Misconceived High Street CCTV system should not be subsidised by public money

Written by Gerald Payne on .

Sirs,

It is with regret that I see that yet more public money is being used to subsidise private business. The bane of this country in general of course. In this case it was the vote by the area board, against the wishes of the meeting to give £5,000 towards the unnecessary and pointless CCTV scheme.

Yes I know the meeting did not have to accept the vote under "the rules" but then one may wonder why those rules are in place.

As to a CCTV scheme helping with anti-social behaviour in the High Street, this is a misconception. I again refer people to this site for papers on the efficacy of CCTV: http://www.no-cctv.org.uk/caseagainst/reports.asp .

It may help the police clear up any anti-social behaviour after the event but it will not prevent it. Bobbies on the beat are what sort out this kind of thing not spies in the sky.

Notice that at this meeting the police could not in all honesty say there was a need for CCTV in the town. As for those worried about burglary of their property, how is a scheme in the High St to help with this? If you own property tempting enough for a burglar then either occupy it or provide security as recommended by any good insurance company at your own expense.

If the Chamber of Commerce members need to take steps to provide against theft of their stock then so be it. Follow Waitrose's example and employ and pay for yourselves, extra security measures on your property.

Maybe Chamber of Commerce could help with funds?

Gerald Payne

Marlborough

Print