[sambeau]

It's fairly simple.

A crime is just a crime statistic. The more police you have the more crimes are recorded so crime goes up. CCTV is like adding an extra cop (sitting in front of 30 cameras).

CCTV generally does not deter any crimes but it acts on the the kind of crimes that are usually ignored: mostly public order offences linked to alcohol.

CCTV operators spend their nights following couples and women hoping to see sex acts. Occasionally they spot someone urinating against a wall and call the cops.

Urinators, drunken vandals, soliciting prostitutes are seen and logged where they would mostly be ignored—crime goes up.

[ramblerman]

Did you just try to argue that CCTVs actually cause more crime because "cctv records more crimes so crimes go up".

I don't particularly like CCTVs but this is terribly weak reasoning however you try to twist it. This is akin to me arguing a new cancer test actually causes cancer because we now detect more cases of cancer.

[sambeau]

There is more subtlety in my comment than that.

Most people and politicians generally do not understand the difference between a measurable statistic and a physical event. Often in the eye of the law and the lawmakers there is none. Everything you know about crime at a macro-level is actually knowledge of a crime statistic.

Millions of pounds of CCTV cameras were sold on the back of my study that showed a 33% drop in crime that was in fact caused by the simultaneous removal of one of the three police officers patrolling the area. A subsequent study that took this effect into account and showed a 3% rise in crime was buried so as not to embarrass the politicians who ordered the expensive equipment.

Usually a rise in crime is statistics while a fall in crime is good policing. Similarly, politicians call for a 10% drop in cancer deaths but never tell us which death-rates they want to go up to compensate.