Thing is, our neighbouring units have pretty good CCTV already, and we have 1 camera. We’ve gone to the police with very good evidence in the past and nothing has been done. Likewise with our neighbours.
This recent time I went round to 4 separate business near us to gather evidence. I really do question whether that’s something I should have to do at all, or whether I should just be reporting the theft and letting the police do the leg work. But I know the leg work won’t get done.
Valid points all.
That said it’s an example of where technology appears to offer a solution but then the costs kick in.
Relatives who worked in retail years ago called theft (shoplifting but also employee theft etch ‘shrinkage’ and a percentage was built into margins and stock orders.
Then CCTV and other ‘inventory control’ measures came along and management thought they could do away with shrinkage and boost profits.
But the systems cost money and the tags etc slow transactions and annoy honest customers.
So management decided to save money on the counter measures to boost profits…
Which I’d accept if this was a new thing, but it isn’t. Hence me giving examples from more than a decade ago.
There’s been distinct changes to the way shoplifting has been managed, but this latest statement is just a continuation of the normal deprioritisation of anyone on a bike that we’ve always witnessed.
The problem with CCTV is that it helps the police know WHAT happened, but without the WHO, it doesn’t have separate value.
A decent enough photo spread over Facebook normally gets a name quick enough 
Certainly the case in our most recent incident!
“If you see (a bike theft) let us know by texting us on 61016. See it, say it, sacked it off.”
If you get the face. You’re only seeing the videos where they did, you don’t see all of the CCTV where they don’t.
I’m sitting right now in a four defendant attempted murder, the whole thing is on CCTV, we have hours of CCTV and doorbell footage. Not one frame shows their faces clearly enough for an ID.
In our case, we got the faces pretty good. They walked right past a camera facing out the front of our estate!
That’s ideal. Now you just have to find someone who can ID them. Much easier than our process of working backwards from the variety of Trapstar jackets the police seized.
(Trapstar could have sponsored this trial.)
Already people online claiming Manchester was a false flag because it was 7 minutes from 999 call to shots fired and the police never respond that fast. 
I can believe such comments.
I do hope that the officer who shot the terrorist is not put through the wringer over his/her prompt action to preserve life and is fully supported by Sir Stephen Watson. They have to live with their actions and the ‘nightmares’ and doubts to come in the future.
Some fool will come out with ‘why didn’t they use a taser’ on a man with a suspected bomb vest…
EOD on the scene and explosions heard earlier, presumably to disrupt the ‘suspected’ bomb vest before approaching the terrorist.
Usually with these sorts of jobs they are cleared pretty quick.
Ongoing attack, multiple casualties, declared CT and wearing a possible bomb vest, not much choice but to go for a critical shot. (Might’ve even been told as much by the firearms Commander).
Might even see some GCs handed out.
Probably one posthumously it appears
More likely to be GM’s than GC’s based on recent terror attacks and the awards dished out.
Also sounds like a bit of over penetration led to 2 of the casualties and possibly a fatality.
Hadn’t seen that yet.
Absolutely horrible for all involved 
I thought the police used frangible rounds specifically to reduce that risk?
BBC news is saying one fatality and one injury due to gun shot wounds, attacker did not have a fire arm and GMP saying injuries may be caused by actions of its officers.
Terrible for all involved.
I didn’t think they had confirmed cause of death, just that one the dead had been shot?
From the sounds of it they were holding the door shut from the inside so the officers haven’t known they were present, either over penetration or more likely misses where they were going for the Critical Shot.
Out of all the aftermath of this, the thing that I’ve found the most frustrating is the reaction of quite a number of people against those saying the pro-Palestinian marches shouldn’t have gone ahead so close to the site so soon afterwards.
Personally, I consider the fact that the marches went ahead to be distasteful; it’s easy for the Jewish population in general to feel targeted by such events and those feelings wouldn’t only be heightened when members of their community had been targeted in a terrorist attack.
However, airing that view has led to vitriol from some quarters demanding that protestors “helping protect Palestine” be allowed to essentially do what they want to do when they want to do it.
I’m not calling for a banning, that would be moronic, but showing a little bit of empathy may have gone a long way yesterday.
The two things are not related.
Those protesting about what is happening between Israel and Gaza is unrelated. People shouldn’t stop protesting against the daily killing of innocent civilians at the hands of the Israeli government just because two completely unrelated innocent people here got killed.
Conflating Judaism and British Jews with what is happening in Israel is not okay. And is verging on antisemitic.
We don’t know that, simply because we don’t currently know the motive behind the attack yesterday.
As there are social media posts from the attacker’s family celebrating the 7th October attacks, and given the guy was even named Jihad, it’s perfectly plausible that this attack was a direct response to the Israeli genocide, targeting whichever Jews he could find. And that is antisemitic.
All it would have taken is a little decency and empathy from the protest organisers to understand that the optics weren’t going to be as positive as they may have wished, and some within the Jewish community would feel petrified by the protests directly following a terror attack against their fellow community members.
I think it’s something we’ve lost as a society; the ability to consider the emotional needs of other segments of British society because we believe being morally correct is more important than showing compassion for one-another.