Printable Version of Topic

Posted by: Iommi Dec 24 2010, 01:15 AM

I have heard rumours that there is or was a problem with the radio links between Newbury and Windsor.

On top of that, I was drawn to a comment on the news page.

"He added that while the shop was within range of a CCTV camera, he did not think it had been captured on tape. A West Berkshire Council spokesman, Phil Spray, said: “Obviously the cameras are moving all the time for monitoring purposes and so there is no guarantee that this incident has been captured. We will ask the police to review the tapes to see if any evidence of the damage has been recorded.”"

Are they having to 'move' to make up for a short-fall in the number we now have?

Posted by: JeffG Dec 24 2010, 10:59 AM

I don't know how you read that rather ambiguous statement, but I took it to mean the cameras stay in the same place, but are panning around.

Posted by: Iommi Dec 24 2010, 11:14 AM

Maybe, but if there are fewer cameras, then it stands to reason that the cameras 'have to move' to cover ground; zooming in when an incident is observed. If it is not a case of fewer cameras, then it suggests that even being in Newbury town centre doesn't come with any reasonable CCTV protection, possibly suggesting they are a rather flawed idea.

Posted by: Iommi Dec 24 2010, 11:22 AM

I have heard rumours that Newbury's ANPR system has been adversely affected as well. I understand that the ANPR alarm might not be being 'responded' to in such a timely manner.

Posted by: Richard Garvie Dec 24 2010, 01:04 PM

This needs to sorted and quickly.

Posted by: user23 Dec 24 2010, 01:15 PM

Yes, people need to stop posting silly rumours.

It's Christmas Eve not April Fools Day.

Posted by: Iommi Dec 24 2010, 01:17 PM

Presumably you are in a position to refute the rumour?

Posted by: user23 Dec 24 2010, 01:24 PM

No more than you can substantiate what you've read as rumour on another chat board and posted on here. In almost all cases the burden of proof is on the person making the accusation.

It's a prime example of why you should never take local chat forums too seriously and they should never be used for proper political debate. Rumours are taken as fact until they are refuted, that and Garvie jumping on yet another bandwagon whilst still in the USA.

Posted by: Iommi Dec 24 2010, 01:28 PM

I qualified my posts with the words 'allegedly' and 'rumour', so I have no need to explain to you sir. I have heard a rumour and have reported as such. You are in no position, it seems, to refute the claims; that is good enough for me. Perhaps someone in authority might like to know these rumours are spreading whether this forum exists or not, so they might like to clarify the situation.

I can assure you these forums play a bigger role in local 'democracy' than you like to make out. BTW RG is back in West Berks, not that it makes any difference in this case.

Posted by: user23 Dec 24 2010, 01:32 PM

This is commonly called having ones bluff called I think.

Always best to check before copying the work of a wind up merchant on another forum.

Posted by: Iommi Dec 24 2010, 01:35 PM

What are you talking about? I reported a rumour. That is all.

Posted by: Bartholomew Dec 24 2010, 01:41 PM

Sounds like he's trying to change the direction of this thread.

Posted by: Iommi Dec 24 2010, 01:42 PM

Of course he is. That is his mission.

Posted by: user23 Dec 24 2010, 01:43 PM

Then you implied it must be true if no one on this chat board can refute it.

Quick question for you. Do you think public bodies, Newbury Town Council for example, should employ someone to spend all day refuting rumours on internet chat boards?

Posted by: NWNREADER Dec 24 2010, 01:54 PM

Does Newbury have an ANPR system? Was there ever one?

Posted by: user23 Dec 24 2010, 01:58 PM

Who cares say some, what matters is Newbury might have one and it might not be working now.

Posted by: JeffG Dec 24 2010, 02:02 PM

Yes, that's a new one on me. There is one in Northbrook multi-storey that prints your registration on the ticket, however. Whether it's linked to any database of missing/stolen vehicles I don't know (I doubt it somehow).

Posted by: Iommi Dec 24 2010, 02:03 PM

No I didn't, that was your take. The point I make is that who are you to say that rumours shouldn't be listened to, or indeed posted.


I think the councils like the one you mention should ensure the best possible standards, and if they are not met, then they should act accordingly. It is incumbent on the population to take an interest in local affairs if they wish those standards to be met.

Most places have information officers of some kind; it wouldn't be a full time job to monitor what is posted here for that which is relevant to the council. Indeed, I suspect the juicier stories would be taken up by NWN and the council would be contacted in any case. So perhaps it wouldn't be necessary.

On the whole, I think public relations is one of the poorer aspects our governance.

Posted by: Richard Garvie Dec 24 2010, 02:03 PM

Can I just say User23, that the biggest concern for me is the vastly reduced number of cameras in West Berkshire. On top of that, there has been issues with the radio system (fact), and I believe West Berks have sent somebody to Windsor for an initial period of time to help train operators there on local knowledge. This isn't "another bandwagon" as you put it, I've actually been highlighting this issue for some time.

We can deal with teething issues, but for the radio systems and other equipment to fail in this manner may be seen to have been a lack of foresight on the Councils part. Let me give you an example. When I worked in retail management, we had access to all of the CCTV cameras in store, as did the head office. Is it not possible that the operation could have been run from Newbury for a little longer, whilst Windsor were also viewing the same cameras whilst learning the area. At that time, the systems could have been tested, and if there was a technical hitch on the Windsor side, it could have been resolved whilst the Newbury control room was still in operation.

Posted by: user23 Dec 24 2010, 02:07 PM

You're seriously advocating the Town Council paying someone no doubt a five figure sum per year to someone to refute rumours on chat boards all day?

What about Thatcham Town Council, Hungerford, Tilehurst? How much would that all cost?

Absolutely barmy at any time and even more absurd given the current climate.

Posted by: JeffG Dec 24 2010, 02:20 PM

From http://www.newburytoday.co.uk/News/Article.aspx?articleID=15379:

I'm not sure what the lady means. Does she mean GPS? If so, are the cameras going to be tracked in case they go walkabout under their own steam?

Posted by: NWNREADER Dec 24 2010, 02:36 PM

Email her and ask her. It could be the cameras will be linked so the 'next' one on the route being monitored prepares to take over when the current one loses contact

Posted by: NWNREADER Dec 24 2010, 02:39 PM

.

Posted by: blackdog Dec 24 2010, 07:24 PM

GIS is a computer based mapping system supplied by the Ordnance Survey - councils pay a load of dosh and can then access a wonderful array of maps (massively detailed modern maps and historic maps as well). The online mapping from WBC's website is based on it (but is a only a very limited version of the real thing). Users can add 'layers' of information to the maps - no doubt the location of CCTV cameras will be on there. Can't see how it enables them to track anything else though - still I suppose the operators in Windor will at least know the name of the street they are monitoring.

GIS = geographical information system, or geospatial information system

Posted by: Iommi Dec 24 2010, 08:51 PM

If you go back to my post, you'll see that I have corrected my typos. Notwithstanding I've added to my point of view.

Posted by: JeffG Dec 24 2010, 09:57 PM

Thanks. That is more helpful (and accurate). Just try Googling "Global Information Service"!

Posted by: Bofem Dec 25 2010, 09:19 PM

Come on people. CCTV is RUBBISH and doesn't work.

West Berks spends http://www.bigbrotherwatch.org.uk/files/big-brother-watch-report---price-is-wrong-2-12-10.pdf

Instead of transferring it to Windsor, we should have scrapped the lot and invested in proven crime reduction measures. But of course that would have been economically sensible, culturally popular, but politically dangerous.

A big fat waste of money

Posted by: blackdog Dec 26 2010, 02:34 AM

Item on the news the other night - the Swiss ski resort of Verbier is currently installing lots of CCTV following a 60% reduction in crime following the introduction of CCTV in two similar resorts - suggesting that it does work.

A quick question - what are the crime rates in Newbury and Preston?

Posted by: NWNREADER Dec 26 2010, 12:13 PM

First look at the source - an anti-CCTV organisation producing it's own report, based on it's own questions, is fairly certain to come up with evidence that supports its' core stance.
Just with a quick look I can see numerous cracks in the evidence, but there we go.....

I happen to agree there is too much reliance on CCTV, but it is a valid tool. No single solution is a panacea, which is something politicians promoting the latest 'good thing' would do well to remember.

As for the centralisation in Windsor, time will tell. It took time and training for the local staff to make maximum benefit of the system. Some of the cameras were badly sited originally, and subsequent development has altered the pattern of need, so it could be 'losing' some cameras will not be the disaster we seem to fear.

Posted by: On the edge Dec 26 2010, 12:51 PM

I agree - but we could have looked further out. India, or South Africa would have been a much cheaper option and just as effective. The 'disaster we seem to fear' is not all it seems!

Posted by: Bofem Dec 27 2010, 01:40 PM

CCTV can have a limited impact (Jamie Bulger case springs to mind). But these are outweighed by disadvantages (we could have paid for 25 extra police officers in W Berks).

Chatting with an ex-employee of the Newbury spycams, it's clear that locally they've got nearly everything to make sure it doesn't work in the following ares:

1. Policy - failure to use modern kit keeps prosecutions and evidence down to a bare minimum
2. Process - dozens of Newbury cameras switched off so reducing useful ID.
3. Operations - CCTV needs constant oxygen of publicity to work as a deterrent.

I don't care if its run from Windsor or Wales....as it's run now it's a big fat waste of money.

Posted by: On the edge Dec 27 2010, 03:20 PM

Regrettably CCTV has now become a public icon in crime reduction. No one ever gives a thought to ongoing maintenance and operational costs - which are massive. Rather like the 'dog mess' issue - we had a Councillor offer to pay for a couple of bins himself along the tow path. Notice supply the bins, not cover the cost of emptying them. What Councillor would be brave or honest enough to admit they are exactly as you say; all they do is to marginally reduce the fear of crime. So WBC are right - just spend sufficient to keep the Councillors on board and no more.

Posted by: Iommi Dec 27 2010, 03:34 PM

If there is such contention with regards the cost effectiveness of CCTV, perhaps there should be a full and open debate about it. Cost analysis, etc. It seems, however, WBC and others would rather keep this secret.

Posted by: On the edge Dec 27 2010, 05:40 PM

That would seem reasonable. Can't for the life of me work out why they'd want to hide the costs or benefits - a public debate against the real facts might well solve thier problem!

Posted by: Iommi Dec 27 2010, 05:46 PM

Err... would you translate that for someone basic like me?

Posted by: On the edge Dec 27 2010, 06:20 PM

Simply agreeing with you. Costs are hidden; but I can't understand why they'd want to hide them. Most people I've ever spoken to about CCTV seem to think they are a good thing. I've been at public meetings where the public have been demanding 'cameras' at all possible locations. However, no one ever explains the whole cost - particularly the cost of monitoring. So WBC get castigated for not providing what the public see as a major weapon in crime detection. However, looking at the evidence would probably suggest otherwise. So they could save a lot of dispute if they published the numbers.

