Engelsk Rettelse : Oversættelse

Hej!
Er der en der har tid og lyst ti at rette denne oversættelse igennem?

Under much public attention with cry for “Big Brother is watching you” and claims of new police methods, you putted on a new surveillance system in Liverpool last week. 20 cameras placed in the town centre are going to record the inhabitants’ doings – and possible criminal activities. There are already cameras in quite a few stores, banks and public buildings all over (the entire) Great Britain, but you expect that many towns will follow Liverpool’s example now.
You might think that the films which the cameras record, will be valuable as evidence; in several cases you have from the counsel for the prosecutions side used records against the accused with luck, for instance in the James-Bulger case from exactly Liverpool. However, it is only a little known that these cameras on the whole are useless when it is a question of identifying criminals. A highly placed policeman declared recently that out of 800 records of robberies only a half dozen could be used to actual convict the criminals.
How can that be? If you have a picture of a robber who is committing a crime, it is not far to catch him, though the picture might be blurred, you should think so. But it is not that easy: because even though the police thinks that they recognize the person on the record, there will always be raised doubts about the suspected really is the man on the video.
“With fingerprints and DNA-tests you can be very certain, but with pictures there are a bigger insecurity,” says Dr. Barry Irving from Scotland Yard