Lights vandalism sparks new bid for CCTV in Ilkley town centre (From Wharfedale Observer)
Get involved: send your pictures, video, news and views by texting WONEWS to 80360, or email
Lights vandalism sparks new bid for CCTV in Ilkley town centre
9:16am Thursday 7th March 2013 in News
Inspector Sue Sanderson
A new bid for CCTV cameras on town centre streets is under debate in the wake of the vandalism of Ilkley’s Jubilee Lights.
Ilkley Parish Council is to debate the funding of CCTV for the town centre, following thousands of pounds of damage being caused to the all-year illuminations on The Grove, despite opposition to CCTV monitoring on the streets in the past.
Local police and the councillor behind the Jubilee Lights project have asked for a new CCTV bid to be considered by the parish council.
Police told the council this week they still have no leads on the vandals responsible for the lights attacks. CCTV cameras in shops on The Grove did not point out into the street.
Past calls for CCTV in Ilkley town centre have met with opposition from those concerned about a loss of privacy, as well as the cost of cameras and monitoring, effectiveness of the system, and fears it will lead to a reduction in local policing.
Inspector Sue Sanderson of Ilkley’s neighbourhood policing team (NPT) has asked if the parish council would support CCTV for the town centre.
And the councillor behind the popular Jubilee Lights scheme, Rory Marshall, spoke in support of CCTV.
“It could only be a good thing in my opinion, if it’s even a mild deterrent and it makes someone think twice,” he said.
Vice-chairman Councillor Mike Gibbons said the issue had been raised with the local council several times since he joined it, and the cost had proved prohibitive. Although he said he was not coming down for or against closed-circuit television, Councillor Gibbons warned the issue of civil liberties had been raised before.
A group opposing CCTV in Ilkley made representations to the council less than ten years ago.
Parish council chairman Councillor Heathcliffe Bowen told fellow councillors: “Some people are very quick to raise the spectre of police states.”
Coun Gibbons said costs quoted previously had been high, although he recognised today’s digital systems may be cheaper to operate.
But Councillor Marshall pointed out CCTV is now commonplace in city centres, and footage is not constantly monitored – but can be viewed if a crime has been reported.
Parish clerk Alan Draper has been asked to research CCTV systems, talk to other local councils, and report back at the next monthly meeting.
Comments(14)
pjl20
says...
1:03pm Thu 7 Mar 13
I am pleased to see that some action is being taken about it and thank Cllr Mike Gibbons for his comments.
But are we any closer to finding, charging and convicting the culprits?
JohnDrake
says...
8:25am Fri 8 Mar 13
Ilkley is still an incredibly low crime area; indeed, the Police are always telling us that crime and anti-social behaviour is falling, not rising.
There's no evidence that there is any deterrent effect from CCTV. There is substantial evidence, on the other hand, that CCTV not only provides no sense of re-assurance, but that it actually makes people feel unsafe.Do we really want our beautiful country town covered with cameras and surveillance systems, with the sense of mutual distrust that provokes?
It provides images in some cases (unless there's a fault) after the event. With Police resources stretched, it provides yet another reason for fewer on the ground officers. The Police calls for CCTV are slightly ironic given the vandalism happened quite close to the Police station--perhaps if that was occupied 24/7, it wouldn't have happened at all. But that would be a cost WYP would have to pay, rather than the council tax payers of Ilkley.
Any system is only good if it's comprehensive. And that means expensive. In the current financial climate, how can it be justified?
The vandalism on the lights is very sad, but I'm not sure how many residents of Ilkley would accept a substantial extra burden on the precept as a result.
pjl20
says...
10:25am Fri 8 Mar 13
The town has had several violent robberies at jewellers over the years.
Why are CCTV cameras also claimed to have 'no deterrent effect'. What evidence do we have for this.
I prefer to rely upon the advice of the police and insurance companies, that cover losses incurred when claims are made for damage or even robbery.
Finally, I would say that a CCTV camera network operating along The Grove and thereabouts, would be somewhat less expensive than having Ilkley Police Station open and functioning 24/7.
Perhaps some of the residents and retailers, in the immediate area, would like to comment?
JohnDrake
says...
1:51pm Fri 8 Mar 13
All of the jewellers have internal cctv. Has it helped? We are talking about petty vandalism, not major robbery as a motivator for installation. Insurance companies do not, on the whole, reduce premiums as a result of street CCTV systems.
There are numerous academic studies that demonstrate a lack of deterrence from on-street cctv (Welsh and Farrington/Home Office report of 2008 is particularly good, as is the Home Office report of 2005). Incidentally, there are also a large number of reports that demonstrate that the evidence provided by street CCTV is useless in most cases of anti-social behaviour.
I would challenge your suggestion on costs. The maintenance of Ilkley police station 24/7 would be a marginal increase in revenue costs, CCTV would be a significant capital expenditure as well as an increase in revenue.
And, anecdotally, one could point to Otley as a previous correspondent noted.
pjl20
says...
2:06pm Fri 8 Mar 13
Why are you and your group so against a CCTV system in the centre of Ilkley?
I prefer to be guided by the police authorities on this matter.