Thats all!

Posted by: Iommi Dec 27 2010, 06:27 PM

Right, gotcha. Yes, if they are worth it, we need to know. Add to this, it seems the Police have been 'muted' on the issue.

Posted by: NWNREADER Dec 27 2010, 06:41 PM

Too much politics is about grand inputs, not outcomes. 'Maintenance' is not a vote winner, but grand schemes are. Grants are available for Capital schemes, but not revenue (maintenance). Revenue budgets are the first to be cut, so road repairs, building upkeep, equipment servicing falls off until another grand scheme is fanfared to put right the resulting broken systems. Politicians love to announce building a new office block for £ms rather than mention £ks spent on paint etc.
The CCTV system will be the same. LA budgeting does not reflect the cost of maintenance as that is lost in the black hole. Had the West Berks system been technically upgraded over time then some of the changes now would not have been required (as I fear they are). A new scheme, linking in with other LAs is more expensive than maintaining the old one, but in LA budget terms it is 'cheaper' and 'better value'.

Posted by: Iommi Dec 27 2010, 08:52 PM

It's the 'better value' that I'd like to understand: What are the KPIs? Also, the idea I would imagine, is that the increased cost of CCTV maintenance might be offset by a possible smaller cost of a reduced police presence in town.

Posted by: NWNREADER Dec 27 2010, 09:46 PM

My overly cynical view is that the 'value' test the man on the street would apply is not used in government budgeting.
Imagine buying a house - a major investment - but not spending enough on looking after it. Is the family impressed by spending another wedge of cash in 'x' years time to buy one to replace the delapidated shack the house had become? The value test might say new was better than repair as it was (then) the cheaper option. Especially if you get a 'deal' on the new purchase that would not apply to the repair option.

I seem to remember hearing the highway maintenance budget was not increasing in line with the route mileage (old money), so even before cuts/inflation/stand-stills, the money has to stretch further - and 106 money cannot be used for maintenance....

KPIs are usually designed to be achieved, so are rarely that useful.

Posted by: Iommi Dec 27 2010, 10:01 PM

'better value' can only understood looking forward, so I'm not sure you're right there. What you must have meant therefore, is we have the cheaper option, not necessarily better value. Value can only be determined by 'bang-for-back', so to speak, but KPIs can help determine what is better value. If we don't know what we are meant to achieve then this is all a waste of time (and money).

Posted by: NWNREADER Dec 28 2010, 10:40 AM

I should've said 'government KPIs.........'

Business ones are different as they are subject to more intense scrutiny as to value.

Name any Government scheme that has not been measured as an astounding success by the Party of the moment, yet is clearly a pile of pants to any other observer?

Posted by: Iommi Dec 28 2010, 11:04 AM

So what you seem to be saying is, to 'them', it is not how good something is, just so-long as they are seen to be doing something. If I'm right, then I agree with you, but it means we have a long way to go before we see efficient changes.

The illusion of democracy.

Posted by: user23 Dec 28 2010, 11:18 AM

How about the NIS, formerly the BVPI?

Posted by: Simon Kirby Dec 28 2010, 11:25 AM

The only KPI that means anything to government, local and national, is the vote, and that should be a good thing except we're not always well informed, and we don't always make rational decisions. With CCTV I suspect whatever the objective success, the conservatives will want more, and the libertarians will want less.

Posted by: Iommi Dec 28 2010, 11:47 AM

This goes back to what I have said before. We might have rubbish in government because we are rubbish at electing the right people. I also think we expect far too much, but are not prepared to pay for it.

Posted by: Simon Kirby Dec 28 2010, 12:48 PM

I couldn't agree more. You get the democracy you deserve.

Posted by: NWNREADER Dec 28 2010, 01:02 PM

Exactly - grand input must equate to value outcome.

Posted by: NWNREADER Dec 28 2010, 01:12 PM

The problem with NIS is the Government of the day changes the measures, collection methods, parameters at will. NAO is not independant
http://www.audit-commission.gov.uk/localgov/audit/nis/nisnews/Pages/Default.aspx

Posted by: Iommi Dec 29 2010, 08:05 PM

I've heard it through the grapevine that there are no pictures currently being recorded in Windsor with our super duper hi-def cameras we've got in Newbury. Allegedly it is difficult to get conformation as quite understandably, WBC are keeping schtum over the rumoured balls-up.

A 'good' time for Newbury's finest to fill their boots perhaps?

Posted by: user23 Dec 29 2010, 08:10 PM

Why would the Police fill their boots? I don't follow.

Posted by: Iommi Dec 29 2010, 08:27 PM

I was being ironic. If Newbury's CCTV system is not recording, as has been alleged, then now would the time for the local crims to go without fear of being recorded by them. It doesn't take much to 'smoke you out'!

Posted by: Squelchy Dec 31 2010, 12:14 AM

http://www.newbury.net/forum/m-1293041819/s-/s-new/#num36 reply number 36

Posted by: Iommi Dec 31 2010, 10:13 AM

And your point is?

On that thread is an alleged response to an email.

Pamela Bale:pbale@westberks.gov.uk: "It is my understanding that there was no radio link to the CCTV control room in Newbury from the Shop safe scheme."

Seems a rather non-committal response. Either there is, or there is not. Given here resources, surely it wouldn't be hard for her to find out?

Posted by: Biker1 Dec 31 2010, 11:04 AM

There was - there isn't now.

Posted by: Iommi Dec 31 2010, 11:14 AM

Cllr Pamela Bale's response doesn't necessarily agree.

Posted by: user23 Dec 31 2010, 11:31 AM

By "radio link" do you mean base station and mast with a permanent operator, or a walkie talkie that may be switched on some of the time?

I'm guessing if it's the latter it wouldn't be considered a proper radio link such as the police or other emergency services use.

Posted by: Richard Garvie Dec 31 2010, 11:48 AM

Without getting into detail on Pubwatch, the control room always had contact with head door staff at all venues in Newbury before the move. This is now not the case, but is expected to be restored early 2011. Apparently this was always the plan. The real concern would be that even if there was a radio link, what difference would it make if Windsor can't control the cameras (those that are working)?

Posted by: Richard Garvie Dec 31 2010, 01:48 PM

It would appear that a gagging order has now been put on the CCTV Control Room at Windsor. They are not allowed to discuss Newbury with anyone who calls. A trader rang me and told me that, so to test the theory I rang the control room and guess what? They can't talk about Newbury. Why the cloak and dagger approach yet again? Rather than apologise, it's now gone into lock down mode!!!

Posted by: user23 Dec 31 2010, 02:06 PM

Would be great for local criminals if they could, "Hi, could you tell me which cameras in Newbury might not be working? It's just I'm doing a bit of thieving this afternoon and would rather not get caught".

Posted by: Richard Garvie Dec 31 2010, 02:13 PM

The concern is that traders are calling up to report problems and they are being told that control can't discuss newbury and anyone who has something to say should call Sue from the safer communities partnership. Shame that mobile is switched off!!!

Posted by: user23 Dec 31 2010, 02:30 PM

Did you use the codeword?

Posted by: Iommi Dec 31 2010, 03:43 PM

It seems quite reasonable for a control room not to discuss anything. As a tax payer, I am little interested on how well our investment is spent.

Posted by: dannyboy Jan 1 2011, 03:18 PM

Why would you expect the control room to talk to you?

I'd be more concerned if they had started a conversation with you.

Posted by: Richard Garvie Jan 1 2011, 05:55 PM

I've been speaking to them over the past few days, as have traders and licence holders. They (Windsor operators) are now banned from talking to anyone about Newbury, as for code word User23 I don't think one exists there as they happily chatted away when I spoke to them before. The key think here is that they won't even talk to traders / publicans which seems like a bit of a knee jerk reaction. Time to hold hands up and admit the plans were not up to scratch, why else would the council withold that information?

Posted by: dannyboy Jan 1 2011, 06:00 PM

Good - they have no right to spend their time talking to members of the public ( ie you ). They are supposed to be doing their jobs.

Posted by: Richard Garvie Jan 1 2011, 06:09 PM

If the council had not intentionally misled local business that everything was operating as planned, people wouldn't be ringing me to ask if I knew what was going on. How come I know what the exact situation is RE: operational status, yet the holder of that portfolio doesn't?

Posted by: dannyboy Jan 1 2011, 06:39 PM

Ringing you to know what is going on? why on earth would you know?

Posted by: Iommi Jan 1 2011, 07:06 PM

P*ss off db and user, this is cluster f*cuk and you know it.

Posted by: Richard Garvie Jan 1 2011, 07:13 PM

They asked me to find out. And find out I did, despite various attempts to mislead me. It was only after speaking to control that the full picture emerged. Lets just say that a lot of what has been speculated may well be true, and more. As I've told Cllr Stansfield, my interest is in what the original plan to move control was and what variances have taken place. Issues and problems were always possible, and although I'm not trying to score points based on these issues, it is very clear that the council have publicly misled the business community in West Berkshire. The final December statement suggested that all cameras had been transfered to Windsor and were therefore recording. That simply wasn't true.

Posted by: dannyboy Jan 1 2011, 07:14 PM

Nice. Real class.

Posted by: dannyboy Jan 1 2011, 07:18 PM

That still does not answer the question - why you think the staff at the control centre should be talking to you.

I'd say that the move is to save money. You'll understand why theat is a requirement at the moment.

I seem to remember reading posts on Newbury forums, when the cameras were first being introduced about the waste of money that they were, the problems with thier use etc etc.

Posted by: Richard Garvie Jan 1 2011, 07:51 PM

I don't neccessarliy believe they should be talking to me, they were and now they have been gagged. They were talking to traders, publicans and anyone who called. If I can get this information, anyone could have. It appears nobody thought that anyone would dare ring Windsor Control to ask them directly what cameras they could use, monitor and record. Therefore I find it hard to believe they would put out the statements that they did because that last statement on the 19th December or whenever it was is completely at odds with what is happening now. How do you think Brian Burgess, Jonathan Hopson and others on the TCP feel now they know they were intentionally misled with that statement?

As for posts against CCTV when it was introduced, and the waste of money you say people believed it was. I can't comment on behalf of those people or on those posts as I haven't seen them. But what I will say is that this is the line the council are now adopting, now that their lies have been exposed.

I can perfectly understand why the council want to save money. My concern (once again) is that they refuse to publish what the plans to move the control were, what variances have taken place and problems they have experienced. It's about time we had accountability at West Berkshire, and by publishing the plans we can see exactly how prepared the council were for this move. The council are now claiming that this period is a "test phase" which was always the plan. If everything has gone to plan RE: Camera numbers etc. the plan was woefully inadequate.

