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.