« Nadine Dorries' campaign has already succeeded | Main | Carlton Club votes 'yes' to women members »


Quite right in terms of sentiment.

Am not sure the argument holds up, however. How can a camera that is not fit for purpose and which does not show my face infringe my civil liberties? If anything, it enhances the 'feeling' of protection without any damage to civil liberties.

But I still think DD is onto something here.

If those 90% are useless then how about getting rid of them all and saving money?

I'm with him on principle too, but we must focus on ID cards. They are a serious thread to our liberties. I don't like CCTV, but the amateur systems behind them mean that they're pretty harmless.

That's not the same for the proposed database and ID card system.

It really isn't the effectiveness, or not, of CCTV that is the issue but rather the slide into a surveillance society that all pervading CCTV represents and seemingly makes acceptable.

We are the most spied upon nation on earth, and on a planet that contains North Korea, China and Cuba that is really saying something. The spread of CCTV needs to be stopped, its use instaed of genuine policing needs to be stopped and we need a return to Britain being a nation where the privacy of the individual actually matters.

Labour have sacrificed far too many of our hard won and ancient freedoms to their perverted and oppressive view of the greater good and the Conservatives must wholeheartedly commit to reversing that before it is too late and we all find ourselves living in a nightmare world part Orwell's 1984 and part Terry Gilliam's Brazil.

David Davis looks as if someone has just shoved a cattle-prod up his arse.

DOS, that is highly inappropriate but neverthless made me titter.

Or how about this:

The Labour government is coming out with so many lines of attack on civil liberties it's difficult to know where to begin to put a stop to it.

I think part of the answer would be to recall part of Mrs T's political success -- and that was making a moral argument. Labour's technocratic line of defence against her 1979 campaign was an utter failure, despite Jim Callaghan's personal popularity. DD's argument as it stands has too much muddy technocracy, and not enough moral clarity; but at least there's some moral clarity in there.

With a clear moral argument, it's possible to do battle on several fronts, and that's very important because as wounded as NuLabor® is, it still has a 60+ majority. And a wounded, cornered animal is a dangerous one.

The difficulty for those of us on the front line in the real world is pressure from the public for CCTV as a deterrent to both crime and the general yobbery that most people feel goes on outside their fropnt doors. Add to that the demand from Police, Councils and other agencies to use covert CCTV in specific instances and yes, we are in a surveillance society, but we are also in a society where there is a breakdown in standards of behaviour that we all understand and has been the subject of much investigation and debate within our party. Until we take back the streets from this still growing culture of violence and abusive behaviour the demands to 'do something' will go on increasing. Until we achieve what has to be a huge turn-round in this downward spiral we should at least ensure that CCTV actually works and achieves some bang for the millions of bucks that industry, police, national and local government and other agencies spend on it. Councillor Tony Hall, Harlow.

Is it really a deterrant? CCTV has recorded parts of criminal acts such as the Jamie Bulger murder; the London bombings and the Rangers violence. It didn't stop these crimes.

As far as violent disorder is concerned, anyone who has seen the "Chavs on Camera"-type programmes will know that the perpetrators haven't been dissuaded. It is police on the ground who make the arrests at the scene: more of the same, please.

Turning to robberies, ram-raids etc, all but the most stupid wear masks, hoods or caps to disguise themselves from the cameras.

The real question is - what sort of a country do we want to live in? One where the law-abiding are routinely spied-upon is distinctly unattractive.

The easiest way to control CCTV is to make every single camera subject to planning permission (our corner shop, in a 'leafy' suburban area has TWELVE!!! for goodness sake) plus an annual tax and inspection.
Not a very Conservative solution, but the constant hassle and paperwork should put off a great many for whom the installation of these devises is the cheap and easy solution, and probably keeps their insurance company happy (most inroads on our liberties are the result of an unholy alliance between government and big business).
Additionally this measure should keep a few local government prodnoses voting for us as they scramble to keep their jobs after 2010.
Meanwhile, we keep the momentum rolling, until people once again realise that this level of intrusion in Britain was unthinkable only a short decade ago.

At last some good old british common sense. I find the fact that im being watched nearly everywhere I go extremely disturbing and degrading. I can understand them in problem areas but they are now in village centres and minor shopping streets where we should be looking out for each other anyway. The level of monitoring we are all now under has become oppressive and intolerable. This is not what being british is supposed to be!!!!!!!!!

The comments to this entry are closed.



ConHome on Twitter

    follow me on Twitter

    Conservative blogs

    Today's public spending saving

    New on other blogs

    • Receive our daily email
      Enter your details below:

    • Tracker 2
    • Extreme Tracker