[Liberty Belle]

My sentiments exactly...it makes NO difference, so WHAT'S THE POINT?!?!?!

[Steve Eisenberg]

Critics of CCTV contend that rather than deter crime, cameras push it to alleyways and side streets that aren't under surveillance. Much of the money invested in cameras might have been better spent to improve street lighting, which has been shown to reduce crime by 20 percent, the study observed.

Lighting can be good, but like the camaras will mostly just push the crime elsewhere.

I'm afraid they need to do what we have done and is working -- give longer prison sentences. Plus cut back on the dole, especially the dole for women, to strengthen families.

[Orangedog]

The point is power and control. It's never about reducing crime. The exception are the red-light and speed-trap camera...those are there to enhance revenue, not public safety.

[Fixit]

My sentiments exactly...it makes NO difference, so WHAT'S THE POINT?!?!?!

The cameras are paying off, but only for their real purpose, control and intimidation of the populace. Crime control was merely the excuse for installing the system, not the purpose.

[AD from SpringBay]

The video cameras will pay off the next time a power hungry sociopath like Bill Clinton attains highest office. Until then, it's called conditioning. And yes, I know the article is about England (duh!).

[backhoe]

Photo_Radar:

To find all articles tagged or indexed using *Photo_Radar, click below:
	click here >>>	Photo_Radar	<<< click here
(To view all FR Bump Lists, click here)