I feel like a broken record, but I will say it again. My interest is in the plans themselves and now the fact that the council have intentionally put out a statement which is misleading. Teething problems on a project this size WILL happen. But why lie about it? Even if you refuse to admit it publicly, at least come clean to the local business community. It appears dishonesty is at the heart of this administration, and that needs to change.

Posted by: dannyboy Jan 1 2011, 07:58 PM

There is no gag - sound to me like staff ( who may not have the full picture ) have been reminded that discussing the CCTV system with any tom, **** or harry that calls is outside their remit & job description.

Posted by: Richard Garvie Jan 1 2011, 08:27 PM

No. In the emails between me and West Berks, the council said that Windsor were wrong because they are not project managing the move. I then told them that it was actually the control room I had spoken too. All of a sudden, the control room were told to give out a mobile number which is actually switched off. Maybe they should have issued a code word after all?

The fact of the matter is that the council refuse to publish what the plans were. They refuse to say how those plans changed. They refuse to say what problems have been reported by the traders and businesses in town. They have also issued statements that suggest all cameras have been transferred to Windsor, which is not true. They have said the cameras are working and recording, again this isn't true. The shop safe and pub watch radio's should still work, as PC's and PCSO's are still carrying them. They just won't connect to Windsor, as that was always the plan. Apparently. EDIT: Even the radios have been down apparently. That comes directly from a trader who tried to call for help. How many other issues have there been, but just haven't been published on here?

just out of interest Danny, do you believe this has been handled well?

Posted by: dannyboy Jan 1 2011, 08:36 PM

I don't really care - CCTV is in ineffective waste of taxpayer money.

I can't say if it has been handled well - I'd have to be privvy to a darn sight more information that a few rumours & second hand info banded about on a forum.

What is clear is that certain posters will jump on any bandwaggon going.

Posted by: dannyboy Jan 1 2011, 08:39 PM

Again - why should a control room, be talking to you? I'm not surprised they are now giving out a mobile phone number. Better still - they should be telling you to not to call.

Posted by: blackdog Jan 1 2011, 08:40 PM

Regardless of 'teething problems' I would still take issue with the way WBC sold the whole transfer - assuring us that it would save money and yet not downgrade the service. Seems to me that the service has been massively downgraded - makes me wonder if it actually costs less.

Posted by: Richard Garvie Jan 1 2011, 08:50 PM

As I've already stated, I don't believe they should be talking to me. But if they spoke to me, who else could they have spoken to in theory? Anyone who rang up could have got the level of information I recieved and used it for criminal purposes. As I said before, maybe a code word should have been put in place? Hindsight is a wonderful thing. But for West Berks to ban them from talking to traders, bit of an overeaction isn't it? Just because the cat is out of the bag?

Posted by: Richard Garvie Jan 1 2011, 09:02 PM

Not really a bandwagon, is it? If you read the paper, you will recall me highlighting the CCTV issue in November with regards to the number of cameras being slashed. Just because I have fought the corner of the local businesses since the whole thing went belly up, it's not because I set out to do that. I was already trying to get hold of the original proposals and variances to that plan. Taking up these additionals points after the business community believed they had been lied to is hardly a bad thing either, if only our elected members took the trouble to know what was going on, and that includes the portfolio holder who simply hasn't got a clue. Although he knew some of the cameras were not working, he didn't know how many. The fact is, most of them were off over the busiest period of the year, yet he authorised a statement declaring images were being recieved in Windsor and therefore being recorded.

The fact you don't care and your opinion that CCTV is a waste of money isn't relevant to the issue itself, is it? Businesses were concerned that the network wasn't working as it should. They were lied to. The fact that the council are witholding this information in this manner, hardly gives local business confidence in their relationship with the council.

Let me word the question in another way. Is it ok for the council to lie to local businesses, telling them something is happening when it isn't? Also, do you think the council should be allowed to withold information in this manner?

Posted by: Iommi Jan 2 2011, 12:34 AM

Yet you know enough to make the previous statement?

Posted by: Bofem Jan 2 2011, 01:30 AM

You're splitting hairs.....it's a terrible idea that hasn't worked. Even the police http://www.policeoracle.com/news/CCTV-and-the-Police_20265.html.

But of course sensible debate will never happen in a climate of point-scoring.

Posted by: Squelchy Jan 2 2011, 04:02 AM

To quote from that article:

"Today, CCTV helps the police to monitor and track offenders and their offences, increase their knowledge of the community and local neighbourhoods and to closely observe known crime hotspots."

"CCTV is now a regular part of day-to-day policing, with CCTV footage commonly used following a crime as a forensic tool. Thousands of man hours can go into viewing and processing CCTV footage, but police officers feel the benefits of CCTV outweigh the resource input (27). The National CCTV Strategy states that “despite the lack of formal research evidence, there appears little doubt that the police service utilises CCTV images in the investigative process and has had considerable success in doing so"

"There are clearly cases in which CCTV footage helps to convict a suspect for a serious offence. CCTV provided important leads and was an integral part of the investigation into the July 2005 bombings. It tracked the suspects onto the tube system showing the offenders boarding trains carrying rucksacks and Ramzi Mohammed attempting and failing to detonate a bomb. Even though this required thousands of hours of footage to be viewed and analysed the images captured were circulated to the public and the jury in the criminal trial, which subsequently convicted the bombers."

"Setting up and running a CCTV system involves a considerable use of human resources, with some CCTV footage requiring specialist training to interpret. Failure to check (or check effectively) CCTV footage however can have serious consequences. Kate Sheedy was run over in May 2004 by Levi Bellfield, who was subsequently convicted of attempted murder. Police were criticised for failing to view the relevant CCTV footage and had to visit the family of the victim to apologise for the mistake."

"In order for CCTV footage to be admissible in court, it must be shown that a series of procedures have been correctly followed: date and time stamps must be accurate, the tapes must be rotated on a seven day cycle and an audit trail must be maintained. These procedures, although necessary to preserve the quality of the evidence, also take up time and manpower. There are also technological issues such as digital compatibility with often out of date court systems. But once admissible, CCTV can help to conclusively prove or disprove a charge or encourage a guilty plea, saving court time as well as help in sentencing by demonstrating the severity of an incident. "

Certainly sounds like they're against it.

Posted by: user23 Jan 2 2011, 08:26 AM

With a local election this year I suspect the desperate bandwagon jumping of some will reach new heights.

Posted by: Squelchy Jan 2 2011, 10:36 AM

Whilst the apologists will be working overtime. (Those who still have jobs that is)

Posted by: Richard Garvie Jan 2 2011, 10:42 AM

User23 / Bofem - It's not about point scoring. It's about accountability. Whether this whole project is right or wrong in your opinion, teething problems were to be expected. What I don't get is why the council have lied about it? To put out a statement deliberately misleading the local business community shows the lengths some people will go to in an effort to maintain an illusion of control.

I requested information on behalf of a number of people who contacted me, people who had been told everything was fine but had little bits of info from other sources claiming otherwise. I emailed Graham Jones and recieved a swift reply from him putting me in touch with the person leading the project (thanks Graham). That person told me over a number of emails that there had been a number of teething problems but cameras had been transferred and recording was therefore happening. It was only after I had started trying to convince those who had been in touch with me that these rumours may only be just that, that I called Windsor control and got the full story directly from them. I immediately contacted the council and got the standard "we're in a test phase" and "this project is all about saving money, surely you support that".

ONCE AGAIN: I just want to see what the plans originally were, any variances and any problems that have been reported by traders and publicans (surely there is a log?). The only reason I'm bringing up the problems is that other people have mentioned them here and been dismissed for spreading rumour. The council issued a statement claiming that all cameras had transferred and were therefore recording. That wasn't true. Cllr Anthony Stansfield holds that portfolio, and he has already admitted that he knew not all of the cameras were working. If that's the case, why did he authorise the statement claiming everything was ok???

Posted by: dannyboy Jan 2 2011, 11:44 AM

The two are not related.

Posted by: dannyboy Jan 2 2011, 11:56 AM

I immediately contacted the council and got the standard "we're in a test phase" and "this project is all about saving money, surely you support that".

Sounds plausible to me.

I'd hardly expect WBC to advertise the fact that that whilst the CCTV system was being moved that it would be out of action or not working 100%. If you owned a jewellers & your alarm & CCTV was out of action would you put a sign in the window saying so?

Posted by: Richard Garvie Jan 2 2011, 12:20 PM

No, but I would expect the council to be honest with the traders so they could look at additional security measures / staffing arrangements. Again, the teething issues are not my interest, it was the plans to move. I want to see exactly how prepared the council were. It's only since the council started misleading the local business community and myself that I've posted about the problems on here. For the business community, it's now a trust issue.

Just looking through this thread once again, it is striking at how badly this process has been handled. From the aborted upgrades to the bodge ups over Christmas, it really does sum up how well our council is run. If the plans are there, why can't they be published either directly by email, in the media or at the library? Will it be like the betting shop application at Wash Common, with no risk assessment done by the local child protection board? Who then fudged up a risk assessment afterwards and then claimed to a district councillor that a risk assessment had in fact been carried out in July? Shame the very person sending that email to the member was the same person who admitted in other emails to other people that it hadn't been carried out. What about the taxi legislation that claims wheelchairs cannot be secured in the back of a taxi because someone cocked up the taxi rules and regulations? It's just one crisis to another crisis, and when they get found out, they try to bury the facts by misleading people. Is that how a local authority should be run?

Posted by: user23 Jan 2 2011, 12:29 PM

Do you represent local traders now Richard?

I wonder how the Newbury Retail Association feel about you taking on their role.

Posted by: Squelchy Jan 2 2011, 12:32 PM

So are we to believe that WBC deliberately planned this 'test phase' to be at the same time as the busiest two weeks of the year?

If all is going 'according to plan' then they must have planned for there to be no audio communication. no monitoring, and no cover of the Shop Safe or Pubwatch schemes over Christmas and the New Year.

Why are they covering up if everything is as they thought it would be?

Remember WBC felt this CCTV was needed. They got members of the NRA to cough up, along with s106 monies from SLI and the balance was paid for by those who pay Community Charges.

If you're in a hole you should stop digging. When the truth comes out, several of the statements already made by members various of WBC may look a little 'odd' to say the least.

Posted by: Richard Garvie Jan 2 2011, 12:32 PM

I know I am speaking on behalf of a number of them.

Posted by: Richard Garvie Jan 2 2011, 12:32 PM

EXACTLY.

Posted by: Iommi Jan 2 2011, 11:58 PM

Actually I think they are: both involve public funding, the management of CCTV in Newbury, its practical use and its value.