The jewellery robberies caused much disruption when they happened. The stock was insured and so was the damage that resulted, but the lives of the staff and some of the residents of Ilkley who were out shopping on the street on those days were put at risk.
CCTV is used widely throughout the high streets and shopping malls of Britain. This is a security system fit for the 21st century.
Why must the local council always be responsible for the cost of such installations? This ought to be shared among the local business people and retailers. I myself ran a business on The Grove some years ago and we would have contributed toward the costs and upkeep readily.
Paul Latham
Chair, Yorkshire Dales Branch
UK Independence Party
JohnDrake
says...
2:18pm Fri 8 Mar 13
But if you seriously think in the current climate that the retailers of Ilkley are going to pay for an on-street system there's not a lot more that needs to be said.
pjl20
says...
2:39pm Fri 8 Mar 13
The 'evidence-based ' policy making that you refute, is plain for everyone to see across the length and breadth of this country.
UKIP democratic decision-making is the only criteria to apply. This is why our popularity is increasing so quickly with the electorate.
Very few high streets or shopping malls are without an up-to-date CCTV system, to aid security. Why attempt to fight change for the better?
The retailers of Ilkley are in a better position to fund a new CCTV system than the local council tax-payers are.
If we could afford new Christmas decorative lighting, then we ought to have considered this security system for the town centre at the same time.
JohnDrake
says...
5:29pm Fri 8 Mar 13
Also,I didn't 'refute' evidence based policy-making (you really need to avoid using that word) but I do think it's a good idea to know something will be effective before spending thousands of pounds on it.
Most high streets and ALL shopping malls are ugly, I don't want Ilkley to be like that.
The xmas lights had nothing to do with security, its a bizarre association.
Overall though, the desire for policy not based on any evidence of efficacy and 'UKIP democratic decision making' (is this some form of democracy where UKIP decide first who gets to vote?) makes that bit of my brain that still remembers the history of the thirties get more than slightly concerned (Godwin klaxon for those reading).
However, we seem to be agreed that the council taxpayer shouldn't pay. Good. Hope you'll be campaigning on that basis.
pjl20
says...
5:45pm Fri 8 Mar 13
Those who have never considered the party as being worthwhile, have usually not bothered to examine what we are about. Stereotype attitudes therefore prevail among many groups.
This piece from the Gazette is about CCTV and whether it can be justified for the town of Ilkley.
The cost of an effective surveillance system is not as much as you might suppose, as the effectiveness of even one or two cameras can be first class.
JohnDrake
says...
6:13pm Fri 8 Mar 13
pjl20 wrote:'One or two cameras'? So that wouldn't be comprehensive, which means itnwouldn't be a deterrent (remember we're talking about on-street crime and issues). And to be effective at all, they'd still need monitoring and still need WYP to react.
If you wish to know more about the party and it's policies I suggest that you visit the website at www.ukip.org
Those who have never considered the party as being worthwhile, have usually not bothered to examine what we are about. Stereotype attitudes therefore prevail among many groups.
This piece from the Gazette is about CCTV and whether it can be justified for the town of Ilkley.
The cost of an effective surveillance system is not as much as you might suppose, as the effectiveness of even one or two cameras can be first class.
On-street systems are actually hugely expensive, it isn't like installing one in a shop.
pjl20
says...
10:21am Sat 9 Mar 13
The latest high-definition CCTV equipment does not require a system that contains a multitude of cameras.
One either end of The Grove would be adequate, each aimed in the correct direction, of course.
In a cost comparison, have you any idea what it would cost to staff Ilkley police station on a 24/7 basis? For officers to be able to leave the station and patrol, even the town centre at night, would require several police staff on duty at any one time.
JohnDrake
says...
3:30pm Sat 9 Mar 13
To summarise (and you're welcome to have the last word...)
The suggestion is that a CCTV system is needed because of some petty vandalism to lights. It isn't being suggested by businesses, and no retailers are declaring themselves in favour (yet), never mind offering to pay for it.
You're arguing that CCTV is needed because of three (IIRC) robberies on jewelers in the past decade, even though every jeweler already has cctv, which suggests its not in any way a deterrent, and you believe retailers should pay for the in-street surveillance system.
Your points might be valid, but they're not what's being suggested. Nor are they massively relevant.
I fear that the Police are using this suggestion in order to reduce their commitment to Ilkley. I would like to see more real Police on the streets. That IS UKIP policy too. Don't you support it? I note your own pro-cctv stance is in direct opposition to some of your MEPs as well. UKIP centre isn't exactly tolerant of different views as Olly Neville recently found out.
pjl20
says...
4:28pm Sat 9 Mar 13
You may believe my position to be at variance with the UKIP position on policing, but at present we have a coalition government determined to reduce the deficit, not increase it .
Our local MP, Kris Hopkins, is at variance with his own party policy on several matters at present. I was with him at a public meeting recently when he made his position clear on these.
You may be surprised to learn that we do have communication with one another on important issues to the community.
I cannot regard privacy as being a valid reason for not have CCTV security.
We live in a democratic society and I am perfectly entitled to make my own views publicly known to the residents of our town, especially as the debate about a CCTV system has been re-opened once again.
I have been a resident of Ilkley for the past 28 years.
James H says...
11:28am Thu 7 Mar 13