10,000 CCTV cameras, but 80% of crime unsolved
Discussion
This is London said:
London has 10,000 crime-fighting CCTV cameras which cost £200 million, figures show today.
But an analysis of the publicly funded spy network, which is owned and controlled by local authorities and Transport for London, has cast doubt on its ability to help solve crime.
A comparison of the number of cameras in each London borough with the proportion of crimes solved there found that police are no more likely to catch offenders in areas with hundreds of cameras than in those with hardly any.
In fact, four out of five of the boroughs with the most cameras have a record of solving crime that is below average.
The figures were obtained by the Liberal Democrats on the London Assembly using the Freedom of Information Act.
Dee Doocey, the Lib-Dems' policing spokeswoman, said: "These figures suggest there is no link between a high number of CCTV cameras and a better crime clear-up rate.
"We have estimated that CCTV cameras have cost the taxpayer in the region of £200million in the last 10 years but it's not entirely clear if some of that money would not have been better spent on police officers.
"Although CCTV has its place, it is not the only solution in preventing or detecting crime.
"Too often calls for CCTV cameras come as a knee-jerk reaction. It is time we engaged in an open debate about the role of cameras in London today."
The figures show:
• There are now 10,524 CCTV cameras in 32 London boroughs funded with Home Office grants totalling about £200million.
• Hackney has the most cameras - 1,484 - and has a better-than-average clearup rate of 22.2 per cent.
• Wandsworth has 993 cameras, Tower Hamlets, 824, Greenwich, 747 and Lewisham 730, but police in all four boroughs fail to reach the average 21 per cent crime clear-up rate for London.
• By contrast, boroughs such as Kensington and Chelsea, Sutton and Waltham Forest have fewer than 100 cameras each yet they still have clear-up rates of around 20 per cent.
• Police in Sutton have one of the highest clear-ups with 25 per cent.
• Brent police have the highest clear-up rate, with 25.9 per cent of crimes solved in 2006-07, even though the borough has only 164 cameras.
The figures appear to confirm earlier studies which have thrown doubt on the effectiveness of CCTV cameras.
A report by the criminal justice charity Nacro in 2002 concluded that the money spent on cameras would be better used on street lighting, which has been shown to cut crime by up to 20 per cent.
Scotland Yard is trying to improve its track record on the use of CCTV and has set up a special unit which collects and circulates CCTV images of criminals.
A pilot project is running in Southwark and Lambeth and is expected to be rolled out across the capital.
The figures only include state-funded cameras.
The true number, once privately run units and CCTV at rail and London Underground stations are taken into account, will be significantly higher.
StreakyBut an analysis of the publicly funded spy network, which is owned and controlled by local authorities and Transport for London, has cast doubt on its ability to help solve crime.
A comparison of the number of cameras in each London borough with the proportion of crimes solved there found that police are no more likely to catch offenders in areas with hundreds of cameras than in those with hardly any.
In fact, four out of five of the boroughs with the most cameras have a record of solving crime that is below average.
The figures were obtained by the Liberal Democrats on the London Assembly using the Freedom of Information Act.
Dee Doocey, the Lib-Dems' policing spokeswoman, said: "These figures suggest there is no link between a high number of CCTV cameras and a better crime clear-up rate.
"We have estimated that CCTV cameras have cost the taxpayer in the region of £200million in the last 10 years but it's not entirely clear if some of that money would not have been better spent on police officers.
"Although CCTV has its place, it is not the only solution in preventing or detecting crime.
"Too often calls for CCTV cameras come as a knee-jerk reaction. It is time we engaged in an open debate about the role of cameras in London today."
The figures show:
• There are now 10,524 CCTV cameras in 32 London boroughs funded with Home Office grants totalling about £200million.
• Hackney has the most cameras - 1,484 - and has a better-than-average clearup rate of 22.2 per cent.
• Wandsworth has 993 cameras, Tower Hamlets, 824, Greenwich, 747 and Lewisham 730, but police in all four boroughs fail to reach the average 21 per cent crime clear-up rate for London.
• By contrast, boroughs such as Kensington and Chelsea, Sutton and Waltham Forest have fewer than 100 cameras each yet they still have clear-up rates of around 20 per cent.
• Police in Sutton have one of the highest clear-ups with 25 per cent.
• Brent police have the highest clear-up rate, with 25.9 per cent of crimes solved in 2006-07, even though the borough has only 164 cameras.
The figures appear to confirm earlier studies which have thrown doubt on the effectiveness of CCTV cameras.
