Platypus Looks Strange on the Inside, Too

By JOHN NOBLE WILFORD

Published: May 8, 2008

If it has a bill and webbed feet like a duck, lays eggs like a bird or a reptile but also produces milk and has a coat of fur like a mammal, what could the genetics of the duck-billed platypus possibly be like? Well, just as peculiar: an amalgam of genes reflecting significant branching and transitions in evolution.

Greg Wood/Agence France-Presse — Getty Images

A platypus baby, or puggle, being held before being transferred back to its burrow at Taronga Zoo in Sydney, Australia.

An international scientific team, which announced the first decoding of the platypus genome on Wednesday, said the findings provided “many clues to the function and evolution of all mammalian genomes,” including that of humans, and should “inspire rapid advances in other investigations of mammalian biology and evolution.”

The research is described in Thursday’s issue of the journal Nature by a group of almost 100 scientists led by Wesley C. Warren, a geneticist at Washington University School of Medicine in St. Louis. The single subject of the study was a female platypus named Glennie, a resident of Glenrock Station in New South Wales, Australia, whose DNA was collected and analyzed.

The platypus, native to Australia, is so odd that when the first specimens were sent to Europe in the 19th century, scientists suspected a hoax. It was classified as a mammal, one of only two monotremes (echidna is the other) living today that are offshoots of the main mammalian lineage. The divergence occurred some 166 million years ago from primitive ancestors combining features of both mammals and reptiles.

“What is unique about the platypus is that it has retained a large overlap between two very different classifications, while later mammals lost the features of reptiles,” Dr. Warren said in an interview.

In their investigation of the platypus genetic blueprint, the scientists found that its genome contains about 18,500 genes, similar to other vertebrates and about two-thirds the size of the human genome. The platypus shares 82 percent of its genes with the human, mouse, dog, opossum and chicken. Some repeated elements in the genome, the scientists noted, hold hints as to the chronology of changes in the platypus.

Of particular interest, the researchers reported, the analysis identified families of genes that link the platypus to reptiles (like those for egg-laying, vision and venom production), as well as to mammals (antibacterial proteins and lactation). The platypus lacks nipples; the young nurse through the abdominal skin.

One surprise was finding genes responsible for sensitive odor receptors. As a primarily aquatic animal, the platypus was already known to rely on electrosensory receptors in its bill to detect faint electric fields emitted by underwater prey. So why the considerable ability to sense odors? The scientists speculate that it may involve sexual communication or the use of water-soluble odorants in navigating and hunting underwater.

Richard K. Wilson, director of the Genome Sequencing Center at Washington University, said that the comparison of the platypus genes with those of other mammals was the beginning of an examination of how “genes have been conserved throughout evolution.”

The project, involving scientists from eight countries, was primarily financed by the National Human Genome Research Institute in the United States. Its director, Francis S. Collins, said, “As weird as this animal looks, its genome sequence is priceless for understanding how mammalian biological processes evolved.”

Now Labour accused of attempt to ‘politicise police’ after ministers ask terror chief to make the case for 42-day detentions

By JAMES SLACK -  7th May 2008

Drafted in: Met Assistant Commissioner Bob Quick is the country’s most senior anti-terror officer

Ministers were accused of trying to politicise the police last night after asking the country’s most senior anti-terror officer to make the case for 42-day detention without charge.

Opposition MPs said it was “entirely inappropriate” for police to be expected to bail out a desperate Government facing defeat over the controversial plan.

The row centres on a letter sent to all MPs by Police Minister Tony McNulty yesterday.

Mr McNulty said Bob Quick, the Met’s assistant commissioner in charge of terrorism, would hold a briefing for MPs to explain the “operational practicalities which have led them (the police) to support the Government’s proposals for the reserve of power”.

Crucially, the letter makes clear Mr Quick is “agreeing” to a Home Office request, rather than putting himself forward to help.

The policy is facing defeat – plunging Gordon Brown into even deeper trouble.

It has become a question of the Prime Minister’s personal authority over the party.

MPs say the timing of the request to Mr Quick shows increasing desperation at the heart of Government, which yesterday also faced demands from ex-home secretary Charles Clarke to dump the 42-day plan.

Police minister Tony McNulty sent a letter to all MPs which the Opposition claim was ‘entirely inappropriate’

Colleagues of Mr Quick said it was unfortunate the highly-respected officer had been placed in such a difficult position by the Government. He only began the job, arguably the most demanding in policing, earlier this year.

