-----------------Preston Fights Back----------------

Crime rates in Preston have fallen in recent years, most notably in Burglary, Criminal Damage and Car Theft, with drops of up to 3563 cases within a 6 year period. From a combined number of 11338 accounts in Preston between 2001 and 2002 to a combined 7775 between 2007 and 2008.

But what is the cause of this success?

Well, much of the praise in recent years has fallen upon the ever increasing number of CCTV cameras within the Preston area. All you have to do nowadays is glance in the Lancashire Evening Post, look at the website or even watch the news and hear about the number of cases where yobs have been caught red handed in the act by the electronic eye of the law.



Although controversial, with both privacy and cost issues brought into debate on a regular basis, the correct use of digital camera surveillance has had major successes within recent years. I asked Andy Bradbury, press officer for Lancashire Constabulary, what he thought of the successes CCTV has had in reducing crime in Preston. ‘‘With cameras throughout the city centre, we’ve found we can monitor groups that become rowdy during the busy Preston nightlife and intervene before they become violent. Before we were very much restricted to responding to incidents after they’ve happened. We also find they are very effective in terms of the wider scale of shoplifting and car theft, both acting as a deterrent to crime and as a tool for prosecution. With cameras in many of the shops now, we’re able to capture offenders and their behaviour in quite good detail.’’



A former Chief Inspector of the police force, David Thornton, knows a lot about the use of close circuit television in the fight against crime. Mr Thornton fore-fronted the installation of an early CCTV network in Lancaster, what was to be a test site for the rest of Lancashire in terms of the effectiveness of publicly placed security cameras. I asked him how valuable he felt the use of CCTV networks were in crime prevention and reduction and what he would say to people who debate the privacy that public surveillance endangers. ‘‘Whether in Lancaster or Preston, certainly, increased surveillance is beneficial in reducing crime, but they must be properly installed and monitored in order to protect people’s privacy, there are very strict guidelines for that.’’

Of course, within a time of global economic meltdown and a severe credit crunch, the issue of cost has to be addressed in any situation, this is no different. In March of last year, for instance, the council spent 115,000 pounds on upgrading and maintaining a small number of cameras in Preston city centre, as some had been obstructed by over-grown tree branches. This as an event in itself, brought much criticism from locals who felt the funds could have been more effectively fed into other schemes of crime prevention, including a 24/7 bus service to clear the city centre at night. However, more to the point, it serves as an example as to the shear cost that maintaining such technology can amount to. I asked the former Chief Inspector if he thought it was worth the price. ‘‘I certainly do...if it makes people feel safer. How do you measure public confidence in going out into the streets of a city centre?’’



So, it’s at this point where you have to ask ourselves, is it worth it? Are the government and council ploughing too much money into standing back and keeping a watchful eye over us as we go about our daily business? Or do figures simply speak for themselves? Do you feel safer as a member of the public? It seems to me that it won’t be long before the public must make their minds up as a collective, before the time for opinion polls has passed. As for myself, I’ve seen ‘Police Camera Action’, and that was all the convincing I needed.


Pictures thanks to JohnnyEnglish and ilovemayalopez of Flickr.com

BigBrotherBritain

The past decade has seen Britain become one of the most watched countries on the planet, with CCTV cameras littering the streets of every city, town and village, an electronic tag on every disruptive youth and the prospect of biometric ID cards just around the corner, the fiction of George Orwell seems to edge ever closer to reality with every new day and every new advancement in surveillance technology.

But have we gone too far? Is there any other way? And in the time of the worst economic crises the world has seen in the best part of a century, is this really where the tax payers’ money should be heading? Do even we feel safer as a nation?

In 2006, a report funded by the Information Commissioner's Office stated that ‘‘new technology and invisible techniques are being used to gather a growing amount of information about UK citizens.’’ The report, headed by the Information Commissioner Richard Thomas, claimed that the level of surveillance would grow and expand further in the next 10 years, and he warned that this expansion ‘‘could result in a growing number of people being discriminated against and excluded from society.’’

2 years later and the country has become one of the most monitored nations on the planet, with 1 CCTV camera for every 14 people (that’s an approximate total of 4.2 million active cameras across the UK), it’s estimated that the average British citizen is caught on tape around 300 times a day. The national DNA database currently holds profiles on around 3.5 million people and it was recently confirmed that a whopping 18 million pounds of government funding was spent on collating databases of communications information over the past 4 years. However alone we like to feel, what is certain is that the government IS watching.

