In message , Brownie
writes
I said in my original post the sight of an alarm will deter many burglars as
they will go to an easier house

Or make them think that there is something worth stealing in the house


(iv) Catching burglars. Here alarms are totally ineffective: They will
be gone before anyone takes note of yet another 3 a.m alarm vbekll, if
indeed anyone bothers. Likewise call outs to police etc are always far
too late to be of any value in anything. MUCH nbetter to have a security
camnm system, and online internet connection, and stream videos snaps to
a remorte server.

There are laws that mean you can''t just film anyone without signs informing
them

I don't think that this is true - look at all the police cameras around,
how the police video protest marchers and football supporters. (However,
by law, you can send in a letter and £10 asking for the footage they
have of you, which means that they have to blank everyone else's face
out)

What about tourists taking videos etc ... No, I think you must be wrong
there



I'd say the presence of a cam - dummy or otherwise - is a far greater
deterrent than a conventional alarm system as well....

Except that anyone with half a brain can tell the difference between
most dummy cameras and real ones - for example, our local magistrates
court has a couple of dummy cameras and big signs advertising "CCTV
cameras in operation" - lying *******s !


They have a use but rarely do people have multiplex systems routed to a
time-lapse VCR all around their premises. Alarms are effective in terms of
deterant, cost and practicality but can be overcome by a knowledgeable
intruder but in most cases why would they bother when the house next door
hasn't got one. Alarms should go hand in hand with other common-sense
measures that mean we don't advertise that our houses have items of
particualr value and we are not there.

S.

PS. May be an idea to use a spell-checker



--
geoff