On one hand, we have this report from the BBC:

Only one crime was solved by each 1,000 CCTV cameras in London last year, a report into the city's surveillance network has claimed. The internal police report found the million-plus cameras in London rarely help catch criminals. [...]

David Davis MP, the former shadow home secretary, said: "It should provoke a long overdue rethink on where the crime prevention budget is being spent." He added: "CCTV leads to massive expense and minimum effectiveness. "It creates a huge intrusion on privacy, yet provides little or no improvement in security. The Metropolitan Police has been extraordinarily slow to act to deal with the ineffectiveness of CCTV."

Do you ever suspect that perhaps effectiveness isn't nearly as important as having a feeling of power and control over people? Or perhaps sending a message? Whatever it is, it certainly has little to do, apparently, with actually reducing crime. While I'm not saying cameras cause crime, it's worth noting that the UK had lower crime rates before there were cameras. So clearly something else, something which has been lost, was far more effective.

Meanwhile, on the other hand, in a related story (comments in brackets mine, obviously):

Thousands of the worst families in England are to be put in "sin bins" in a bid to change their bad behaviour, [the tragically named] Ed Balls announced yesterday.

The Children's Secretary set out £400million plans to put 20,000 problem families under 24-hour CCTV super-vision in their own homes. They will be monitored to ensure that children attend school, go to bed on time and eat proper meals.

Private security guards will also be sent round to carry out home checks, while parents will be given help to combat drug and alcohol addiction. Around 2,000 families have gone through these Family Intervention Projects so far. But ministers want to target 20,000 more in the next two years, with each costing between £5,000 and £20,000 — a potential total bill of £400million.

Wow. People talk about a "nanny state" but that's another step further, more like a "mommy state" who enforces discipline with threats of imprisonment or confiscation. In Orwell's 1984, people were under constant surveillance in their homes — the UK seems intent on bringing that nightmare to life.