Ministers faced similar criticism in 2005, when they asked police to lobby for 90-days without charge.

Shadow Home Secretary, David Davis, said: “I spoke to DAC Quick (yesterday) morning and established that there was a range of views across chief constables, and no single police view.

“It is entirely inappropriate that a serving officer should be asked to make the Government’s case – particularly when it doesn’t reflect the common view of chief constables.”

Liberal Democrat spokesman Chris Huhne said: “It is unacceptable that the police are being used as New Labour cheerleaders over extension of pre-charge detention.

“The Government’s decision to ask Bob Quick to make the case for 42 days smacks of desperation.

“Ministers have lost the argument over pre-charge detention and they should not be politicising the police force in an attempt to dig themselves out of a hole.”

Former Home Secretary Mr Clarke also urged Mr Brown to shelve the latest plans.

“We should abandon proposals to increase the period of pre-charge detention to 42 days,” he wrote in the Left-wing Progress Magazine.

“This Parliament settled the matter in March 2006 at 28 days and, though I will support the Government’s proposals, I believe that it would be best not to consider them again during this Parliament.”

The intervention from such a prominent figure in the fight against terrorism is likely to provoke anger in Downing Street, with Mr Brown already facing the prospect of a Commons defeat.

Mr Davis said: “Mr Clarke was the Home Secretary who bought proposals for 90 days’ detention without trial to Parliament.

“He will know every argument put by the security services and the police, and, perhaps more importantly know the weaknesses in those arguments.

“If he is willing to accept the judgment of the House of Commons, so should the current Home Secretary and Prime Minister.”

Mr Brown’s position over the 42-day detention issue is dire.

Last month, a leaked list from Labour whips showed they expect at least 50 backbenchers to vote against the terror reforms. A further 44 are said to be undecided.

The lobbying exercise will also put Met Commissioner Sir Ian Blair back into the spotlight on the issue.

In November 2005, Sir Ian was accused by MPs of “overstepping the mark” with his support for proposals to hold terrorist suspects for 90 days.

Ministers had written to the Association of Chief Police Officers requesting senior officers be available to provide advice for MPs.

Many provided briefings ahead of the crucial vote, which the Government lost.

Earlier this week, it emerged Sir Ian had admitted misleading MPs by overstating the gravity of the terror threat to Britain.

What if Scotland DID become independent? A historian looks forward 20 years and imagines the future

By ANDREW ROBERTS – 8th May 2008

The Scottish Labour leader, Wendy Alexander, called this weekend for an early referendum on Scottish independence – even though her party previously opposed the idea. The move is seen as an attempt to wrong-foot Alex Salmond’s Scottish National Party, which is committed to a referendum in 2010.

But many say her challenge could backfire and that the SNP could benefit from any poll result that suggests a move towards independence.

So what would an independent Scotland be like? Here, historian ANDREW ROBERTS looks forward to the year 2025 and imagines …

The new Prime Minister frowned as he stared across the Cabinet table at the embarrassed looking Scottish High Commissioner. Had he heard correctly? Was President Salmond really asking that Scotland be re-admitted into the UK, after only 15 years as an independent state?

Scroll down for more…

Cry freedom: But would independence work?

They had been tumultuous years, of course, and ‘the Tartan Revolt’ had endured its ups and downs – mostly downs.

But was the Scottish Nationalist Party genuinely proposing to abolish itself, admitting the whole experiment had been a disastrous failure?

“I shall have to confer with the Cabinet, of course,” the Prime Minister said.

Barely able to growl “Thank you, Mr Osborne”, with a twist of his kilt the High Commissioner left.

The Rt Hon George Osborne MP, who had just returned from an audience at Buckingham Palace with Charles III, sat back in his armchair in the middle of the Cabinet room and ruminated on the Scots’ predicament.

Where had it all gone wrong? Of course, the 11-year-long international court case over who owned North Sea oil had been a serious blow to Scottish hopes when the 30 per cent share they were finally awarded turned out to have almost run dry anyhow.

The way that the English coastline jutted out into the North Sea and the Irish Sea just south of the border had persuaded the judges that was a generous settlement under international maritime law, but it seriously undermined Scottish Prime Minister Wendy Alexander’s first term in office at Holyrood.

Then there was the termination of the annual Westminster subsidies to Scotland under the Barnett Formula, which in 2007 had amounted to £11.3 billion.

This ended overnight when the Scots voted – by 54 per cent to 46 per cent – for independence back in January 2010.

