If you think so, dream on . . .
It's been revealed that in Britain, CCTV public surveillance cameras number one for every 14 members of the population, or 20% of the installed total worldwide. In London alone, £200 million (equivalent to US $400 million) has been spent to install 10,000 cameras, plus their monitoring hardware, software and offices.
So all this expenditure must surely have helped to cut crime, right?
Like hell it has.
A comparison of the number of cameras in each London borough with the proportion of crimes solved there found that police were no more likely to catch offenders in areas with hundreds of cameras than in those with hardly any.
Speaking at a security conference in London, Mr Neville claimed the use of CCTV images for court evidence had been very poor so far.
He said: "CCTV was originally seen as a preventative measure."
"Billions of pounds have been spent on kit, but no thought has gone into how the police are going to use the images and how they will be used in court."
"It's been an utter fiasco: only three per cent of crimes were solved by CCTV."
Police are now considering ways to make the camera images more effective, including putting the pictures of suspects on the Internet. That seems strange to me. If they have the images, and the trained staff to analyze them, what makes them think that the general public will have any greater success? And if the general public does prove more successful, will they get rid of their own wasted staff and systems? Yeah, suuuuure they will . . .
The pointy-heads who can't think straight are commenting already.
The charity Victims Voice, which supports relatives of those who have been murdered, called for more effective use of CCTV.
Trustee Ed Usher said: "If handled properly it can be a superb preventative tool."
I have news for thee, Mr. Usher. CCTV can't prevent a damn thing!!! If you think it can, you're not only silly, you're insane. A camera is a camera and a picture is a picture, not a policeman or a self-defense weapon! It can only show the crime being committed, and perhaps (judging by the results, a very slight 'perhaps') help to catch the perpetrator(s) after the fact. The camera's just sitting there on its post, screwed in place, immobile. It can't prevent anything, even if it somehow developed a moral conscience and wanted to get off its post to do so!
The UK government's massive DNA database is also proving ineffective at identifying and prosecuting criminals.
The annual report into the government's DNA database earlier this year revealed the huge expansion of the scheme has brought fewer than a thousand criminals to justice.
For every 800 DNA samples being added by the police - including those taken from innocent people - only one crime is being solved.
This, after forcing the mandatory collection of DNA samples from every suspect arrested - whether or not they're ever charged with (much less convicted of) any crime.
You'd think those who favor a Big Brother approach - let the state prevent crime and protect its citizens, and force the citizens to leave that to the State rather than protect and defend themselves - would learn from this . . . but they won't. They'll continue to stick their fingers in their ears and chant "La-la-la-la, I can't hear you!" when confronted with the facts.
The truth is not in them. Neither is the answer to crime.
That's why I carry at least part of the answer to crime in my pocket or on my waistband when I go out. If I happen to be targeted by a criminal, it's going to be very much his problem - and I'm not going to rely on CCTV cameras, police or anyone else to protect me. The police can clean up the resulting mess and take my statement.
Local cops exemplify the correct attitude among police towards criminals, as opposed to law-abiding citizens. They caused a fit of the giggles among witnesses when cleaning up after an incident not too long ago.
The accused, a felon with a long string of previous arrests and convictions, had tried to mug an elderly man and his wife. The man had produced a gun and decisively won the resultant exchange of views.
The wannabe mugger tried to tell responding officers that his intended victim had inexplicably produced a gun, and shot him three times in the legs and groin, "becuz he'z racist! Thassit! He ain't nuthin' but racist scum! He shot me f'r no reezun, just cuz I'ze a n*****!"
The cop to whom he was speaking, a large, imposing and equally dark-skinned gentleman, retorted, "That's funny - I'm a bigger n***** than you, but he ain't shootin' at me!"
Hilarity ensued, except on the part of the felon, who clearly didn't appreciate the officer's bedside - or stretcher-side - manner.
No CCTV, no DNA - just good old-fashioned policing, and citizens who are not only permitted, but encouraged, to look after themselves. Why can't Britain - and Big Brother-ists everywhere - get the idea?