 |
 |
> Dear Hillary, > > I felt that your message yesterday about the absence of public debates > surrounding the use of CCTV was ill-informed. At a local level - and > (perhaps critically) outside academic circles - CCTV and other monitoring > activities are frequently on the agenda of council, neighbourhood watch > and police-community consultative group meetings. And this is quite right > - people do have a right to be consulted upon crime prevention measures in > their local towns and cities. However, certainly in Surrey, there are no > CCTV cameras in residential areas due to infringements of civil liberties > and the very problems of which you speak. Most people - myself included - > tend to feel happier with some form of monitoring of activities in public > places. In many of our areas covered by CCTV, detections have risen > enormously (attributed to the use of the cameras). In the age of constant > budgetary cuts, we do not have the resources to have as many 'bobbies on > the beat' as we would like - this gives us a method of 'virtual policing' > which is invaluable. > > As for the case in Newham, it is a particularly deprived inner-city area > with high crime levels. Street robbery is very high and a recent fall in > the number has been attributed to the use of cameras. 92% of Newham > residents actually want more cameras - when you clearly feel that there > are already too many - believing that the public safety advantages CCTV > offers far outweigh civil liberty concerns. Crimes in public places need > to be taken very seriously by police forces - they can lead to increased > fear, promote lower usage of public spaces and eventually lead to urban > stigmatisation and decline. Surely Newham Borough Council have been > responsible in responding to public concerns (they have performed very > thorough public consultation excercises). > > I would also like to take issue with the comment you made about the new > capabilities of speed cameras. I - like many of my colleagues - travel > daily on the M25. We have restricted speed limits at busy times and watch > how people 'surf' the cameras - speeding down under the gantry until past > the series of white lines and speeding up in between. This causes huge > problems for traffic flow. The restrictions slow the traffic down in > order to, ultimately, speed it up. Tracking speeds in between is not some > draconian method of catching more motorists, but a method of slowing the > traffic down for everyone's benefit. > > I fail to understand why people are concerned about speed cameras when the > number of road traffic accidents is always rising. The injuries sustained > by victims are directly attributable to the speed on impact (and the > safety features of the car). I am always dismayed when people take issue > with police attempts to slow traffic down - when it is the police who > arrive first at the scene and have to witness horrific injuries. > > I have yet to make my mind up about face recognition systems, but I > realise that it is a complex issue and the last thing we need is for CCTV > to be feared when its successes have been great to date. > > Regards, > > Kay. > > Dr. Kay Graham. > Corporate Research Manager > Surrey Police Headquarters. > Guildford. > > **The views expressed in this email are personal and should not be read as > being shared > by other members of Surrey Police.** %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%