The ending of this £2,200-per-person subsidy meant the Holyrood Parliament in Edinburgh had to make severe cuts in public services, which rapidly became deeply unpopular.

Born blue: Mel Gibson as William Wallace in Braveheart

The removal of every Scottish MP in Westminster had also come as a body blow to New Labour, which was trying desperately to hang on until the last minute before calling a General Election in the early summer of 2010.

Gordon Brown was forced to give up the premiership, since his own seat of Kirkcaldy disappeared under the new constitution. Many in his party – possibly including himself – thought his resignation something of a blessing.

Earl Brown of Cowdenbeath, as he subsequently became, turned out to be one of the shortest-serving premiers of modern times.

David Miliband did his best to lead a minority government without the 39 Scottish MPs at Westminster, but the task proved beyond him. Not wishing to spend his life in perpetual opposition, he took up a post in the City.

Any hopes that the more Anglophobic Scots might have had that their defection would harm the UK were dashed when it kept its name – in reference to the English, Welsh and Northern Ireland components – as well as its seats in the UN Security Council, Nato, EU, OECD and other international bodies.

Scotland on its own, however, swiftly found itself with a voice somewhere between that of Serbia and Cyprus in weight, representing only 4.6 million people (after half-a-million English and business people emigrated to avoid the anti-sassenach legislation and high corporation taxes).

The decision of the Royal Bank of Scotland in 2018 to relocate its head office for tax purposes to the Square Mile was a stark indication of how bad things had got.

After the failure of the Tartan Pound, and the Scots refusal to peg their currency to sterling, their decision to join the euro had also been damaging – not least because it meant they no longer had any significant input into decisions over interests rates and liquidity.

On the Queen’s death, aged 95, in 2021, the Scots compounded their error by joining Australia in becoming a republic.

It was not simply Charles III’s sale to Sir Billy Connolly of Balmoral and Birkhall, but also the sense that – as with Ireland in 1949 – the act to become a republic had been primarily anti-British in intent.

The phrases that the British Foreign Secretary Boris Johnson had directed towards ‘North Britain’ had only inflamed opinion further.

In retrospect, the decision to move the naval base from Rosyth to a port south of the border was a natural one for a Westminster government determined to safeguard the interests of national security.

So, too, was the abolition of the remaining Scots regiments, despite their ancient and glorious history as part of the British Army.

The unemployment that resulted north of the Border may have been soaked up had the Scottish economy been growing, but the SNP-Labour coalition that ran the country under President Salmond and Prime Minister Wendy Alexander made an error in choosing that moment to push through radical land policies.

When tenants were given the right to buy their own homes, it was hoped by the Left that the landed estates of the Scottish aristocracy would be dispossessed in a generation or two, and there would be more fairness and opportunity in the glens.

What, in fact, happened was that the aristocratic estates did, indeed, disappear, but with them went the enterprises that allowed sports such as shooting, stalking and fishing to flourish.

The great sporting estates that had attracted tourist revenue to the Scottish Exchequer in George Square, Edinburgh, were no longer productive.

Expertise built up over the decades was lost, and farms were broken up into smaller and smaller units, many of which could no longer operate.

Tourists stopped bringing their euros, dollars, yen and Chinese yuan because, paradoxically, independence had robbed the country not only of its ancient rural traditions but of its confidence and grandeur.

To visitors, Scotland no longer felt genuinely Scottish. It had turned into just another small, unremarkable European country.

It all got progressively worse with the loss of whisky revenues after the declaration of independence from the Orkney and Shetland Islands.

By the time Alex Salmond became president, his country was unravelling, and the English border towns such as Berwick-upon-Tweed that had voted to join Scotland – in order to take advantage of social benefits in the good old Barnett Formula days – were soon begging for re-admittance into the UK.

The Time magazine cover story – ‘Tartan Nightmare’ – was a turning point in the Scots’ self-esteem, especially when it equated the chances of a successful independent Scotland with those of seeing the Loch Ness Monster.

It was with no sense of schadenfreude that Prime Minister Osborne took the decision that was plain to him as soon as the High Commissioner had left.

Of course, he would consult with the King, his own predecessor as premier Lord Cameron of Whitney and Foreign Secretary Boris Johnson, but he was pretty certain that they would agree with his conclusion.

The answer must be ‘No’. The Scots had chosen their destiny, and now they must live with it.

