Wakefield’s £4m CCTV bill revealed
PRIVACY campaigners have criticised Wakefield Council for spending more than £1m a year on CCTV cameras.
A report by campaign group Big Brother Watch claims Wakefield spent £4.1m on 177 cameras between April 2007 and March last year.
Only 16 local authorities spent more during the same four-year spell.
Group director Nick Pickles said the money would have been better spent on police officers.
He said: “In too many cities across the country every corner has a camera but only a few ever see a police officer.
“Despite millions of cameras, Britain’s crime rate is not significantly lower than comparable countries that do not have such a vast surveillance state.”
Glynn Humphries, the council’s service director for cleaner and greener, said the figure was not a true representation of ongoing costs.
He said: “The figure includes additional one-off costs, when the CCTV was moved and upgraded. It is now located in a council-owned building to reduce costs further.
“CCTV provides reassurance to the public and can be used by the police in investigations, providing a significant saving. The presence of the cameras can also deter shoplifting, helping local businesses.”
Birmingham was reported to have spent the most on cameras, racking up a bill of £14.2m.
Big Brother Watch was set up in 2009 to challenge policies which threaten privacy.
Email to a friend
Print this page
Looking for...
Featured advertisers
Jobs
Search for a job
Motors
Search for a car
Property
Search for a house
Weather for Wakefield
Friday 25 May 2012
Today
Sunny
Temperature: 10 C to 23 C
Wind Speed: 20 mph
Wind direction: East
Tomorrow
Sunny
Temperature: 9 C to 21 C
Wind Speed: 17 mph
Wind direction: East
Comments
There are 8 comments to this article
Page 1 of 1
Twisted Stone
Friday, February 24, 2012 at 06:57 PMI have to agree with Optimus and think sticking up a camera to prevent crime is the wrong way to go, we need tougher sentences and more bobby's on the beat. I you must use these things, what about installing wifi linked cameras in as many locations as possible ? You can buy a good quality external globe mounted IP camera with pantiltoptical zoom for around £1000 only requiring power and a wifi connection with a 3 year warranty. There's already talk of a free internet for many town centres in the near future and even without it, ask businesses to sponsor cameras in their area by supplying power and a share of their internet connection. I just think £4 million is quite a lot for just 177 cameras, just look at the poor image quality on the website mentioned below, even a cheap digital camera can do better.
Optimus Prime
Friday, February 24, 2012 at 05:33 PM£4.1m spent on catching people parking on double yellow lines - money well spent!
Optimus Prime
Friday, February 24, 2012 at 05:32 PMI started my comment with "CCTV's have not resulted in reduced crime" which you've just conceded, So it doesn't stop crime. If anything, it may provide eveidence when prosecuting. More CCTV in this country and yet there's a high incidence and rate of crime than countries with less CCTV? So it has no impact on crime. Do you really think that a person would rather be a victim of crime caught on CCTV than not being a victim at all?
ManicManiac
Friday, February 24, 2012 at 12:30 PM@Optimus Prime: I recommend having a look at the Caught on Camera section of the West Yorkshire Police website, and then tell us again that CCTV is useless against those attempting to obscure themselves, or are aware of the cameras. I fully support the use of CCTV whether it be for catching criminals, people acting anti-socially, or those thinking they can park on double-yellows to nip into a shop. We hear all sorts of stories about people getting caught parking illegally, or being caught out walking when claiming incapacity benefit, and people moan about this! Surely this is CCTV doing the job it was designed for. Catching those doing wrong who think they can get away with it.
Optimus Prime
Wednesday, February 22, 2012 at 12:18 PMCCTV's have not resulted in reduced crime. If anything, they may provide evidence when prosecuting, but even that is limited if the perpetrator is masked or covered for example. So in most cases the crime will still take place with the criminal taking more precaution since they'll be aware of the CCTV. So I'm not sure what reassurance a victim has that CCTV is there. Somehow I think a victim of crime would prefer not to be a victim rather than a victim and it have been caught on CCTV. The other key question to ask, who are these CCTV supplying companies, making millions from the public, playing on the public's fear of crime, convincing them that they need CCTV. Also, how many of these companies have people who have worked for councils or been councilors previously and how many councilors have worked for these companies previously. A point often overlooked in these cases. But to have a balanced argument, I suppose the cat dumped in the bin will feel that this is money well spent!
carpe-diem
Wednesday, February 22, 2012 at 12:00 PMI support the use of cameras and feel safer knowing they are about and working. As a female, it is reassuring to be able to park your car knowing it is being watched and then be able to walk to wherever you want to go. If you take the time to find out the system works you will know that one person can monitor numerous cameras and alert police if required. The police can then also see the images on the screen and plan any courses of action appropriately and in a more targeted manner. One police officer could not watch so many locations all at once. It can prove a crime has been committed, making it easier to solve crime and also get a conviction and it can also prove innocence. My son was accused by a malicious person and arrested for something that he did not do and when the police obtained the CCTV footage it proved that it was not him and that he wasn’t even there. That was priceless so even if it di cost £23,000 per camera then it is money well spent! The fear of crime is genuine and can stop some people (men and women alike) from going out, especially in the dark. These cameras provide a degree of reassurance and enable people to enjoy a bit more of a relaxed life – how do you put a cost on feeling safe?
Joefromcas
Wednesday, February 22, 2012 at 11:39 AMDid you get the £23,000 by dividing the cost by the number of cameras. This is totally wrong that is the problem with FOI requests it just gives figures and totals not how these are broken down to. I suppose staffing and monitoring costs, on costs and other factors such as relocating and repairs will be in the total figure bringing the cost of the camera down from £23,000. Do not forget when cameras were first installed in Wakefield city area. Public in towns across the district were clamouring to have them installed in their towns.
Twisted Stone
Wednesday, February 22, 2012 at 11:06 AM£23,000 per camera !!! Are these full HD Digital cameras meaning no more blurred black and white images ? or Did some salesman pull a fast one ?
Page 1 of 1
Your view
Please sign in to be able to comment on this story.