Cut cameras as well as costs

As the new coalition government announces plans to introduce more regulations on CCTV, not for the first time we find Boston Borough Council rowing in the opposite direction.
In January the borough announced the commissioning of its 70th camera - to join the four and a half million across the country that make Britain the third most surveillance-heavy society behind Russia and China.
The government statement on CCTV says it will "make urgent recommendations on the use and regulation of CCTV in a bid to protect privacy" - a freedom that is being eroded by the minute.
But when the council cabinet meets tonight, it is looking at cutting the £72,000 a year it pays to Siemens for three different contracts for rental and maintenance of the cameras it uses ... but not the number of cameras.
In a nutshell, the idea is to buy the cameras from Siemens with a three year maintenance contract included - at the end of which a new maintenance deal could be negotiated with the lowest bidder.
Buying the equipment will cost £50,000, and the annual maintenance cost would be £43,100 a year.
As if often the case with this cash-strapped council Peter will have to be robbed to pay Paul - but the savings could be as great as £32,000 a year.
The 70 cameras are scattered around the borough, with concentrations at Fenside (11) Pilgrim Hospital (4), Redstone Industrial Estate (4), DeMontfort College (3), Rochford College (3) and Kirton (2.)
There is a popular myth that CCTV cameras help reduce crime, but that is not the case.
Recent figures showed that in London, where there are 10,000 "crime fighting cameras" costing £200 million, 80% of crime goes unsolved, whilst an older Home Office study showed that more than half the closed-circuit television schemes in city centres, housing estates and on public transport had no effect on the crime rate.
More often than not, CCTV cameras close the stable door after the horse has bolted, providing evidence of a crime after its commission - which is little consolation to the victim.
An horrific and extreme example emerged last week in the "crossbow cannibal" case, in which newspaper reports say that a caretaker discovered CCTV film of a woman being chased, attacked and knocked unconscious by a man who then disappeared from view, but who returned moments later with a crossbow and fired a bolt into her head, before dragging her body away.
Tell us of the importance of CCTV in this case - other than providing evidence.
Whilst all savings are to be welcomed, we think that as well as looking at cutting the costs of the cameras, Boston's cabinet should also be looking at whether so many cameras are necessary.
It would be interesting to know how many cameras have proved useful in any form of crime prevention - and we reckon that there will be some which have never proved of benefit at all.
These cameras should be dropped from the system - and who knows, it might be possible to reduce the number from 70 to nearer 50.
To lock into a new commitment for 70 cameras for the foreseeable future when the government is planning to regulate their use may well prove counterproductive and financially wasteful.
Certainly, there is evidence that Boston Borough Council enjoys its flirtation with the surveillance society.
As well as its plans for CCTV, the government has also announced that it will ban the use by councils of the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act (RIPA) unless they are signed off by a magistrate and required for stopping serious crime.
The recently published "Grim RIPA" report by Big Brother Watch, shows that since 2008 Boston Borough Council has employed legislation designed to prevent terrorism no fewer than seven times.
Twice the powers were used to prove that a "suspect" had a live-in partner, twice more in cases of acts of anti-social behaviour, once to prove a "suspect" was working, once to prove a "suspect" was sub-letting, and once to establish that an office was being used for residential purposes.
In none of the cases did a prosecution result.
Whilst seven uses of the Act doesn't sound like much, for a puny little authority like Boston to make use of such a huge sledgehammer to crack such a tiny nut reeks of a thirst for power for its own sake.

You can write to us at boston.eye@googlemail.com  Your e-mails will be treated in confidence and published anonymously if requested.