Fining motorists should be a lower priority.
Westminster’s 100 CCTV cameras should be targeted at catching criminals first and foremost, and using the cameras to give parking tickets to motorists should be relegated to a lesser priority, say Labour Councillors.
Following the re-switching on of Westminster’s 100 CCTV cameras after a Conservative bungle which cost ratepayers and £825,000 to put right, Labour Councillors say that the cameras should be located in areas where residents want more security – such as North Paddington, Pimlico, Church Street and the West End – rather than in St John’s Wood, Bayswater and Marylebone where the cameras rake in millions of pounds in parking fines for the Council.
Westminster’s CCTV cameras were out of action for a year because of a technical bungle by the Council which the Council had to rectify by spending £495,000 to increase the pixellation of the camera images and £330,000 to upgrade the computer software. Because of this bungle, Westminster’s parking fine revenue was down by almost £20 million causing huge job losses and cuts in services.
Councillor Paul Dimoldenberg, Leader of the Labour Group, said:
“Using the CCTV cameras to trap motorists is a waste of this sophisticated technology. The cameras should be used to detect crime and bring criminals to justice, as the top priority. That is the best use of the cameras, with fining motorist for parking transgressions coming a lower priority. The Council has spent of £15 million installing the cameras and they should be used for improving community safety and tackling anti-social behaviour rather than just taking money from motorists.”
CCTV cameras are NOT effective in fighting crime according to all available evidence. See
http://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2009/08/on_londons_surv.html
(read the comments)
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/london/8219022.stm
As an uncommitted voter I am not impressed with this message:
Stop collecting millions of pounds in revenue with existing cameras and install cameras in places where crime MIGHT be committed.
Does this make sense? Would it be an idea to pay for more cameras, if they are really needed, from revenue from existing cameras?
Paul Joseph
Westminster