Mathew Newton wrote
wrote

About 10 times more likely to be burgled without an alarm according to
some stats.

What, those provided by security companies? ;-)

Yours says the same thing. But that’s misleading, as yours says.

I thought this made interesting reading:
http://www.straightstatistics.org/ar...alarming-claim

Yep.

Summary:

'The good news is that while homes with no basic home security had
a 5.8 per cent chance of being burgled in 2009-10, those with enhanced
security had a 0.6 per cent chance – an odds ratio of one to ten.

However, the bad news is that homes with basic home
security – defined as window locks and double deadlocks
- had a 0.9 per cent chance of having been burgled.

It would be interesting to see a breakdown on the basic home security.

This suggests that most of the benefit comes from basic security.

Yes, but its not clear how much of that is very basic stuff like window
locks.

By fitting and maintaining an alarm, at enormous expense,

That last is drivel with DIY alarm systems.

a householder will typically avoid one burglary roughly every 300 years.'

That’s certainly interesting. Less clear how true that is with
a particular house that already has basic security tho.