Once again, Clarence Valley Council fails to consult the community. This time it's CCTV

 


It would appear that there is no tier of Australian government that is not intent on recording as much as possible about the lives and activities of its constituents.

On this occasion it is Clarence Valley Council, intent on encouraging the installation of CCTV cameras in the predominately small business districts scattered along the length of the river, and being this particular council, once again not asking residents using these streets whether or not they wish to shop, pay their bills or have a coffee under the gaze of one or more 27/7 street spies.

The Daily Examiner 19 December 2012:

An innovative program funded by Clarence Valley Council will provide local businesses with financial support to install CCTV.
The program is focused on addressing crimes, including vandalism, graffiti and break and enter, throughout the Valley.
"While we must keep in mind that our levels of these crimes are relatively low in comparison with other areas, there are some concerning incidents of crime happening locally which the business community and council are rightly concerned about." said the Mayor, Richie Williamson.
"This program will work hand in hand with other council and community strategies that target crime."
The program was developed after a series of consultations with NSW Police and the local business community…

So with Clarence Valley Council intent on encouraging private business to intrude on our everyday lives, is there likely to be any real and lasting benefit from the Big Brother effect?

Apparently not:

Though billions of dollars are being spent world wide on CCTV systems, there is actually little evidence as yet of the success of CCTV to combat or deter crime or its cost effectiveness in doing so..

The evidence that the benefits of CCTV will fade after a period of time are backed up by a number of studies. [Townsville City Council paper 2001]

 

CCTV was found to have no significant impact on total offences, total offences against property (including other theft (excluding unlawful

entry), unlawful entry, other property damage, unlawful use of a motor vehicle and handling stolen goods) and total other offences (including drug offences, liquor (excluding drunkenness)) occurring in Surfers Paradise. Findings from Broadbeach indicated that CCTV had no impact on total offences or total offences against property (including other theft (excluding unlawful entry) and other property damage). [Bond University Humanities & Social Sciences papers 2006]

 

The American studies that met the criteria for the meta-analysis generally showed worse outcomes that those in the UK, showing an undesirable or null effect on crime….

Regarding violent crime, there appeared to be no statistically significant change in the level of crime anywhere in the 500 foot range around the cameras. [American Civil Liberties Union]

 

But before we rush to put all of Melbourne under surveillance, we should heed the example of Britain, which, in the past 20 years has spent billions of dollars on more than a million CCTV cameras across its cities, yet still has one of the highest crime rates in Europe.

Indeed, four years ago the policeman in charge of monitoring London's massive CCTV network described it as "an utter fiasco" that was responsible for solving only 3 per cent of crimes.

Detective Chief Insp Mick Neville said that police often avoided trawling through CCTV images "because it's hard work" and he believed criminals had no fear of CCTV.

The marginal effectiveness of CCTV in preventing crime has been well known for at least a decade. In 2002 a British Home Office review of studies into the effectiveness of CCTV in preventing crime found the overall reduction in crime in areas with CCTV was only 4 per cent. Half the studies examined showed CCTV had no effect on crime at all, and all showed it had no effect on violent crime. [The Herald Sun 28 September 2012]

 

The deputy director of the Sydney Institute of Criminology, Garner Clancey, says it is ''absolutely'' possible to move around the city without being caught on camera but most trips will be captured dozens if not hundreds of times.

However, there are questions over whether the huge costs to councils and the impositions on citizens' privacy are justified in an era when crime rates are falling.

''Crimes like motor vehicle theft and burglaries are falling,'' he said. ''Do we then say there's a point where cameras aren't cost-effective so we turn them off?

''Some of the crimes that have been increasing are around domestic violence where technologies like this will never have any impact so it's a difficult balancing act.'' [The Sydney Morning Herald 26 October 2012]

 

* Photograph found at Google Images

Quote of the Week

“if life is a game of cricket, there is some doubt over whether Mal Brough should even be allowed to carry the drinks”

{Malcolm Farr on 17^th December 2012 in The Punch}

Which Ian Causley would that be?

As always, we at NCV are willing to take advice about matters we don't get right.