Incidentally, the rumours I've heard (from similar sources of other issues of this nature) were that the police were not bowled over by the council's plan to re-locate in the way they have.

Posted by: Richard Garvie Jan 6 2011, 09:20 AM

So in today's paper, Cllr Stansfield confirms only seven cameras were being seen in Windsor, but the rest of the cameras were still conected to Newbury. With no Control Room in Newbury and nobody to operate the cameras, is he therefore admitting that the cameras were effectively useless? He also went on to say that nobody had complained to the council about the issues and was not aware of any incidents. This is rubbish, on the basis that everybody who approached the council were rebuffed with the statement claiming everything was ok.

Also, the council's spokesman continue to claim that all of the cameras have gone over and are now all digital and recording. What is the truth? And why can't they come clean about what problems they had over Christmas? It's hardly giving criminal masterminds a tip off now that they claim everything is operational. The fact is that the council intentionally misled the local business community on this issue rather than come clean about the problems they had.

And just to add, still no information that has been requested has been published. What is there to hide?

Posted by: Iommi Jan 6 2011, 10:09 AM

Perhaps the rumours were untrue?

Posted by: dannyboy Jan 6 2011, 10:37 AM

So a cllr confirms that everything is okay.
Maybe the moral here is to get solid fact ( as opposed to conjecture, rumour & half truths from the ubiquitous 'someone I spoke to' ) before crying wolf. In the fable the shepherd only had three chances......

Posted by: Iommi Jan 6 2011, 11:27 AM

Before the smug brigade get going, how do we know the councillor is telling the truth? Besides, all the conversations were about rumour, not facts. People were trying to establish facts but the council were seemingly stonewalling people.

Posted by: Richard Garvie Jan 6 2011, 11:30 AM

Hold on, the councillor confirmed that only seven cameras were being viewed in Windsor out of a total of 40 cameras, none of the seven were able to be controlled by the control room staff there because of faults.

The council claim all cameras were operating as normal, but if the there is nobody controlling them, is that normal? Let me ask you this, was the break in at the bike shop caught on CCTV? Is their any footage for the police to identify the group of youths on Monday 27th December in Newbury Market Place? Is there any footage of the shop that had it's window put in and displays ruined before Christmas? If there is, why hasn't it been provided to police?

The fact of this story is that the cameras were not fully operational, they were unable to be contolled by the team in Windsor meaning they were effectively useless and I have that in emails from certain officers and councillors. So how the council spokesman can claim otherwise is beyond me!!! This is much more than a Newbury story, as before the 31st December, there were NO CAMERAS being monitored in Hungerford, Thatcham or the Eastern Area. Pictures of cameras in those areas weren't even being recieved by Windsor, and Cllr Stansfield pretty much confirms this by accepting that onkly seven cameras were being recieved by Windsor.

There was a major problem over Christmas, yet the council are now intentionally lying about it. What is the real status of the CCTV network? The man in charge of the project says it will be completed on 10th January, yet the spokesman says it is already complete? And why won't they just admit there were issues and move on. Teething problems are to be expected on a project of this size, which is why the plans and original project brief should be published to show how prepared the council was. The only issue surrounding the problems over Christmas is a trust issue, with the project manager, Cllr Stansfield and the Council PR all saying different things. Who is telling the truth?

Posted by: dannyboy Jan 6 2011, 11:35 AM

Because he is accountable & would soon be walking if he is telling the local press porkies. Seems to me that the council have given perfectly logical answers to quash the rumours.

Posted by: Richard Garvie Jan 6 2011, 11:39 AM

A controller from Windsor is on record saying that only seven cameras were being recieved from Newbury, and that they had no control over those seven cameras due to technical fault. It was only after I got that information did the council start talking about recieving the images in Newbury and transferring the cameras in batches. Previously the council were pushing a statement claiming cameras had been transferred to Windsor and recording was therefore happening. So they lied once by releasing the initial statement claiming the cameras had transferred (they've now confirmed that was a lie by admitting that only seven were being recieved over christmas), they lied to local businesses who had contacted them over the christmas period, they lied to me by claiming all last week that cameras had transferred, it was only after I spoke directly to Windsor and the controller went on record as saying what he told me did the council story start to change. I have numerous emails from different people at the council and elected members all saying different things. The one thing the emails do confirm is that monitoring staff only had visibility of seven cameras upto New Years Eve, and those cameras are unable to be moved or have the position altered by Windsor due to technical fault, and that won't change until the 10th January.

Do we believe the controller, who has no reason to lie. Or do we believe the council? If we believe someone from the council, which line is true? They are all working? They will start working on the 10th? Some are working and some are not??? It's a complete farce.

Posted by: Richard Garvie Jan 6 2011, 11:40 AM

It's not me telling porkies...

Posted by: dannyboy Jan 6 2011, 11:47 AM

So you accept his account then?

Seven cameras were chosen as the initial ones to be moved & there was a delay in getting these up and running. By carefully chosing a batch of 7 the move of the rest will be straightforward. The remaining 33 are working as before.

btw, you need to get down to Victoria Park again - plans are being drawn up to revamp the toddlers play area.

Posted by: Iommi Jan 6 2011, 11:48 AM

What is the point of these? Are they manned? Rumours were spread about problems with the CCTV system, nothing the councillor has said says that the rumours were unfounded.

Posted by: dannyboy Jan 6 2011, 11:56 AM

What is the point - good question. CCTV isn't the James Bond system some would have you believe.

Posted by: Richard Garvie Jan 6 2011, 12:02 PM

Correction, Cllr Stansfield said:

"Only seven were connected to Windsor as they were switched over in groups, but the vast majority were connected to Newbury so images were still being recorded."

So not ALL of the cameras then? So if not all of the cameras, he admits some weren't recording. I accept his account that they may well have been connected to the data centre in the new data hub location, but if nobody is viewing them or in a position to change the view / zoom in or follow suspects, they are effectively useless. The controller from Windsor said he couldn't even use the seven he could see, because they were panned out and everything was too small to actually identify anything happening. If that's the case with those seven, were the other cameras panned out too?

How can you say the other 33 are working as before? If nobody is controlling them, they obviously aren't. The fact is, Anthony Stansfield confirms that only seven were available in Windsor (none of them could be operated), and that the other 33 were not being monitored. On what basis then, can the Council PR spokesman claim that everything was transferred and working as normal? The project manager confirmed in an email that the problems would be resolved by the 10th January, but didn't go into specifics as to what the problems were. Cllr Stansfield appears to confirm what was revealed by the control room in Windsor, so I'll go with that. But does this mean it is the officers who are trying to decieve the local business community? In any case, Cllr Stansfield has authorised his department to make these statements, so he is where the buck should stop. For once in West Berkshire, let's have some accountability and have somebody hold their hand up and resign. Or, as usual, we can just pretend it didn't happen and nobody will carry the can.

Posted by: Iommi Jan 6 2011, 12:10 PM

The ShopSafe scheme is an integral part of the CCTV operation and it would seem that this was compromised over the period we talk of. I believe the councillor is being economic with the truth.

Posted by: dannyboy Jan 6 2011, 12:12 PM

but if nobody is viewing. Big If. Why do you say if? Are you not so sure that no-one is viewing? Where did Cllr Stansfeld say the other 33 were not being monitored?

You need to concentrate on facts, not supositions. You can't read between the lines of everything the council states & think they are up to no good & telling lies.

Posted by: Iommi Jan 6 2011, 12:15 PM

Exactly, he was non committal, he just said they were working. I typical politician's answer. If the other 33 were manned as usual, I'm surprised he didn't say. There is evidence that they weren't.


I can.

Posted by: JeffG Jan 6 2011, 12:16 PM

Perhaps if there is confusion (as there obviously is), the councillor could explain clearly precisely what the position is.

Posted by: dannyboy Jan 6 2011, 12:25 PM

typical politician's answer
hey - your getting it!

Posted by: Richard Garvie Jan 6 2011, 12:32 PM

West Street Hous is the data hub for the network, and only recieves images. There was nobody monitoring those cameras over the period 17th December to at least 31st December.

Cllr Stansfield:

"Only seven cameras are being recieved in Windsor as they were switched over in groups, but the vast majority were connected to Newbury so images were still being recorded".

A controller from Windsor has gone on record to say that they can only see seven cameras. None of which can be controlled by them, as there is a technical fault preventing them from being able to operate them. The other 33 were not being recieved as of last Friday (New Years Eve), the current status is unknown as the CCTV control team have been banned from discussing Newbury. The facts are that none of the 40 have been able to be operated by a controller since 17th December, the seven that I know are being recieved in Newbury are all panned out too, meaning that it is very difficult to see anything.

The Facts:

December 17th: Council send email to Brian Burgess and Jonathan Hopson that all cameras have been transferred and are therefore recording. Also issue the very same statement publicly.
December 24th: I arrived home to be contacted by numerous traders about the CCTV issue, they say they have spoken to council who deny there are any issues.
December 27th: I sent an email to Graham Jones asking for detail on the issues, he replies straight away asking the project manager to get in touch with me.
December 29th: Project manager sends me same statement, and in follow up emails confirm everything is ok. Just as I start tio feedback that problems with the CCTV could just be rumour, I call Windsor to ask them directly, expecting to be told they can't discuss it. Windsor controller tells me only seven are being recieved and they have no control, he says it's a shambles and that they don't really know what is going on, but the situation isn't expected to change until January 10th. That was still the situation on the morning on of December 31st.

What they say now:

Windsor CCTV Control: Can't discuss it, but the situation shouldn't change until January 10th at the earliest.

Cllr Stansfield admits there are issues, and only seven cameras are viewable at Windsor. He claims that most of the other 33 are connected to the data hub at the Newbury Data Hub and those are recording. (Is this an admission that some are not?)

Council PR: Everything has transferred and images are digital and being recorded.

Project Manager: We've had some technical problems which are to be expected with a project size, weather was a factor, running a week behind schedule.

Who are we to believe??? Why can't somebody come clean to the local business community rather than misleading them??? Those are the facts of the situation, and as I've said many times before. It's not about the teething problems, they were to be expected. It's about how prepared the council were for the move, and now the issue of intentionally misleading the local business community.

Posted by: Richard Garvie Jan 6 2011, 12:39 PM

That is all the media, myself and the traders who have been affected by the lack of CCTV images surrounding incidents that have taken place want. They say the cameras were recording, so where are the images? There was a shop smashed up before Christmas, the incident at the Waggon and Horses and now this bike shop robbery. Are there CCTV images of these incidents, and if there are can the images be sent to the police? If there are no images, it simply confirms that the cameras weren't in fact recording.

