IPB

Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

55 Pages V  « < 27 28 29 30 31 > »   
Reply to this topicStart new topic
> Newbury's CCTV
Squelchy
post Jan 22 2011, 06:43 AM
Post #561


Advanced Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 456
Joined: 14-May 09
Member No.: 47



Approx 120
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Richard Garvie
post Jan 22 2011, 09:02 AM
Post #562


Advanced Member
***

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



QUOTE (blackdog @ Jan 22 2011, 02:18 AM) *
As a matter of interest - how many cameras were being monitored 12 months ago?


In total, 100+.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
blackdog
post Jan 22 2011, 09:21 AM
Post #563


Advanced Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 2,945
Joined: 5-June 09
Member No.: 130



QUOTE (Richard Garvie @ Jan 22 2011, 09:02 AM) *
In total, 100+.


So - have I got this right?

We are saving 50% of the CCTV budget and getting less than 40% of the coverage. So the annual cost per camera is rising by over 20%.


Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
dannyboy
post Jan 22 2011, 02:25 PM
Post #564


Advanced Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 6,056
Joined: 14-May 09
From: Bouvetøya
Member No.: 51



QUOTE (Richard Garvie @ Jan 22 2011, 09:02 AM) *
In total, 100+.

At the same time?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Cognosco
post Jan 22 2011, 03:38 PM
Post #565


Advanced Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 2,452
Joined: 31-October 10
Member No.: 1,212



QUOTE (dannyboy @ Jan 22 2011, 02:25 PM) *
At the same time?


Do you & User still not think we need an open investigation?


--------------------
Vexatious Candidate?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Richard Garvie
post Jan 22 2011, 04:08 PM
Post #566


Advanced Member
***

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



Including the number plate cameras, we had well over 100. I have to say that at least we are finally getting somewhere with the cameras that are working. They say 24 are now fully operational, but this is after they told me 27 were working. An investigation is the only way to resolve this fully now.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Cognosco
post Jan 22 2011, 04:16 PM
Post #567


Advanced Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 2,452
Joined: 31-October 10
Member No.: 1,212



QUOTE (Richard Garvie @ Jan 22 2011, 04:08 PM) *
Including the number plate cameras, we had well over 100. I have to say that at least we are finally getting somewhere with the cameras that are working. They say 24 are now fully operational, but this is after they told me 27 were working. An investigation is the only way to resolve this fully now.



Shush!! Do you not take security seriously? User, Dannyboy & WBC don't want to let the local crims know the cameras are not working for security reasons, even though it has been common knowledge for some weeks.

Get a D notice slapped on quick User before an investigation is called for! tongue.gif


--------------------
Vexatious Candidate?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
dannyboy
post Jan 23 2011, 12:42 AM
Post #568


Advanced Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 6,056
Joined: 14-May 09
From: Bouvetøya
Member No.: 51



QUOTE (Richard Garvie @ Jan 22 2011, 04:08 PM) *
Including the number plate cameras, we had well over 100. I have to say that at least we are finally getting somewhere with the cameras that are working. They say 24 are now fully operational, but this is after they told me 27 were working. An investigation is the only way to resolve this fully now.

Ah, including the ANPR cameras. Any other cameras you'd like to fess up on?

Were they all monitored at the same time then? You know, from the control room.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
dannyboy
post Jan 23 2011, 12:43 AM
Post #569


Advanced Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 6,056
Joined: 14-May 09
From: Bouvetøya
Member No.: 51



QUOTE (Cognosco @ Jan 22 2011, 03:38 PM) *
Do you & User still not think we need an open investigation?

No, I don't think we do.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Richard Garvie
post Jan 23 2011, 10:07 AM
Post #570


Advanced Member
***

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



QUOTE (dannyboy @ Jan 23 2011, 12:42 AM) *
Ah, including the ANPR cameras. Any other cameras you'd like to fess up on?

Were they all monitored at the same time then? You know, from the control room.


The fact is, CCTV cameras in the district have been more than halved in the past 12 months.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Richard Garvie
post Jan 23 2011, 10:09 AM
Post #571


Advanced Member
***

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



QUOTE (dannyboy @ Jan 23 2011, 12:43 AM) *
No, I don't think we do.


I love it how you can speak for a supposedly different person. Just admit it, you think the same, use similar writing style and you both last changed your profiles within minutes of each other, You're either twins, lovers or a gemini!!! biggrin.gif
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Iommi
post Jan 23 2011, 10:15 AM
Post #572


Advanced Member
***

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



Whether cameras are working or not, for me, isn't the issue. Mine is: is it adequate cover and is the real-time monitoring up to pre move standards. Beyond that, perhaps we should have stats to demonstrated the CCTV system's usefulness; before and after upgrade.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
user23
post Jan 23 2011, 10:25 AM
Post #573


Advanced Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 4,025
Joined: 14-May 09
Member No.: 50



QUOTE (Richard Garvie @ Jan 23 2011, 10:09 AM) *
I love it how you can speak for a supposedly different person. Just admit it, you think the same, use similar writing style and you both last changed your profiles within minutes of each other, You're either twins, lovers or a gemini!!! biggrin.gif
I've never changed my profile. The time on it would have been when Admin approved a batch of new users hence a number of us having the same date (I believe the second day the forum was running) and similar time.

As usual you've jumped to entirely the wrong conclusion., Sherlock. laugh.gif
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Richard Garvie
post Jan 23 2011, 10:30 AM
Post #574


Advanced Member
***

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



QUOTE (Iommi @ Jan 23 2011, 10:15 AM) *
Whether cameras are working or not, for me, isn't the issue. Mine is: is it adequate cover and is the real-time monitoring up to pre move standards. Beyond that, perhaps we should have stats to demonstrated the CCTV system's usefulness; before and after upgrade.


The council will never do that, do you really think they want to show how much they bodged this up!!!
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Bofem
post Jan 23 2011, 12:07 PM
Post #575


Advanced Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 485
Joined: 28-May 10
From: Newbury
Member No.: 924



Great news to see more cameras being switched off. Let's hope they go the whole hog soon, so these resources can be deployed on effective crime-fighting measures.


--------------------
Newbury's #1 ill-informed internet poster
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Iommi
post Jan 23 2011, 12:35 PM
Post #576


Advanced Member
***

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



QUOTE (Bofem @ Jan 23 2011, 12:07 PM) *
Great news to see more cameras being switched off. Let's hope they go the whole hog soon, so these resources can be deployed on effective crime-fighting measures.


http://www.newbury.net/forum/m-1295785617/s-/s-new/

“Since the Exclusion Order Scheme was set up we have seen a sustained 50 per cent reduction in shoplifting. This is thanks to partnership working between the police, council and other agencies involved in Shopsafe.”
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
user23
post Jan 23 2011, 12:45 PM
Post #577


Advanced Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 4,025
Joined: 14-May 09
Member No.: 50



QUOTE (Iommi @ Jan 23 2011, 12:35 PM) *
http://www.newbury.net/forum/m-1295785617/s-/s-new/

“Since the Exclusion Order Scheme was set up we have seen a sustained 50 per cent reduction in shoplifting. This is thanks to partnership working between the police, council and other agencies involved in Shopsafe.”
The Exclusion Order Scheme isn't CCTV.

It's something that can be enforced by a number of measures, including CCTV.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Cognosco
post Jan 23 2011, 12:48 PM
Post #578


Advanced Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 2,452
Joined: 31-October 10
Member No.: 1,212



QUOTE (Bofem @ Jan 23 2011, 12:07 PM) *
Great news to see more cameras being switched off. Let's hope they go the whole hog soon, so these resources can be deployed on effective crime-fighting measures.


Shush don't tell the local crims they are being switched off!!! You will get User on telling the traders they should claim compensation from you!!! Instead of the council who seem to be the only culprits in the massive shambles the CCTV has become. You know the council are guilty of something when your complaints are met with a wall of silence? But of course I should have remembered they can't comment for security reasons? I think there is someone lives just outside Inkpen that has not heard there are problems with the CCTV system so don't want to give any secrets away do we?

I can't comment on how effective the camera's are or are not my only gripe is that the council told lies to the local business community! angry.gif

OK if the camera's are not effective then surely the business community, police, and pubwatch needs to be informed of that and the decision should have been made to scrap the lot; not go through all the expenditure of moving them to Windsor and still be paying for an inferior system and with far fewer camera's; it does not make economic sense? Some Project Manager at the council needs a lot of retraining if this is the case and councilors need to be made accountable for such a situation arising.

We need an investigation and promptly so that the electorate can make decisions in the coming May elections? Or is that why they are trying to stall an investigation? wink.gif


--------------------
Vexatious Candidate?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Richard Garvie
post Jan 23 2011, 02:49 PM
Post #579


Advanced Member
***

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



QUOTE (Cognosco @ Jan 23 2011, 12:48 PM) *
Shush don't tell the local crims they are being switched off!!! You will get User on telling the traders they should claim compensation from you!!! Instead of the council who seem to be the only culprits in the massive shambles the CCTV has become. You know the council are guilty of something when your complaints are met with a wall of silence? But of course I should have remembered they can't comment for security reasons? I think there is someone lives just outside Inkpen that has not heard there are problems with the CCTV system so don't want to give any secrets away do we?

I can't comment on how effective the camera's are or are not my only gripe is that the council told lies to the local business community! angry.gif

OK if the camera's are not effective then surely the business community, police, and pubwatch needs to be informed of that and the decision should have been made to scrap the lot; not go through all the expenditure of moving them to Windsor and still be paying for an inferior system and with far fewer camera's; it does not make economic sense? Some Project Manager at the council needs a lot of retraining if this is the case and councilors need to be made accountable for such a situation arising.

We need an investigation and promptly so that the electorate can make decisions in the coming May elections? Or is that why they are trying to stall an investigation? wink.gif


So in his letter to the paper, Cllr Stansfield insisted that community safety budgets would not be cut (well, he says that after the bit he admits the CCTV budget has been cut by quarter of a million). Now we know that the shopsafe coordinator is being made redundant and that unless the private sector take over the running of the scheme, it will be scrapped. Apparently in the TCP meeting, council officer Andy Day suggested that the person responsible for ShopSafe was "moving on". I have it from my sources that it was then revealed she is actually being made redundant, and Brian Burgess has now confirmed that via the other forum.

When will the misleading stop, and the truth of the situation be told? As cognosco has said, if the CCTV system is useless, why move it to Windsor at all??? I already know what has gone on since the 17th December, but certain people on here would like to think it's not true. If an investigation is not forthcoming once the network is operational, I will publish everything online and people can make their own minds up.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Iommi
post Jan 23 2011, 03:39 PM
Post #580


Advanced Member
***

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



QUOTE (user23 @ Jan 23 2011, 12:45 PM) *
The Exclusion Order Scheme isn't CCTV.

I know.

QUOTE (user23 @ Jan 23 2011, 12:45 PM) *
It's something that can be enforced by a number of measures, including CCTV.

Exactly. It forms a part of a greater whole.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post

55 Pages V  « < 27 28 29 30 31 > » 
Reply to this topicStart new topic
2 User(s) are reading this topic (2 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
0 Members:

 

Lo-Fi Version Time is now: 28th March 2024 - 07:56 PM