at 9:47 am
Here is some published research on CCTV conducted by a Nottingham Criminology undergradute who has worked for years as a CCTV operator in London. Hope it broadens the picture for Notts police when you inform them of it:
http://www.internetjournalofcriminology.com/Reeve%20-%20Social%20Control%20Theories%20and%20the%20Role%20of%20CCTV.pdf
May 7th, 2009 at 4:29 pm
Notes from Public Meeting
Proposed CCTV in Forest Fields
23rd April 2009
Present: Councillor Jones, Councillor Ahmed, DI Griffin, Inspector Kaur, Neil Harvey (CCTV Monitoring Team), Safer Neighbourhoods Team, Neighbourhood Management Team, Nottingham City Homes (NCH), over 60 residents
Apologies: Councillor Ibrahim, John Broomfield (Surveillance Monitoring Manager)
Councillor Jones began by introducing the officers and Councillors present and gave some of the background to the meeting. Inspector Kaur then gave a presentation on the crime in Forest Fields and the effectiveness of CCTV. She gave examples from around the country and in Nottingham – see presentation.
Neil Harvey from the CCTV team (CCTV Performance Monitoring Officer) then gave some background to how the system operates in Nottingham –
All cameras feed to The Woodlands which is staffed by City Council and staff contracted from Group 4. All staff are vetted as non police personnel. The police can link into the control room in order to decide what action should be taken. Police also use the control room for surveillance purposes.
The footage is held for 31 days during which time it may be viewed by partners including the Police and NCH.
The maintenance cost for CCTV across Nottingham City is £250,000 a year. However, the proposed masts will cost £2-3,000 each with no further costs other than what has already been allocated.
Inspector Kaur stressed that having the masts and therefore maybe the redeployable cameras “are another tool in the kitbag for the police”. She said that CCTV is one of a range of tactics to reduce crime and provides good quality evidence and that it also acts as a deterrent and makes people feel safer.
Inspector Kaur said that the original request had come from some residents in July 2007 and the Police had received 2 or 3 petitions. They had also sent out questionnaires to residents where many (specific number not known) had requested CCTV.
Questions and Answers
Consultation process:
A letter with a voting slip had been delivered to all houses in Forest Fields, but there was concern that some houses are made up of different households. It was felt that the ‘one house, one vote system’ does not work in houses in multiple occupation.
Councillor Jones stated that the Councillors needed to make a decision and had agreed to limit the votes to one per house. A resident suggested that people in the house could discuss the issue and agree which way to vote. Deadline for voting is May 5th.
It was clarified that anyone who had not received a form could get one from the Neighbourhood Management Team.
Concerns were expressed as to the wording of the consultation information which had been sent out and the language used in the presentations made. People were concerned that there should be proper consultation. Neil Harvey explained that he had been explaining what is already in place. Councillors said they took on board the criticism about the wording but emphasised that this was a consultation exercise.
It was confirmed that if the majority of households voted against the masts, then they would not be installed.
It was asked if children had been consulted. Councillor Jones said the council had increased its consultation beyond the required 100 metres of the proposed mast locations to the whole of Forest Fields.
Civil Liberties
It was questioned whether any opposing arguments had been considered, e.g. civil liberties.
One councillor said he was sympathetic to these concerns and it was his understanding that CCTV would not be used for minor anti social behaviour.
A resident said that they felt that Forest Fields was a peaceful neighbourhood. Britain is the most watched nation in Europe. It was felt that CCTV is an imposition and an unreasonable intrusion.
Effectiveness of CCTV
One main concern was that the road layout may lead to the displacement of crime and anti-social behaviour, meaning that the CCTV could be of little use. One respondent agreed that CCTV does not solve crimes and is only suited to certain crimes.
A resident queried the 35% arrest rate. (Insp Kaur had said that 35% of the incidents reported as a result of CCTV monitoring had led to an arrest). The statistics only indicate Police responses/arrests; this does not mean that these resulted in convictions. No conviction rates were available.
The Home Office Research Study ‘Assessing the Impact of CCTV’ (www.homeoffice.gov.uk) states that the crime prevention effects of CCTV in cities is negligible. CCTV is most effective when used in car parks to tackle the theft from/of car crime. PC Tindall gave an example to show the effectiveness of existing CCTV in Hyson Green.
Fear of crime
A resident said they felt that there had been no discussion about the need for CCTV in Forest Fields. They felt that there is already a fear of crime and the council are feeding into that fear. It was felt that CCTV is a knee jerk reaction. Neil Harvey recognised that initial use of CCTV had been indiscriminate but felt that it is now used in a more targeted and effective manner.
A resident said that they had recently moved from Clifton where there had been CCTV. The CCTV had helped to reduce both crime and fear of crime.
A resident stated that according to the police website, crime in Forest Fields is down 19.2% since last year, so queried whether there is a need for cameras.
Inspector Kaur pointed out that Forest Fields beat was still 20th out of 60 in terms of the number of crimes. It was pointed out that the proposal is for redeployable cameras and so would be used only when there was an issue.
