1000 cameras solve 1 crime… we LEAD the WORLD!!!

The BBC reports…solemnly… tonight….

1,000 cameras ‘solve one crime’

Only one crime was solved by each 1,000 CCTV cameras in London last year, a report into the city’s surveillance network has claimed. The internal police report found the million-plus cameras in London rarely help catch criminals. In one month CCTV helped capture just eight out of 269 suspected robbers. David Davis MP, the former shadow home secretary, said: “It should provoke a long overdue rethink on where the crime prevention budget is being spent.”

He added: “CCTV leads to massive expense and minimum effectiveness.

“It creates a huge intrusion on privacy, yet provides little or no improvement in security.

This is beyond parody… this is idiocy – I would find it funny … if it wasn’t quite so serious.  All those bun eating slackers sitting in warm booths watching us and only 1 crime solved per thousand cameras?  LUDICROUS!

I am grateful to fellow tweeter @MrsPBoutique for drawing my attention to this BBC story,

5 thoughts on “1000 cameras solve 1 crime… we LEAD the WORLD!!!

  1. on the other hand, more spent on cameras and underpaid screen-watchers means fewer police on the beat and fewer crimes committed against ordinary members of the public who wish to exercise their democratic right to protest.

    i rest my case – another masterstroke by minjus.

  2. Hold on, one crime per 1000 cameras? I was watching the Wright Stuff this morning which drew my attention to this story also. There was a statistic floating around which more or less indicated that of all the cameras and footage floating around, 80% of footage was not clear enough to be able to identify ‘criminals’. Thought that very interesting indeed!

  3. Well the story isn’t clear….take a couple of scenarios…

    A) Incident happens, say an assault by a stranger, and footage is obtained by the police and is circulated for identification purposes. Nobody can ID and the crime is unsolved.

    A) Same incident happens and the accused is detained at the scene. CCTV shows the assault occurring and is used for court purposes.

    Are both these scenarios counted in the figures? Or is it just footage of unidentified suspects being used as a measure of success, or lack thereof? In the second scenario, CCTV is the secondary evidence and supplements the evidence of witnesses, so is this being counted? It is unclear.

    For example, every shoplifter I’ve ever arrested has had CCTV of their actions seized. That’s a 100% CCTV record, although I doubt any of those are counted.

    Essentially, CCTV is useful for supplementing existing evidence, but poor for identifying unknown suspects.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>