Printable Version of Topic
Click here to view this topic in its original format
Newbury Today Forum _ Newbury News _ CCTV hub will move to Maidenhead
Posted by: Iommi Dec 10 2009, 09:09 AM
I would imagine there will be operators feeling bad about the loss of their jobs, but while there might be a saving of £100,000.00, it might come as a reduced service as well.
I have heard that the cameras will not be operated at night; only on record mode. Also, we lose the local knowledge the current operators might have, which under certain circumstances, can help to save police time.
Posted by: JeffG Dec 10 2009, 11:10 AM
While I regret losing a local operation, is local knowledge that important? Each camera will be labelled with its location which can be passed to emergency services who do have that knowledge.
Posted by: Iommi Dec 10 2009, 11:32 AM
An example from the another site, all alleged of course.
QUOTE
If I may give one example, (and this is when D** worked there) I can recall a shoplifter being caught by shop staff, marched round to stand in front of a camera, (by which time the Police had been called) and a call went out from CCTV "it's ok. it's G**** G******", and to save a bit of time, the images were stored and they went round and arrested him that evening.
All that local knowledge will be "lost like tears in the rain"
Anyone care to guess what the Officers behind the original 'Shop Safe' scheme think of this? I could tell you but the swear filter couldn't handle it. (there may have to be another Hitler parody)
All that local knowledge will be "lost like tears in the rain"
Anyone care to guess what the Officers behind the original 'Shop Safe' scheme think of this? I could tell you but the swear filter couldn't handle it. (there may have to be another Hitler parody)
Posted by: Good Boy Racer Dec 10 2009, 11:44 AM
QUOTE (Iommi @ Dec 10 2009, 09:09 AM) 
I would imagine there will be operators feeling bad about the loss of their jobs, but while there might be a saving of £100,000.00, it might come as a reduced service as well.
I have heard that the cameras will not be operated at night; only on record mode. Also, we lose the local knowledge the current operators might have, which under certain circumstances, can help to save police time.
I have heard that the cameras will not be operated at night; only on record mode. Also, we lose the local knowledge the current operators might have, which under certain circumstances, can help to save police time.
Hold on, you are saying that these cameras are not going to be operated by someone, only on
record? I know exactly what Newbury is like after midnight, ive seen it and been there to be honest with you. This isn't good.
Posted by: Iommi Dec 10 2009, 11:50 AM
QUOTE (Good Boy Racer @ Dec 10 2009, 11:44 AM)
Hold on, you are saying that these cameras are not going to be operated by someone, only on
record? I know exactly what Newbury is like after midnight, ive seen it and been there to be honest with you. This isn't good.
record? I know exactly what Newbury is like after midnight, ive seen it and been there to be honest with you. This isn't good.
Allegedly, they will not be manned at night.
Posted by: JeffG Dec 10 2009, 11:56 AM
QUOTE (Good Boy Racer @ Dec 10 2009, 11:44 AM)
I know exactly what Newbury is like after midnight, ive seen it and been there to be honest with you. This isn't good.
You do have the option not to be in (central) Newbury after midnight.
Posted by: Iommi Dec 10 2009, 12:34 PM
QUOTE (JeffG @ Dec 10 2009, 11:56 AM)
You do have the option not to be in (central) Newbury after midnight.
Yes, and some might not.
Posted by: Biker1 Dec 10 2009, 01:14 PM
If one had to be cut to save expenditure given the choice, which one would you choose............
The Newbury CCTV Control Centre .................. or the Green Goblin Army?
Posted by: Bill1 Dec 10 2009, 01:58 PM
QUOTE (JeffG @ Dec 10 2009, 11:56 AM)
You do have the option not to be in (central) Newbury after midnight.
You should also be free to be where you want when you want and be safe.
Posted by: Berkshirelad Dec 10 2009, 02:00 PM
QUOTE (Iommi @ Dec 10 2009, 11:32 AM)
An example from the another site, all alleged of course.
I hope that the example provided is alleged as private security staff/store employees do not have the authority to march anybody anywhere.
Posted by: JeffG Dec 10 2009, 03:05 PM
QUOTE (Berkshirelad @ Dec 10 2009, 02:00 PM)
I hope that the example provided is alleged as private security staff/store employees do not have the authority to march anybody anywhere.
If you apply that argument literally, that means that a store's security staff would be powerless to stop someone leaving the store after picking something up and walking out without paying.