The council are saying they can't comment on what problems may have happened as it's a security risk. Surely if everything is ok and operating as normal, there would be no problem in revealing what problems did take place?

Posted by: Richard Garvie Jan 6 2011, 12:39 PM

duplicate post.

Posted by: dannyboy Jan 6 2011, 12:47 PM

It does no such thing. It confirms that the incidents were not caught on CCTV that is all.; Big difference. The vandalism would only ever, even with the most up-to-date system, have been caughtg on camera if a camera had been trained & zoomed in on the exact location of the crime prior to the incident. CCTV operators can't do this as that would be an invasion of privacy. I have a feeling there are not even any CCTV cameras in the area of the bike shop.

Posted by: Bofem Jan 6 2011, 12:58 PM

There's evidence of WBC's hallmark ineptitude on this project, but 'misleading' is a bit strong.

Please allow me to recap.

2003 - West Berks is one of only 2 areas in Thames Valley where CCTV is not subsidised by the police.

2006 - WBC changes planning rules so every single new home built in the district contributes to 'crime and disorder initiatives'. New pubs and clubs are required to pay more, such as Document House, Varsity, etc.

2008 - WBC hires consultants to price up a digital CCTV switchover. Budget of £240k set aside (largely from s106 contributions outlined above).

2008 - Quotes come in and it's too expensive to refurb town hall Control Room. Next stop, Newbury Police Station, but WBC get some new quotes which come in even dearer, so that one's out too.

2009 - WBC decides to go for outsourcing and tenders the contract. WBC has to re-start bidding process, after breaching EU rules.

2010 - They go with Windsor and Maidenhead, and as part of contract link it to the custody suite at Newbury Police station. This was supposed to happen April 1, but ended up being http://www.westberks.gov.uk/index.aspx?articleid=21197.

BTW - the predicted savings are £125k for 2010-11. We'll have to wait for the results.

So what would you have done? Outsource? Scrap it? Increase the budget? Find another way to fund it?

Yes it's not been managed well (but what did you expect after Market Place, Park Way, pavilion, et al?). And if I was into point-scoring, you could blame anyone....Lib Dems, police, Tories, Brussels.

Posted by: Iommi Jan 6 2011, 01:19 PM

What? That a statement you claim refutes the rumour is in fact ambiguous? Yes I know; that's my point.

Posted by: dannyboy Jan 6 2011, 01:20 PM

Oh, maybe you are not getting it.

Posted by: Iommi Jan 6 2011, 01:26 PM

Not you, no, but when you play games, that will always be difficult. So spit it out, what do you mean?

Posted by: Richard Garvie Jan 6 2011, 01:27 PM

The one thing that irritates me about this is that the council officers are those who are running the project and it has gone belly up. Nobody is fothcoming with any detailed information, and when an elected member does comment, he blows the council out of the water by admitting he knew only seven were being recieved at Windsor. That is why the council are now talking about the others being recorded at data hub, because there "final CCTV statement - December 19th 2010" insisted everything had gone over to Windsor and recording was happening. So in my book, it is misleading to claim that something has happened when the actual truth of the matter is that of the seven cameras visible to control room staff, none of them can even be operated.

With regards to the example you gave Danny, if an incident is taking place, the control room will use the cameras to zoom in and get images to use to track the offenders. A better example would have been the group of youths in Newbury Market Place that tried to get into the Wagon. The Landlord correctly called through to the radio link and asked for these people to be picked up so that the police could prevent them from gaining access to other venues. This never happened because the control room is not able to be contacted.

Just to add something else, the council statement suggested an increased police presence over the Christmas period. Why was it that nobody was able to respond to calls for assistance from the Wagon on Monday 27th December (Bank Holiday)??? We've had problems, we can't change that. But the traders and publicans tried to get this information before Christmas so they could add to their own security arrangements. By misleading the local community, those additional measures were not employed, and had something serious happened, what then? Can you imagine if somebody waqs stabbed in the Market Place, and the assailant made off down past the library and the canal. As the camera in the market place was panned out at the time, and Windsor couldn't control it, there would be no way of identifying the person responsible. Can you imagine the council having to explain why there waqs no image after saying everything was operational?

There is no reason to cover up what has taken place, besides saving face for certain individuals. The only reason I want the council to come clean now is because intentionally lying about what has taken place gives politics a bad name, and reflects badly on everyone. I still don't get why the council PR is claiming everything is ok either??? Is he still using the pre-Christmas press statement???

Posted by: gel Jan 6 2011, 01:30 PM

Ownership of output:

As it's funded by us (ie capital costs/running costs etc) and CCTV is looking down on our activities,
why don't we demand access to camera feeds via the www.

That perhaps would qualify under the self help/big society approach being promoted!

It would be a digital neighbourhood watch on a grand scale

We can see the traffic cameras most of time, so why not these too??

Posted by: dannyboy Jan 6 2011, 01:34 PM

Tracking offenders is fine - but to what purpose? The landlord of the W&H contacted the police & they decided there was no crime worthy of their presence. In principle CCTV is a great idea - an idea that the CCTV industry sold to cash rich councils and then romped all the way to the bank with.

Ifs buts & maybes ( alluding to a ficticious stabbing is scaremongering of the highest order, worthy of Fox News ). All this angst is nothing more than political point scoring.

Posted by: dannyboy Jan 6 2011, 01:35 PM

at one time you could log into the market place camera ( the one on the White Hart )

Posted by: Iommi Jan 6 2011, 01:35 PM

Meanwhile, you seem unconcerned about how well public money is spent.

Posted by: Bloggo Jan 6 2011, 01:37 PM

Great idea and maybe one that should be adopted in the future. Just now though I would be happy for either the Council or the Police being able to see and control them. If all of the rumour about the apparent collapse of the system in Newbury is true then the person responsible in the Council should be resigning.
Another demonstration of ineptude.

Posted by: dannyboy Jan 6 2011, 01:38 PM

It is all a game. RG scours the local press for something to further his political agenda. I'm quite happy, in between watching Jeremy Kyle & Top Gear to play along.

Posted by: Richard Garvie Jan 6 2011, 01:41 PM

Just using it as an example. Bank robbery, hit and run or even a mugging, what good would the CCTV have been then? You don't believe CCTV is a useful tool, you've already admitted that. But once again, the issues are a secondary issue now as nothing can go back in time to change that. What I want to know is why three people at the council, the portfolio holder and the control room staff at Windsor all have different stories. Well, I say that, but Cllr Stansfield pretty much confirms what Windsor are saying.

Posted by: dannyboy Jan 6 2011, 01:41 PM

The whole system should never have been installed. Can you name one instance of it being any use?

Posted by: Iommi Jan 6 2011, 01:42 PM

Ah right, then pat yourself on the back as I recognised that quite some time ago (I'm similar, but I can do without JK), although you do let your impartiality down sometimes when discussions (inevitably) move towards slagging the council down.

Posted by: dannyboy Jan 6 2011, 01:43 PM

Exactly - what use!?! So moving it to Windsor is a good idea! Saves post of cash.

they don't have different stories. You'd be unhappy if they did have the same story claiming it stank of collusion!

Posted by: Iommi Jan 6 2011, 01:46 PM

I bet there are more, but there was an attack caught on camera on the Sainbury's roundabout that wouldn't have been successful without the footage (the schoolboy defendant had to admit to being the person caught on camera). And there was the attack in Thatcham (near the White Hart I think), that also wouldn't have been successful without CCTV.

This doesn't take into account of the ShopSafe scheme that helps to 'manage' Newbury town and co-ordinate police movements.

Posted by: dannyboy Jan 6 2011, 01:47 PM

The slagging off is the problem. Things would be no better if RG & his pals were running the show. All we'd have is some 'Tory Boy' on here endlessly calling for Cllr Garvie's resignation......

'oh, get this, Cllr Garvie said in a email that this was his position, but when I spoke to one of the people who contacted me about the event, he said he'd heard that that wasn't the case, and if it was that was the old plan anyway which was due for revision under the new legislation'

Trying to make political mileage out of non events is pointless.

Posted by: Iommi Jan 6 2011, 01:50 PM

(regretably) This is how the political we have is meant to work; to keep people on their toes.

Posted by: dannyboy Jan 6 2011, 01:54 PM

okay, so 2 then.

The shopsafe scheme was dong fine, until undermined by RG....now the entire CCTV system is being advertised on the NWN site as maybe not working ! What a coup!

Posted by: Iommi Jan 6 2011, 02:13 PM

You asked for one and I gave two, but there could be more.


Who's fault is that really?

Posted by: dannyboy Jan 6 2011, 02:16 PM

All concerned. Too many chefs.

Posted by: Iommi Jan 6 2011, 02:17 PM

Was Christmas the best time for this to have happened?

I quite like the idea of people like RG, SK (the two people you seemed most concerned with) and the muted BB to come along and help stir up the orthodoxy in Newbury.

Posted by: dannyboy Jan 6 2011, 02:22 PM

They are the only two hence my seeming bias.

If only the energy they waste fighting & pontificating was better spent in a constructive manner.

Posted by: Iommi Jan 6 2011, 02:26 PM

Which is what the once vociferous BB seems to be trying to do now.

Posted by: Richard Garvie Jan 6 2011, 02:27 PM

The move was supposed to take place three months ago, but was delayed due to problems with the phone lines by all accounts. Perfectly understandable, but why not delay it until January (which is actually the quietest time to do it). When (if) the council actually supply the information that has been requested, we may well be able to see what the plans were originally, what the variances were and the problems this caused. It's not about scoring points, technical problems on a project like this are more common than not. But why lie about it? That's the issue with what happened over Christmas, rather than the problems themselves.

Posted by: dannyboy Jan 6 2011, 02:32 PM

But why lie...That's the issue with what happened over Christmas, rather than the problems themselves.
Have you just found out the CCTV is & has been working fine & are now changing the direction of your ire?

Posted by: Iommi Jan 6 2011, 02:34 PM

But that isn't the full story. Some cameras were working, but the 'system' was failing.

Posted by: dannyboy Jan 6 2011, 02:38 PM

No, the real story is developing on the other board!

Posted by: gel Jan 6 2011, 02:39 PM

Yes I used that; recall link was on Newbury Weekly News site.

Posted by: Richard Garvie Jan 6 2011, 02:42 PM

Yes, it stopped working not so long ago.

Posted by: JeffG Jan 6 2011, 04:20 PM

That's a laudable suggestion, but you might as well say that since we fund the police through our taxes, we should have free run of all their databases and information on any ongoing investigations.

I'm guessing you would get the same answer in both cases.

Posted by: Iommi Jan 6 2011, 04:26 PM

Funny enough, on the radio today, I was listening to an article where a CCTV broadcast was made available to residence of an area and it become as popular as regular TV broadcasts. You could call it the iNeighbourhood Watch scheme!

