cctv's on the bus failed

* why are they trying to hide the story that the bus cctv's werent working? i did see it mentioned once briefly on the teeve (cant remember where).

take this story in the Guardian for example - the title is "Bus bomb clues may hold key to terror attack " - fair enough. the best clue, presumably, would be the footage from one of the 4 cameras right? in the seventh para they mention it almost in passing:
"A number of passengers and the bus driver survived the blast, and detectives will interview them in the hope that they can provide clues, all the more so as the CCTV camera on the bus was not working."
all the more so, indeed. in the next para we get this seamless segue: "Police will examine hundreds of thousands of hours of CCTV footage from tube stations and street cameras all over London today in the hope this could yield pictures of the bombers. But this will be a long process because they have not yet established which stations the bombers used."
all week we've heard about how they hope to catch the perps by looking through all this awesome footage (which seems more like a needle in a haystack), yet the fact that the bus footage, (which would narrow the field a little bit to about a single hour), is missing barely raises an eyebrow.

* "But the investigation received a serious setback when it was discovered the CCTV cameras on the bus that blew up were not working so detectives will not get vital images of the bomber. One senior Yard source said: "It's a big blow and a disappointment. If the cameras had been running we would have had pin-sharp close-up pictures of the person who carried out this atrocity." LINK
that is a big blow.

* "We don't know if the driver forgot to switch them on or if there was a technical problem but there are no images. - The bus had four cameras - one covering people getting on, the second at the exit doors and one on each deck scanning the length of the vehicle."
the most extensive, sophisticated cctv security system on the planet and they rely on each driver to hit the 'on' switch? surely they are kidding.

* or try this Observer article - i wont bother counting the paragraphs, but about 90% of the way though a 50+-ish para two-part article we get this snippet: "Sources later said that it seemed that the CCTV camera was not working."
ummm - wheres the outrage?

* or try this: "Police sources cannot hide their disappointment that the CCTV system on the bus that was blown up at Tavistock Square was not working that morning - and indeed had been out of action for up to a month, it has been claimed." search for "cctv bus "not working"" gives exactly 7 responses - including 2 from india and one from brunei.

* a news.google search for "cctv bus failed" gives one successful (relevant) hit - from france. other variations came up completely empty handed.

meanwhile, we see repeated calls for people to send in their photos etc to the MET - (fwiw the email address is images@met.police.uk) - if we are relying on folks with camphones, then i guess we can do away with all the cctvs around town right? right?

is something wrong with this picture?

will the PATRIOT Act save you? nationalID cards?

did the person with the bomb on the bus know that the camera wasnt working? did they orchestrate it? or is that just a lucky coincidence? im sick of (un)lucky coincidences. totally sick.

i hope the MET enjoys searching through their hundreds of thousands of hours of cctv tapes, and i share their disappointment that the one tape that would have made their case was down for the day, and i wish them luck that someone in the right spot at the right time used their camphones. im surprised, however, that theres not more consternation about the four cameras that would have saved them a lot of work just happened to be kaput when they needed it. and im sorry for the families of people who died on the bus. if the fucking cameras were working, then we'd be able to see who got on, and who got off the bus.

(sorry if this post is a bit random, i have to run - i was gonna say something cliched about weakest links - but itll have to wait - or maybe 'missing link' is more appropriate)