Edit: Unless, of course, a public street camera outside the store was meant.
Posted by: ossy1 Dec 10 2009, 04:16 PM
QUOTE (JeffG @ Dec 10 2009, 11:10 AM)
While I regret losing a local operation, is local knowledge that important? Each camera will be labelled with its location which can be passed to emergency services who do have that knowledge.
JeffG this would be a disaster, The operators do a great job and speak directly to the police using police radios. It takes a lot more time to pass information by phone. It's not just about local knowledge it's about other operations too. CCTV is accesable to the police whilst on the doorstep. If an officer needs CCTV now they will have t otravel from Newbury to Maidenhead to collect it!!!!
They also have a direct link to local shops and pick up things much quicker that way. They know where officers are when they are in trouble and can get others officers to them quicker, they also pick up things happening before any member of public can make a call. From an operational police point of view it's a disaster...
Posted by: Iommi Dec 10 2009, 04:20 PM
QUOTE (Berkshirelad @ Dec 10 2009, 02:00 PM)
I hope that the example provided is alleged as private security staff/store employees do not have the authority to march anybody anywhere.
That's not true, I have seen store security forcibly apprehended a suspect off premises.
As for the out-sourcing, it can only mean a less useful service. I therefore suspect the crims will realise this also.
Posted by: user23 Dec 10 2009, 06:53 PM
Who here is in favour of tax rises to pay for a continued CCTV service in Newbury?
Posted by: leigh Dec 10 2009, 07:39 PM
Hello
Posted by: JeffG Dec 10 2009, 07:48 PM
QUOTE (ossy1 @ Dec 10 2009, 04:16 PM)
JeffG this would be a disaster
Thanks for giving us (or me mainly) more of an insight into how the CCTV cameras are used. I wasn't saying in my post that it didn't matter - not having the facts, it was more of a question, which you have now answered.
And thanks to Leigh for his input, which I haven't fully read yet.
And yes, User23, I would be happy for more of my Council Tax being spent on keeping a local control room. (Perhaps there are less useful projects that could supply the extra funding.)
Posted by: On the edge Dec 10 2009, 08:16 PM
Quite surprised they haven't gone the whole way. Why can't this be done in India? After all, its simply a data stream. The basic 'watching' could also be done by a non English speaking employee - there is no direct customer contact; so potentially cheaper still. Indeed, most of the local government administration could be similarly outsourced - following the banks and telephone companies etc. Potential to save huge sums.
Posted by: Iommi Dec 10 2009, 08:28 PM
QUOTE (user23 @ Dec 10 2009, 06:53 PM)
Who here is in favour of tax rises to pay for a continued CCTV service in Newbury?
How much would £100,000.00 add to the bill? In any case, why would there be a tax rise, isn't the CCTV an established cost? Mind you there was the wasted money from the upgrade that didn't happen, apparently.
Posted by: user23 Dec 10 2009, 08:54 PM
QUOTE (Iommi @ Dec 10 2009, 08:28 PM)
How much would £100,000.00 add to the bill? In any case, why would there be a tax rise, isn't the CCTV an established cost?
£100,000.00 is probably quite a lot of social care for the elderly I would imagine and the need for this sort of service is growing all the time hence the alleged overspend, as I understand it.If we really want this continuing CCTV service in Newbury, someone needs to pay for it.
Posted by: Iommi Dec 10 2009, 09:09 PM
QUOTE (user23 @ Dec 10 2009, 08:54 PM)
£100,000.00 is probably quite a lot of social care for the elderly I would imagine and the need for this sort of service is growing all the time hence the alleged overspend, as I understand it. If we really want this continuing CCTV service in Newbury, someone needs to pay for it.
It was a while ago you thought that over double this was a rather small, almost insignificant amount of the overall budget. Now you spin it to say that the elderly would otherwise suffer.
Get rid of CCTV, I don't care, I am hardly in a position to worry about it, but I suspect there are other people that are. The police for instance, their work burden will now grow which means the tax burden will shift to their responsibility (and our council tax, which is payed by some people that don't even use Newbury town).
Posted by: user23 Dec 10 2009, 09:25 PM
QUOTE (Iommi @ Dec 10 2009, 09:09 PM)
It was a while ago you thought that over double this was a rather small, almost insignificant amount of the overall budget. Now you spin it to say that the elderly would otherwise suffer.
