Civil liberties groups seem to want to duck the tough issues – that (for example) CCTV is seen by some people and businesses, rightly or wrongly, to offer some greater security. For as long as campaigners want to have a debate in grand terms about what a grand jury did in 1681 and Ben Franklin quotes the case will be abstract at best.

This may be very nice when your audience is politicians and pressure group activists, but that will cut no ice against shouts of, ‘soft on terror.’ Nor should it.

Sunny, I can only admire the depth of your conviction and belief but with all due respect, the sentiments here highlight the real problem faced by civil liberties campaigners. Yes, the erosions are about populism and opinion polls but I see no public campaign to face down that populism, change those polls and make a real-world pro-civil liberties argument. Nothing in the article faces down the cries of, ‘something must be done,’ or shows any sign of making a debate on populist terms.

You may not like it but the absolutist ‘tough government’ or ‘lilly livered’ approach is the politics of rationality in the current climate surrounding these issues. Do you think that the Sun or an opposition would hesitate to shout, ‘soft on terror’ the moment events allow? Look at the press cuttings from the Glasgow Airport bombings.

Truthfully, whilst the article is long on criticism, I see nothing here that goes beyond preaching to a choir that has singularly failed to shift the terms of debate. With all respect it is not AI, leading cultural figures or the ECHR who really need to be the targets of a campaign.

Sorry.