A report by the criminal justice charity Nacro in 2002 concluded that the money spent on cameras would be better used on street lighting, which has been shown to cut crime by up to 20 per cent.
Scotland Yard is trying to improve its track record on the use of CCTV and has set up a special unit which collects and circulates CCTV images of criminals.
A pilot project is running in Southwark and Lambeth and is expected to be rolled out across the capital.
The figures only include state-funded cameras.
The true number, once privately run units and CCTV at rail and London Underground stations are taken into account, will be significantly higher.
I have CCTV cameras up at my house. According to the police last time I was burgled, CCTV cameras are of no use whatsoever for prosecution.
According to them the thiefs face would have to be 50% of the screen size to allow it to be used as sole evidence.
I think their comment was, I would be better off putting a sign on the 4m garage that I have to warn intending burglers not to climb on the roof for fear of hurting themselves. This way I would not be held liable for their injuries if they fell off while trying to climb on.
According to them the thiefs face would have to be 50% of the screen size to allow it to be used as sole evidence.
I think their comment was, I would be better off putting a sign on the 4m garage that I have to warn intending burglers not to climb on the roof for fear of hurting themselves. This way I would not be held liable for their injuries if they fell off while trying to climb on.
julian64 said:
I think their comment was, I would be better off putting a sign on the 4m garage that I have to warn intending burglers not to climb on the roof for fear of hurting themselves. This way I would not be held liable for their injuries if they fell off while trying to climb on.
Even if they fell off multiple times? 
I pretty much guarantee if you did that then your own CCTV footage would be used to convict you.
The chap who gave me the advice was called a police architect. He was sent round after our last theft. His advice was
Signs on the walls of the house not to climb. Had to be on every side of the house especially as ours is a bungalow and therefore classed as easy to climb on. Not doing this would make us liable for prosecution if the burgular climbed up and fell off.
Signs on each perimeter fench asking people not to trespass, as this was the only way a policeman, if he arrived on scene would be allowed to remove the burgulars if we were not at home.
Iron bars behind the french windows.
Iron railings round the garden, so passers by could still see if we were being burgled, but not too tall, with no spikes or barbwire on top as we would be held liable if someone damaged themselves trying to get over.
Take down the CCTV as it was useless for a conviction and was actually leaving us open to prosecution if it could be shown to overlook anyone.
Didn't think dogs were a good idea, but if we did get a dog make sure it wouldn't be seen as an agressive breed. No alsations/labs etc, as this is viewed as setting a trap for them, and therefore illegal.
Pretty much convinced after that report that the idea is to check the health and safety aspect of your house to make sure the burgular doesn't hurt himself while robbing you. And as the thread said when it started CCTV's are never going to be used by the police to get a conviction. The only CCTV's the police believe in this country are the big yellow ones monitering your speed at the side of the road, which contrary to every other CCTV in the country are infailable.
The chap who gave me the advice was called a police architect. He was sent round after our last theft. His advice was
Signs on the walls of the house not to climb. Had to be on every side of the house especially as ours is a bungalow and therefore classed as easy to climb on. Not doing this would make us liable for prosecution if the burgular climbed up and fell off.
Signs on each perimeter fench asking people not to trespass, as this was the only way a policeman, if he arrived on scene would be allowed to remove the burgulars if we were not at home.
Iron bars behind the french windows.
Iron railings round the garden, so passers by could still see if we were being burgled, but not too tall, with no spikes or barbwire on top as we would be held liable if someone damaged themselves trying to get over.
Take down the CCTV as it was useless for a conviction and was actually leaving us open to prosecution if it could be shown to overlook anyone.
Didn't think dogs were a good idea, but if we did get a dog make sure it wouldn't be seen as an agressive breed. No alsations/labs etc, as this is viewed as setting a trap for them, and therefore illegal.
Pretty much convinced after that report that the idea is to check the health and safety aspect of your house to make sure the burgular doesn't hurt himself while robbing you. And as the thread said when it started CCTV's are never going to be used by the police to get a conviction. The only CCTV's the police believe in this country are the big yellow ones monitering your speed at the side of the road, which contrary to every other CCTV in the country are infailable.
julian64 said:
I pretty much guarantee if you did that then your own CCTV footage would be used to convict you.
The chap who gave me the advice was called a police architect. He was sent round after our last theft. His advice was
Signs on the walls of the house not to climb. Had to be on every side of the house especially as ours is a bungalow and therefore classed as easy to climb on. Not doing this would make us liable for prosecution if the burgular climbed up and fell off.
Signs on each perimeter fench asking people not to trespass, as this was the only way a policeman, if he arrived on scene would be allowed to remove the burgulars if we were not at home.
