I'd have thought that cameras were supposed to be a deterrent. Figures about the clear up rate of crimes that have been committed may not be that relevant.

If you believe the law and economics bods, deterrence is a function of the product of the chances of being caught and the penalty imposed. So, is you're certain of being caught, then the punishment must equal the reward for the crime. Similarly, if there's a 50-50 chance of being caught, the punishment needs to be twice the pleasure. So, on this reasoning, if these things don't radically increase the chances of being caught, they're next to useless!

True. But from the figures given you can't deduce wheher the crime levels have in fact fallen because criminals have realised that in large areas of a borough they have a very high chance of being caught. You would need to compare the crime levels AND clear up rates between the boroughs to see if cameras have an effect.

I'm no fan of them personally and think all they achieve is to move the crime elsewhere. But I still think this is a piss poor piece of reporting.

That wouldn't tell you anything. Too many variables at play here.

What he said!!

Clever get.....

He can't play cricket neither........ Useless....