Life has gone on regardless of the coronavirus pandemic, and the economic lockdown as a result. Even though high streets have been largely shuttered from March to June, public space CCTV has still been at work, writes Mark Rowe.
One district council that regularly puts reports on its website about its public realm CCTV use is South Oxfordshire. The latest report, authored by Steve Webb, covered the half year from October 2019 to the end of March; that is, the beginning of lockdown. While the differences if any in monitoring during lockdown remain to be seen, then, judging by the previous reports, local government CCTV carries out crime prevention and related community safety work; or as the report lists, reducing fear of crime, crime detection, and protecting the vulnerable; reflecting what is in front of the cameras.
South Oxfordshire is small town, shire town Britain, reflected in the relatively small number of cameras in the four towns with CCTV cameras; Didcot (nine), Henley-on-Thames (20), Thame (15) and Wallingford (13). While the towns have crimes like any other place – theft from shops, commercial burglary, drug dealing and anti-social behaviour, the monitoring suite in Abingdon may equally pick up what you might call bobby on the beat stuff; a horse apparently in distress tethered by a pub (police attended the pub and spoke to the animal’s owner; ‘advice was given’ and the CCTV monitoring suite confirmed when the owner rode the horse out of town); or youths jumping for fun off the bridge over the River Thames at Wallingford, pictured; again, police went to the scene and ‘strong words of advice were given’.
As for that most recent half year, CCTV operators ‘supported’ 930 incidents. The operators also produced 54 evidence packs for possible court proceedings. As for the most common type of incident; in Didcot and Thame, it was missing persons; similarly in Wallingford and Henley ‘fear for welfare’. That is, rather than outright crime such as fighting and public order disturbances, although the towns do get their share of such misbehaviour, usually between midnight and 4am due to the night-time economy.
What the report terms the ‘incident monitoring trigger’ is usually police requests; that is, the CCTV operator hearing about an incident on a police radio, rather than the operator proactively patrolling the cameras. Of the four towns, only Henley-on-Thames has a shop radio scheme. Interestingly, in some towns ‘miscellaneous’ cases are rated as quite high, namely the things that don’t easily fit into any category let alone a crime category; such as a general watch for the police for a vehicle, or observations for a stray dog.
Examples from each town show the part that CCTV plays in the general management of public space, as much a public service – police under austerity acting as the back-stop public service for the vulnerable – as responding to crime and nuisance. An incident may well result in what in the jargon is called a ‘non-recordable sanction’, that you and I might call a ticking off of someone. In Didcot; a call came into the Thames Valley Police control room. A man had assaulted a member of staff at a local supermarket and left without paying for goods. From the description given, the council operator was able to locate the man along The Broadway in the town centre, and relayed up to date details to the police. Officers were able to intercept the man and he was arrested.
In the case of a man reported missing, police control centre broadcast the description. The CCTV operator noted a man in Didcot matching the description and nearby officers were alerted. The officers confirmed that this was indeed the man in question and took him to a place of safety.
An operator was requested to monitor for a group of teenagers who were reportedly starting fires near The Market Place. The operator noted a group that matched the description given and also observed them involved in what looked like some kind of exchange. This was relayed to police control. Officers attended and the group was given strong words of advice regarding their behaviour. Two arrests were made for drug and offensive weapon carrying.
As for Thame, a call had come into the police control centre, that staff in a local supermarket had concerns for a man who seemed confused and finding it difficult to cope with his shopping. Having heard the description given on air, the CCTV operator was able to alert officers attending to the exact location of the person. Having established that this was indeed the man, officers were able to spend some time with him. Satisfied that he was all in order, they were able to help him on his way.
And at Wallingford, police control had received a call from a public phone from man who had threatened to harm himself. By reviewing footage from the time of the call, the CCTV operator was able to identify the man walking in the town and update officers arriving. The man was ‘supported’.
The report hints at the value of public space CCTV, quite apart from actual incidents. Cameras – or to be precise, human operators – alert police to incidents they may not have known about. CCTV gives the police the ability to assess and allocate resources and prioritise; which may include deciding that an incident is not worth attending.
To download the report, visit http://www.southoxon.gov.uk/services-and-advice/community-advice-and-support/community-safety/cctv.