Posted by: JeffG Jan 6 2011, 04:32 PM

Now that would be a good idea - "Big Society" in action. Rather than having centralised control centres, devolve the control of individual cameras to communities. But I can foresee downsides to that!

Posted by: dannyboy Jan 6 2011, 04:33 PM

And if it was possible to track & zoom in on your neighbours - just pan left, zoom in through window......

Posted by: Iommi Jan 6 2011, 04:34 PM

It is simply a sophisticated Neighbourhood Watch scheme, but as you imply, be careful what you ask for.

Posted by: Iommi Jan 6 2011, 04:36 PM

Only reporting what I heard on the radio. Mind you; if in town, I'd be careful who you are seen around with!

Posted by: gel Jan 6 2011, 04:50 PM

Yes I am certain that blond that's moved in across road needs monitoring for potential criminal activities!!

Posted by: Richard Garvie Jan 6 2011, 05:25 PM

There was actually a new site launched last year that lets you watch the CCTV cameras in corner shops and the like. Not quite sure if it's still going.

EDIT: Here's the link http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/click_online/9234033.stm

Posted by: Richard Garvie Jan 6 2011, 05:46 PM

The two faces of the Conservative administration

http://www.newburysound.co.uk/cctv-switch-defended-i-8199.php

The man in charge of West Berkshire's community safety has defended the switch-over of Newbury's CCTV cameras to a Windsor control centre: "By the end of this week, the thing should be up and running very smoothly. Having some of the cameras not working, and I'm certainly not going to say which ones, hasn't been a critical issue."

Councillor Anthony Stansfeld has been speaking after reports that the change has led to incidents in the town centre not being recorded by the security system.

The Council has confirmed that the cameras are being handed over after being tested, and the police only asked to see footage for one case over the Christmas period.

£250,000 is being saved every year with the new system and Councillor Stansfeld says it'll also make a huge difference when it comes to catching criminals: "We have definition that should be able to identify them, or certainly much more closer to identifying them properly than the old system, which was very very blurry. I think that is the major advantage.

"We've done it in batches and as each batch goes over, the system becomes better and more resilient. But inevitably, in the period between the two systems, it will not be operating at full efficiency, that is quite clear."

Just hours after the paper hits the stand in which the council insisted all cameras were operational, and Comunity Safety portfolio holder Cllr Anthony Stansfield finally comes clean. After appearing to confirm what I had established from Windsor CCTV control room in a rather cagey comment to the paper, he has now admitted that not all cameras were recording or operational. He has also said now that the police did in fact request CCTV for one incident, after denying that there had been any incidents reported to the council in the paper.

Right at the very end he says "But inevitably, in the period between the two systems, it will not be operating at full efficiency, that is quite clear." So after all of the lying and decieving the local business community, and then lying to the media, we are finally starting to get the full story. Cllr Stansfield needs to resign, despite knowing full well there was problems with the network, he authorised his department to lie to the public through the local media. Classy.

Posted by: Iommi Jan 6 2011, 06:10 PM

I've also heard rumours that the quality of the analogue footage in the past, was only as bad as it was because nobody replaced the the VHS cassette(s) they were using!!!

The statement above still doesn't add clarity to the status of the ShopSafe scheme. This is an integral part of the system.

Posted by: dannyboy Jan 6 2011, 06:12 PM

RG - Can you explain how you'd switch the feed from a camera from one location to another without it being out of operation?

Posted by: Iommi Jan 6 2011, 06:14 PM

No one can answer that without knowledge of the two systems. Maybe it is just a mouse click away?

Posted by: dannyboy Jan 6 2011, 06:18 PM

From analogue to digital?

Posted by: Iommi Jan 6 2011, 06:21 PM

Like I said: without knowledge of the systems in place, it is hard to even speculate.

Posted by: dannyboy Jan 6 2011, 06:24 PM

It would be hard, but speculation is RGs forte, so I can't wait for his answer.

My guess is that the outage RG is making such a big deal of is precisely this kind of outage.

Posted by: Iommi Jan 6 2011, 06:29 PM

Maybe, but like I said, without knowing the solution, who knows, but systems can be installed and tested in parallel to mitigate down-time.

My concern was the disruption to the ShopSafe scheme, because I suggest they needn't have been such a disruption, if the rumours were true. All this at Christmas time, the busiest time of year!

Posted by: Richard Garvie Jan 6 2011, 06:31 PM

Correct. The tapes were apparently worn out.

As for shop safe / pub watch, the council claim that it was always the plan to have it connect early this year rather than at the point of transfer.

Posted by: Iommi Jan 6 2011, 06:36 PM

That is ridiculous!

Posted by: Richard Garvie Jan 6 2011, 06:38 PM

When I was a manager for ASDA, our CCTV cameras were 20 years old or so. The company fitted a new phone line and server and hooked up all of the (analogue) cameras. Head Office and even other stores could log in to view our images. Now, had we allowed Windsor to view the Newbury images and kept the Newbury control room until Windsor was ready to accept full control, we would not have gone without CCTV over the busiest period of the year.

Until the council publish the information that has been requested, nobody really knows if their plan was suitable. The reason I am being vocal about the technical issues now is more to do with the fact that the council lied and tried to mislead the business community into believing everything was ok.

Posted by: Richard Garvie Jan 6 2011, 06:41 PM

Exactly. To be fair to the council, they were delayed by BT installing the correct phone lines. But if they were behind schedule already, a few extra weeks wouldn't have hurt. With the busiest trading week of the year and New Years Eve all going by without any effective CCTV coverage, the council took a massive risk by trying to cover it up and it has now blown up in their face.

Posted by: dannyboy Jan 6 2011, 06:43 PM

Ah, I wondered why you were so enamoured of ASDA & so dismissive of Tesco.

Posted by: Iommi Jan 6 2011, 06:46 PM

To be fair, there could be quite a few people that would enjoy seeing an ASDA in town.

Posted by: dannyboy Jan 6 2011, 06:48 PM

But interesting none the same.

Posted by: dannyboy Jan 6 2011, 06:49 PM

Did we go without CCTV then? You are really sure about this?

Posted by: user23 Jan 6 2011, 06:50 PM

Stop making excuses for the poor lad.

This is yet another gaffe from the hapless Garvie.

Advertising to all that will listen that the CCTV cameras aren't working, when it seems after all, they were.

Posted by: Iommi Jan 6 2011, 06:50 PM

Well a femto bit!

Posted by: Iommi Jan 6 2011, 06:52 PM

Not at all; it was a pointless question from someone who I suspect doesn't know himself and is prepared to believe all his 'brethren' in the council say.

Posted by: dannyboy Jan 6 2011, 06:55 PM

brethren?

Not that old chestnut ( soon to be felled!! )

It isn't a pointless question. RG has answered it in the way I expected.

Posted by: Iommi Jan 6 2011, 06:55 PM

Again, that isn't the case. The cameras might have been working (I don't believe anything the council say on this), but Newbury's CCTV security system was not working properly, that (it would seem) is a fact.

Posted by: Richard Garvie Jan 6 2011, 07:01 PM

I've worked for ASDA, TESCO and Morrisons!!! Not so much dismissive of TESCO, I have TESCO mobile. But I don't agree with their pricing or their offering in store. The only thing they are good at is non food, and all of the other retailers have a long way to go to catch up on that part of it, which is where the profit margins are. The food sections of the store actually lose money for Supermarkets.

Anyway, having worked in retail management, I have a good understanding of thing like CCTV and radio links, and Iommi is completely right that the failure of shop safe / pubwatch when the cameras were offline is unacceptable. The Tories are making a big thing of CCTV, saying it's not a required service and they could of axed it completely. Just to clarify, I support the principle of trying to get better value for money, and I also support the upgrade of the cameras to a digital system. In my opinion, it should have remained in Newbury but I can see why they have done it. I also accept there was a high possibility of technical problems, and that is not what I am having a go about.

My concern is this. The council said the plans would ensure there would be no problems with the switch over and that retailers wouldn't notice a thing. I already wanted to see the plans to move the control room to establish what coverage the district would be left with. I also asked to see the variances to this and what problems occurred. For whatever reason, that information is not forthcoming. What is potentially becoming a more important issue, is the issue of trust. The council have lied and misled the local business community, and now the heat is on Cllr Stansfield, he has now made a statement confirming that even now we don't have a fully operational system. This is after the council and elected members went to great lengths to deny everything I and a lot of other people had said.

The TCP is the body that represents the bulk of town centre traders. They were lied to, with an elected member actually claiming that shop safe was never connected to the CCTV control room. Jonathan Hopson is a very senior figure in Newbury, and he was lied to. I was lied to. Elected councillors were lied to. The media was lied to. Is this acceptable behaviour of a local authority??

Posted by: Richard Garvie Jan 6 2011, 07:03 PM

Listen to the news bulletin on the Newbury Sound website, Cllr Stansfield can be heard in his full glory.

Posted by: dannyboy Jan 6 2011, 07:06 PM

The food sections of the store actually lose money for Supermarkets.


anyone who can make such a statement is in a dream world.

I already wanted to see the plans to move the control room to establish what coverage the district would be left with. I also asked to see the variances to this and what problems occurred. For whatever reason, that information is not forthcoming.
Why do you think you are entitled to see such information?

Posted by: Richard Garvie Jan 6 2011, 07:08 PM

But it's becoming increasingly clear they weren't. See above, Cllr Stansfield was on the radio confirming that this afternoon. Also, how can the data hub record if it is yet to be operational? From speaking to various sources this afternoon, the data hub may have only come online this week. Unless the council come clean, we can only go by what people have said.

The project manager admits it won't be completed to the 10th.

Windsor control said that as of the 31st, they could only view SEVEN cameras and had no control over them.

Cllr Stansfield confirms that only seven were viewable, but says "others" were recording. How come the council are unable to produce recorded images when requested?

Yet the council PR claims everything went to plan, and User23 is straight on the case supporting his colleagues. The story changes all of the time. For heavens sake, just come clean.

Posted by: Richard Garvie Jan 6 2011, 07:23 PM

This information should be available to those who wish to see it.

Posted by: user23 Jan 6 2011, 07:25 PM

You're becoming increasingly desperate it seems.

Posted by: user23 Jan 6 2011, 07:28 PM

Exactly. We could save a bundle by turning the whole thing off.

Posted by: Iommi Jan 6 2011, 07:35 PM

And even more if we get rid of the police and the council! But seriously, I wonder if the traders and the police would share your enthusiasm for its removal?

BTW - this was my reply to the OP you quoted:

Posted by: dannyboy Jan 6 2011, 07:58 PM

That isn't really answering the question though is it? Just becasue I want to do something does not give me the right, or compel others to comply with my wishes.

