Eyes in the sky die

YORK'S CCTV network is in such disrepair that some fear it is "effectively useless", it was claimed today.

Police sources told the Evening Press the ten-year-old system was creaking under the strain as aging equipment fails.

Our sources came forward after we revealed how a vicious mugging on a 24-year-old video shop manager, in which he sustained several injuries, went unrecorded near Ouse Bridge because an overlooking camera was broken.

City of York Council claimed the problem was confined to just one machine, but an insider has told us of a catalogue of faults said to be dogging more than third of the entire CCTV network.

Shockingly, our source claims that there are 11 "good as useless" cameras in busy shopping streets, notorious late-night hotspots and popular car parks which are not connected to recorders.

Another six near York Station, Micklegate, George Hudson Street, Parliament Street and Clifford Street are said to be faulty and "virtually blind" at night.

Broken movement, focus and zoom mechanisms on five cameras, including the busy Ouse Bridge camera which is totally broken, are also said to hamper city crimefighters. Many cameras were poorly positioned when first installed, while others are more than ten years old, it is claimed.

A well-placed source claimed a string of robberies, attacks and brawls during the past 11 weeks went unrecorded because of a "pitifully inadequate service".

"The signs in the city car parks attempt to deter thieves by warning of CCTV coverage. Sadly this is not strictly true," said the source. "Similarly the streets of York are not being overseen with anything resembling the quality people should expect.

"It goes without saying that when Royal Ascot comes to York the repercussions from an outmoded and inadequate camera security system will undoubtedly be a major embarrassment."

Council chiefs said today that work is now underway to fix recording equipment and said claims of "night blindness" were exaggerated.

Rod Jones, of City of York Council, said: "I don't think it's a position that any of us wish to be in, but we identify and fix the problems that come up as quickly as we can.

"We are operating an old system. There are 16 cameras that are more than ten years old. They are outside in all conditions.

"Difficult decisions are being made by the council in all sorts of (financial) areas.

"This is the kind of service that has a big attraction from a public safety point of view, but other services which are equally sensitive are having to look at the amount of funding available."

Chief Inspector Andy Bell, of York Police, said: "We are aware of some of the problems, although work was undertaken before Christmas to rectify some particular complaints."

He said the cameras had proved their worth "again and again". In one incident before Christmas, he said, operators tracked a thief across the city before he was arrested by officers with the stolen goods.

"It's an important tool in the fight against crime," he said. "It allows us to monitor incidents without committing all our resources. It's an excellent tool and we can't afford to lose it."

Bob Wood, who heads Safer York Partnership, told the Evening Press "urgent" work was needed and inquiries had begun on how to eliminate the problems.

He said: "I believe that the value that can be achieved from cameras in the city centre is still as great as it ever was. But only if the cameras are in the right place, operating effectively and being monitored.

"Safer York has already started to look at this issue because we have heard negative comments from places and, with the police and the council, we are looking at what needs to be done as a matter of some urgency"

The CCTV network was installed in 1994, cost about £100,000, and several years later was said to have cut crime by up to 26 per cent, reducing York's yearly crime bill by an estimated £1million.

It is monitored at York Police Station by civilian staff who provide 24-hour cover.

But data analyst Ian Cunningham of Safer York Partnership, who has worked extensively with the network, underlined the need for fresh investment.

"It's a bit like buying a mobile phone ten years ago and expecting it to still be up-to-date today," he said. "By the time you leave the shop it has been updated and camera technology has moved on a lot too."

Others have spoken of the "myth" that York has a good CCTV network.

They point to old-fashioned cameras that cannot provide 360-degree coverage and the fact that cover is concentrated in busy tourist streets with relatively little in crime hotspots.

Jane Mowat, director of Safer York Partnership, said: "CCTV has an important part to play in deterring crime and providing evidence to support prosecutions and it would be wonderful to have cutting edge CCTV technology here in York, but this carries a large price tag.

"Safer York Partnership commissioned research some time ago which clearly shows that there is considerable scope for improvement, however, this would need major capital investment at a time when budgets are already squeezed."

Holgate councillor Gill Nimmo described CCTV as an "extremely important tool" for crimefighters and demanded cash for improvements.

He said: "Not only does it reduce crime and disorder, but it plays a valuable role in reassuring the public.