Get rid of CCTV, I don't care, I am hardly in a position to worry about it, but I suspect there are other people that are. The police for instance, their work burden will now grow which means the tax burden will shift to their responsibility (and our council tax, which is payed by some people that don't even use Newbury town).
It's all relative depending on what you're discussing.Get rid of CCTV, I don't care, I am hardly in a position to worry about it, but I suspect there are other people that are. The police for instance, their work burden will now grow which means the tax burden will shift to their responsibility (and our council tax, which is payed by some people that don't even use Newbury town).
I'd be interested to see which crimes it had actually solved, particularly after midnight, compared to the current cost.
Whenever I walk through Newbury after midnight the place is largely deserted.
Posted by: On the edge Dec 10 2009, 09:30 PM
QUOTE (user23 @ Dec 10 2009, 09:25 PM)
It's all relative depending on what you're discussing.
I'd be interested to see which crimes it had actually solved, particularly after midnight, compared to the current cost.
Whenever I walk through Newbury after midnight the place is largely deserted.
I'd be interested to see which crimes it had actually solved, particularly after midnight, compared to the current cost.
Whenever I walk through Newbury after midnight the place is largely deserted.
So then, if its down to cost - outsourcing overseas wins hands down over Maidenhead, an even higher cost area than West Berks.
Posted by: Darren Dec 10 2009, 09:37 PM
Add a 10p levy to each drink sold within the CCTV catchment area to pay for it.
Posted by: user23 Dec 10 2009, 09:44 PM
QUOTE (Darren @ Dec 10 2009, 09:37 PM)
Add a 10p levy to each drink sold within the CCTV catchment area to pay for it.
Not a bad idea, but CCTV is used during the day too.Perhaps a voluntary tax of 10p on all purchases in town?
Posted by: Iommi Dec 10 2009, 10:15 PM
QUOTE (user23 @ Dec 10 2009, 09:25 PM)
It's all relative depending on what you're discussing. I'd be interested to see which crimes it had actually solved, particularly after midnight, compared to the current cost. Whenever I walk through Newbury after midnight the place is largely deserted.
If so, then why have we been wasting tax payers money on this up to now, when it could have gone to more deserving causes?
Posted by: Darren Dec 10 2009, 10:16 PM
and pubs seem to open at 10 these days, for the hardened drinker. How about charging places like the Snooty Fox a fee for taking over part of the pavement for their smokers area?
Posted by: user23 Dec 11 2009, 08:16 AM
QUOTE (Darren @ Dec 10 2009, 10:16 PM)
and pubs seem to open at 10 these days, for the hardened drinker. How about charging places like the Snooty Fox a fee for taking over part of the pavement for their smokers area?
Do these cameras assist in apprehending more shoplifters or more aggressive drunks?
Posted by: Iommi Dec 11 2009, 08:46 AM
QUOTE (user23 @ Dec 11 2009, 08:16 AM)
Do these cameras assist in apprehending more shoplifters or more aggressive drunks?
Yes and I would imagine they assist in other ways as well, not to mention as a deterrent for some. If not, why have we been 'wasting' our council tax money on this up to now?
Posted by: ossy1 Dec 11 2009, 10:54 AM
QUOTE (user23 @ Dec 11 2009, 08:16 AM)
Do these cameras assist in apprehending more shoplifters or more aggressive drunks?
Yes very much so, they also catch alot going on after midnight that would otherwise go unseen. As you said town is largely deserted after midnight so anything going on is observed more intently.
When there are the odd fights outside the pubs CCTV can track the offender and direct the police to them. It's not just shoplifters and drunks they catch. Missing persons, drink drivers, dangerous drivers, anything really CCTV can have an input.
Posted by: Darren Dec 11 2009, 11:40 AM
They also reduce the Fear of Crime too.
Posted by: Roost Dec 11 2009, 07:46 PM
Just seen this topic.
What a bl00dy disaster!!
A short sighted appoach if ever I saw one. Once it's gone to Maidenhead, it will be nigh on impossible logistically and financially to get it back. It is in the interests of everyone who lives in areas covered by CCTV to have the control room in the town.
Referring back to an earlier post, let's let the Green goblins go! By my reckoning that would save around £400,000 in salaries alone!
Also, where has the money that was allocated initially to the upgrade that they talk about gone to? Surely it should only have been a matter of putting it out to tender, choosing the best (cheapest?!!) option, getting it done an dthen paying the money.
This would never happen in a democracy.......
