Very interesting, thanks for posting.
This is a discussion on Like gun-control, cameras "help communities feel safer". within the Off Topic & Humor Discussion forums, part of the The Back Porch category; 1,000 CCTV cameras to solve just one crime, Met Police admits - Telegraph 1,000 London Cameras Solve Just One Crime An internal police report reveals ...
1,000 CCTV cameras to solve just one crime, Met Police admits - Telegraph
1,000 London Cameras Solve Just One Crime
An internal police report reveals that cameras barely ever
help solve serious crimes.
Each case helped by the use of CCTV effectively costs £20,000 to detect, Met figures showed.
Critics of Britain’s so-called 'surveillance society' said it raised serious concerns over how police forces used CCTV cameras to fight crime.
Britain is one of the most monitored countries in the world, with an estimated four million cameras nationwide.
An internal report released by the Metropolitan Police under Freedom of Information laws disclosed that more than one million of these are in London alone.
However, it cast doubt on the use of the cameras as a crime fighting tool.
It said: “For every 1,000 cameras in London, less than one crime is solved per year.”
The report, written by Detective Chief Inspector Mick Neville, who runs the Metropolitan Police’s Visual Images Identifications and Detections Office, found that the public “have a high expectation of CCTV and are frequently told they are captured on camera 300 times per day”.
Public confidence was dented when the police often stated there was no CCTV working when a crime has been committed, it said.
It also said that increasingly members of the public were complaining that officers had not bothered to view available CCTV images when trying to track down criminals.
It disclosed a “significant rise in the level of complaints from the public, where it is perceived that police have not viewed CCTV. This is now approaching 100 per year.”
The report found that untrained officers were often downloading and viewing CCTV images in their hunt for evidence. The cameras were effective in crime-fighting if the images and information from them was used properly.
Detective Superintendent Michael McNally, who commissioned the report, admitted there were “some concerns” about how CCTV was being used.
The report also revealed concerns at Scotland Yard that the Conservatives could cut back on numbers of cameras or the way that they are used if the party wins the next general election, likely to be next May.
Under a section headlined “Strategic Issues”, the report said: “Potential change of Government - the Conservatives are not CCTV friendly - we need to start showing that we are targeting serious crime.”
Earlier this year separate research commissioned by the Home Office suggested that the cameras had done virtually nothing to cut crime, but were most effective in preventing vehicle crimes in car parks.
A report by a House of Lords committee also said that £500million was spent on new cameras in the 10 years to 2006, money which could have been spent on street lighting or neighbourhood crime prevention initiatives.
A large proportion of the cash has been In London, where an estimated £200 million so far has been spent on the cameras. This suggests that each crime has cost £20,000 to detect.
Britain has 1 per cent of the world’s population but around 20 per cent of its CCTV cameras - which works out as the equivalent of one for every 14 people.
David Davis MP, the former shadow Home Secretary, said the latest report “should provoke a major and long overdue rethink on where the Home Office 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.
“The Metropolitan Police has been extraordinarily slow to act to deal with the ineffectiveness of CCTV, something true both in London and across the country.
“A combination of overdependence on CCTV and ineffective use of the cameras means that this money could have been much better spent on more police officers."
Chris Grayling, the shadow Home Secretary, said: "It's just not possible to fight crime with technology alone, CCTV can help in some situations but there is nothing to beat getting more police back from behind their desks and on to the streets."
Anita Coles, policy officer for campaigning group Liberty, said: “Being the world’s camera hub comes at a price; not just to our privacy but also to our pockets.
“CCTV has cost millions and yet as it’s not properly regulated there is little evidence of targeted and effective use. In these hard times our money would be better spent on proven methods of crime prevention such as better street lighting and more police on the beat.”
Eamonn Butler, the director of think tank the Adam Smith Institute, said: “It is obvious that the boom in CCTV cameras is not making us the slightest bit safer.
“There is no evidence that it saves us from gun or knife crime, or for that matter that it stops terrorists – many terrorists are only too glad to advertise their evil deeds.
“Nor are cameras much good in getting convictions. Evidence from them is only allowed in court if the images are securely stored and handled, so that there is no possibility that they have been tampered with.”
The National Police Improvement Agency is currently undertaking a review into the effectiveness of CCTV.
A Metropolitan Police spokesman said the CCTV detection rate was based on "an estimate only and based on a small sample".
She added: "They do not reflect the complete picture of cases resolved in London in which CCTV evidence is an important factor."
