Comments on: Nick’s privacy pledge: only the Lib Dems will “bring an end to the endless snooping on innocent people”

By: Anthony Aloysius St

Anthony Aloysius St — Fri, 19 Mar 2010 14:31:13 +0000

I’m saying, basically, that it’s wrong and misleading to write a speech in such a way that it makes it look as though the party thinks that CCTV is a bad thing, when it has demonstrably supported CCTV on many occasions.

If that’s what people round here think of as a “nuance”, I shudder to think of the enormities that are going to be perpetrated in the next few weeks.

By: Foregone Conclusion

Foregone Conclusion — Fri, 19 Mar 2010 12:47:00 +0000

Sorry, I meant to say: deliberately obtuse. I see now that’s not the case: you choose to see Clegg as saying in his soundbite that he absolutely opposes, I see a little more nuance. It would be nice if we could find the text of the rest of the speech online to settle it, but unfortunately it’s not available in more detPerhaps ail. you could give Nick the benefit of the doubt?

By: Anthony Aloysius St

Anthony Aloysius St — Fri, 19 Mar 2010 12:11:12 +0000

“I think you’re being rather obtuse here, Anthony.”

Name-calling already? Well, I suppose it’s par for the course.

As for understanding what’s going on, I understand it perfectly well. No doubt Nick Clegg is aware that this is a complex issue, and does see the merits of particular CCTV schemes. But when it comes to fashioning a sound-bite, as so often, subtlety goes out of the window and we end up with a cheap bit of knocking copy that makes the party look thoroughly hypocritical and/or its leader look like a bit of an idiot.

By: Foregone Conclusion

Foregone Conclusion — Fri, 19 Mar 2010 11:47:42 +0000

I think you’re being rather obtuse here, Anthony. Clegg is not opposing security cameras per se, but rather our (over)extensive use of them, and our general lack of caution when we put them up. Our default setting for a public space seems to be to put up CCTV – I think his argument is that we shouldn’t think that way.

By: Anthony Aloysius St

Anthony Aloysius St — Fri, 19 Mar 2010 07:48:30 +0000

So having made Britain “a world leader in CCTV” wouldn’t necessarily be a bad thing?

By: Phil

Phil — Thu, 18 Mar 2010 23:35:36 +0000

CCTV works if it’s used correctly. Putting it on tube stations, for example, is perfectly reasonable. But the fact that it’s used so extensively and just installed wherever, whenever for no peculiar reason negates its positives.

By: Anthony Aloysius St

Anthony Aloysius St — Thu, 18 Mar 2010 21:58:55 +0000

So presumably you think Clegg _did_ mean it as a compliment to the government? Or did he just choose his words spectacularly badly?

By: Iain Roberts

Iain Roberts — Thu, 18 Mar 2010 21:30:44 +0000

Indeed – lazily putting in CCTV cameras and seeing them as a panacea is simply a bad crime-reduction technique. But that doesn’t mean that all CCTV is bad and not cost-effective.

By: Anthony Aloysius St

Anthony Aloysius St — Thu, 18 Mar 2010 21:23:43 +0000

Iain

“The argument that all CCTV is bad and infringes on our privacy is a pretty weak one.”

Well, Nick Clegg is the one accusing the government of “making us a world leader in CCTV”. I don’t suppose he intends that as a compliment!

By: Iain Roberts

Iain Roberts — Thu, 18 Mar 2010 21:12:46 +0000

Anthony – CCTV isn’t a simple issue – it’s at least as much where and how you use it as whether you use it at all. The argument that all CCTV is bad and infringes on our privacy is a pretty weak one.

By: Anthony Aloysius St

Anthony Aloysius St — Thu, 18 Mar 2010 20:19:16 +0000

It’s good that Nick Clegg is saying this.

The only snag is that if you Google
cctv site:libdems.org
you’ll see about as many pages pro CCTV as anti.