LONDON YARD SECURITY AND CCTV

Security has been an item on the agenda of all general LYMC board meetings this year. Much time has been spent on discussing what would be best for London Yard, on interviewing prospective security firms and at meetings on site with security people.

So far this year, ongoing lighting improvements have begun and a new security firm has been appointed, providing a visible patrolling guard. A Metropolitan Police Officer and security specialist who visited the site made several recommendations regarding lighting and foliage among other things; all of these are being acted upon. He was not of the opinion that CCTV would be of much use to London Yard.

From recommendations sought and other considerations, it is the board’s view that CCTV is not a viable option, mainly for the following reasons:

The best quotes submitted were £52,000 for the camera/monitor system and a further £35,000 for the cabling and ground works. The board is not empowered to spend this amount without the agreement of 100% of owners – gaining this would be extremely unlikely. Further money would also need to be set aside for ongoing maintenance.

From the police, CCTV rarely leads to a conviction because the perpetrators wear facemasks/hoods etc.

As a crime prevention tool, CCTV could work if we employed two guards, 24hrs a day. Guard A would watch the TV monitors and radio guard B who would be out on patrol to go to the trouble spot. This would cost us an extra £144,000 per year.

There was a suggestion that fake cameras be installed but we found that there is a legal problem unless everyone knows they are fake – a “fake” label on the equipment renders it useless!

The Evening Standard recently published results of an investigation giving evidence that CCTV does little to fight crime (copies available).

CCTV may act as a deterrent or as a hint that there are rich pickings to be had.

The committee responsible for investigating provision of satellite/digital/cable TV has also looked into the possibility of CCTV being part of the satellite deal and the quote for both was £186,000 + VAT which puts it out of the equation at this time.

In summary, security has improved in other ways and given the expense and the level of protection CCTV affords being by no means guaranteed, the option is rejected.

Any views? Email directors@londonyard.com or write to us care of DGA.