Teen gangs bring fear to streets

Police resources are centrally allocated, but the City Safety team folk are DCC-contracted (although in many places overseas public surveillance systems are overseen or directly operated by police officers). CCTV operates successfully worldwide when vetted, well-trained and supervised operators are in direct communication with patrols on the ground who can respond quickly to the situation. By trial and error criminals learn shielding and distraction tactics, or simply relocate, if the placement of surveillance is not part of a coherent and wide-ranging public safety strategy. E.G. disorder spreads from George st to the alleys off George St, or to Gt King St. CCTVs are generally ineffective when lauded as a panacea, implemented in place of actual safety personnel (of whatever description), operated on the cheap by semi-skilled, unvetted staff or volunteers, and followed by much back-patting etc. Unfortunately, this seems to be the DCC's current modus operandi.

Unfortunately the Dunedin City Council does not employ the police officers allocated to Dunedin City, nor are they responsible for the numbers thereof. That is a central government issue and should not be confused with proactive actions proposed by local authorities. Removing the option of an additional crime prevention tool that the city does have the power to implement, will not result in more police officers. I don't believe that it has been mentioned anywhere that a proposed CCTV system will be manned by police force line officers. That would be out of step with how this system operates successfully worldwide. So, no reduction in the number of police officers on the street as the result of a CCTV system. But an extra set of eyes available for crime prevention or prosecution. I am surprised at the number of people seemingly opposed to any additional services that may result in a safer city.

It seems to me that Dunedin's small enough that rather than a bunch of policemen staring at CCTV screens we could simply have a bunch of policemen walking the streets.

I think that one policeman walking the Octagon at night is much more of a deterrent than a secret policeman watching people on cameras. Equally it's pretty hard to defuse a volatile situation from the other end of a camera - all you can do is arrest people afterwards.

Decrying any form of crime deterrant on the basis that, possibly, some dodgy camera operator may abuse his position and peer too closely at someone's cleavage, is stretching the comparitive boundaries somewhat. At best. An invasion of civil liberties, I hear cried ? How about the liberties of those of us who no longer feel safe walking through those streets at night ? That is a real liberty that many citizen are being deprived of today. Not a hypothetical future situation based on pure speculation. A CCTV system is not the be all and end all of creating a safer city, but it's a positive initiative that can be driven locally, independant of future central government policing policies which may or may not include Dunedin. I applaud the fact that our civic leaders are not sitting back waiting for someone else to fix our problems.

A long term solution would be to increase (ideally) police numbers, introduce some variant of public order bylaws (although those can become a bit dicey and self-defeating if done rashly), and maybe throw some social workers at young teens found loitering after midnight. The idiot's solution is to throw money towards establishing a quickly obsolete system that would require long term coordination for a localised and frankly unproven "solution" to the problem. And then ban hoods, hats, umbrellas, heavy make up ...

"One less assault as a result of a CCTV system is a great source of comfort to that potential victim. " But the potential victims "saved" by CCTV would be replaced by those victims on the receiving end of displaced disorder, not to mention the ex-partner who would be stalked by a CCTV volunteer, or the young lady who doesn't realise the combined effect of a plunging neckline and a PTZ camera on a light pole, etc. CCTVs are gadgets. Gadgets are neutral. We'd be better off upping the levels of police, Maori Wardens and community patrol staff on the streets.

Not all city-centre assaults even make it to the news. In an incident, of which I have certain knowledge, the police failed to find any trace of a group which bashed into unconsciousness two young people whose only crime was walking home, after midnight, from an otherwise enjoyable evening out. Worse, those affected were then dragged onto the roadway, and left in the path of oncoming traffic, where, fortunately they were found by passers-by. It is thought that the group involved, then calmly went off to for a cup of coffee, before emerging and similarly assaulting another couple. To 'come-to' in hospital after being beaten and kicked into unconsciousness, is not what anyone deserves as the final chapter of an otherwise pleasant evening 'out', and if it takes CCTV, or even the closure of the George Street McDonald's to rectify this situation, it would be fine by me, and I think most other concerned people of our city as well.