Posted by: Richard Garvie Jan 6 2011, 08:23 PM

Of course it is. Are you saying that the council should not publish information like this, or be accountable?

Posted by: dannyboy Jan 6 2011, 09:35 PM

No - I don't think such info should be made available to anyone that wants it.

Councils are accountable.

Posted by: blackdog Jan 7 2011, 12:12 AM

How can they be called to account if they hide their failures behind a wall of secrecy? The Government wants all government to be more accountable and, as part of this, they are demanding that councils should be more open (no one at WBC seems to have noticed this yet).

Posted by: dannyboy Jan 7 2011, 11:28 AM

you vote them out.

Ah, but therein lies the inherent problem with the system - one lot face just the same criticisms as the next!

Posted by: Iommi Jan 7 2011, 11:54 AM

Why would you vote someone out if they have managed to 'conceal' their efforts? This is the issue, we cannot make a good judgement because the electorate are not furnished with enough information to make an informed choice at the ballot box. Not that many vote for personalities anyway.

Posted by: dannyboy Jan 7 2011, 11:59 AM

It seems a moot point.

We seem to have those who, because of some past conflict, think the council is made up of nothing but crooks, liars & idiots. Then we have those those who think councils do an passable job for a largely unconcerned population.

If RG was head of WBC there would be just as many issues & conflicts between council & vocal electorate.

Posted by: Iommi Jan 7 2011, 12:29 PM

I agree, but is this simply our democratic model in action? You seem to be saying that we should cease and decease from complaining.

Posted by: dannyboy Jan 7 2011, 12:40 PM

But we are dealing with the constant automatic gainsaying of any statement or actions the council makes. Eventually such action will belittle any true complaint, thus undermining the true democratic process.

It happens time & time again. Those in power let those with no power but loud voices shout until it just becomes background noise.

Work with the council to resolve issues - not waste everyones time with bickering & finger pointing. Unless of course your true intention is to take control for your self.

Posted by: Iommi Jan 7 2011, 12:49 PM

This sounds OK, but we have evidence that the council can behave in a protective manner. SK's issue for instance (assuming what we have read is true). RG is looking for a way to wound the council, but we also have to question whether the council have behave prudently and correctly, and sometimes that doesn't seem to be the case.

The CCTV issue was always a contentious issue and one even the police were allegedly concerned with, so to see it apparently handled incorrectly means we start to wonder what else 'goes on without mention'.

Sometimes the council are their own worst enemy.

Posted by: Bloggo Jan 7 2011, 12:50 PM

There is merit in what you say but don't you think that there should be transparancy with an organisation that is in place to represent you and by the way is also funded by you. When a mistake is made in the past someone would put there hand up and say "sorry I made a mistake" but nowadays that honesty seems to be lost in that no one will even admit to a mistake being made.
This and all councils only want you to work with them when it suits them. It's not a two way street I'm afraid.

Posted by: dannyboy Jan 7 2011, 01:02 PM

If the oposition didn't jump over every council action, maybe councils would be more open. It is a Catch22 situation.

We should go back to unpaid representation.

Posted by: Bloggo Jan 7 2011, 01:14 PM

Well that's the result of spin politics that we see demonstrated by a certain someone on this forum. Instead of working for the good of the country they perfer to promote the party.

Sadly you would see a more inept bunch making the decisions than you have now.

Posted by: blackdog Jan 7 2011, 04:10 PM

That's because you don't change the people running the place, changing the councillors makes very little difference as they just take the same advice from the same officers.


I doubt it - there isn't enough money in being a local councillor to make much difference.

Posted by: dannyboy Jan 7 2011, 04:12 PM

Just like Westminster.

Posted by: Iommi Jan 7 2011, 04:23 PM

This is because councillors are glorified rubber stampers. The illusion of democracy. Someone for the plebs to boo-hiss at.

Posted by: dannyboy Jan 7 2011, 04:24 PM

If there were not paid, maybe folk would boo hiss a little less.

Posted by: Iommi Jan 7 2011, 04:30 PM

As I understand it, councillors take on the role a bit like like a board of non-exec directors. They should be looking after the interests of the share holders (the constituents). What we need to see is more action from councillors showing that they can get results from the executive. Unfortunately, it would seem that they are often 'in bed' with each other.

Posted by: Jayjay Jan 7 2011, 05:04 PM

There seems to be a pattern emerging. Council seems to want to keep the electorate in the dark.

WEST Berkshire Council is one of several authorities branded “slow-coach” by the Government’s communities secretary Eric Pickles for not yet opening their finance books to the public.
Six months ago, the Conservative minister Mr Pickles wrote to all councils calling on them to throw open their files and publish all spending data on items over £500 online, to make local government spending more transparent and show waste is being eradicated.
He gave a deadline of the end of January 2011, and despite West Berkshire Council’s insistence it is on target to publish the information on time, Mr Pickles has rounded on those councils yet to put the data in the public domain and said that they will face tough questions from residents and tough action from him.
On New Year’s Eve, Mr Pickles said: "One hundred and forty four councils have shown they're not afraid to be transparent and I applaud them, but that's less than half, the slow-coach councils only have a month to go before serious questions will be asked about what they've got to hide.”

Posted by: Squelchy Jan 7 2011, 05:54 PM

If I may paraphrase...

Just about covers it.

Posted by: user23 Jan 7 2011, 06:02 PM

You'll be standing for election in May then will you?

Posted by: Cognosco Jan 7 2011, 06:14 PM

Probably not as he is not economic with the truth and no qualifications such as obfuscation etc.

Posted by: Squelchy Jan 7 2011, 06:29 PM

I won't be scoring a winning goal in the Cup Final either, but that doesn't prevent me from being able to tell a good goal from a bad one does it?

Posted by: user23 Jan 7 2011, 06:52 PM

Sounds like you're a bit jealous, from that analogy.

Posted by: Simon Kirby Jan 7 2011, 07:23 PM

Jealous? I read it to mean that every citizen is competent to express frustration at the low standards of morality, honesty, and competence that they find in their local councillors. Can you say why you believe otherwise?

Posted by: Iommi Jan 7 2011, 07:37 PM

Here's what out Tory MP thinks:

Richard Benyon is just pleased the CCTV system is being maintained: "Everybody wants these kinds of services to be run as locally as possible, but they also want them to be run as cheaply and efficiently as possible.

"I'm certainly not going to criticise the Council over making this move and it's been very carefully planned to make sure that a good service of level of service. I'm a great fan of what it's achieved on the Common and I don't think it matters so much where it is, it just has to efficiently and cost effectively run."

This this p*****k for real? I wonder what he would have said had he been in opposition. Politicians, I sh*t 'em!

Posted by: user23 Jan 7 2011, 07:39 PM

He's compared being a councillor to scoring a winning goal in the FA Cup final.

I don't know about you, but I'm a little jealous of anyone who scores a winning goal in the FA Cup final.

Posted by: Iommi Jan 7 2011, 07:41 PM

FFS

Posted by: Richard Garvie Jan 7 2011, 10:16 PM

As I've said before, up until the 31st December when the council gagged Windsor, only seven cameras were visible in Windsor. This is fact, Windsor CCTV control room have gone on record regarding this, and once the CCTV network is fully operational again, I am happy to tell you what those locations were. I'm sure I'm correct in saying that this story only made it to the paper as the council were insisting everything was now operational.

On returning home this evening, I've recieved a full statement of what is and what isn't working from the council, the problems that have been encountered and the expected completion dates. Like I've said on many occasions, this has never been about the technical faults as such. Yes, they are important, but the main issue for me now is the fact that the traders and the licence holders were intentionally misled and then lied to by Conservative elected members and certain officers at the council. I simply ask you, is that acceptable behaviour?

Now that the council have admitted what the situation is, maybe they will apologise to the traders and bodies that were misled and repeatedly lied to over the past few weeks. Maybe the council will also retract the statement they issued in the Newbury Weekly News claiming everything was ok. I know some of you don't like the fact that I am vocal on some local issues, but had I not established the full facts of this people like User23 would continue to dismiss this incident as rumour.

One final thing. I know the weather has been awful, I know that service providers such as telecoms companies and security firms have let the council down badly over the past few months. When the proposals are fully published, we will see exactly how well equipped the proposals to move the control room were. The council can't be held to account for the work of service providers, and that is not what the majority of people are upset about. What has caused this whole situation is the fact that certain people have acted in a completely dishonest way, and are unlikely to be held to account for their actions.

Posted by: Squelchy Jan 7 2011, 10:43 PM

No I aint..read it again.

Posted by: Simon Kirby Jan 7 2011, 11:00 PM

No Richard, it isn't. This isn't about CCTV, it's about accountability. I though the piece in the NWN this week was very good. I am appalled at the arrogance of the local authority's response that it would undermine the town's security to give an honest answer - what rubbish. And that guff about no one having complained - the story gave a pretty vivid account of complaints that have clearly been made. I just love how they squirm when you don't accept being fobbed off. Good job RG.

Posted by: Bofem Jan 8 2011, 08:59 AM

Yes, thanks RG...whatever your motives you gave the paper a great story on a plate.

Posted by: On the edge Jan 8 2011, 09:46 AM

Nice to see really effective challenge still exists - even if its presently outside the Council chamber. I trust many more than I appreciate Richard G's efforts. His motives are quite honest and transparent - wanting to be elected. Hope he is one day; we need rather more driven Councillors!

Posted by: Cognosco Jan 8 2011, 11:15 AM

Totally agree! Will we now see an honest and open investigation by the Chief Exec to find out exactly what has happened? It would not be fair to any Council member or any other party to be pilloried for something that they have been accused of in the press or this forum. A proper Open investigation is the only way forward. If this is not carried out then the council should resign as all credibility will be lost. Total transparency is the only way forward for all politicians, councils and public bodies especially after the MP expenses fiasco.

Posted by: Iommi Jan 8 2011, 11:33 AM

Councillor Stansfeld: "It's actually not a statutory obligation for the Council to do this at all. We're the only council, except for one, in the whole of the Thames Valley that has not been sponsored by the police. Usually the police put up most of the costs for these".

So everyone, we should count ourselves lucky we've got what we got!

One has to ask: why don't the TVP cough-up?

Posted by: blackdog Jan 8 2011, 01:39 PM

I'd rather see an investigation by a cross-party group - after all it is the Chief Exec and his staff they will be investigating.

Where does this wierd idea that the councillors run WBC come from?