Benighted BBC needs Wogan’s Euro vision

Thanks to broadcaster scheduling, Euro 2008 is being recast as a tournament we can actually win

Marina Hyde

May 8, 2008 12:44 AM

From the minute the BBC announced it had secured the services of Steve McClaren as a Euro 2008 “expert analyst”, the tone for our thrilling non-involvement in this summer’s tournament was set. It was as though Five Live had successfully fought off bids from a host of national and international broadcasters to sign the former England manager, as opposed to pulling off a coup on a par with getting Homer Simpson to present a series on particle physics.

Now, hot on the heels of this triumph, comes confirmation that the Beeb and ITV are legally bound to screen practically every minute of a tournament in which England will play no part, across more than three weeks of the primetime schedules. A certain mental adjustment is required by all those who had pencilled in a summer of pretending it wasn’t happening, all those who regard every group as the Group of Indifference, and all those who like Albert Square’s cavalcade of misery to proceed uninterrupted.

One thing is increasingly clear: for these benighted souls it will not be Euro 2008, but Euphemism 2008.

Press releases describing the most unappetising ties as “hotly anticipated” are already doing the rounds and, in many ways, recasting the tournament as such is a stroke of last-ditch genius on the broadcasters’ behalf. It has turned Euro 2008 into a competition that we can actually win. As far as demented, let’s-take-the-positives delusion goes, there is quite simply no one to touch the English. It is the national speciality, and not having an overrated team on which to project this lunatic brand of optimism is already proving no impediment whatsoever for some.

“It just goes to show how lucky we are,” opined Alan Shearer at the launch of the Beeb’s coverage, “to have the likes of Fernando Torres, Cesc Fàbregas and Cristiano Ronaldo in the Premier League and be able to watch them every week.”

Well quite. In fact, were you to submit fully to this version of our good fortune – and submit you must, even for Switzerland v Turkey – you would think the forthcoming Champions League final between two English clubs was just something that had to be got through. Whatever happens in Moscow will be merely the equivalent of a cinema advert for your local tandoori before the opening credits of the main feature get under way.

With amusing optimism, both the BBC and ITV have been at pains to emphasise that a complete lack of home nation involvement will give us an intriguingly different sort of take on proceedings. So we can look forward to the likes of Steves Rider and McClaren surveying the action with a kind of wry, professorial detachment – a pose that in the Beeb’s case will be all the easier following the departure of Ian Wright to take the emeritus chair at Gladiators.

Indeed, if it is a semi-detached charm the Match of the Day lot are after, who better to fill the third chair than Terry Wogan, whose long years of dispensing weary putdowns to European nations in the service of the Eurovision Song Contest make him the obvious choice to step into Wrighty’s sadly-vacated pointy jester’s shoes. As things stand, all the line-up lacks is a quite reasonably refreshed Sir Terry muttering about Warsaw Pact conspiracies, or glossing a defensive error by France with a sardonic: “That’s the same defence the French have been playing since they hung the washing up on the Maginot Line.”

That said, some things do not need euphemising and it is disappointing to learn that the BBC is bracing itself for viewer complaints on, for example, June 12, when EastEnders will have to make way for Austria v Poland. On what grounds? Surely EastEnders could do with a spell of having to play for its place in the schedules, and it seems wildly unlikely that even the latter tie could be any more tedious and depressing than another trip to Walford.

But it’s those all-important extras that can lift a major sporting event from the magnificent to the sublime, so it remains to be seen what sort of support programming our terrestrial overlords have devised. It would be nice to think they will play to our other national strength, and that a press of the red button will avail viewers of the rules of the Great Euro 2008 Drinking Game – the perfect accompaniment to the tournament. In order to get the best out of the event, participants must drink once for a yellow, twice for a goal, and until well past the point of nausea for every newspaper photo of an England player mooching around Dubai, published beneath the headline: “Wish you weren’t here?”

Police should harass young thugs – Smith

Home secretary wants antisocial youths to be openly filmed and hounded at home

• Patrick Wintour, political editor

This article appeared in the Guardian on Thursday May 08 2008 on p1 of the Top stories section. It was last updated at 02:27 on May 08 2008.

Jacqui Smith says police forces should give persistent offenders ‘a taste of their own medicine’. Photograph: Carl Court/PA

Police should be harassing badly behaved youths by openly filming them and hounding them at home to make their lives as uncomfortable as possible, the home secretary will say today.

The crime initiative is part of a government strategy to win back voters by proposing more radical approaches to tackling deep seated problems.

In a speech in London the home secretary, Jacqui Smith, will acknowledge that the number of antisocial behaviour orders being issued is falling, but will argue that there has been a shift to the use of parental orders instead.