So should we worry about these statistics? Are these advances and precautions necessary? And how safe does Britain feel under the watchful eye of the state?
Councillor Tony Pimblett, formerly of the South Ribble borough committee claims that surveillance has gone too far. ‘‘Personally I’m not in favour of it, I think it can get to the point where it’s a gross intrusion on peoples liberties and I don’t think it’s really helped in relation to solving crime’’
He argues that the use of personal data storage, electronic tagging and the development of a computer watchdog has done little to deter criminal activities on either a local or national scale and suggests that government funds should be going elsewhere. ‘‘I think the money spent on keeping an eye on people could be better spent on more police on the streets. The police are better equipped than ever but there is a lack of police presence in populated areas, the traditional bobby on the beat did a better job in preventing crime and unrest than the threat of electronic tags and cameras do.’’




Preston teacher Isobel Smith questions the ethical mentality behind the information kept by the government and the sensibilities behind the prospect of compulsory ID cards in the UK. ‘‘As citizens in a free country, we ought to be left to behave responsibly as free, independent human beings. Part of British identity is forged with the idea that you don’t have to carry around a bit of paper to prove you’re part of the British family, you don’t need a document to say you belong in your own home.’’

However, despite opposition towards the mounting use of surveillance technology in Britain today, not everyone feels the same reservations. Frenchwood pensioner, Sheena Hamilton, doesn’t see the problem with the watchful eye of the state. ‘‘As a pensioner, I feel safer with more cameras watching me, if I’m not doing anything wrong then my privacy can’t be invaded.’’
A child in the time of World War 2, Mrs Hamilton praises the logic behind national ID cards, and doesn’t see the problems that law abiding citizens could face. ‘‘I was brought up during the war and we all had identity cards, I can’t see the problem today, if you have nothing to hide then you have nothing to worry about.’’

So what does the future hold for BigBrotherBritain? (despite – fingers crossed – the cancelation of the dismal reality TV series)
Well according to the same academics who gathered the report of current surveillance, the next decade could well see;
- Shoppers being scanned as they enter stores. Scanning loyalty card data to affect how they are treated in store.
- New employees subjected to biometric and psychometric tests plus lifestyle profiles and diagnostic health tests common place.
- Card systems in schools, allowing parents to monitor what their children eat, their attendance, academic and drug test results
- And facial recognition systems, monitoring our movements with tiny cameras within lampposts and walls, with unmanned aircraft in the skies above.

Was George close? Should we be afraid? Should we be very afraid?

Personally I wouldn’t lose my head too soon, thankfully the system of government in Britain remains a democratic one, and as long as that is the case, the ruling elite remain essentially a peoples’ parliament. Until I see a camera pointing through my window, I won’t be throwing any eggs just yet.




Pictures thanks to stephenjjohnson, Geraintwn, Amanda farah, Coradia1000 and LHOON of Flickr.com

Map of Stories From the Lancashire Evening Post

Here is a map that locates the main news stories from the Lancashire Evening Post on 16.11.08.


View Larger Map

Beware of the Man Flu

In recent weeks I have done battle with a most dangerous ailment, this has spurned me to share a warning for the common man



surely a poignant piece of journalism

A random map of the route between two University buildings - just for fun (if you're into that kind of thing)


View Larger Map

Anything they can do, can we do better?

With the dawning of a new era in American politics, I asked people of Preston whether they thought the time had come for a black Prime Minister of Great Britain and could they see it happening in the future.

Obama's Britain

I think it's safe to say that the past seven days have caused quite a stir in the world of politics. Tuesday night (or Wednesday morning, whichever way you want to look at it) saw the election of the very first black President of the United States of America. Not only that, but for the Democrat party, a political force that once fought so sternly in the corner of legalised slavery in America.

It is highly likely that this moment will be looked back on in years to come as one of the most significant periods in the progression of democracy since its conception by Plato himself. And many believe that not only does this send a message to the world of the change in social values within one of the most powerful nations on the planet, but it may signal a change towards world politics in general.

What brings this perceived change even greater leverage in the minds of projectionists and forward thinkers (usually divided up into the two common groups of ‘cynics’ and ‘eternal optimists’), is that not only will a new man take over the reins of America, but a new party too. With the differences between parties as significant as the differences between men, the world expects change, whether good or bad, the world expects it to be drastic.

The most obvious way in which America affects Britain aside from within the media of entertainment is through their foreign policy, made most famous by the way in which America chipped in with World War Two and how, in recompense, we kindly obliged to assist them in Afghanistan and Iraq in way of thanks. Such has been the way for the past eight years, America has gone, and Britain has followed.

What seems interesting to me now, is whether Britain will be more than happy to change her policies abroad to cater to a more appeasing, more liberal America of the future, (if that is, of course, the America of the future). Can Britain afford to do anything else other that such? Most importantly, will Obama’s Britain look as drastically different as his America is projected to?

We can only wait.