Posted by: deej Dec 12 2009, 08:58 PM
QUOTE (Darren @ Dec 10 2009, 10:16 PM)
and pubs seem to open at 10 these days, for the hardened drinker. How about charging places like the Snooty Fox a fee for taking over part of the pavement for their smokers area?
As far as I am aware drinking in the Snooty Fox or having a smoke outside is legal, although some people seem to want all pubs closed down and smoking banned. Shouldn't the fines raised from illegal actions that are caught by the cameras be used to subsidise this service?
Posted by: Strafin Dec 12 2009, 09:09 PM
QUOTE (deej @ Dec 12 2009, 08:58 PM)
As far as I am aware drinking in the Snooty Fox or having a smoke outside is legal, although some people seem to want all pubs closed down and smoking banned. Shouldn't the fines raised from illegal actions that are caught by the cameras be used to subsidise this service?
Apparently the Snooty Fox are taking over a large portion of the Market Place for their own private enterprise and I think the post referred to this rather than the normal everyday drinking and smoking.
Posted by: user23 Dec 13 2009, 10:50 AM
QUOTE (Strafin @ Dec 12 2009, 09:09 PM)
Apparently the Snooty Fox are taking over a large portion of the Market Place for their own private enterprise and I think the post referred to this rather than the normal everyday drinking and smoking.
Isn't this legal too?They could have been referring to the pub, it gets quite busy in there after midnight.
Posted by: HJD Dec 13 2009, 11:01 AM
QUOTE (deej @ Dec 12 2009, 08:58 PM)
As far as I am aware drinking in the Snooty Fox or having a smoke outside is legal, although some people seem to want all pubs closed down and smoking banned. Shouldn't the fines raised from illegal actions that are caught by the cameras be used to subsidise this service?
You are quite correct, but what the original poster referred to was that the Snooty Fox have actually cordoned off what is apparently the PUBLIC PAVEMENT outside the pub for use as a Smoking Area. I seem to remember a couple of years ago Sid & Veronica Alden were made to remove the hanging baskets ( that made the place a lot more attractive than it looks now i may add !! ), from outside the 'Bricklayers' for fear of endangering the public, but somehow a blind eye is being turned to the former !!!
Posted by: blackdog Dec 13 2009, 06:18 PM
QUOTE (HJD @ Dec 13 2009, 11:01 AM)
You are quite correct, but what the original poster referred to was that the Snooty Fox have actually cordoned off what is apparently the PUBLIC PAVEMENT outside the pub for use as a Smoking Area. I seem to remember a couple of years ago Sid & Veronica Alden were made to remove the hanging baskets ( that made the place a lot more attractive than it looks now i may add !! ), from outside the 'Bricklayers' for fear of endangering the public, but somehow a blind eye is being turned to the former !!!
What makes you think a blind eye is being turned? The Snooty Fox applied to WBC for permission to put tables on the pavement (as they also applied to use part of the Market Place). On neither occasion did they get everything they wanted but they have been granted permission to use the pavement in the way they are doing - as, no doubt have the Hogshead, Ask, Brasserie Gerard and Strada (why no complaints about these?).
Posted by: HJD Dec 13 2009, 06:40 PM
QUOTE (blackdog @ Dec 13 2009, 06:18 PM)
What makes you think a blind eye is being turned? The Snooty Fox applied to WBC for permission to put tables on the pavement (as they also applied to use part of the Market Place). On neither occasion did they get everything they wanted but they have been granted permission to use the pavement in the way they are doing - as, no doubt have the Hogshead, Ask, Brasserie Gerard and Strada (why no complaints about these?).
Well, excuse me for my mistake (s) !. So the obstruction of the pavement around any of the above establishments ( & others i may have missed ) does not constitute any type of offence, correct.
Posted by: user23 Dec 13 2009, 08:37 PM
QUOTE (HJD @ Dec 13 2009, 06:40 PM)
Well, excuse me for my mistake (s) !. So the obstruction of the pavement around any of the above establishments ( & others i may have missed ) does not constitute any type of offence, correct.
If you apply for permission and it's granted that's right, it's not an offence.
Posted by: Strafin Dec 13 2009, 09:14 PM
Just to get back on track, surely the whole point is that CCTV is TV, so it can be beamed anywhere and operated from anywhere so does it matter where the office is?
Posted by: Iommi Dec 13 2009, 11:16 PM
QUOTE (Strafin @ Dec 13 2009, 09:14 PM)
Just to get back on track, surely the whole point is that CCTV is TV, so it can be beamed anywhere and operated from anywhere so does it matter where the office is?
Well it depends if you have bothered to read the thread or not!
Posted by: TallDarkAndHandsome Dec 14 2009, 10:12 AM
QUOTE (Iommi @ Dec 10 2009, 09:09 AM)
I would imagine there will be operators feeling bad about the loss of their jobs, but while there might be a saving of £100,000.00, it might come as a reduced service as well.
I have heard that the cameras will not be operated at night; only on record mode. Also, we lose the local knowledge the current operators might have, which under certain circumstances, can help to save police time.
I have heard that the cameras will not be operated at night; only on record mode. Also, we lose the local knowledge the current operators might have, which under certain circumstances, can help to save police time.
I'm not sure of the relevance of where the CCTV is located and whether it is recorded or someone is looking at it 'Live'. In this day and age if a violent crime takes place such as GBH, Assault, attemped Murder or Murder the Police would not 'intervene' until the crime had finished taking place. Elf & Safety don't you know.
http://www.womenagainstrape.net/war%20website/PressCoverage/ObserverMarch07.htm
....So you may as well just record 'crime' on tape.
Posted by: Iommi Dec 14 2009, 10:41 AM
QUOTE (TallDarkAndHandsome @ Dec 14 2009, 10:12 AM)
I'm not sure of the relevance of where the CCTV is located and whether it is recorded or someone is looking at it 'Live'. In this day and age if a violent crime takes place such as GBH, Assault, attemped Murder or Murder the Police would not 'intervene' until the crime had finished taking place. Elf & Safety don't you know.
http://www.womenagainstrape.net/war%20website/PressCoverage/ObserverMarch07.htm
....So you may as well just record 'crime' on tape.
http://www.womenagainstrape.net/war%20website/PressCoverage/ObserverMarch07.htm
....So you may as well just record 'crime' on tape.
I would like to refer you to my previous post in this thread.
Posted by: GMR Dec 15 2009, 06:57 PM
I was interested in reading in the Newbury Advertiser today that WBC have said that the CCTV team's move was a good idea and was a potentially a 'win win' situation. But I've talked to a few police officers and they have told me that they disagree with the move, and our resident forum patrolling police officers also don't think it is a good idea. Talking to people in the street (which I have done) and seeing the replies on here nobody thinks it is a good idea other than WBC. Either they know something we don't or they are totally out of tune with the people they represent in Newbury and surrounding areas.
it is also interesting to note that when the NWN asked Thames Valley police their take on it they decided not to comment. So reading between the lines not even the police back this 'brilliant' idea of theirs. The conclusions one can draw from this is that this is a money exercise only and the public's welfare must take second billing.
Posted by: Bloggo Dec 16 2009, 09:20 AM
QUOTE (GMR @ Dec 15 2009, 06:57 PM)
I was interested in reading in the Newbury Advertiser today that WBC have said that the CCTV team's move was a good idea and was a potentially a 'win win' situation. But I've talked to a few police officers and they have told me that they disagree with the move, and our resident forum patrolling police officers also don't think it is a good idea. Talking to people in the street (which I have done) and seeing the replies on here nobody thinks it is a good idea other than WBC. Either they know something we don't or they are totally out of tune with the people they represent in Newbury and surrounding areas.
it is also interesting to note that when the NWN asked Thames Valley police their take on it they decided not to comment. So reading between the lines not even the police back this 'brilliant' idea of theirs. The conclusions one can draw from this is that this is a money exercise only and the public's welfare must take second billing.
it is also interesting to note that when the NWN asked Thames Valley police their take on it they decided not to comment. So reading between the lines not even the police back this 'brilliant' idea of theirs. The conclusions one can draw from this is that this is a money exercise only and the public's welfare must take second billing.
The answer is that West Berks Council are £1m in deficit, probably because they have not planned their budget very well.
Losing the CCTV department will save them money. Never mind putting the public at risk.
So you can expect your Council tax to be rising again next year to compensate for the "oversight"
Posted by: user23 Dec 16 2009, 06:22 PM
QUOTE (Bloggo @ Dec 16 2009, 09:20 AM)
The answer is that West Berks Council are £1m in deficit, probably because they have not planned their budget very well.
Losing the CCTV department will save them money. Never mind putting the public at risk.
So you can expect your Council tax to be rising again next year to compensate for the "oversight"
How could they have planned for the current recession?
Losing the CCTV department will save them money. Never mind putting the public at risk.
So you can expect your Council tax to be rising again next year to compensate for the "oversight"
Posted by: Strafin Dec 16 2009, 06:55 PM
QUOTE (user23 @ Dec 16 2009, 06:22 PM)
How could they have planned for the current recession?
How would the recession affect the council?
Posted by: Iommi Dec 16 2009, 07:16 PM
QUOTE (Strafin @ Dec 16 2009, 06:55 PM)
How would the recession affect the council?
Their costs go up and receipts go down, mainly.
Posted by: GMR Dec 16 2009, 07:27 PM
QUOTE (Bloggo @ Dec 16 2009, 09:20 AM)
The answer is that West Berks Council are £1m in deficit, probably because they have not planned their budget very well.
Losing the CCTV department will save them money. Never mind putting the public at risk.
So you can expect your Council tax to be rising again next year to compensate for the "oversight"
Losing the CCTV department will save them money. Never mind putting the public at risk.
So you can expect your Council tax to be rising again next year to compensate for the "oversight"
So it is not a 'win-win' situation but a hope that they save money and sod everything else.
Posted by: Strafin Dec 16 2009, 08:44 PM
QUOTE (Iommi @ Dec 16 2009, 07:16 PM)
Their costs go up and receipts go down, mainly.
I'm sorry, I just don't see it. Council tax is unchanged, as are the costs. There might be more people claiming benefits and therefore a little more help being given out but other than that I don't see it.
Posted by: Iommi Dec 16 2009, 09:13 PM
QUOTE (Strafin @ Dec 16 2009, 08:44 PM)
I'm sorry, I just don't see it. Council tax is unchanged, as are the costs. There might be more people claiming benefits and therefore a little more help being given out but other than that I don't see it.
Whether you see it or not, doesn't matter, but it is true.
http://thegovmonitor.com/world_news/britain/uk-recession-causes-sharp-drop-in-council-income-2243.html
* One in five councils is providing local people with help with their mortgage payments
* Eight in ten councils have concentrated resources on ensuring local people receive take up of the benefits they are eligible for
* Half of councils have set up or supported credit unions to help local people borrow money from a reliable source
* One in four councils has allowed businesses to defer paying their rates
* Seven in ten councils have provided or plan to provide tailored support to local business
Posted by: Strafin Dec 16 2009, 09:19 PM
QUOTE (Iommi @ Dec 16 2009, 09:13 PM)
Whether you see it or not, doesn't matter, but it is true.
Could you please elaborate a bit? How does a recession affect the council? They have the same income, no matter what, and generally since the recession kicked in stuff has gotten cheaper.
Posted by: Iommi Dec 16 2009, 09:22 PM
QUOTE (Strafin @ Dec 16 2009, 09:19 PM)
Could you please elaborate a bit? How does a recession affect the council? They have the same income, no matter what
No they don't.
QUOTE (Strafin @ Dec 16 2009, 09:19 PM)
and generally since the recession kicked in stuff has gotten cheaper.
http://thegovmonitor.com/world_news/britain/uk-recession-causes-sharp-drop-in-council-income-2243.html
* Sales of land, council buildings and other capital projects have fallen by £2.7bn since 2007/08
* Interest earned on councils' cash deposits has fallen by £1.3bn since 2007/08 due to low interest rates.
* One in five councils is providing local people with help with their mortgage payments
* Eight in ten councils have concentrated resources on ensuring local people receive take up of the benefits they are eligible for
* Half of councils have set up or supported credit unions to help local people borrow money from a reliable source
* One in four councils has allowed businesses to defer paying their rates
* Seven in ten councils have provided or plan to provide tailored support to local business
http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2009/jan/13/local-government-recession-councils
Posted by: Strafin Dec 16 2009, 09:32 PM
Wel that's not really very conclusive, there is nothing there coming from any source other than the LGA, however it did make me think about revenue streams that I hadn't thought about that could be affected. The piece raised some points about expenditure that I wouldn't have thought about either but I don't really believe the figures given. Well done Iommi though, you have certainly raised some good and interesting points.
Posted by: Iommi Dec 16 2009, 09:33 PM
QUOTE (Strafin @ Dec 16 2009, 09:32 PM)
Wel that's not really very conclusive, there is nothing there coming from any source other than the LGA, however it did make me think about revenue streams that I hadn't thought about that could be affected. The piece raised some points about expenditure that I wouldn't have thought about either but I don't really believe the figures given. Well done Iommi though, you have certainly raised some good and interesting points.
I should have added a provision that one should, like you have, treat any information with caution.
Posted by: user23 Dec 17 2009, 08:28 AM
QUOTE (Strafin @ Dec 16 2009, 06:55 PM)
How would the recession affect the council?
Less income from new housing for a start and Iommi has highlighted many other reasons.All budgets take into account X amount of growth a year and the income from that is factored into their budget. If that grown doesn't happen, like any organisation there's a shortfall.
As they said, whether you see it or not, doesn't matter, but it is true.
Posted by: TallDarkAndHandsome Dec 17 2009, 10:38 AM
QUOTE (user23 @ Dec 17 2009, 08:28 AM)
Less income from new housing for a start and Iommi has highlighted many other reasons.
All budgets take into account X amount of growth a year and the income from that is factored into their budget. If that grown doesn't happen, like any organisation there's a shortfall.
As they said, whether you see it or not, doesn't matter, but it is true.
All budgets take into account X amount of growth a year and the income from that is factored into their budget. If that grown doesn't happen, like any organisation there's a shortfall.
As they said, whether you see it or not, doesn't matter, but it is true.
So basically what we are saying is we should expect a big % increase in our Council tax next year. Great. How about looking at methods of reducing expenditure?
Posted by: JeffG Dec 17 2009, 10:42 AM
Apart from sale of land and income from investments, all the other examples given are to do with increased outgoings and nothing to do with income.
I imagine that the current disastrously low interest rates have quite a bit to do with reduced income. Perhaps things will improve when we come out of recession and inflation gets going again.
Posted by: user23 Dec 17 2009, 01:35 PM
QUOTE (TallDarkAndHandsome @ Dec 17 2009, 10:38 AM)
So basically what we are saying is we should expect a big % increase in our Council tax next year. Great. How about looking at methods of reducing expenditure?
Great idea, how about them moving the CCTV hub to Maidenhead.
Posted by: Bloggo Dec 17 2009, 01:46 PM
QUOTE (user23 @ Dec 17 2009, 01:35 PM)
Great idea, how about them moving the CCTV hub to Maidenhead.
Brilliant, seldom do you see the thread go full circle
Posted by: Iommi Dec 17 2009, 01:48 PM
QUOTE (JeffG @ Dec 17 2009, 10:42 AM)
Apart from sale of land and income from investments, all the other examples given are to do with increased outgoings and nothing to do with income.
WHICH IS WHY I SAID EXPENDITURE GOES UP AND AND RECEIPTS GO DOWN...WHAT IS HARD TO UNDERSTAND HERE?
The examples are just that...examples. There are other items like parking revenue can decline and people default on council tax, etc...
..there are some knuckle heads on this board!
Posted by: JeffG Dec 17 2009, 03:29 PM
I have reported the previous post.
Posted by: Bloggo Dec 17 2009, 03:46 PM
QUOTE (JeffG @ Dec 17 2009, 03:29 PM)
I have reported the previous post.
Why did you do that? I would have thought you were big enough to look after yourself?
Posted by: TallDarkAndHandsome Dec 17 2009, 03:53 PM
QUOTE (Bloggo @ Dec 17 2009, 03:46 PM)
Why did you do that? I would have thought you were big enough to look after yourself?
I have reported Bloggo for advocating violence.
Posted by: Bloggo Dec 17 2009, 03:57 PM
QUOTE (TallDarkAndHandsome @ Dec 17 2009, 03:53 PM)
I have reported Bloggo for advocating violence.
Well, I am going to report you for reporting me.
Posted by: Iommi Dec 17 2009, 04:06 PM
QUOTE (JeffG @ Dec 17 2009, 03:29 PM)
I have reported the previous post.
Posted by: JeffG Dec 17 2009, 04:40 PM
Obviously this is a source of great amusement.
My original knuckle-headed comment was regarding posts #50 and #52 which linked to a newspaper article about council income, said nothing about increased expenditure, then quoted parts of it out of context which were nothing to do with income.
I thought my comment was a perfectly reasonable one to make.
Posted by: Iommi Dec 17 2009, 07:59 PM
QUOTE (JeffG @ Dec 17 2009, 04:40 PM)
Obviously this is a source of great amusement.
