[pp.int.general] CCTV reports (at last!)

[Amelia Andersdotter]

On 09/08/2007, Andrew Norton <andrew.norton at pirate-party.us> wrote:
>
> Its shamefull. Really it is, I'm ashamed, sometimes, to call myself british.
>
I don't think the problem is the British population but that you are
deceived by the people you elect to rule you wisely, or whatever.

The Home Office does in the first paragraph of their conclusion both
conclude that none of their promises with CCTV surveillance
effectiveness are fulfilled, and that the reason  they can still
fulfill those promises with CCTV is that we (the citizens) are too
simplistic to comprehend the ways incomprehensible in which they are
fulfilled.

According to a report published in 1999 at Southwark University
(http://www.kcl.ac.uk/depsta/law/research/icpr/publications/cctv.shtml)
says "Detections through the use of CCTV have been relatively low
except for the Elephant and Castle." (Chapter 5, 3rd paragraph)

--Amelia


> Andrew Norton
> Pirate Party US
>
>
> On Thu, 9 Aug 2007 01:05:10 +0200, "Amelia Andersdotter" <teirdes at gmail.com> wrote:
> > Two reports on presumed efficiency of CCTV in the UK. The first report
> > is from 2005, the second one is at least published after 2000. It
> > would seem that all the criminological reports or any investigations
> > made on this topic comes directly from Home Office, since most
> > independent institutes I've been able to locate are currently without
> > funding.
> >
> > If anyone would like to negate no-independent institutes I would feel
> > more at ease. However, I've abstracted some parts from each of these
> > reports.
> >
> > http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/pdfs05/hors292.pdf
> >
> > 1st paragraph 6: Conclusions:
> > "It would be easy to conclude from the information presented in this
> > report that CCTV is not effective: the majority of the schemes
> > evaluated did not reduce crime and even where there was a reduction
> > this was mostly not due to CCTV; nor did CCTV schemes make people feel
> > safer, much less change their behaviour. That, however, would be too
> > simplistic a conclusion, and for several reasons."
> >
> > EDIT: http://www.crimereduction.gov.uk/cctv/cctv33.pdf
> >
> > page 44-45:
> > "Results compared to the schemes objectives
> > Certainly from a politician's point of view regardless of
> > methodological loopholes Gillingham, as a town with CCTV, witnessed a
> > 35 % reduction in crime over a five year period and Strood without
> > CCTV a minimal 0.05 % reduction. Anyone involved with the scheme will
> > herald results like these as making it a success however 'success' was
> > defined by the GSCP as:
> >
> > A 25 % reduction in criminal damage, a 15 % reduction of assaults and
> > disturbances, a 40 % reduction of car crime and six arrests within the
> > first six months for drug dealing. (GSCP, 1996)
> >
> > The following table, table 7, shows percentages for the crimes cited
> > in the GSCP bid:
> >
> > [Tabell 7]
> >
> > Table 7 demonstrates that none of the GSCP target were actually met (...)"
> >
> > --Amelia
> > ____________________________________________________
> > Pirate Parties International - General Talk
> > pp.international.general at lists.pirateweb.net
> > http://lists.pirateweb.net/mailman/listinfo/pp.international.general
>
> ____________________________________________________
> Pirate Parties International - General Talk
> pp.international.general at lists.pirateweb.net
> http://lists.pirateweb.net/mailman/listinfo/pp.international.general
>