Take photos with your phone, set to immediately upload to your cloud. That way they can't stop it even if they take the phone off you.

Standard procedure these days.

Now we know that should be a given  - for those of us with phones of course

Which together make up one big dog

CPc sells a range of good ones.

I think CCTV systems are a waste of money for domestic and even many commercial properties. Furthermore, they only offer possible assistance after an offence has been committed.

Prevention is the key so invest your money in security measures. Keep the buggar out!

Visible CCTV should not be regarded as a preventative measure. Most burglars will not be put off. If you are lucky enough to obtain an image of an offender after a burglary or other offence against your property, you are then dependent on the image showing something identifiable such as the face. Most burglars wear hoodies and some use masks. Even if you capture a good image you are then dependent on the police circulating it internally in the hope any officer might recognise it, and then if someone does, that they are prepared to step up and declare that they make the recognition. Believe me, there are many who won't be bothered or even look at the briefing sheets such images are published on. If you are lucky in the unlikely event the police go public with the image, you remain reliant on someone seeing the publication who knows the offender and then is willing to come forward with their positive identification. Far to much likelihood that any of those hurdles will never get crossed. Over thirty years, I only once got a conviction following the positive ID of an offender using CCTV.



If you are lucky and get a positive ID and the offender is arrested, charged and put before the court, if he pleads not guilty, your CCTV evidence will be scrutinised by the court who will have to decide if Jonny in the dock in his smart suit, collar and tie is the same toe rag caught on camera. Any doubt over the identification will lead to a not guilty finding. CCTV can support primary evidence but it is useless as evidence on it's own. The only really useful CCTV is that which is monitored all the time such as that used by local authorities in our city and town centres. These allow witnessing of an offence in progress with the monitoring operator being able at the time to direct law enforcement personnel to the location of an offender as the camera operator will follow them from the scene of their offence.

I agree that prevention is better than monitoring. I'll bet a big 'Guard Dog' sign may help (hint: don't use your avatar photo).

Well, if you get a reg no. that'll only identify the vehicle. Hopefully (and I mean hopefully) intelligence held by the police will indicate people recorded as driving/travelling in that vehicle. It's a place to start but you would need forensic evidence to link those known to use the vehicle with any burglary. Obviously grounds for an arrest, but without any other evidence, and any unlikely admission, all is lost, much to the frustration of many CCTV users I consulted with when I was in the 'job'.