Welcome to Newburytoday.co.uk’s message boards where you can have your say and share your views on any number of issues.
Anyone can read messages, but only registered users can post messages, reply to messages or create new topics. As part of the free and simple registration, you will be asked to read and conform to the house rules.
To register, click here ……Enjoy the debate. Newbury Today Forum > Categories > Newbury News
|
|
Newbury's CCTV |
|
|
|
Feb 18 2011, 09:56 AM
|
Advanced Member
Group: Members
Posts: 2,974
Joined: 8-September 10
Member No.: 1,076
|
QUOTE (Iommi @ Feb 18 2011, 09:00 AM) If what you say is true, then Graham Jones is guilty of lying by omission. He's lying. As for quoting user23 and dannyboy demonstrates to me the connection between themselves. He told me that nobody has sent me emails quoting numbers of cameras working. He believes his own hype. He told me that if I have any emails quoting numbers, to publish them. Well, let's just say I have sent an email from the Chief Exec to the paper to see if they will publish it for me. Here is the "nuts and bolts" of the situation. Graham Jones, Anthony Stansfield, Keith Ullyat, Andy Day, Nick Carter and a few others have all been saying different things at different times, and the FOI document basically means that they have all lied. Read the document and match it up to what they have said in the media at the dates given in the FOI. It might only be small details, but a lie is a lie. Here's the biggy though, if any of the above are telling the truth, that means the FOI is inaccurate, which is technically breaking the law. How can you publish info under an FOI that isn't true??? Listen to the audio from Newbury Sound, read the cuttings from the NWN. Either way, the council are lying through the people named in this post, or they have lied through the information that they published. Graham Jones also broke the code of council meetings by insulting a public questioner, but I'll let him off with that because it made me laugh. What I can't laugh at is the blatant lies and deception of our district council, and I will fight this until we get an apology. It's now got to the stage where action must be taken against those who have lied, and I urge the Lib Dem members to fully go after the council on this too. If they can use their powers in the chamber to force an investigation, that will be a start. I'm also going to formally complain about Councillor Stansfield for issuing false statements to the media. FAO: Graham Jones. Go on the Newbury Sound Website and listen to the news from last Friday I think it was. Cllr Stansfield says not all cameras are working, and he's not going to say which ones are not working. He then says this project is being delivered in stages. Then get a copy of last weeks paper. Cllr Stansfield is "delighted" that our CCTV network is now fully operational. Which statement is true?
|
|
|
|
|
Feb 18 2011, 01:15 PM
|
Advanced Member
Group: Members
Posts: 6,056
Joined: 14-May 09
From: Bouvetøya
Member No.: 51
|
QUOTE (Iommi @ Feb 18 2011, 09:00 AM) If what you say is true, then Graham Jones is guilty of lying by omission. He's lying. As for quoting user23 and dannyboy, that serves to demonstrate to me the connection between themselves. Does it bollocks.
|
|
|
|
|
Feb 18 2011, 01:23 PM
|
Advanced Member
Group: Members
Posts: 2,974
Joined: 8-September 10
Member No.: 1,076
|
QUOTE (dannyboy @ Feb 18 2011, 01:15 PM) Does it bollocks. Danny, Graham Jones said last night all cameras were visible before Newbury Control closed. Yet this is the first anyone has heard of that. Have a word with Graham and ask him to clarify his comment, because if eveything was visible before the 17th December, why is everything not visible now? PS. He seems to have taken your word that no camera numbers were mentioned in the emails published and challenged me to produce evidence. He should have looked closer at the emails he was cc'd on!!!
|
|
|
|
|
Feb 18 2011, 01:24 PM
|
Advanced Member
Group: Members
Posts: 4,138
Joined: 13-May 09
From: Newbury
Member No.: 20
|
QUOTE (dannyboy @ Feb 18 2011, 01:15 PM) Does it bollocks. It looks that way to me I'm afraid!
|
|
|
|
|
Feb 18 2011, 01:37 PM
|
Advanced Member
Group: Members
Posts: 6,056
Joined: 14-May 09
From: Bouvetøya
Member No.: 51
|
QUOTE (Iommi @ Feb 18 2011, 01:24 PM) It looks that way to me I'm afraid! Haven't you retired yet?
|
|
|
|
|
Feb 18 2011, 01:40 PM
|
Advanced Member
Group: Members
Posts: 4,138
Joined: 13-May 09
From: Newbury
Member No.: 20
|
QUOTE (dannyboy @ Feb 18 2011, 01:37 PM) Haven't you retired yet? Because of you and other anti-Richard Garvie/West Berkshire Council apologists, no.
|
|
|
|
|
Feb 18 2011, 01:44 PM
|
Advanced Member
Group: Members
Posts: 6,056
Joined: 14-May 09
From: Bouvetøya
Member No.: 51
|
QUOTE (Iommi @ Feb 18 2011, 01:40 PM) Because of you and other anti-Richard Garvie/West Berkshire Council apologists, no. Cool. I do have a use.
|
|
|
|
|
Feb 18 2011, 05:39 PM
|
Advanced Member
Group: Members
Posts: 4,025
Joined: 14-May 09
Member No.: 50
|
QUOTE (Iommi @ Feb 18 2011, 01:40 PM) Because of you and other anti-Richard Garvie/West Berkshire Council apologists, no. Which would make you an anti-West Berkshire Council / Richard Garvie apologist. Of course what you say isn't true as my personal opinion on CCTV differs somewhat from West Berkshire Council, whereas yours seems to be roughly the same as theirs.