The Home Office defended the use of CCTV, with a spokesman saying cameras could "help communities feel safer".
I'm just one root in a grassroots organization. No one should assume that I speak for the VCDL.
I am neither an attorney-at-law nor I do play one on television or on the internet. No one should assumes my opinion is legal advice.
Veni, Vidi, Velcro
Very interesting, thanks for posting.
Good post. Food for thought.
An internal police report reveals that cameras barely ever help solve serious crimes.Thus, advertising is "king." It's all a ruse.The Home Office defended the use of CCTV, with a spokesman saying cameras could "help communities feel safer".
Sad. Utterly sad.
Law enforcement defends the indefensible, with their own studies showing the ineffectiveness. Yet, cash is poured into the drain in order to help people feel safe. Seems to me that Virginia Tech spokesman Larry Hincker felt the same about the failure of HB 1572 in the Virginia legislature, since disallowing the carry of arms by upstanding citizens would help people "feel" safer.
Feeling safer is dandy, but personally I'd prefer people to actually be safer.
Apparently this sentiment, and the simple logic of it, is too much to expect legislators to understand. One would think that the average Joe on the street would get it, every time.
I'm sure that the forcibly-disarmed British subjects understand, since they're in the "hot" seat with crime, now. How well's that "surveillance society" working now, eh?
One would think complete ineffectiveness at the cost of millions from citizens (er, subjects) and abuses by the "authorities" would be sufficient.Detective Superintendent Michael McNally, who commissioned the report, admitted there were “some concerns” about how CCTV was being used.
Dumbing down, by degrees.
Code words used by Government officials and Politicians that mean..."help communities feel safer".
"we are going to do whatever we dang well please to keeps tabs on you and there is nothing that you can do except like it."
The Brits are experts at using code words.
As are some of our own.
I would rather stand against the cannons of the wicked than against the prayers of the righteous.
AR. CHL Instr. 07/02 FFL
Like custom guns and stuff? Check this out...
How about feeling safer from having your murder/rape/assault plastered all over youtube?The Home Office defended the use of CCTV, with a spokesman saying cameras could "help communities feel safer".
While the perp goes free...
He is no fool who gives what he cannot keep to gain what he cannot lose. - Jim Elliott
The world is a dangerous place to live; not because of the people who are evil, but because of the people who don't do anything about it.
I am always amazed at how quickly and willingly so many people so freely give up their rights ans security for the perception of feeling safer. But sadly, I am not surprised by it.
Helps them feel safer, eh?
And a half pint of whiskey makes some people feel like they are better drivers.
So much for feelings.“For every 1,000 cameras in London, less than one crime is solved per year.”
It's all Security Theater.
"Naked and Starving as They are We Cannot Enough Admire the Incomparable Patience and Fidelity of the Soldiery" – George Washington, Valley Forge, 1777.
These vigilant video voyeurs verify vice, violence, and vandalism, creating a verisimilitude of victory over villains and the vanquisment of vulnerability, while in reality they violently vivisect and vulgarize vital values.
1000 camera solved 1 crime, wow that's some good odds.
How many cameras does it take to prevent a murder.
Ok fine, I'll carry a camera, and something else a little, uhm, stronger.
Disclaimer: The posts made by this member are only the members opinion, not a reflection on anyone else, nor the group, and should not be cause for anyone to get their undergarments wedged in an uncomfortable position.
This should be telling enough. What that says right there in plain jane English is that they KNOW they're not working for what they tell the public they're working for. They're using them to monitor the serfs in opposition nothing more.Under a section headlined “Strategic Issues”, the report said: “Potential change of Government - the Conservatives are not CCTV friendly - we need to start showing that we are targeting serious crime.”
-The Mist (2007)"My God David, We're a Civilized society."
"Sure, As long as the machines are workin' and you can call 911. But you take those things away, you throw people in the dark, and you scare the crap out of them; no more rules...You'll see how primitive they can get."
Well of course not, silly.... They are not concerned about watching criminals, they are concerned about watching you.It also said that increasingly members of the public were complaining that officers had not bothered to view available CCTV images when trying to track down criminals.
The criminal stuff was just the bait they used to get you to agree to it in the first place.
"Guard with jealous attention the public liberty. Suspect everyone who approaches that jewel. Unfortunately, nothing will preserve it but downright force. Whenever you give up that force, you are inevitably ruined". - Patrick Henry