As part of the crackdown on bad behaviour, she will urge police forces across the country to follow the example of Essex police, who have mounted four-day “frame and shame” operations by filming and repeatedly stopping identified persistent offenders on problem estates.

The programme in Essex has been successful, even though it may raise human rights issues about such tough tactics, especially if those harassed by the police have not been found guilty of any criminal offence.Smith will say: “There is no let-up in tackling antisocial behaviour. We know that getting in early to stop troublemakers works, but I want stronger action to deal with persistent offenders. I want police and local agencies to focus on them by giving them a taste of their own medicine: daily visits, repeated warnings and relentless filming of offenders to create an environment where there is nowhere to hide.

“There can be no excuse for inaction while people still fear for the safety of the streets and estates where they live. We will do more to protect them. We all need to sharpen our resolve to tackle both the symptoms and the causes of antisocial behaviour.”

The government has been accused by the Conservatives of going soft on its previous “respect” agenda, closing down its respect unit and placing a new emphasis on youth clubs and play.

The National Audit Office has also criticised the high number of breaches of Asbos, arguing that ministers have little idea what measures are most effective.

Boris Johnson announced yesterday that he was imposing a ban on the drinking of alcohol on all tubes and buses.

He has also raised the prospect of forming 100 Saturday schools where children are drilled to march and learn manners.

Smith will be briefed at a conference in London today on the Essex operation by its two creators, Inspector Jon Burgess and Sergeant Gavin Brock.

The police decided to target persistent offenders with filming techniques first used in identifying hunt saboteurs and football hooligans.

An Essex police spokesman said: “The aim is to target a small group of persistent offenders by openly filming them, knocking on their doors, following them on the estate and repeatedly searching them, as well as warning them in no uncertain terms that local people have identified them as lawbreakers.”

He claimed a four-day blitz in Basildon, which was followed up a few months later, had dramatically reduced offending, and proved highly popular with residents.

The scheme, codenamed operation Leopard, was approved by Essex’s Chief Constable, Roger Baker, after specific estates had been identified as crime hotspots, with more than 20 offences reported each week.

The police followed 14 people in their teens and early 20s. Each was well known to the force, having built up criminal records for offences such as intimidation, burglary, criminal damage, antisocial behaviour and vehicle crime.

Three surveillance officers spearheaded the operation, backed by uniformed police and community support officers. A total of 60 stops were carried out.

As a result of other changes being introduced by the Home Office, it will be easier to make these stops without needing to make a full record.

Ministers will defend the fall in the number of Asbos issued by claiming other techniques such as acceptable behaviour contracts and parenting orders are proving more effective.

Critics claim Asbos have become a badge of honour.

Acceptable behaviour contracts (ABCs) are written agreements between a young person, the local housing office or registered social landlord, and the local police in which the person agrees not to carry out a series of identifiable behaviours which have been defined as antisocial. The contracts are primarily aimed at young people aged between 10 and 18.

The Big Question: Are CCTV cameras a waste of money in the fight against crime?

By Andy McSmith
Wednesday, 7 May 2008

Why are we asking this now?

This is one man’s view of how effective CCTV has been so far: “It’s been an utter fiasco: only 3 per cent of crimes were solved by CCTV. There’s no fear of CCTV. Why don’t people fear it? (They think) the cameras are not working.” This is not some disgruntled or ill-informed citizen talking. The speaker is Detective Chief Inspector Mick Neville, head of the Visual Images, Identifications and Detections Office (Viido) at New Scotland Yard, speaking this week at a security World Conference.

Naturally, the opponents of CCTV, or those who just want a stick to beat the Government with, fell in behind the Chief Inspector. “Yet again the Government manage to achieve the worst of both worlds. The current unfocussed approach to CCTV impinges on privacy whilst doing little to improve public safety,” the Conservative Shadow Home Secretary David Davis said yesterday.

So does CCTV really not solve crimes?

It does, but in all-too rare instances. Most famously, it played a crucial part in the Jamie Bulger case in 1993, when the Liverpool toddler was taken from a shopping centre and murdered. In April 2003, a man wielding knife attacked and injured four people in Kingston, Surrey. He was caught on camera, and swiftly arrested. Earlier this year, the forklift truck driver Steve Wright was convicted of murdering five women in the Ipswich area, largely on the strength of CCTV footage of his car, taken in or near the town’s red light district at relevant times.

