Mathew Newton wrote:
On May 17, 12:04 am, Frank Erskine
wrote:

Even CCTV isn't really the answer. The resultant images usually merely
portray some thick-looking yoof wearing a 'hoodie'. The only possible
people who could recognise the individual are likely to be parents or
accomplices, who aren't exactly likely to 'turn them in', innit :-)

On the contrary - may miscreants are well known to the local police
and whilst CCTV footage may not be admissable as evidence in court it
is often sufficient grounds for further investigation of the person
where they may end up finding the right evidence - your goods.


This is extremely true.

Round here, neighbourhood watch reports and surveillance may not be
admissible evidence, but the majority of reports of vehicle numbers 'are
of interest to the police' and more than a few arrests have been made..


From our local co-ordinator

"Well done to the alert citizen who spotted the X-reg yellow Transit
pinching the cement mixer and tools in XXXXXXXXX (and to our cops for
turning out promptly and persisting until they found the thieves). Two
other NWatchers had spotted the same vehicle earlier but their
suspicions and registration details were not enough to justify
reporting. But goes to show that if you think it looks suspicious, it
probably is!"

The key thing about this, is that three people saw the perps 'behaving
oddly' but the coup de grace was seeing them actually nicking, getting
the details to the police and then catching them in possession of the goods.

And that is a real problem. The goods and the hard evidence are usually
gone within hours..

The police know who they are, know where they live. But that wont stand
up in court. BUT reports that 'Trotter and Son' were beebling around
area X, followed by a crime in area X, can sometimes result in the
people being 'interviewed' while still being in possession.

Mathew