"d" wrote in message
. ..
"Jonathan Morris" wrote in message
oups.com...
David wrote:
most images I've seen in the newspapers don't convince me
they're an effective deterrant.

I don't think CCTV is an effective deterrant at all. It either moves
crime elsewhere, or has people carry on as normal knowing that the
footage is either unusable, not real (fake cameras, faulty equipment)
and there's now less chance of a real person of authority being
employed.

I'd like to see some research into that

Whatever the Government might say, crime is going up (particularly
assaults on staff) and CCTV is everywhere. If it was a deterrant, we'd
be seeing MASSIVE reductions in crime.

That's somewhat specious reasoning. You're assuming that crime on a whole
is staying the same. What if crime is increasing more rapidly than CCTV
is reducing it? If that were to happen, then CCTV would be working, AND
the crime rates would still be rising.

Rather like speed cameras replacing real police on the roads, it
doesn't work and only now are we starting to fully notice and
appreciate that.

Speed cameras do work. Just not when they're painted bright orange and
have "speed cameras ahead - stop breaking the law now or get a fine" signs
all over the place If you don't know where they're going to be, you'd
not chance speeding. If you have a 30-minute warning, then you can still
break the speed limit without fear.

Jonathan


Not quite right about speed cameras Johnathon.... Speed camera fines are
rising, more people getting caught and yet you say they are well publicised.
If what you say were correct, no one would speed and they would not make any
money and all be gone!! So having the cameras makes no difference to the
number of people caught. Its probably the same with a violent crime,
perpetrators know CCTV is everywhere and yet still commit crimes against
people and property knowing they probably have been filmed.
Now i've confused myself.......

mal