"If it isn't working it must be made to do so as quickly as possible - this may be expensive, but funds are there."

Diana Golding, who heads Retailers Against Crime in York (RACY), said that the need for cameras in the best sites had to be balanced with the effect on listed buildings and tourist scenes.

"It's very important and people are very aware that it needs to be improved, enhanced and repaired and a lot of work is being done at the moment to make that happen," she said.

Rod Jones, acting assistant director for city development and transport, added that engineers have been called in to make urgent repairs.

He said: "The council is dealing with the problems as a matter of great urgency and many of them have already been rectified.

"Subject to the availability of the necessary equipment, the remainder will be dealt within the next few days and the public can be reassured that a high level of security afforded by the system will continue."

He added that the council believed only five cameras were not providing a "satisfactory" level of service, and that a report had been commissioned into the problems with night-time vision.

Cameras that don't work include:

The busy Stonebow junction with Whip-ma-whop-ma-gate. A newsagent robbery was missed here on December 22. Five days later an assault outside the YO1 bar was missed.

Crichton Avenue junction with Kingsway North, Clifton. A bookmakers robbery on December 21 was missed here. It is a popular meeting spot for youths.

Fishergate.

Union Terrace car park (three cameras) Manual recording is possible with these cameras, but not automatic.

Monkbar.

Piccadilly opposite the car park entrance. The camera is broken and faces the ground.

Castle car park.

Barbican Centre looking towards the Edinburgh Arms.

Ashton Park children's playground.

Leeman Road junction with Station Road looking towards York Station. The camera iris does not work in darkness.

Ouse Bridge and Bridge Street. This is the "busiest" camera in the city centre, but does not give any image at all apart from a blue screen. Assaults missed on December 16, 19, 23 and 31.

Parliament Street looking on to the public toilets and evening kebab van. The iris does not work in the dark.

Troublespot Micklegate at junction with George Hudson Street. This camera only pans to the right, so if fights move to the left the camera has to track 360 degrees to catch up. It also does not record in the dark. November 26, brawl missed.

Nunnery Lane. Two cameras are faulty. The first camera has no zoom and no iris and the second, at the bottom of the public car park, cannot focus.

Nessgate junction with King Street and Clifford's Street. The image is severely impaired in the dark and could not be used for evidence. This is a common spot for brawls, one of which was missed on November 27.

Coppergate east. This camera looks down on the city centre but has no left pan. It has to go right 360 degrees.

Shambles car park, Stonebow. This camera is static and can not be moved or zoomed in.

The Esplanade car park. The iris of this camera does not work in the dark.

Evening Press comment:

THEY are supposed to be our eyes in the sky. As it turns out we are half-blind.

Some of York's closed circuit television cameras can see but cannot record. Others work but only in daylight. Yet more won't focus, zoom or scan. One sends back no pictures at all.

Nearly half of the city's CCTV cameras don't work properly. Many of them overlook key night-time trouble spots. As a result some violent crimes are being missed.

By identifying the faulty cameras, we lay ourselves open to the accusation of encouraging criminality. But brawlers, vandals and thieves have already got away scot-free due to the failure to properly maintain and manage the CCTV network.

We expose the full scale of the problem today to prompt urgent action. Work to repair and upgrade the cameras is needed now.

York's CCTV cameras have been a vital tool for protecting the public and fighting crime for ten years. With the increase in binge drinking and violence in York, they are more vital than ever.

Yet time and again the cameras aren't doing their job. That is a real concern to taxpayers who have funded a CCTV bill which over the years has run into hundreds of thousands of pounds.

The human cost is higher still. Last week we reported the anger of Aidan Pole who was attacked in daylight in front of a city centre camera. Learning that it wasn't working was "like being mugged twice" he said.

There will be more crime and less justice until York's eyes can see properly again.

Our aim in highlighting this matter of immense public concern is to refocus attention - and resources - on an issue of major importance.

There's also the matter of a local newspaper's responsibility to its readers. If we know that a camera is not working, what about the risk to people who innocently walk by it every day? Shouldn't they be warned in case the unthinkable happens? And what if it did and we covered up which cameras were affected? What price our public service then?

We have made a decision. We have published, and in some quarters we will be pilloried. So be it.

Updated: 10:19 Friday, January 14, 2005