There are too many loose ends in that break-in

Jul 07, 2018 Letters

Dear Editor,
I must state before hand that I have nothing against the Chief constable but his recent ramblings caused me to reply. Now the latest embarrassing situation where the jewellery stall was broken into and reading the report purportedly emanating from him once again question his ability to properly manage the constabulary.
Only recently this same chief constable was reportedly on the verge to tackling crimes which are prevalent outside of the market, especially at the bus parks. Now after the break in at the Stabroek market, he’s exploring the possibility of security cameras.
To be fair, I believe that he’s in that position because those responsible are of the view he’s capable of holding that position he holds. Why only after it got out of hand is he getting ideas?
I am no novice to markets or their operations, most especially the constabulary and I am well aware that since in my small days growing up next to La Penitence market, constables working during the nights would be locked inside the market and they would routinely patrol the market and each row.
Now, based on that, and according to the consultants that from whom the jewellery store owners sought advice, it would take at least five hours to perform that break-in. So you expect me to believe that the constables slept during that period even to the morning until 9:30am when someone discovered that beak-in?
During that period there’s changing of shift. Was the next batch of constables sleepy too? When there’s a change over of shift, the incoming guards would survey the place and make sure stalls are ok. Perhaps the chief constable should tell the public if he changed that procedure or if the constables change it by themselves and he is not aware.
Finally Editor, the explanation of the security firm responsible for monitoring the electronics alarm is also laughable and questionable. Indeed, everyone would know that given the valuables in the stall, security would not be taken lightly. The owners would go to the extreme to protect their valuables and indeed they did.
Now, this is a security firm that is being paid a monthly fee for monitoring the electronics system placed by them at the stall. Again, based on the security firm’s press release, I would like to know what sort of arrangement they had with the owners and the city constabulary that you would be collecting a fee for a service that you provided in a secure area and have no access.
It does not make sense for me to paying for a service and in the case of emergency, you don’t have access .
Secondly, the alarm that is installed should have a siren and I am quite sure once the alarm is triggered by movements, the siren would activate and create a loud noise.
Thirdly, once the alarm is triggered, it alarms for a while based on the timings set by the technicians and after the speculated time, it would cut off. If it gets more movements, it would activate again and continue like that every time it gets movements.
Now, in the estimated time frame of five hours, can someone tell me how many times the crooks would make movement? Now, if the alarm keeps going off, I am quite sure that would tell you something is definitely wrong but then again, seeing that they are so defensive, they might place the blame on rodents.
Now, when there’s an alarm, the security would know exactly where the alarm is triggered. So, from my knowledge of security systems, I am quite sure the alarm would indicate exactly the location of the breach.
For it to be kept activating over and over at the same location would definitely tell you something is wrong. Yes, the security firm would know where a particular sensor is.
Sahadeo Bates

Discover more from Kaieteur News

Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.

Latest News