Go to 2013B, 2013A, 2012B, 2012A 2011B, 2011A , 2010, 2009, 2008, 2007, 2006, 2005 and 2004

unmade films


JenaDesigns for Building Plans on CAD for  Planning Permission

Mrs. Monk's Would-be Diary should have been written by Mrs. Monk, since she is the "Writer" in the family.
However, since she is a writer only in the conceptual sense, I have undertaken to fill these pages on her behalf
If not by her, these pages will certainly be about her, and other important matters of the day         Leslie Monk




  Complain, Applaud, or Comment  CONTACT Shoestringonline


Highway Mendacity

by  Monkles  5 February 2013

A second report on Mobile CCTV has been prepared by Mehmet Mazhar, (Highways and Traffic Department) on behalf of Executive Councillor Cox (Conservative), now recommending that that Mobile CCTV parking enforcement should be extended further in Southend on Sea.

Mobile CCTV is very much the baby of the non-elected Highways and Traffic Department, which now feels obliged to defend their recommendation and their employment of Mobile CCTV. Any reader of this report will realise they are out to emphasise the positive and eliminate the negative aspects of Mobile CCTV.

The Council introduced CCTV to raise revenue, and that was something made abundantly clear more than once in the initial report written by Andrew Meddle (Highways and Traffic) when he recommended CCTV for Southend in 2011.

In the January 2013 Report, Highways and Traffic now describe the public perception that CCTV is about raising revenue, as an "unfounded myth”. This is apparently a mendacious claim, and an extremely unconvincing claim. The report is careful to alert the councillors, and to advise them to, "emphasise that this is not a revenue raising operation", contrary to what has been reported elsewhere, and contrary to common sense.

If this is an objective report, I am a chocolate fudge cake.

Highways and Traffic also describe the public perception that CCTV should  not be used in "residential streets", as another "unfounded myth"  while at the same time asserting in the same report that Mobile CCTV will not be used in a residential zone.

The writer of the report would appear to be entangled in a web of duplicity.

The “foundation” of this perception is government guidelines that CCTV should only be used in particular named locations, where normal enforcement is not possible.  Mr Meddle’s very own report defined and justified where they would be used. He made no argument for their use in residential streets, nor should he have. On the contrary.

The somewhat bizarre lack of objectivity in this latest report recommending increased use of mobile CCTV, is evident.

The "benefits" of appropriate use of  mobile CCTV outside schools for example is stated anecdotally. The 11,072”  additional CCTV penalty tickets are noted, Kechang. The revenue raising is made clear enough with with precise statistical evidence in detail. However, there is little discussion, and no evidence reported by Highways and Traffic, concerning the misuse of Mobile CCTV.

This latest Report clearly demonstrates contempt for public concern, by characterising such concerns as “myths”,  and by doing so incompetently.

If this is an objective report I am a carrot cake.

Go to 2013B, 2013A, 2012B, 2012A 2011B, 2011A , 2010, 2009, 2008, 2007, 2006, 2005 and 2004

  Complain, Applaud, or Comment  CONTACT Shoestringonline




Southend Council Report That Residents’ Mobile CCTV Concerns Are Based on Untrue Myths. Really?