SINCE the arrival of CCTV and Big Brother in the mid-1990s, the surveillance of society has been a controversial issue.

While liberals warn about the potential for an Orwellian superstate intruding into our privacy, police and politicians claim it is an essential crime-fighting tool.

Councils and governments must weigh up the financial cost and intrusion against the need to protect the public and detect crime and disorder.

At a time of economic stagnation, we must consider whether councils can afford to spend hundreds of thousands of pounds on surveillance when grants have been slashed.

The main concern raised by the list of cameras in Thanet is the focus on car parks. Council officers maintain that the funds for CCTV are raised from parking income and that this money is ring-fenced solely for improving car parking and cannot be used for cameras in other locations.

Thanet council argues that cameras are expensive to move and trouble hotspots are adequately covered by CCTV but the distribution of the cameras across the district must consider the whole community.

For some, cameras provide peace of mind as a crime deterrent – but a quarter of the isle's cameras being trained on the council's car parks does not seem to be serving the people of Thanet's safety and security.