Provision of amenities
A resident said that she had lived in Forest Fields for 20 years and had never seen any anti social behaviour in the area. She feels that one problem is a lack of youth provision. Most people, including the councillors, agreed with this. Councillor Ahmed said that work is underway to address this.
Targeting
It was also questioned whether the proposed locations for the masts were on school routes and whether young people would be targeted by those monitoring the cameras.
Neil Harvey said that each camera has a 100m radius. He said that people would only be monitored and identified if there was concern about their behaviour. The redeployable cameras would be allocated according to crime hotspots as identified by the police and Neighbourhood Management Team.
A resident said they felt that the number of masts now proposed is inadequate. He uses CCTV cameras in his shop and footage has been used as evidence to prosecute an offender.
Cost
There was concern regarding the usage of money for this and as revenue for Group 4 security.
Some felt that money could be used elsewhere – plant more trees, improve lighting etc.
Information
Concerns were raised as to how residents make informed decisions without having the information?
The chair indicated that this meeting was part of a wider consultation process. Have provided contact details for Police, Neighbourhood Management Team and Councillors.
Concerns were raised asking what mechanisms can the council give to ensure that CCTV is used proportionately?
A resident said they were no longer sure whether they wanted CCTV or not. It was suggested that it may be better to establish more Neighbourhood Watches, as it is not known if CCTV prevents crime.
May 25th, 2009 at 8:03 am
Forest Fields has a reputation right across Nottinghamshire for being crime ridden and if camera’s are installed this will ensure that the offenders are bought to Justice ! Stop fighting the authorities and let them do their job.
May 25th, 2009 at 5:14 pm
To “GAL Grufton” above:
I live in Forest Fields, and have been mugged here in the past. Calling an area “crime ridden” is rather subjective – I have lived in much, much worse areas than this. Indeed, the Nottinghamshire Police “crime map” for the area currently shows that the crime rate in Forest Fields has fallen 23.4% compared to the same three month period last year. (Last month it was 19.2%.)
I can think of no quicker way to wreck all that is good about Forest Fields than to install CCTV here. It would be a self-fulfilling prophecy, as people see the cameras and then “know for sure” that they are in a really bad area with massive social problems. As people’s impression of their neighbourhood goes downhill, so the neighbourhood will go downhill in reality.
If you want crime to go up and perception of the neighbourhood to deteriorate to an all-time low, then go ahead and install CCTV here.
There are countless studies which do not back up your view, and which in fact show that CCTV is next to useless at dealing with problems in residential areas. Quite a few are linked up from this website, but here’s another recent one from a couple of weeks ago – “CCTV schemes in city and town centres have little effect on crime, says report”.
CCTV will not ensure “the offenders are bought to Justice” – CCTV will not even see “the offenders”, because they’ll just go to another street without CCTV on it! The only measures that will actually make a difference are long term positive investment in the area to strengthen the local community. You can’t just chuck a few bits of technology at problems and expect them to go away – and again, all the evidence from studies carried out (including those from the Home Office) demonstrates this in crystal-clear detail.
CCTV is little but a convenient cash-cow for the CCTV companies, and an excuse for the council and police to be seen to be “doing something” while actually doing nothing more than wasting our taxes.
If the authorities were “doing their job”, they wouldn’t be trying to force their expensive, intrusive, proven useless (even by their own criteria) CCTV system on us. But the authorities are not “doing their job” – they are implementing the uninformed policy of the local council, and attempting to bluff and bluster their way through a “consultation” without informing the public of any facts or figures which might lead the public to question the “wisdom” of the council’s policy of installing CCTV.
If the authorities were doing their job properly, then they wouldn’t need to conceal inconvenient facts from the public in order to reach the best outcome for the area. Instead, members of the public were asked to vote on the scheme without being told how much it would cost, and without being given any information whatsoever about effectiveness or value for money with which to make an informed choice.
I believe that is because there exists no such evidence to demonstrate that CCTV is effective or is good value for money, and plenty of evidence to demonstrate that in reality, CCTV is expensive, ineffective at helping communities, and in fact, very damaging for an area.
I want where I live to be a good, safe area with a strong community. I want money spent within the community to improve it – not given to privately outsourced CCTV companies so they can spy on us (albeit poorly) with expensive, Orwellian techno-toys which do nothing but damage the local area.
May 25th, 2009 at 8:19 pm
OK, i take your point but what would you like the authorities to do? The place is already saturated with Police, PCSO’s, Neighbourhood Wardens and all manner of uniformed bodies.
Your comment ‘ive been mugged here’ just sums it up, where I live people are not ‘mugged’ and i am horrified to see such comments. Forest Fields does need CCTV, it will send out a good message to all of those who want to commit crime “Come into Forest Fields and commit crime and you will be caught on CCTV and you will be arrested” after that it will be the courts that let you down.
I am not making these comments to stir trouble, nor am i on the side of Insp. kaur or the Police. I want everyone to live happily, in Forest Fields, Hyson Green, Newark, Sutton…. in fact wherever they live !!!
Leave a Reply