Turn on thread page Beta
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    I agree with the right honourable gentleman, CoffeeGeek, you have no privacy in public spaces. That is a huge contradiction. If you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to fear.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Vitiate)
    I agree with the right honourable gentleman, CoffeeGeek, you have no privacy in public spaces. That is a huge contradiction. If you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to fear.
    Hear, hear!
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by CoffeeGeek)
    Mr Speaker,

    For my final question to the Prime Minister. 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? I feel the justification in the Queen's Speech is absolutely poor so hopefully you can give me confidence.
    (Original post by CoffeeGeek)
    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...



    Why do you have an expectation of privacy in public 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'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...



    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.



    You have made no effort 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?
    Hear, hear!
    • Political Ambassador
    Online

    21
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    (Original post by PetrosAC)
    1) In my opinion, I would opt to increase productivity over jobs. However, there is obviously a need to strike a balance between both. My Government will be investing in Infrastructure (one example would be research into Maglev) to encourage more movement of workers.

    2) The Government has a lot of money making policies as well, that you are perhaps overlooking. The Legalisation of Drugs will bring in several billions of pounds, for example. This Government believes it can be fiscally responsible whilst achieving the reforms it desires.
    I thank the Rt. Hon. gentleman for his responses, but the questions are only half answered, he tells us what but not how. I applaud his support for maglev technology, however this investment will in reality take decades to be fully realised and even then I don't think this would have any real effect on productivity (if he has studies that counter this thought I would be glad to see them). Similarly raising a few billions though drug legalisation and taxation will do little to dent the cost of the Queen's Speech, unless these taxes are set incredibly high the government would likely be lucky to be able to afford a 1% reduction in VAT which currently costs about £6bn. As such for my follow up questions I shall merely reiterate the "how" parts of the original questioning.
    Online

    19
    ReputationRep:
    PetrosAC Mr Prime Minister,

    You have stated that you do not expect the Queen's Speech to pass through Parliament, if you still believe this is the case does it not suggest that you have no confidence in the policies of the government that you lead?
    • Wiki Support Team
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    Wiki Support Team
    Political Ambassador
    (Original post by Jammy Duel)
    I thank the Rt. Hon. gentleman for his responses, but the questions are only half answered, he tells us what but not how. I applaud his support for maglev technology, however this investment will in reality take decades to be fully realised and even then I don't think this would have any real effect on productivity (if he has studies that counter this thought I would be glad to see them). Similarly raising a few billions though drug legalisation and taxation will do little to dent the cost of the Queen's Speech, unless these taxes are set incredibly high the government would likely be lucky to be able to afford a 1% reduction in VAT which currently costs about £6bn. As such for my follow up questions I shall merely reiterate the "how" parts of the original questioning.
    I accept that the fruits of investing in maglev technology will take decades to ripen, but I do truly believe it will increase productivity. We are committed to being a fiscally responsible government, so whilst we intend to invest in the right places, we will also have to look at cutting unnecessary spending as well as implementing policies that increase Government income (other than just simply raising existing taxation).

    (Original post by Andrew97)
    PetrosAC Mr Prime Minister,

    You have stated that you do not expect the Queen's Speech to pass through Parliament, if you still believe this is the case does it not suggest that you have no confidence in the policies of the government that you lead?
    Not at all, it means that I do not believe that our policies are dogmatic enough to appease one side of the house enough to back it. We expect all of our policies to pass individually.
    • Wiki Support Team
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    Wiki Support Team
    Political Ambassador
    (Original post by CoffeeGeek)
    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...



    Why do you have an expectation of privacy in public 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'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...



    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.



    You have made no effort 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?
    Thank you for making my point for me regarding Boston - their CCTV was effective in small numbers as it was well placed. We're not talking about completely getting rid of all CCTV, but there are huge swathes of surveillance cameras that are completely unnecessary. As a Government, we'd rather spend our money on people that have the ability to stop crime, rather than some cameras that will only be necessary after a crime is committed.

    Edit: This Government is committed to preventing crime before people commit them, so we lock up less people.
    • Wiki Support Team
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    Wiki Support Team
    This session of PMQs is now over.

    Posted by SpeakerBot
 
 
 
The home of Results and Clearing

2,889

people online now

1,567,000

students helped last year
Poll
How are you feeling about GCSE results day?

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Write a reply...
Reply
Hide
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.