But Chief Inspector Neville’s point is that in far too many cases where somebody has been mugged, or property has been damaged or stolen, it emerges that the CCTV camera was faulty, or switched off, or did not have a film in it, or was pointing in the wrong direction. Fewer than one crime in 30 is solved through CCTV.

But doesn’t CCTV deter crime?

One company that sells CCTV equipment makes the startling claim that “crime is dramatically reduced by up to 95 per cent where CCTV is installed.” If that were true, the UK would be most crime-free country in the world. The cameras are better at preventing low-level opportunist crime like break-ins, but are little deterrent to street violence, and they work better in semi- open spaces like car parks than in streets. Dover council introduced CCTV in 1993. After 12 years, they found that burglary in the areas covered had halved, car crime was down 87 per cent, but public disorder and crimes of violence had almost trebled.

A study in Gillingham, also in Kent, concluded that crime in the High Street had fallen by a third five years after CCTV was installed, while it was static in areas where there was no CCTV.

But possibly the most authoritative study – and the one most often quoted by critics of CCTV – was conducted for the Home Office in 2004 by a team from Leicester University, headed by Professor Martin Gill. They examined 14 CCTV systems, and found that only one had really cut crime. That was in a car park. The others, they concluded “had no overall effect on crime.”

What about the processing of CCTV when a crime occurs?

There are problems here too, Chief Inspector Neville claiming that CCTV is not being used properly. “Billions of pounds has been spent on kit, but no thought has gone into how the police are going to use the images and how they will be used in court,” he complained. He wants more training, more feedback, and a better “career path” for police officers who operate CCTV. Graeme Gerrard, Deputy Chief Constable of Cheshire added that it can be frustrating for officers to have their inquiries thwarted by CCTV equipment that has gone wrong, but overall, he claimed: “The contribution of CCTV to the detection of crime is likely to equal that of DNA and fingerprints.”

How many CCTV cameras are there in the UK?

A website run by the charity Privacy International publishes a world map, updated annually, in which countries are colour coded according to the level of surveillance to which their citizens are subjected – white for the countries where there is the greatest respect for individual privacy, black for the countries such as Russia, China and various Middle Eastern states, where surveillance is “endemic”. Most years, there is only one European country coloured black – the UK. This is because the UK could be almost be called the home of the CCTV camera. One fifth of the world’s CCTV cameras are reputedly found on these islands, which represent less than one five hundredth of the world’s habitable land mass. No one knows exactly how many there are, because so many different agencies, private and public, have installed them.

Clive Norris, Professor of Sociology at Sheffield University, calculated four years ago that there were “at least” 4,285,000 – one for every 14 citizens. The standard figure usually cited is “over four million”. Prof Norris also claimed in his 1999 book The Maximum Surveillance Society that a person could be caught on CCTV cameras 300 times in a day. This figure is on the high side; Prof Norris has described it as “a piece of rhetoric” intended to “make a point” – but a few hours’ spent travelling around central London could take you past 300 cameras.

Why is CCTV so popular in the UK?

The British love affair with CCTV seems to have originated with the Bulger case. Those grainy pictures were seen by almost everyone in the UK, and led to a quick arrest.

The Home Office reacted by making grants available to any local council that wanted to install cameras. Within four years, their number had leapt from a few hundred to around 300,000. The City of London was at the front of the queue, after the IRA detonated a bomb that killed one person and did an estimated £1 billion worth of damage, after which the police put a “ring of steel” around Bishopsgate to prevent any more attacks, including hundreds of CCTV cameras.

Should the cameras be scrapped?

No one is seriously suggesting that all CCTV cameras should be dismantled, though many people would like to see fewer of them. The issue is how they are used. The Data Protection Act, and the Information Commissioner’s guidelines say that all cameras should be visible, with clear signs, and tapes should be stored safely. CameraWatch, an independent pressure group, reckons that up to 90 per cent of CCTV operators are breaking the law, though that is denied by the Information Commissioner. But even where they are being operated legally, it seems, they are not being used properly.

Should we scrap CCTV?

Yes…

* CCTV is costing hundreds of thousands of pounds a year, and solving less than 3 per cent of crimes.

* The evidence that CCTV deters criminals is very thin on the ground.

* It’s making the UK like a giant Big Brother set – every step you take, they’ll be watching you.

No…

* CCTV has helped in major crime investigations, including murder and terrorist cases.

* People feel reassured knowing that there is a camera to deter muggers.

* The cameras are not being used properly at present. That is not the fault of the equipment.