The police are forcing pubs to install CCTV

Henry Porter

On Monday the Guardian carried a letter from Nick Gibson who told how he had taken over a pub in Islington, London, and had to apply for a new licence, which required the approval of a number of organisations, including the police.

'I was stunned,' he wrote, 'to find that the police were prepared to approve – ie not fight – our licence on condition that we installed CCTV capturing the head and shoulders of everyone coming into the pub, to be made available to them on request.'

He wrote to his MP, Emily Thornberry, but got no reply until today when she sent a letter to the Guardian – a somewhat patronising note, suggesting that this was indeed a civil liberties issue and that the staff from the nearby local Labour headquarters should be able to come and go 'without being stolen from and intimidated'. She also used the opportunity to take a swipe at the local Liberal Democrat council, which has refused to install street CCTV in Islington.

Typically for a Labour MP, she did not answer the substance of Gibson's complaint, which is that there seems to exist an unofficial policy of forcing pub licencees to install CCTV. In effect, Gibson had been compelled to go along with the policy at his pub – the Drapers Arms – to keep making a living. 'When was it that the constant small erosion of our liberties became irreversible?' he asked.

It is clear that the police do indeed have an unofficial policy that they implement in a thoroughly undemocratic manner when advising on licence applications – not on the merits of the case but on the applicant's compliance with their policy.

I contacted the Metropolitan Police Service and asked what was going on. Their statement read as follows:

The MPS overall does not have a policy of insisting CCTV is installed within licensed premises before supporting licence applications. However, individual boroughs may impose blanket rules in support of their objectives to prevent crime and disorder and to assist the investigation of offences when they do occur. Islington is one of the most densely populated districts for licensed premises in London and the borough's licensing authority is committed to providing a safe environment in which to socialise.

Islington council has suggested that Gibson can withdraw his application, take away the CCTV cameras and apply again for the licence. A sensible council would of course waive the need for this absurd procedure, and at the same time publicly state that it will stand against the surveillance creep that is blighting every city centre in Britain. CCTV has its purposes but the idea that someone going for a pint must give up their privacy by having their image taken and stored is repellent to all notions of a free society.

Gibson has been put in a difficult position and I would expect the council to make the first move to resolve what is a minor but also crucial issue of privacy, which of course is guaranteed to each one of us by the Human Rights Act.

If it fails to do so, he might like to provide a mask at the entrances to his pub with a suggestion that if people want to drink in private they hold up the mask as they pass the cameras. Or possibly drinkers may like to go equipped with their own mask. A V for Vendetta mask seems appropriate (£4.99).

Perhaps there should be a V for Vendetta evening at the Drapers Arms. If Gibson would like to suggest a date in the next two weeks, I will publicise it.

In the meantime, it is important that the police understand it is not their business to use their influence to make and implement policy affecting people's privacy."