Whilst travelling away from the local area one of the lads from the table of knowledge has informed me that yesterday a letter to the editor of the local paper (The Daily Examiner) appeared above the name of an 'Ian Causley', but no address appeared. Now, how could that have happened?

Is the letter writer a local, a legend in his own lunch time, or a visitor from who-knows-where?

Unhappy at coverage

I am very disappointed with the reporting by The Daily Examiner in regard to ,,,

Ian Causley

Telling It Like It Is: Metgasco at Glenugie on the NSW North Coast

 

Henderson’s Allegations Baseless

Barry Fletcher, Glenugie

 

I write regarding the item ‘Lawless vigilantes delay CSG drilling at Glenugie’ featured in an ABC North Coast news item of 5 December, 2012, and available at http://www.abc.net.au/local/stories/2012/12/05/3648111.htm?site=northcoast.

These are the reported words of one Peter Henderson, identified as the CEO of Metgasco.

He was described as not mincing his words and while he may not have been mincing his words he was effectively mincing the truth in so far as he spoke of ‘lawless vigilantes’ taking unjustified action.

I was the ‘police liaison person’ on that day. I am not a lawless vigilante. I am a retired Probation and Parole Office now working peacefully as a Tea Tree Farmer within the small water catchment where Metgasco have begun their ‘activities’. My wife and I are long-term residents here and live just 1300 metres from the drilling site.

To describe me, or the gathering of people, of whom Deb Whitely was one, as ‘lawless vigilantes’ is simply wrong and offensive as well. In using these words Mr Henderson should realise that he is not endearing himself or Metgasco to the general public. While his non-mincing of words may appeal to some, it is a losing strategy among those who give genuine thought to the implications of Metgasco’s activities in this area and elsewhere.

Mr Henderson was not an eye-witness to the events of that day. He was not in the vicinity. He has relied on hearsay and that hearsay is wrong.

I also take issue with these words in the news report:

‘… while frustrated contractors looked on in disgust’.

An interview with the contractor who drove the truck to which Deb Whitely locked on may well give a different picture. May I suggest that someone from the media actually ask him. Ask him also if he intends to continue doing contract work for Metgasco after his experience on that day, which included meeting in a friendly atmosphere with some of the ‘lawless vigilante’ ladies who brought him a cup of tea while he sat for three and more hours in his truck. I believe that they were some of the ‘Knitting Nannas’ from Grafton. Hardly lawless vigilantes!

I spoke to the police a number of times on that day as ‘liaison person’. Every police officer was courteous to the people present in the difficult circumstances of such a gathering. The people too were co-operative with police yet stood their ground within the law. There were no arrests of ‘lawless vigilantes’.

Mr Henderson’s ill-chosen words do him no credit and are offensive to the people present on that day including Deb Whitley and by implication represents a serious criticism of the police for failing to deal with ‘lawless vigilantes’.

Let Deb Whitley’s words be heard:

‘It’s an extreme measure and I don’t know if it would be the best way but it seems like we have no choice, because we don’t seem to be heard by the government, or by Metgasco, or by mining companies about our fears in the area.’

I have expressed my views on the above to the ABC but I think it is an important enough issue to be brought to the attention of your readers, many of whom, I expect, take notice of the ABC. I believe that the general public should be informed of facts in relation to the happenings of that day and the activities of coal-seam gas companies in general.

The 10 Pound Pom too busy "doing very important things" to read Rares judgment

Lord luv a duck! Australia’s most infamous assisted immigrant is at it again.

Opposition Leader Tony Abbott has admitted he is supporting friend and former colleague Mal Brough even though he has not read the damming Rares judgement.

The reason he hasn’t bothered to look at this judgement?

Why he’s been too busy “doing very important things” back in his mother country.

Presumably it’s been taking all his energy to brush up on his “Oxford cast of mind”.

Pic from The Suite World

The pain is not over for Brough, McArdle, Pyne, Entsch & the rest of Abbott's merry men

Ashby and his backers get an early and unwelcome Christmas present.

In the matter of James Asby v Commonwealth of Australia and Peter Slipper: