1) (a) The figures, grouped quarterly are represented on the graph. Also shown is a trendline (linear regression or "best fit" trendline) which shows the trend over the 4 year period. The cameras were installed in February 1996.
2) The figures show wide variance, but it is clear that the trend over the four year period has been one of steady decline. (It has been suggested by a colleague that this could match the decline in business premises occupation generally).
3) (a) The figures generally follow the trendline, with the exception of the figures for the quarter ending June 1995, which shows a huge jump (in fact, accounting for almost half the years total). It is also clear that, whatever this was due to, it was over by the following quarter, more than 6 months before the cameras were introduced.
(b) This blip distorts the annual totals, giving the apparent "drop" from 1995 to 1996. Excluding this blip would produce figures pretty much as expected.
4) The cameras may have coincided with a slight fall in the expected crime rates, but this is not at all evident from the graph (e.g., a similar line marked in February 1994 shows an almost identical pattern following the next 3 quarters).
5) The oft repeated claim that the cameras are connected with "cutting crime in Bingley by half' is not only false in fact (these figures don't represent all crime or all Bingley), there is no clear connection from the graph between the distribution of crime with the installation of the cameras.