|
|
|
|
|
Feb 18 2011, 06:29 PM
|
Advanced Member
Group: Members
Posts: 4,138
Joined: 13-May 09
From: Newbury
Member No.: 20
|
QUOTE (user23 @ Feb 18 2011, 05:39 PM) Which would make you an anti-West Berkshire Council / Richard Garvie apologist. I am to a degree; although I'm not strictly anti-council, but I object to some of the things they do; which is only normal. I don't come on here seeking merely to denigrate anything they might do or say simply because they are the council. I haven't wholly agreed with Richard Garvie in the past either. QUOTE (user23 @ Feb 18 2011, 05:39 PM) Of course what you say isn't true as my personal opinion on CCTV differs somewhat from West Berkshire Council, whereas yours seems to be roughly the same as theirs. Having a different opinion to that of the council doesn't negate you being an apologist for them. I haven't heard you criticise the council for their endorsement of the CCTV system, nor the way they have handled both the migration or the PR for the migration. Indeed, some cynics might say that the council's performance over the CCTV system might be construed as being anti-CCTV anyway.
|
|
|
|
|
Feb 18 2011, 06:55 PM
|
Advanced Member
Group: Members
Posts: 4,025
Joined: 14-May 09
Member No.: 50
|
QUOTE (Iommi @ Feb 18 2011, 06:29 PM) Having a different opinion to that of the council doesn't negate you being an apologist for them. How can having a totally different personal opinion to the council on this subject make me an apologist for them?
|
|
|
|
|
Feb 18 2011, 07:02 PM
|
Advanced Member
Group: Members
Posts: 4,138
Joined: 13-May 09
From: Newbury
Member No.: 20
|
QUOTE (user23 @ Feb 18 2011, 06:55 PM) How can having a totally different personal opinion to the council on this subject make me an apologist for them? Does the council have a 'personal opinion' on CCTV? The 'apology' is your defending the council over their performance on the matter, not the policy for supplying CCTV. An apologist for the council doesn't have to agree with every item that a council does, but you have never been critical of them or their policies on this forum (as far as I can remember), so that must say something.
|
|
|
|
|
Feb 18 2011, 07:04 PM
|
Advanced Member
Group: Members
Posts: 4,025
Joined: 14-May 09
Member No.: 50
|
QUOTE (Iommi @ Feb 18 2011, 07:02 PM) Does the council have a 'personal opinion' on CCTV? The 'apology' is your defending the council over their performance on the matter, not the policy for supplying CCTV. An apologist for the council doesn't have to agree with every item that a council does, but you have never been critical of them or their policies on this forum (as far as I can remember) so that must say something. I have. In this very thread of their CCTV policy.
|
|
|
|
|
Feb 18 2011, 07:07 PM
|
Advanced Member
Group: Members
Posts: 4,138
Joined: 13-May 09
From: Newbury
Member No.: 20
|
QUOTE (user23 @ Feb 18 2011, 07:04 PM) I have. In this very thread of their CCTV policy. You have said that CCTV should be removed, that is not being critical of the council.
|
|
|
|
|
Feb 18 2011, 07:09 PM
|
Advanced Member
Group: Members
Posts: 4,025
Joined: 14-May 09
Member No.: 50
|
QUOTE (Iommi @ Feb 18 2011, 07:07 PM) You have said that CCTV should be removed, that is not being critical of the council. I'm starting to think you're beyond help. Who put the CCTV in, in the first place?
|
|
|
|
|
Feb 18 2011, 07:16 PM
|
Advanced Member
Group: Members
Posts: 4,138
Joined: 13-May 09
From: Newbury
Member No.: 20
|
QUOTE (user23 @ Feb 18 2011, 07:09 PM) I'm starting to think you're beyond help. Who put the CCTV in, in the first place? What difference does that make? You have been critical of CCTV in general (with little credible evidence to support your argument) but you have not been critical of the council for installing it, or the way they have installed it. That is what I mean by being critical. And even if you have been critical, 'one swallow doesn't make a summer'.
|
|
|
|
|
Feb 18 2011, 08:04 PM
|
Advanced Member
Group: Members
Posts: 2,452
Joined: 31-October 10
Member No.: 1,212
|
QUOTE (dannyboy @ Feb 18 2011, 01:15 PM) Does it bollocks. If you gather all the comments and evidence from all the media etc available then I fail to see how any one can say the representatives of WBC, councillors, officers, and certain employees you know the two, they have not all been singing from the same hymn sheet? To be completely pro council you would have to say they have been issuing conflicting statements to say the least? If you take the other extreme you could argue that they have been lying through their teeth? I fail to see how even a Saint could infer that the statements issued were not confusing at least? We need answers to my questions and others forum members questions in previous posts? Are we going to get them? User and Dannyboy have lost all credibility as far as I can deduce as they seem to be the only two who cannot see the obvious even when it is staring them in the face? I would even believe they are members of the flat earth society? How can any taxpayer have any faith in a local authority that shows such contempt for the people who pay their wages? They must be made accountable and we must have transparency or the whole system of local government will collapse.
--------------------
Vexatious Candidate?
|
|
|
|
|
Feb 18 2011, 09:36 PM
|
Advanced Member
Group: Members
Posts: 2,452
Joined: 31-October 10
Member No.: 1,212
|
QUOTE (Sidney @ Feb 18 2011, 08:42 PM) Cognosco are you from the Tax Payers Alliance Watch the pennies and the pounds look after themselves society? Someone has to ensure WBC are accountable? I am fed up with all politicians and locale authorities of all parties being economic with the truth I just wish they would call a spade a spade that way we could have more respect for them? It should not be the norm for politicians to mislead the electorate should it? What has happened to our public servants standards when all you get from them is spin or downright lies?
--------------------
Vexatious Candidate?
|
|
|
|
|
|
2 User(s) are reading this topic (2 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
0 Members:
|
|