Iron bars behind the french windows.
Iron railings round the garden, so passers by could still see if we were being burgled, but not too tall, with no spikes or barbwire on top as we would be held liable if someone damaged themselves trying to get over.
Take down the CCTV as it was useless for a conviction and was actually leaving us open to prosecution if it could be shown to overlook anyone.
Didn't think dogs were a good idea, but if we did get a dog make sure it wouldn't be seen as an agressive breed. No alsations/labs etc, as this is viewed as setting a trap for them, and therefore illegal.
Pretty much convinced after that report that the idea is to check the health and safety aspect of your house to make sure the burgular doesn't hurt himself while robbing you. And as the thread said when it started CCTV's are never going to be used by the police to get a conviction. The only CCTV's the police believe in this country are the big yellow ones monitering your speed at the side of the road, which contrary to every other CCTV in the country are infailable.
The chap who gave me the advice was called a police architect. He was sent round after our last theft. His advice was
Signs on the walls of the house not to climb. Had to be on every side of the house especially as ours is a bungalow and therefore classed as easy to climb on. Not doing this would make us liable for prosecution if the burgular climbed up and fell off.
Signs on each perimeter fench asking people not to trespass, as this was the only way a policeman, if he arrived on scene would be allowed to remove the burgulars if we were not at home.
Iron bars behind the french windows.
Iron railings round the garden, so passers by could still see if we were being burgled, but not too tall, with no spikes or barbwire on top as we would be held liable if someone damaged themselves trying to get over.
Take down the CCTV as it was useless for a conviction and was actually leaving us open to prosecution if it could be shown to overlook anyone.
Didn't think dogs were a good idea, but if we did get a dog make sure it wouldn't be seen as an agressive breed. No alsations/labs etc, as this is viewed as setting a trap for them, and therefore illegal.
Pretty much convinced after that report that the idea is to check the health and safety aspect of your house to make sure the burgular doesn't hurt himself while robbing you. And as the thread said when it started CCTV's are never going to be used by the police to get a conviction. The only CCTV's the police believe in this country are the big yellow ones monitering your speed at the side of the road, which contrary to every other CCTV in the country are infailable.
I should be sat here open mouthed and in disbelief at what you have just written. But it's not the first time I've heard this sort of thing. I said it in an earlier post on another thread and I'll say it again here: The sooner there is a massive public backlash against government and police, the better. Nothing will change if we all sit behind our PC's and complain about this.
The fact that honest, hard working members of the public are being treated like this, unable to protect what is yours from theft and vandalism, the fact we have to put signs up everywhere to protect ourselves from prosecution should one of these scumbags hurt themselves really angers me.
The UK has gone to the dogs, end of story.
bob1179 said:
Nothing will change if we all sit behind our PC's and complain about this.
The fact that honest, hard working members of the public are being treated like this, unable to protect what is yours from theft and vandalism, the fact we have to put signs up everywhere to protect ourselves from prosecution should one of these scumbags hurt themselves really angers me.
The UK has gone to the dogs, end of story.
So write to your MP. Demand that the Occupiers Liability Act is repealed, at least for house owners - or that an exception is placed in etc.. Demand that homeowners have a RIGHT to defend themselves, a basic human right to live in peace and safety IMHO.. If that means injuring those who intend to cause you harm, so be it.The fact that honest, hard working members of the public are being treated like this, unable to protect what is yours from theft and vandalism, the fact we have to put signs up everywhere to protect ourselves from prosecution should one of these scumbags hurt themselves really angers me.
The UK has gone to the dogs, end of story.
Jasandjules said:
bob1179 said:
Nothing will change if we all sit behind our PC's and complain about this.
The fact that honest, hard working members of the public are being treated like this, unable to protect what is yours from theft and vandalism, the fact we have to put signs up everywhere to protect ourselves from prosecution should one of these scumbags hurt themselves really angers me.
The UK has gone to the dogs, end of story.
So write to your MP. Demand that the Occupiers Liability Act is repealed, at least for house owners - or that an exception is placed in etc.. Demand that homeowners have a RIGHT to defend themselves, a basic human right to live in peace and safety IMHO.. If that means injuring those who intend to cause you harm, so be it.The fact that honest, hard working members of the public are being treated like this, unable to protect what is yours from theft and vandalism, the fact we have to put signs up everywhere to protect ourselves from prosecution should one of these scumbags hurt themselves really angers me.
The UK has gone to the dogs, end of story.
You're right, less talk more action. I'm going to draft a letter up after work and see if it gets any reply.
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff