IPB

Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

55 Pages V  « < 31 32 33 34 35 > »   
Reply to this topicStart new topic
> Newbury's CCTV
user23
post Jan 24 2011, 10:45 PM
Post #641


Advanced Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 4,024
Joined: 14-May 09
Member No.: 50



QUOTE (Iommi @ Jan 24 2011, 10:32 PM) *
It is not zero evidence; there is plenty of evidence. Proof is the one thing few of us are party to. To me, it seems West Berkshire Council have approached the subject far too casual and it has somewhat blown-up in their face. Thanks to attack-dogs like Richard Garvie, the council might have to start raising their game.
So I keep hearing, we've not seen any on here though.

For me the only thing Garvie's amusing antics raise is a smile as he goes from one gaffe to another and "bodge jobs everything".
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Richard Garvie
post Jan 24 2011, 10:48 PM
Post #642


Advanced Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 2,974
Joined: 8-September 10
Member No.: 1,076



QUOTE (Iommi @ Jan 24 2011, 10:44 PM) *
As with user23, I am capable of 'discrete' tongue-in-cheek comments as well! wink.gif


Does that make user an elephant???
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Iommi
post Jan 24 2011, 10:49 PM
Post #643


Advanced Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 4,138
Joined: 13-May 09
From: Newbury
Member No.: 20



QUOTE (user23 @ Jan 24 2011, 10:45 PM) *
So I keep hearing, we've not seen any on here though.

I'm suspecting the only thing Garvie's amusing antics raise with some are a smile as he goes from one gaffe to another and "bodge jobs everything".

On the balance of replies, and according to those that care and post, 'bodgegate' amuses no-one apart from you. Many would agree with him in fact.

West Berkshire Council have probably bodged the CCTV system in Newbury and with a little 'help' from the NWN, it seems, are seeking to obfuscate the truth getting out.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Richard Garvie
post Jan 24 2011, 10:49 PM
Post #644


Advanced Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 2,974
Joined: 8-September 10
Member No.: 1,076



QUOTE (user23 @ Jan 24 2011, 10:45 PM) *
So I keep hearing, we've not seen any on here though.

For me the only thing Garvie's amusing antics raise is a smile as he goes from one gaffe to another and "bodge jobs everything".


Well, you certainly changed your tune (again!). First the cameras were working, then they weren't and I had caused a mini crimewave single handedly, and now there is no eveidence. I really wish you would make up your mind!!! You are a gemini, right?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Richard Garvie
post Jan 24 2011, 10:50 PM
Post #645


Advanced Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 2,974
Joined: 8-September 10
Member No.: 1,076



QUOTE (Iommi @ Jan 24 2011, 10:49 PM) *
On the balance of replies, and according to those that care and post, 'bodgegate' amuses no-one apart from you. Many would agree with him in fact.

West Berkshire Council have probably bodged the CCTV system in Newbury and with a little 'help' from the NWN, it seems, are seeking to obfuscate the truth getting out.


I don't believe the paper are covering this up, wait and see where it goes from here.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
user23
post Jan 24 2011, 10:54 PM
Post #646


Advanced Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 4,024
Joined: 14-May 09
Member No.: 50



QUOTE (Iommi @ Jan 24 2011, 10:49 PM) *
On the balance of replies, and according to those that care and post, 'bodgegate' amuses no-one apart from you. Many would agree with him in fact.

West Berkshire Council have probably bodged the CCTV system in Newbury and with a little 'help' from the NWN, it seems, are seeking to obfuscate the truth getting out.
Bodgegate. What a great name for it. Well done. wink.gif

Probably? I thought you had evidence to support what you say, why the probably now?

I don't see how they're seeking to obfuscate the truth getting out. There's 17 pages of madcap conspiracy theories on their website for a start.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Iommi
post Jan 24 2011, 11:00 PM
Post #647


Advanced Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 4,138
Joined: 13-May 09
From: Newbury
Member No.: 20



QUOTE (user23 @ Jan 24 2011, 10:54 PM) *
Probably? I thought you had evidence to support what you say, why the probably now?

