Keeping CCTV is

not necessary

At the same time as it is looking at staff cuts to make economies, Boston Borough Council - aka the Bypass Independents - have guaranteed the town's CCTV system will not be switched off to save money.
Two other district councils - North Kesteven and Lincoln - are both considering turning off their CCTV, but as is so often the case, Boston thinks that rowing in the opposite direction is more practical.
A spokesman said: "There are no plans to shut down Boston's CCTV service, but we will be looking at ways of making it more cost effective. Reducing crime and the fear of crime remain council priorities."
That’s all very fine, but as we have said before - that is the job of the police.
Whilst the service is being maintained, the “cost effective" hint suggests there may be job cuts among the ten staff who many the 72 cameras around the clock.
We have said before that we regard CCTV as a far from perfect substitute for good old fashioned policing in the form of bobbies on the beat.
The way CCTV works conjures two phrases to mind.
The first is “shooting fish in a barrel.”
It’s a nice, cosy way to fight crime - sitting in an office watching offences happen and sorting them out afterwards.
Which brings us to the second phrase - “closing the stable door after the horse has bolted.”
It’s all very fine to watch a crime take place and subsequently identify and arrest the offender - but that is of little consolation to the victim.
We’re talking of situations in which people are often badly assaulted - or traumatised by robbery.
The fact that their aggressor is caught is small consolation as their bones heal or their stitches are removed - or as they struggle to regain the confidence to go out and live a normal life again without fear that they could be mugged.
A year ago the council was looking at cutting £72,000 a year from the costs of its cameras through a rearrangement of contracts. We have no idea whether it was done - but if such a level of savings was achievable, then we shudder to think what the full cost of the CCTV operation works out at. Perhaps someone can tell us.
At the time that discussion was taking place, Boston had just switched on its 70th camera.
Now there are 72 - so the overall cost must gone up by something in the region of £25,000.
There is a popular myth that CCTV cameras reduce crime, but that is not the case.
In London, where 10,000 "crime fighting cameras" cost £200 million, 80% of crime goes unsolved, whilst a 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.
We have already said that the council should also be looking at whether so many cameras are necessary - and it would be interesting to know how many of the have proved useful in any form of crime prevention. We suspect that there will be some which have never proved of benefit at all. If a city the size of Lincoln, with a university and more pubs that you can shake a stick at, believes it can manage without CCTV, then there is no question that Boston can.
In 2009, when the borough’s asked taxpayers what options they preferred for CCTV, 63% of all respondents said they thought there should be joint funding between the police, local business and the council. But when local business and the police were approached about CCTV no offers for funding were forthcoming.
That in itself gives a clue as to how important they consider it - and the police preference to hang on to their monetary coppers rather than shell out a few quid on CCTV speaks volumes.
This really is an area where money could and should be saved, and the BBI must think again rather than than announce intentions aimed more at securing votes in May than saving the borough money, and providing yet another soapbox for the Portfolio holder for community safety Councillor Ramonde Newell.

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