By: Mrs Trellis

Mrs Trellis
Thu, 30 Oct 2025 09:01:37 +0000

This is a very good point, which I confess I hadn’t really considered before reading this article.

I think the main issue is two-fold, quality of images and immediacy of risk for the criminal. Most CCTV images I see in the media are pretty ropey. Pixelated, blurry and basically poor quality. There is also the question of angle. Many are mounted quite high up (presumably and somewhat ironically to prevent them being damaged or stolen!), which means you tend to get a great view of the suspect’s bald patch or prat hat (as I’ve heard baseball caps referred to). None of which makes identifying someone a straightforward task. It seems the establishment can’t even get mass surveillance right! The other aspect is an image on a computer screen doesn’t pose any kind of disincentive, it’s not a preventative measure, unlike the prospect of having your collar felt by 6’2″ of Bobby on the beat. And the career criminals know this. They check where the cameras are first, conceal their identity with hoods and hats, or increasingly are so brazen and just don’t care, and know that by the time the crime is committed and the images downloaded they’ll be onto their next escapade with the goods stolen from the last one already fenced.

There are plenty of simple, affordable ways to deter crime that are much, much more affective that cameras. Proper street lighting for one, and a zero tolerance approach to petty crimes that discourages progression onto more serious ones. We should be deploying these, and Police out on the streets (at all hours), and they should be detering and detecting cringe without fear or favour. It’s really not rocket science.