My question was essentially asking if your government believe public safety is important and I see no answer to that question in this response - so I'll have to assume it's not important until you make yourself clear. The Queen's Speech contradicts itself several times and as I've already pointed out in the thread you cannot claim as a government you're removing CCTVs for the "safety of the public" because doing that does the opposite...
(Original post by PetrosAC)
I do not believe CCTVs are effective enough to provide adequate justification for their role in greatly reducing privacy and civil liberties.
Why do you have an expectation of privacy in
spaces? If you're in public you have no right to privacy - the only places you have a right to privacy in public may be public toilets. If you want privacy, you go to your private property - your home.
They should not be used as replacements for frontline police.
They're not used as replacements for frontline police, they are used to help gather evidence in criminal cases - that's their primary purpose. It does have the effect of prevention - because people are less likely to commit a crime if they know they are being recorded. But I don't see what suggests they're being used as replacements for frontline police...
London also had the second highest amount of CCTV cameras in the world (at approximately 500,000), and this is expected to rise to 642,000 by 2020. An example of excessive use of CCTV cameras is the 1,113 CCTV cameras operated by Wandsworth Council - more than the number of cameras operated by police departments in Boston, Johannesburg and Dublin combined.
I see you're just throwing in statistics here as if it strengthens your argument when it doesn't, you've conveniently given me an example of a city where it's been quite useful against terrorism - Boston. If it wasn't for CCTV I don't think the terrorists in the Boston attack in 2013 would have been arrested quickly because CCTV cameras were able to track them.
It's worrying to think that this government wants to remove CCTVs and possibly put people's lives at risk and leave many without justice because there's a lack of evidence to prove they were a victim of a crime.
The point, in short, is that they are completely unnecessary.
You have made
to explain why they are unnecessary - except for stating things that are false and throwing statistics at me... I'm quite disappointed that this is the response given to me. Since the answer you have provided me is absolutely poor, I will ask the same question again.
Do you believe that the safety of the public is of utmost importance to your government? If you do, then why are you removing CCTVs?