I'm firmly of the belief that CCTV is of no real use to anyone, unless Mr Plod is told of a crime in progress and catches the villain in the act.
My brother's van was broken into, all his tools stolen, broad daylight, right in front of a CCTV post. He was told that there was footage of two men pulling up next to his van and emptying it - they had the reg no but could track the car anyway through town. The car was known to the police, as was the address they went to...but Plod said that "there wasn't enough evidence" to go and nick the suspects! They claimed the men were career criminals, would deny all knowledge and that would be the end of the line.
When we asked for the name or address so we could go and ask nicely if they knew anything about the tools, we were told in no uncertain terms that if anything happened to the men, WE would be getting the knocked door.
So, it would seem that career criminals know the system, they know that flat denial that it's them in the CCTV is going to be enough. By the time any trial came around, they would have grown/shaved hair enough to raise doubts anyway.
When you or I get told by a policeman that they have good CCTV footage of us breaking the law, we start making excuses or backpedalling from our original story, rather than maintaining in the face of crystal clear pics, that it's not us, however ridiculous that may be.
So, if you get pulled for anything and there's apparent CCTV, say it's not you, ask them to prove it's you and say nothing else. I believe that if it's not a SERIOUS offence, they'll free you and go and nail someone else who will cave in at the mention of the "infallible" eye in the sky.
