Minister claims lollipop ladies sacked to pay for 'Stasi' CCTV parking

[Web Admin]

Lollipop ladies sacked by councils to pay for 'Stasi' CCTV parking cameras to catch parents on the school run, minister claims

Brandon Lewis launches outspoken attack on CCTV parking cameras

Accuses councils of using them to raise funds from struggling families

Local Government Association warns children could be put at risk


Lollipop ladies are being fired by councils to pay for ’Stasi surveillance’ CCTV cameras, the government has claimed.

Town halls are accused of buying ’spy cars’ as an excuse to generate fines from parents on the school run on an ’industrial scale’.

Local government minister Brandon Lewis warned public trust in CCTV for crime fighting is being undermined by councils using it to generate cash.

Mr Lewis took particular issue with the claim from the Local Government Association the coalition’s move to ban CCTV parking cameras ’will put children at risk’.

He said: ’This is a false and spurious claim. CCTV spy cars are a recent and modern innovation from legislation passed by the last Labour Government.

’They are just an excuse for councils to raise money from issuing parking fines on an industrial scale.

’They undermine natural justice, as car owners receive the fine weeks later in the post making it extremely hard to challenge on appeal.’

He insisted the changes would not stop a traffic warden or police officer issuing a penalty notice in the case of genuinely dangerous parking.

But in response to a parliament question he added: ’It is hard-pressed parents who get hit with the fines from such Stasi surveillance.

’Public confidence is strengthened in CCTV if it is used to tackle serious crime, not to raise money for town halls by penalising parents dropping off kids on the school run.

’In their rush to bankroll CCTV spy cameras for parking enforcement, it would appear from recent media reports that parts of local government have had no qualms about sacking lollipop men and women.

’Crossing patrols do a sterling job in protecting children from danger—but, unfortunately, unlike spy cars, they do not raise money for council coffers.’

Official figures councils which use CCTV cameras to enforce parking rules raise £49.35 per household each year, compared with £5.69 per household in council areas which do not have them.

The Local Government Association has heavily criticised government plans to ban the use of CCTV cameras, with parking wardens only allowed to film if vehicles break the rules,

Peter Box, chairman of the LGA's Economy and Transport Board, said: 'Camera cars have been instrumental in keeping children from being hurt or killed on the way to school, and CCTV also plays an important role elsewhere in monitoring traffic flow and keeping cars moving.

'It is impossible for councils to regulate parking outside thousands of schools by using wardens alone.

'Camera cars are deployed in response to pleas by parents and teachers about cars being parked illegally and recklessly outside the school gates.

'CCTV cars are a highly visible deterrent for those breaking the law and councils will often send warnings to drivers of the consequences of their actions before issuing them with parking fines.

Banning councils from acting on these community concerns and using CCTV outside schools will put children at risk and leave them and their parents to run the gauntlet of the school run without any protection.'


http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2576237/Lollipop-ladies-sacked-councils-pay-Stasi-CCTV-parking-cameras-catch-parents-school-run-minister-claims.html?ITO=1490&ns_mchannel=rss&ns_campaign=1490

[Ewan Hoosami]

'Banning councils from acting on these community concerns and using CCTV outside schools will put children at risk and leave them and their parents to run the gauntlet of the school run without any protection.'

Many councils make no money at all from enforcement. Trickus told me that so it must be true. Here's an idea then, use the money that $camera cars are obviously sucking out of the public purse to fund school crossing patrols. That way there will be plenty of protection and no gauntlet.

[scalyback]

I am totally fed up with this stupid and transparent argument about scam cars providing safety.

Mother is away, father pulls up at school to drop kids, pulls up on zigzags (just for those few seconds), sees a scam car coming and decided it's time to leave before he is spotted. Accelerator goes down as child steps out...

Even more fun, a scam car has the possibility of running into, or being shunted into, the children, especially after the accident one of the scams had the other day. A lollypop lady would be hard pushed to cause the same level of damage.

"vehicles outside schools can be dangerous". Lovely! So let's get the council scam car removed for a start.

"removing scam cars will endanger children" Do they think that the public are that f**king stupid, that they can put this forward as some kind of 'valid argument'? Well, thank god we still have a couple of children left from those dark ages before the scam cars were deployed.

Seriously, playing the 'danger to children' card seems a new low for those who prioritise their ticket quota over their intelligence quota.

[Belplasca]

Outside the school that I pass on my way to work there's a layby. There are no yellow zigzags. So no scope for money making $camera cars. There is a lillipop man.

And the area is INCREDIBLY dangerous in the 30 minutes before 9am! Cars stopping without warning if the driver thinks they see a space. Drivers pulling out of spaces just as other vehicles are going past. Vehicles doing U turns without any warning or signals Vehicles darting across the path of oncoming traffic to claim a space on the other side of the road. One even did a 3 point turn in amongst the heavy traffic yesterday.

Yet NONE of the action can be prevented by a $camera car! Only a Police officer can do that.

But there are NEVER any police in evidence.

Our Police "Service" is charged with maintaining public safety.

If they don't think enfocing outside a school is going to aid in keeping the little kiddies safe why should we believe a council weasel saying revenue generation is necessary?

Bob

[«THÖMÅS®©™»]

This is the most absurd thing I have ever heard.  I am of the opinion that lollipop ladies and thier counterparts provide a very good safety message and service because, as a motorcyclist, muck like the MoToMob, I for one refuse to support this argument, its ridiculous at best and damn right insane at worst.

I actually stop and say hello to my local lollipop lady and they are very chatty when they are not busy stopping traffic.  What are the councils playing at, perhaps they have a few screws lose in thier heads?

I would support the lollipop ladies if they were to take legal action against the councils for sacking them without a valid or even justified reason.  If I was a lawyer, I would take thier case on for free.  I mean seriously, who in thier right mind would do this?  Absolutely pathetic!