The UK has 1 security camera for every 11 people in the country. Necessary? Or have things got out of hand?

That's a lot of cameras ! Who monitors them? Necessary? Sure doesn't seem like it. I could see having them in areas that need security but that sounds like they're almost in every house. Sounds like a lot of wasted money to me. I would still like to know who monitors them and how many people are involved. Must cost a fortune for the cameras and people monitoring all that. Does it really do any good? I'd say things have gotten way out of hand!

What is that even mean! ?

I assume what you saying is the compare of the cameras and people right  ?  Every 11 people without any specific location, just randomly all over the the UK ?  It's just too much and totally out of the hands.

then what agency would control them ? However surely at the end would connect to the gov. Now, what is primary objective of this action ?  And what information or movements get documented and archived ?

There has to be a primary objective. Specific key words, codes, names and things like that.

i would say it's too much control and absolutely unnecessary. I guess if it's really happening right now, this much obvious traffic/security control which would cost a lot money as well, there must be something that UK is badly scaring of which means things are out of the hands that's why they trying to take things under control by doing this. Just giving it a thought.

Does that include ALL security cameras? That statistic doesn't surprise me. I don't know about the UK, but in the US a small shop could have 3-5 cameras. I worked in a bank and we had at least 10 cameras and it was a small branch. Larger stores and banks have dozens. 

Then you have public places where there can be as much as a hundred in larger buildings like arenas and airports.

Then you have the home security cameras. Those can be anywhere from 1 to 10., depending on the size of someone's home.

I'm all for the cameras in public places. I think they deter crime and also help in spotting criminal acts as they occur. Heck, I have 8 cameras in and around my house. I can watch from anywhere, on my iPhone or any computer. If I hear a noise outside, I just scan the 4 sides of my house.

It's one of those statistics that looks dramatic but could easily be misconstrued.

I assume that most of the cameras are privately owned CCTVs and are not watching people but protecting property. For the most part they are not in the hands of big brother but are fulfilling a function. Neither are they spying on their quota of eleven people.

There would be little involved in monitoring them because most would simply record events and would not be consulted unless a crime had been committed.

I won't break out my foil cap just yet. It's not as big a deal as it sounds.

I don't know how that number of cameras stacks up against other places; but assuming it is relatively high, I wonder if it is related to the fact that the majority of police officers do not carry firearms.

From Wikipedia:

The United Kingdom is made up of four constituent countries: England, Scotland, Wales (which make up Great Britain) and Northern Ireland. In Northern Ireland, all police officers carry firearms. In the rest of the United Kingdom, the majority of police officers do not carry firearms, that duty is instead carried out by specially-trained firearms officers. This originates from the formation of the Metropolitan Police Service in the 19th century, when police were not armed, partly to counter public fears and objections over armed enforcers as this had been previously seen due to the British Army maintaining order when needed. The arming of police in Great Britain is a perennial topic of debate.