A CCTV system is not so much about solving crime, as it is about deterring crime. Most people will not speed past a fixed speed camera site, just in case there is a camera in there today. One less assault as a result of a CCTV system is a great source of comfort to that potential victim.

Beautifully said "tarns". It is easy to identify bad parent/family groups as a cause for problems that are very destructive to society. But blame can rest in many, many areas and sometimes all the best care and attention is given to children who are then still corrupted by drugs and alcohol. Is this failure parental, scholastic or societal? I believe that education is the key but is it being properly delivered by this modern state to all young people, not just the ones at private schools? Therefore are we willingly allowing an educational "underclass" to be created upon whom we can blame all ills?? I know personally that the best intentions and hopes can still leave a parent distraught at their child's behavior.

The new boss of the stadium will have all the kids down there once it's built. Roll on 2011 when the streets are safe from wandering youths.

Why should these kids just get off the hook and their parents get punished. They all need to get punished.

The fact is this situation has come about as a result of an uncaring society. The parents of a majority of these kids who are causing the trouble don't care what they get up to as long as it doesn't affect them.

The kids don't care because what can you do to them? If you said something to them on the street they would just tell you to f- off as there are no consequences to their actions for doing so.

The Government doesn't care because it has effectively given these children no fear of punishment as you can't use corporal punishment any more and the types of children causing the trouble just laugh or abuse anyone who tells them anything they don't want to hear.

In my opinion a good option would be to make them accountable for their actions. If they can't behave in a reasonable manner then they need to have discipline drummed into them from the army. The right to hang around in town needs to be balanced with the responsibility to act in a reasonable manner towards other people.

Before the city council wastes money on CCTV cameras they might like to read the UK report into the effectiveness of these units. Basically it says that the police in UK solve less than one crime per thousand cameras per year. They have no noticable effect on crime and the money wasted could have been much more wisely used to fund actual police staff.

Not all children out at night are there because there parents do not care.. its a little naive to think that.. as there are teens who still do climb out the window (unbeknown to the parents who are also tucked up in bed at 10pm).

These are teens, young people making really bad and wrong choices are also from 2 parent families who are lawyers, doctors, management workers, educated parents, earning good money,, etc... . Don't be too quick to assume that its because no one cares, or they have not spent the time with their children, "training" them in the right way they should go.

Minors can have things done to them in the youth court and for some parents it is a sense of shame that there child has made choices which are so totally opposite to the family value and code of that family and ended up there, or that the young one is doing wrong choices.

Be very careful that you don't generalise too much, as things are not always what they appear to be.

I'm struggling to understand how any parent would not want to know the whereabouts of their child especially under 16? Would these parents be worried about a fine? I doubt it. I would say some of these parents may not be able to control their child and need help with that but would be unwilling to come forward. If nothing is done, then these kids will grow up without an education and will continue to cause problems themselves and so will their future children. I'm in favour of sending these kids away to military camps to learn discipline, respect and to get an education.
Get them off the streets to make it safer for others and send a real message out there that this behaviour from parents and kids is not socially acceptable. Also McDonald's owners you need to look at yourselves and ask are we fuelling a problem here with your desire to make more money by staying open 24 hours. My own experiences in your city site with groups of kids during the day means I will never return with my family again as it is an unsafe environment. I don't think there is a simple answer but again the losers in this are the majority especially if the solution is tax payer funded when that money can be used on facilities that benefit and enhance this great little city.

If the debt to society can't be paid by the minor because they are a minor, then it's still someone's debt to pay, and that has to be the people who allowed them to go out into public untrained. At the very least parents of these children should be attending parenting courses.

"Mr Chin noted the council was trying to get funding to make up the shortfall for a trial of CCTV cameras in the Octagon" the council does not have much trouble finding funding for other grandiose ideas,so whats the hold up here Mr Chin.

If someone's pet dog wanders down the street and starts having a chomp of passers-by, the owner of that dog gets fined. So why not fine the parents of these stupid children? I'm sure those parents would quickly start to take an interest in their offspring's whereabouts.