Should surveillance cameras be used to catch litter louts and people who don't clean up after their dogs?

If the electorate had been asked in the first place if we wanted the most CCTV cameras in the "free world" would the answer have been "Yes".Or "Come off it".Maybe that's why we were never asked.

Now we have them.On balance and according to independent research they do not prevent crime or detection other than marginally.The CCTV industry therefore has to justify its continued existence.

Anyone who drops litter in the street is a lazy slob and dog poo is disgusting unpleasant and at worst can make kids sick if they touch it but is it really cost effective to spend however many millions (or billions) trying to tackle these "issues" with cameras.Lazy and wasteful government.

No, we are supposed to live in a free society where our privacy is sacrosanct. The idea that everyone should be watched by surveillance cameras just in case the commit a minor offence is abhorrent, and is open to serious abuse.

These powers were granted by parliament for the prevention of terrorism, not for jumped up little Hitlers from the council to use as they see fit.

As motorists know well cameras prosecute with no thought or compassion, stray a few mile an hour over the speed limit on a deserted road and you're fined.

Enough, camera's are cash machines, full stop!

YES - the authorities seem to be very good at installing intrusive cameras every where we go - but less than motivated to do anything about what they see on these cameras.
Unless of course the miscreant is a motorist who can be sent a hefty fine in the post without any face to face confrontation.

what is it with people not cleaning up after their dogs. i don't know about the big brother method but they should get a fine.

If they keep on offending then why not.