“Apart from the money, what happens if they are all out drinking when a bomb goes off?”

said one Met official.”

“No minister ever stood, or could stand, against public opinion”

Also, they didn’t have CCTV back then!

Thanks for the comment.

As with most other things, what should be a great addition has had short cuts made because of the type of camera, focus or zoom limitations or simply not enough human eyes waiting for something to happen so they can zoom in and get the closer picture. We have only scratched the surface of proper use with a serious look at crime detection. There are countless benefits if investment in quality cameras are complimented by staff who are both interested and on the ball.

CCTV does solve crime, but doesn’t stop much compared to the sums involved. Its great for seeing who stabbed, robbed, punched who and who blew what up afterwards but its not much use before as a deterrent.

CCTV’s greatest problem is the low standard of the images, i don’t know how some of the cameras can even be called cameras given the trade descriptions act.

The suggestion that it only helps is 3% of crime is probably correct but then perhaps with better cameras and sighting we could push that to 5% but that’s it. To get it higher we would need to start putting them in peoples TV’s in peoples houses ………….

The fallacy that CCTV is as powerful as it claims is nothing more than a marketing bollocks designed to reasure the fearful (and sell more CCTV) Think of it like an adults equivilant of a child hiding under their magic duvet which will protect them from the monsters.

Of course the major difference is that these monsters are real and CCTV’s metaphorical duvet is in actuality about as effective as a real duvet in stopping their attacks.

Still after the monsters gobble us all up then at least we will know who they are, sometimes, maybe, if the images are good enough, possibly.

My only other real issue with CCTV is that they don’t keep anyone safe but are sold to local communities as a panacea to do just that. They aren’t a replacement for actual Policing no matter how snazzy they make the latest duvet look. That however is the genius of CCTV marketing, no matter how effective it is everyone wants it, be they the watchers or the watchees. Its like everyone has bought into the lie. I have even seen CCTV deployed through envy where one estate lobbied their local council for it because another estate had it, despite both estates knowing it wouldn’t help as much as it claims it will.

CCTV is just another investigative tool and should only be considered as that, it wont keep you safe, accept that and we can all start living in the real world once more.

Wasn’t it Peel who said that the mark of your success would a absence of crime, rather than a lot of evidence that you were doing something about it?

‘a team of three people dedicated solely to monitoring the ethical recording of crime in the county’

And no doubt a team of Police Staff looking at FOI requests and H&S risk assessments and Information Compliance and Diversity Reporting and CRB/vetting checks need I continue? People wonder why there are so few cops to attend the incident of damage or dare I suggest patrolling to stop it in the first place. But of course the PCSOs can do that unless of course they are now taking statements, working front offices, operating as licensing officers or as I have seen recently a spotter in a helicopter - visible police presence maybe but a little difficult to converse with.

The stuff about CCTV not working is complete tosh. We use it all the time and get LOADS of convictions off the back of it. Everyone at work read that and thought ???

Having said that…. there is NO point in CCTV because the Courts in England never punish anyone anyway.

God Bless America!

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2008/may/06/ukcrime1

I enjoyed the quotes by Detective Chief Inspector Mick Neville, “Billions of pounds has been spent on kit, but no thought has gone into how the police are going to use the images and how they will be used in court. It’s been an utter fiasco: only 3% of crimes were solved by CCTV. There’s no fear of CCTV.”

Almost sounds like he has his head on straight. But then, fortunately, he redeems himself in the eyes (ears?) of his bosses: “CCTV operators need feedback. If you call them back, they feel valued and are more helpful.” Nice!

A CID colleague and myself were congratulating ourselves the other day. We were beaming because we had dealt with a couple of genuinely serious crimes, locked up the bad guys and helped genuine, real-life victims.

It was a lovely change to the relentless queue of chavs complaining about harassment-by-mobile, and trying to squeeze detections out of petty school-kid squabbles and sad domestics.