My original knuckle-headed comment was regarding posts #50 and #52 which linked to a newspaper article about council income, said nothing about increased expenditure, then quoted parts of it out of context which were nothing to do with income.
I thought my comment was a perfectly reasonable one to make.
My original knuckle-headed comment was regarding posts #50 and #52 which linked to a newspaper article about council income, said nothing about increased expenditure, then quoted parts of it out of context which were nothing to do with income.
I thought my comment was a perfectly reasonable one to make.
I post here in good faith and at my leisure. I thought that I might support my assertion with one or two links (picked after a minute or two of trying). The person I was engaging with, agreed somewhat with what I said. Further more, my original point is still true under any measure.
Your post was almost spitefully made, so I replied in equal measure. Regardless of whether I proved my point or not, no one has posted evidence that my original point is incorrect.
You would do well to make this discussion worth while if you could actually contribute something rather than just sitting there deriding posts without any substantiated counter claims.
I therefore feel your post was not reasonable and indeed, rather obtuse.
Posted by: Bloggo Dec 17 2009, 08:04 PM
QUOTE (JeffG @ Dec 17 2009, 04:40 PM)
Obviously this is a source of great amusement.
My original knuckle-headed comment was regarding posts #50 and #52 which linked to a newspaper article about council income, said nothing about increased expenditure, then quoted parts of it out of context which were nothing to do with income.
I thought my comment was a perfectly reasonable one to make.
My original knuckle-headed comment was regarding posts #50 and #52 which linked to a newspaper article about council income, said nothing about increased expenditure, then quoted parts of it out of context which were nothing to do with income.
I thought my comment was a perfectly reasonable one to make.
Jeff, you seem to be getting very up-tight about threads on this forum.
It's meant to be a source of information sharing, personal opinions and oh yes, fun.
Nobody is knocking you on a personal level.
Posted by: Darren Jan 14 2010, 09:02 PM
I see this is being discussed tonight...
Behind closed doors!!!!
Posted by: Bloggo Jan 21 2010, 10:59 AM
QUOTE (Darren @ Jan 14 2010, 09:02 PM)
I see this is being discussed tonight...
Behind closed doors!!!!
Behind closed doors!!!!
Yes, and the result is not only predicable but also a little draconian.
What a short sighted and inept decision to move the camera monitoring to Maidenhead.
This will only raise the incident of crime against the shop owners and people of Newbury, Thatcham and Hungerford. It will also affect the response times against reported crimes as the local knowledge will be totally lost.
I think West Berks Council has lost sight of who it is supposed to be representing.
The tax payer not only contributes to paying the bills but also elects councillors to represent us.
Why can't we know the financial implications of this decision?
Why can't we know how many jobs will be lost and more importantly why can't we be told which of the Councillors voted for this ill conceived plan.
It is reported that the reason is "commerciial confidentiality" What a lot of tosh.
Posted by: Biker1 Jan 21 2010, 11:15 AM
QUOTE (Bloggo @ Jan 21 2010, 10:59 AM)
Yes, and the result is not only predicable but also a little draconian.
What a short sighted and inept decision to move the camera monitoring to Maidenhead.
This will only raise the incident of crime against the shop owners and people of Newbury, Thatcham and Hungerford. It will also affect the response times against reported crimes as the local knowledge will be totally lost.
I think West Berks Council has lost sight of who it is supposed to be representing.
The tax payer not only contributes to paying the bills but also elects councillors to represent us.
Why can't we know the financial implications of this decision?
Why can't we know how many jobs will be lost and more importantly why can't we be told which of the Councillors voted for this ill conceived plan.
It is reported that the reason is "commerciial confidentiality" What a lot of tosh.
What a short sighted and inept decision to move the camera monitoring to Maidenhead.
This will only raise the incident of crime against the shop owners and people of Newbury, Thatcham and Hungerford. It will also affect the response times against reported crimes as the local knowledge will be totally lost.
I think West Berks Council has lost sight of who it is supposed to be representing.
The tax payer not only contributes to paying the bills but also elects councillors to represent us.
Why can't we know the financial implications of this decision?
Why can't we know how many jobs will be lost and more importantly why can't we be told which of the Councillors voted for this ill conceived plan.
It is reported that the reason is "commerciial confidentiality" What a lot of tosh.
HEAR HEAR!!
Powered by Invision Power Board (http://www.invisionboard.com)
© Invision Power Services (http://www.invisionpower.com)