Keith Sharp, of Chatsworth Road, Torquay, writes:

Oh dear, how sad to see the Stasi squabbling among themselves over the cost of CCTV. Not a word about civil liberties or the invasion of privacy; just a squalid little row about money.

For once I agree with both the polie and Teignbridge Council. ILt's high time this obnoxious system of public surveillance was consigned to the dustbin.

As for comparing Newton Abbot with Dodge City... well really. Poor old Tom Hill seems to be losing his marbles in my opinion.

It is of course the trade lobby that has kpt Newton Abbot's prizewinning spy network in business for so long. This is hardly surprising as shopkeepers enjoy a public subsidy of £40k a year. If they are worried about shrinkage perhaps they should increase their insurance cover or employ more floorwalkers.

Two factors have to be taken into account when evaluating CCTV; the capital costs and the running costs. The current debate seens to be about running costs but as you will no doubt recall in 2007 Dawlish Town Council spent $80,000 on just six cameras. Is this now to be written off?

One important point was missing from your story, in my opinion, however. Under recent legislation, councils are obliged to justify CCTV or get rid of it. Did Teigbnridge decide to jump before it was pushed? The recovery of a few goods from which the security tags have been removed hardly justifies such egregious public surveillance.

I wonder if Mr Hirst appreciates the irony of removing security tags?

It was of course David Cameron - the leader of Cllr Russell's party, who promised to dismantle 'the whole rotten edifice' of Labour's surveillance sate. Let's hope this is one promise he manages to keep.