This is not about my case. It is about the rule that decided how my case was run, and the accident that let me prove it.

My case is nothing in comparison to many that I’ve followed. The only exception is the accident that led to this campaign.

A woman was attacked near his road in Kent. He asked his neighbours whether they wanted a camera. They said no. They did not want to be watched on their own street.

So he asked a different question. Would you accept a camera you controlled, that nobody ever watched? They said yes. That condition became the design.

The industry gave him the reasons it would not work. It took two years to crack and two more to make it. He recalls that the Government first called the idea impossible, and then funded it through its own SMART award. The patents were granted in Europe and America, and a European examiner upheld one of them against a professional challenge.

He has described what he was told at the time as “the millions of reasons why it was a stupid idea”.

Building it was the smaller half. In 2003 he sat down with officers at the Metropolitan Police station in Bexleyheath, backed by the head of the CCTV User Group, and asked the only question that mattered: if I build this, will you use it? He recalls the answer as yes. Nothing was signed. Nothing needed to be. Luton Borough Council then tested the camera against its own manned cameras and put the result on the record.

That is the pattern. Take the thing everyone says cannot be done, do it, and come back with a measurement instead of an opinion.

One rule came out of all of it: measure it, and publish the measurement. This campaign asks the civil courts to name what they are measured against. Cost is already named in the sentence of rule 1.1 that overrides every other. Fairness is not.