You’ve been framed - if only

Editorial Department • Published 10 Sep 2010 09:00 0 Comments

See also:

Dear Sir, - Given that the story appeared in this paper, alongside a host of other publications around the country, I’m sure the recent theft of my family dog Coco is familiar to many. Far from meaning to ram the story down your throats, I write this letter not concerning Coco, but more so the appalling flaws in Enniskillen’s security system that were unearthed as a result of my search for him.

As I’m sure you’re aware, Enniskillen now possesses a system of CCTV cameras introduced by Fermanagh District Council and financed by the ratepayer. When Justice Minister David Ford visited the town in June he commented on how the system can “lead to real benefits for crime reduction and can make our communities feel safer”. Interestingly he failed to mention whether the cameras were of any use in solving crimes. This is what I always assumed cameras were for, yet when I tried to avail of their use, I soon realised their operation is nothing but a shambles - merely existing to give people a sense of false security, as Ford’s words imply.

One week after we lost Coco I received a call from a lady who, whilst sitting in traffic along the Wellington Rd, had seen a pink shirted man jump from the car in front of her, cross three lanes of traffic, lift our dog, then return to his vehicle. Unfortunately the lady failed to note the number plate, but knew that she had followed his car between 5:30-6:00pm from Asda car park.

I passed this information onto the PSNI, also giving them details of the lady’s car: a silver Ford Focus with an L-plate in the top left hand corner. As a camera sits aside the town Visitor Centre with scope encompassing the area between Mauds café and the bus depot (the exact location of the theft), I thought there was a significant chance of success. Locate her car and we could all but identify the thief’s car - or so I thought.

The operation of the Enniskillen CCTV system is sub-contracted to private security company, who are responsible for reading the cameras upon request by the authorities. After a day of no contact, I phoned this company. From this call it transpired that the operator was looking for a ‘man in a pink shirt, lifting a dog’ between the hours of 3-5pm. This, despite the fact that the police report clearly detailed that we were looking for a car registration between 5:30-6pm on a short stretch of road.

The following day I rang the PSNI who reported that the security firm had found nothing relevant. With the seeds of doubt into the accuracy of their work already sown, I rang the firm again. This time a different operator told me that they had found five silver Ford Focuses in the target time. When I asked if they could identify the one with the L-plate, the operator replied: “What L plate?”

How anybody deemed to be in charge of security could overlook this simple piece of evidence was beyond me. When forced to tell the operator how to do his own job, his response was dismissive. If I wished to have the cameras reviewed again I’d have to go through the Townhall or PSNI. Under the Data Protection Act his conversation with me was deemed over.

I spoke to a Senior officer in the PSNI the following day, after which the epilogue of this debacle was delivered: the security firm now miraculously could pick up the Ford Focus with the L plate, but their high-tech cameras were unable to pick up any information on the thief’s car in front; a car which just so happened to be a people carrier - not the kind of thing David Copperfield can throw a blanket over.

Frustrated, to put it politely, I began my own search and before long had the perpetrator’s car model, colour and features thanks to staff in O’Neills sports shop who let me access their camera. The all-important registration proved elusive, but when I later received a call from a man claiming his neighbour had the dog, a simple vehicle check confirmed we had the thief and our dog was back within hours.

Now, there are probably some of you reading this who can’t comprehend why such fuss would be made over a mere canine, so I don’t expect you to empathise with me on the grounds of mutual respect for animals. But, I ask you this: what would happen if such blatant laziness and incompetence surrounded the response to the disappearance of a child? Or what if a car carrying a 400lb bomb was known to have passed through Enniskillen, and our supposedly groundbreaking system couldn’t even pick up a registration plate.

From a technological viewpoint I’d ask what the purpose of this system actually is? I’m not suggesting that evidence is never of use, but from my experience the cameras’ capabilities are severely limited. What sickens me most is that it’s you and me who carry the receipt. As a local businessman and premium rates payer, I’ve also been asked by the Council to make additional contributions to the system, alongside the private rates I also pay. Having first-hand experience of the cameras use, I’d like to know why I should be paying for a service that seems to be treated by the sub-contractors as some kind of joke. Is it any wonder several PSNI staff threw their eyes to heaven when I asked them about the service, or why a long-standing member of Enniskillen’s business community informed me that they’d cancelled their contributions due to similar reservations long before my ordeal.

Thankfully I found my dog, thanks to my own family’s efforts and the help of a wide circle of friends and acquaintances. The security firm - those paid by the taxpayer to review the town’s cameras - didn’t do the job we pay them to.

You might say it was only a dog, but how are you to know a similar miscarriage hasn’t affected you? I only discovered the pathetic service upon my own inquiries, which leads me to ask who actually does review the performance of McElwaine’s sub-contract? Is there a criteria or code of practise to meet, is the contract rolling, or is it just a case of shared loyalties in Fermanagh District Council resulting in a half-baked job that could be affecting every one of us?

Remember your right to question and not take no for an answer. This approach certainly opened my eyes.

Yours faithfully,

Gerry Ledwith

Local Businessman and Concerned Rate Payer

This letter appeared in Impartial Reporter 09 Sep 10

Return to the main index, get more from this section or browse our Opinion archives.