Isle of Wight 2010 Election: Candidate Q&A: National Issue 8: Too Many CCTV Cameras in Britain

Isle of Wight 2010 Election: Candidate Q&A: National Issue 8: Too Many CCTV Cameras in BritainThis is part of a series of eighteen questions from The Democracy Club asked of the Isle of Wight candidates in the 2010 General Election (background).

National statement eight: There are too many CCTV cameras in Britain.

Candidate Position
Comment
Ian Dunsire (English Democrats Party) agrees
“The excuse for "improved security" starts to look thin when cameras are used to issue parking fines!”




Bob Keats (Green Party) strongly agrees
“CCTV will not help our security. It will undermine our ability to act for ourselves.”




Pete Harris (Independent) strongly agrees
“They highlight just how broken Britain really is. High time we set about fixing the problem not policing it.”




Paul Martin (Middle England Party) agrees





Paul David Randle-Jolliffe (Independent) strongly agrees
“It demonstrates and breeds a climate of distrust, an East German friend tells me things are far worse here in the UK than they ever were in communist East Germany, and he knows he was a guest of the Stasis.”




Mark Chiverton  (Labour Party) is neutral
“We do not want to become a surveillance society but cameras in key areas such as town and city centres are important in reducing crime and reassuring people.”




Michael Tarrant  (UK Independence Party – UKIP) agrees





Jill Wareham  (Liberal Democrats) is neutral

Those who didn’t provide responses: Andrew Turner – Conservative, Geof Clynch – BNP and Edward Corby – Independent

The idea for this whole idea came from the excellent The Democracy Club and answers are hosted by the splendid
Election issue of TheyWorkForYou.

Image: unusualimage under CC BY 2.0

Advertisement
Subscribe
Email updates?
7 Comments
oldest
newest most voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Cynic
21, May 2012 6:53 pm

Another example of the fine art of the bureaucratic two-step to aid a “Preferred Bidder”.

Are we really to believe that the Preferred Bidder would go away from this juicy contract if there was a delay?

This is just another version of the old sales ploy “If you don’t buy it now, the price will go up!” used by doorstep salesmen the world over!

Chris Wilmott
21, May 2012 7:32 pm

Why don’t these people speak English? Can it be because they don’t want to be understood? There was once a Plain English movement, but clearly it has yet to affect the Council’s petty bureaucrats.

James P
Reply to  Chris Wilmott
22, May 2012 8:56 am

Agree entirely. You just know that when they use words like ‘disapplication’ that there’s a fudge involved. Why not just say it’s cancelled?

Ryde a Wight Swan
Reply to  Chris Wilmott
22, May 2012 9:13 am

Beware of any intiative that talks about “engineering solutions” or anyone who says “going forward”.

Steve Goodman
22, May 2012 8:59 am

For those who may have missed it, the proposed change to a discredited PFI road maintenance contract for 25 years is not yet a certainty. As I said to those responsible, in the days when it was still possible to ask awkward questions at public council meetings, when will this council start taking it’s duty to taxpayers seriously? Why should only a few here today, gone tomorrow… Read more »

Cynic
22, May 2012 9:34 am

I wonder what the National Audit Office’s view would be on a multi-million, 25 years contract being decided by “Delegated Decision” and avoiding scrutiny?

One notes that the “Business Plan” was not attached to the “disapplication” (sic!) decision.

daveq
Reply to  Cynic
22, May 2012 11:28 am

Telescope to blind eye job?

Island Monkey
22, May 2012 12:45 pm

This report clearly says ‘submit the final business case to the Department of Transport.’ Does this mean this is not yet a done deal, despite the previous claims of the council?

Steve Goodman
Reply to  Island Monkey
22, May 2012 2:54 pm

Yes.

playingthenumbers
22, May 2012 1:10 pm

A £1bn project, paid for by taxation & borrowing. Then more taxation to pay for the borrowing, more cuts to things like education or health & more disposal of assets whose revenue cannot keep pace with the repayments demanded of the taxation & borrowing. For what? Is it within the purview of any of the elected members to explain how, in the modern world this project can… Read more »

Paul Miller
Reply to  playingthenumbers
22, May 2012 1:53 pm

The concept of odious debt [which is repudiated later because it is deemed taken on without consent] – much like of vaunted ‘PFI’ is described in the case of Greece in the excellent documentary “Debtrocracy”

playingthenumbers
Reply to  playingthenumbers
6, June 2012 10:59 am

Does the chancellor of the exchequer read VB? The headline in the Independent online today ‘Osborne’s latest plan: ask Britain’s savers for money’ Treasury to fund infrastructure projects by selling us ‘growth bonds’ suggest he might. If we recalibrate the PFI deal, strip out the ridiculous finance costs the provider (us eventually) will have to stump up, bring the project back to something approaching excitingly large but… Read more »

adrian nicholas
22, May 2012 3:00 pm

Cynic said; This is just another version of the old sales ploy “If you don’t buy it now, the price will go up!” used by doorstep salesmen the world over! Well in this case, i’ll wager the price will go up regardless. Another case of neo-liberalist profiteering using private leveraged debt subsidized by public debt to ensures trebles all round for those involved in this ‘project’. Makes… Read more »

Cynic
22, May 2012 3:15 pm

Having run major multimillion projects in my former professional life, I know two things from experience. Firstly, central and local government are incapable of defining the project tightly enough, leading to inevitable contract changes that always increase the price. In fact, the negotiating strategy of some companies is to win the public service contract with a low price, knowing full well that they can make up the… Read more »

reCaptcha Error: grecaptcha is not defined