Mairi Clare Rodgers: ‘It’s a force either for good or for ill’

BEING for or being against CCTV is like being for or being against the ocean. You can swim or sail in it, but you can also drown. It’s a force for good or for ill.

Good quality images of suspects can help with successful prosecutions. But the use of CCTV in high profile investigations means its actual benefits are too often overstated.

CCTV may have its place, but all this technology does not come cheap, and generally a camera won’t prevent a crime.

Hide Ad
Hide Ad

It can be useful in detecting well publicised offences, but, overall, it is used as evidence in just a fraction of successful convictions. It is too easily resorted to as a substitute for adequate policing.

Research suggests that these cameras are more likely to displace crime rather than prevent it. Studies show that a more effective way of curbing crime is regular, consistent police patrolling and good street lighting – not a myriad costly and unregulated cameras.

These results are in spite of a decade-long frenzy of public investment diverting huge sums of money from other more effective crime prevention measures like more police officers on the streets.

The public interest – and the public purse – would be much better served by a less polarised and more informed debate focused on the effective and proportionate use of this technology and the urgent need for regulation in this area.

A lack of statutory checks on where cameras are placed and how the images are shared has delivered disastrous results.

A Muslim community in Birmingham saw a discriminatory fishbowl created around their homes. A vulnerable man’s attempted suicide was broadcast on national television. Cameras have been pointed into women’s bedrooms and placed in the washrooms of primary schools. Unfortunately legislation has not caught up and these abuses must be addressed.

• Mairi Clare Rodgers is director of media relations for Liberty.

Related topics: