I am generally against the idea of a CCTV network, although do events like these make a case for CCTV?
Likewise, could it be said that Londoners have grown too accustom to CCTV life that they have simply ignored its existence?
I don't mind the fact that I'm recorded when I walk down the street - not because of the flawed 'I have nothing to hide' argument, but simply because I can't think of a reason that I would mind. Most cameras aren't actively watched unless there is a specific reason to, and the recordings are deleted usually after 30 days. On the one hand you may dislike the camera watching you - but you'd be thrilled if it recorded the guy who mugs you on your way home and leads to his arrest and subsequent conviction. I do feel safer knowing this on the occasion that I'm on my own in an area that I don't feel safe. Maybe this is due to working with CCTV in the past, I'm more acutely aware of its presence then I might be otherwise.
London's CCTV will lead to literally hundreds of arrests of these scumbags (I live near an area that was involved, and have family even closer) that would otherwise have gone completely unpunished. Many more of the people involved in the riots are having a hard time sleeping tonight then if there were no CCTV.
@hcho - ig1 is correct. Most of the imagery you're seeing on TV is at the scene of the riot. Images of CCTV in the surrounding areas will be scoured over the coming weeks, many covered faces will have been uncovered a few streets away. Also watching where people came from can help to find associations - for example they arrest somebody who was seen on CCTV to have arrived with somebody who is not yet identified.
I guess the only incidents CCTVs are useful are the £spur of the moment" crimes.