Probably: in all likelihood; very likely. What is wrong with that? Until I/we have proof, we are not entitled to be more certain.

QUOTE (user23 @ Jan 24 2011, 10:54 PM) *
I don't see how they're seeking to obfuscate the truth getting out. There's 17 pages of madcap conspiracy theories on their website for a start.

The only conspiracy that has been muted is a reluctance by the NWN to take the council to task.

According to some, West Berkshire Council have 'bodged' the CCTV system in Newbury and the NWN have been feeble in bringing more light to the subject.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Iommi
post Jan 24 2011, 11:04 PM
Post #648


Advanced Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 4,138
Joined: 13-May 09
From: Newbury
Member No.: 20



QUOTE (Richard Garvie @ Jan 24 2011, 10:50 PM) *
I don't believe the paper are covering...

Nor do I, but their efforts have been 'mild' shall we say.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Richard Garvie
post Jan 25 2011, 08:06 AM
Post #649


Advanced Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 2,974
Joined: 8-September 10
Member No.: 1,076



QUOTE (Iommi @ Jan 24 2011, 11:04 PM) *
Nor do I, but their efforts have been 'mild' shall we say.


I know when I've gone to them directly, they printed a story two weeks running, and last week I only sent a letter to the paper in reply to Cllr Stansfield. With the council in lockdown, and everyone else keeping quiet, I doubt they had much to report. This week we know that the council have laid off the shopsafe woman, that still only 24 of the CTV cameras are actually working and we are still no closer to having that list of questions answered by the council. Hopefully there will be something in there this week.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
admin
post Jan 25 2011, 10:07 AM
Post #650


Advanced Member
***

Group: Administrators
Posts: 59
Joined: 3-March 09
Member No.: 2



Morning all. For the record (again), the NWN has not received any letters on the subject of CCTV apart from the one mentioned in the previous post from Richard Garvie which he resubmitted and which appears in this week's NWN. Can I suggest that anyone who says they have sent in letters, resubmit them to editor@newburynews.co.uk or post/hand deliver them to the NWN in Faraday Road, Newbury, RG14 2DW and they will be considered for publication next week. And yes, there will be a new CCTV story this week.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Iommi
post Jan 25 2011, 10:16 AM
Post #651


Advanced Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 4,138
Joined: 13-May 09
From: Newbury
Member No.: 20



Of course there is no proof of it, but it would seem really odd that no-one felt the need to reply after that letter in the letters page.

Admin, while we are on this subject, could some one sort out why there's no information regards writing to the paper for submitting letters on the NWN website? Email's OK, but it could do with some kind of acknowledgement, it seems to just go in a black hole.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
dannyboy
post Jan 25 2011, 10:18 AM
Post #652


Advanced Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 6,053
Joined: 14-May 09
From: Bouvetøya
Member No.: 51



QUOTE (Iommi @ Jan 25 2011, 10:16 AM) *
Of course there is no proof of it, but it would seem really odd that no-one felt the need to reply after that letter in the letters page.

Apart from the few who post on here & the habitual council naysayers, maybe, just maybe - no-one cares!
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Iommi
post Jan 25 2011, 10:19 AM
Post #653


Advanced Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 4,138
Joined: 13-May 09
From: Newbury
Member No.: 20



QUOTE (dannyboy @ Jan 25 2011, 10:18 AM) *
Apart from the few who post on here & the habitual council naysayers, maybe, just maybe - no-one cares!

You and user would like to think so, but that is patently not true.

There's a news item today about a conviction that was assisted by footage from CCTV in the high-street back in August.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
dannyboy
post Jan 25 2011, 10:24 AM
Post #654


Advanced Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 6,053
Joined: 14-May 09
From: Bouvetøya
Member No.: 51



QUOTE (Iommi @ Jan 25 2011, 10:19 AM) *
You and user would like to think so, but that is patently not true.

There's a news item today about a conviction that was assisted by footage from CCTV in the high-street back in August.

But no-one bothered to write in about the story.

A news item about the use of CCTV does not imply any public concern or interest.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Bloggo
post Jan 25 2011, 10:37 AM
Post #655


Advanced Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 1,863
Joined: 14-May 09
From: Newbury
Member No.: 41



QUOTE (dannyboy @ Jan 25 2011, 10:24 AM) *
But no-one bothered to write in about the story.

A news item about the use of CCTV does not imply any public concern or interest.

It sort of gives you a clue that there might be though don't you think?
I'm public and I am interested.
I am also a little concerned regarding the lack of clarity and visibility in the decision making processes surrounding this subject.


--------------------
Bloggo
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Iommi
post Jan 25 2011, 11:15 AM
Post #656


Advanced Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 4,138
Joined: 13-May 09
From: Newbury
Member No.: 20



QUOTE (dannyboy @ Jan 25 2011, 10:24 AM) *
But no-one bothered to write in about the story.

Allegedly no-one wrote in. At the moment is is one word against another.

QUOTE (dannyboy @ Jan 25 2011, 10:24 AM) *
A news item about the use of CCTV does not imply any public concern or interest.

Security systems should be like good referees: like they are not there. If it is true that the public and professionals are not interested, then why invest the money at all.

No letters sent is no proof there is no concern. My concern rounds my doubt in trust of our council. They claimed moving would have no affect on services at all, yet that doesn't seem the case. Anyone can reduce costs by reducing service levels.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
dannyboy
post Jan 25 2011, 11:27 AM
Post #657


Advanced Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 6,053
Joined: 14-May 09
From: Bouvetøya
Member No.: 51



QUOTE (Iommi @ Jan 25 2011, 11:15 AM) *
Allegedly no-one wrote in. At the moment is is one word against another.


, then why invest the money at all.

Modern public spending works like this -

Companies with a vested interest, in say CCTV, commission reports & studies from 'consultants' to show what a great boon to society they are. Councils get invited to 'trade shows' & 'security conferences' where they are told, by these firms that the best way to combat crime & anti social behaviour is to install CCTV. & look, here is a report which proves it!

In the mean time, the same companies ( indirectly of course ) have been busy lobbying Parliament with the same half truths. Money is available for such projects as they are flavour of the month. End result - companies do very well out of the increased spending.

I wonder what the local response would have been had it been the speed & traffic camera network which had been allegedly affected?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Iommi
post Jan 25 2011, 11:57 AM
Post #658


Advanced Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 4,138
Joined: 13-May 09
From: Newbury
Member No.: 20



What about crime stats? Surely the CCTV system should be audited for its value and effectiveness?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
dannyboy
post Jan 25 2011, 11:59 AM
Post #659


Advanced Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 6,053
Joined: 14-May 09
From: Bouvetøya
Member No.: 51



QUOTE (Iommi @ Jan 25 2011, 11:57 AM) *
What about crime stats? Surely the CCTV system should be audited for its value and effectiveness?

Once it is installed councils have to show that it was money well spent.

there are lies, **** lies & statistics......
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Iommi
post Jan 25 2011, 12:42 PM
Post #660


Advanced Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 4,138
Joined: 13-May 09
From: Newbury
Member No.: 20



QUOTE (dannyboy @ Jan 25 2011, 11:59 AM) *
Once it is installed councils have to show that it was money well spent. there are lies, **** lies & statistics......

That might be the case, but that doesn't remove the responsibility of the office to show its worth. If we are attempting to reduce costs, then it is only right we examine the effectiveness of the system and what SLA we could expect.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post

55 Pages V  « < 31 32 33 34 35 > » 
Reply to this topicStart new topic
1 User(s) are reading this topic (1 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
0 Members:

 

Lo-Fi Version Time is now: 21st January 2019 - 12:59 AM