Posted by: Simon Kirby Jan 8 2011, 06:49 PM

"Picture this: a log, rushing downstream with the river rapids. 5000 ants on the log, and each ant thinks that he alone is steering the log." [from http://www.govexec.com/dailyfed/0810/081910wic.htm]

Posted by: Cognosco Jan 8 2011, 07:04 PM

Well in that case in this climate of fiscal cutting would it not be more appropriate to get rid of all councilors?
In this modern electronic society would it not be possible to let all ratepayers send in suggestions and then let all ratepayers have an instant vote for any that had over a certain majority? You would only need a small number of analysts to work out costs of projects etc. Any further suggestions to stop this debacle happening again? Our town is too important to be run by a small clique of elite who seem to have no accountability whatsoever.

Posted by: On the edge Jan 8 2011, 07:07 PM

Might not be a statutory obligation - but local government (the secret is in the name) is rather more than delivering statutory obligations. If that's all they are there to do; why not simply give up and let central government deliver the lot. Good old Cllr Stansfield! 'By the people for the people' methinks he's made a bigger boo boo than Lord Young - ought to quit for making statements like that.

Posted by: On the edge Jan 8 2011, 07:07 PM

Might not be a statutory obligation - but local government (the secret is in the name) is rather more than delivering statutory obligations. If that's all they are there to do; why not simply give up and let central government deliver the lot. Good old Cllr Stansfield! 'By the people for the people' methinks he's made a bigger boo boo than Lord Young - ought to quit for making statements like that.

Posted by: user23 Jan 8 2011, 07:14 PM

Wouldn't this exclude those who are digitally disenfranchised even more so?

For example my Gran has never used a computer in her life, how would her views be represented?

Posted by: Cognosco Jan 8 2011, 07:19 PM

How are her views represented at the moment? She probably only sees her councillor at election time and then if she lives in the right location! Needs some thought I agree but something surely has to change and dramatically - soon!

Posted by: user23 Jan 8 2011, 07:28 PM

It won't happen any time soon unless the public are willing to pay for it, which I doubt very much.

Posted by: Cognosco Jan 8 2011, 07:42 PM

Any one have any idea what the council costs per year at the moment? Coalition are getting rid of Quangos why not go the whole hog and have a proper clear out and let the public put forward some suggestions on how towns etc should be run? Worth a punt in my humble opinion? I have never been consulted on any of the proposals put forward for the town? Seems to me only the people who want what the council wants in the first place are consulted on any of the issues involving the town. As the councillors are supposed to represent the people and it seems they, and full time staff, certainly are not complying with that then lets get rid of the lot and try something different?
Come on lets have some sensible suggestions?

Posted by: user23 Jan 8 2011, 07:45 PM

Why haven't you taken part in any consultations? What in particular are they not complying with?

Here's what happened in Bristol by the way. They http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/1831959.stm, voters chose the lowest option and by 2006 http://www.bbc.co.uk/bristol/content/articles/2006/09/29/education_comments_feature.shtml. Who did some blame, why the council of course.

Posted by: blackdog Jan 8 2011, 08:45 PM

She could read the question in the local paper and phone in her vote.

Posted by: user23 Jan 8 2011, 08:56 PM

How would you verify it was her? Would the call be free for her?

Posted by: Richard Garvie Jan 8 2011, 09:34 PM

We spend around £650k a year on 52 elected members.

Posted by: blackdog Jan 8 2011, 10:54 PM

Verification is as much a problem with online voting - banks manage to keep online and telephone banking reasonably secure - no reason why a local council couldn't.

Why should the call be free? If they wanted to make it free then 0800 numbers are available.

Posted by: Jayjay Jan 8 2011, 11:21 PM

How would you verify someone on-line?

Posted by: user23 Jan 8 2011, 11:22 PM

My gran doesn't use online or telephone banking though. She probably wouldn't be able to remember a passphrase or a set of memorable data. Given this, how would you verify it was her?

She doesn't have the money to phone up every week to express her opinion so the call would have to be paid for by taxpayers.You wouldn't be able to verify her online for the reasons above.

She and people like her would be excluded from the democratic process.

Posted by: Richard Garvie Jan 8 2011, 11:53 PM

Although the council will never be replaced as suggested on here, I'm all for cutting the number of councillors to at least 30. That would save a fair chunk. I also like the idea of the public making suggestions online and other residents backing those ideas. The problem of getting rid of the council system is the lack of accountability it would cause. What we need is a more representative and accountable system in West Berkshire, either that or councillors who actually want to do it to make a difference, not just for the sake of it, the allowance or because somebody twisted their arm.

Back to the CCTV, Cllr Stansfield said everything would be operational by Friday. Was that an intentionally misleading statement, judging by the fact I have an official statement which says something completely different??? It's pretty obvious Cllr Stansfield isn't on top of this and should therefore resign. Give the portfolio to somebody who wants to do it, and to do it well. I know he stands to lose £9,000 if he does the decent thing and steps down, but that is the price you pay when you show you are completely incapable of delivering a job role. Maybe some of the other people who lied should resign too?

Posted by: blackdog Jan 9 2011, 01:56 AM

Could she remember what the question was about? Perhaps she could write down the passphrase (or whatever), or the memorable data could be - now whats the word - I know! Memorable. She could use your name as the passphrase - can she remember your name? If not then perhaps she could nominate a proxy, someone to vote for her


You should look after your gran better - get her a phone deal with free evening and/or weekend calls.

Posted by: user23 Jan 9 2011, 09:46 AM

Great idea, perhaps I could be a proxy for her friends and their friends too.

I could counsel them on what they think from time to time.Personally I'd be against excluding those who would be too poor to vote.

"Your family should look after you better" would not be an adequate excuse for their exclusion, in my view.

Posted by: blackdog Jan 9 2011, 10:10 AM

Or perhaps you could place her vote for her, according to her wishes.

Under the current system she gets to vote every 4 years or so for someone to be her proxy in local decision making - if she's lucky her choice wins a seat on the council, if not she gets someone she disagrees with to represent her. How is this better?



I have already pointed out that an 0800 number would enable free calls for voting (yes this would cost the tax payers - but so do all other forms of democracy). I was merely suggesting that you should look after your gran better if she is too poor to make phone calls and get her on a deal that meant she could make calls for free.

Posted by: user23 Jan 9 2011, 10:42 AM

I've already said that she probably couldn't remember the passphrase, or where she'd written it down so this system would exclude her from voting.

What would this cost the taxpayer though. Let's say calls are billed at 5p by the service provider. There's around 150,000 people in West Berkshire which equates to around £400,000 in calls per year. Then there's a secure phone voting system to buy, hardware to run it on, ongoing maintenance charges for it, extra staff to administer it, extra staff to scrutinise it.

I'm betting this would cost taxpayers a lot more than the current system and it would exclude some of them too. Not a great move.

Posted by: Berkshirelad Jan 9 2011, 12:20 PM

Totally specious, since education is not in any way funded by local council tax. Education funding is direct from central government, with strict rules on how much the council can retain and not pass to schools.

Posted by: dannyboy Jan 9 2011, 12:30 PM

Why don't you post this official statement so we can make up our own minds?

Posted by: Richard Garvie Jan 9 2011, 01:14 PM

I can't publish the email because it is from the chief executive and is subject to confidentiality, but I believe I can tell you that as of Friday, only 20 cameras were visible to Windsor CCTV control and none could be controlled from there due to technical issues. It is hoped that all 40 cameras will be visible soon, but when they will be fully operational is not known. I will request a further update tomorrow.

I have to say, Nick Carter is one of the few people to come out of this with any credit. Despite certain officers and elected members trying to spin this in their own favour, he has established the full facts of the situation and made that information available to me. I trust that he will establish why the Conservatives decided to mislead the local business community, and take action against those council employees who took part in the cover up. He has also assured me that the information I requested regarding the plans to move and any variances will be made available to me.

That being said, I'd also be happy to support a cross party investigation to establish the facts of why people were intentionally misled.

Posted by: blackdog Jan 9 2011, 01:22 PM

Which is why I suggested that she could get someone to help her. The system would not exclude her, and it would be a huge step forward in local democracy. Whether it would come up with better local government is a matter for debate, but we will never know unless it is tried.


5p, 150,000 people = £400k? So you are assuming there would be 8,000,000 votes cast by telephone each year.

If there is a vote every week (your suggestion in an earlier post), you seem to think that local democracy would be supported by an average of 150,000+ votes ie that everyone elligible to vote would vote every week, as would their children who are currently under voting age?

Whereas I would be amazed of 10% of the electorate took part regularly, I would be impressed if there were 20,000 votes on average.

As the telephone voting would be only one way of voting I suspect that most would vote online. So perhaps 5,000 telephone votes a week, 250,000 a year. At 5p a call this would cost £12,500 - the basic allowances for two councillors, less than the allowance for one portfolio member. The extra staff you suggest as being required would replace staff currently spending their time supporting the members - I can't see the need for additional staff costs. The equipment costs shouldn't be huge - a few more basic allowances should cover it.

If my figures are on the low side they I would say that any extra cost would be well worth it as it would be caused by more people getting involved in local democracy - which I think could be a good thing. I would even suggest that the cost would be well worth it on top of the current system - perhaps as a monthly referendum on major issues (they could use the consultation and PR budgets).

Posted by: Cognosco Jan 9 2011, 01:42 PM

Is she therefore not excluded with the present system then?

She places a vote once every time there is an election, how does she verify who she is?, the councillor who is elected then assumes he/she know exactly what the constituents wishes will be and therefore votes accordingly?
Is your poor Gran ever consulted? Does she ever contact her councillor expressing her views on any given debate?
How will any new system be any worse for her? Apart from the costing of any new system I am unable to see any detrimental effects for her than she has with the present system?

I do believe the majority of constituents with the present system are not included in the democratic process anyway. I also know there is a lot of apathy regarding local politics and this needs to be improved and the only way to do this is by giving the electorate more chances to have their say on each issue that comes up and not just let a small elite do whatever pleases them. It is all very well saying we have a democratic system when in reality once every few years you get a, we have selected A-B-C, so you have to vote for who you believe is the least likely to cause the least damage?

Take the CCTV issue we are debating now do the constituents know what has been going on? Has there been wrong doing? Has the taxpayers money been wisely spent? Has the CCTV changeover been handled perfectly? No one know for sure at present as it seems to me the council are not being open. If there is an investigation, which if things go to par there will not, will anyone resign if constituents and taxpayers have been lied to?

I do believe in this day and age that the system is now completely obsolete and we need to come up with a fairer and more rapid system of people being able to register their feelings about local issues rather than on letting the councillors assume they know what we want from just one vote every few years?

Keep the suggestions coming please for the sake of proper local democracy?

Posted by: Richard Garvie Jan 9 2011, 02:20 PM

I think the mayor option will improve accountability and interest in local politics. The problem with the council is like you say, the council lying and misleading the public to the extent that nobody really knows what is going on. The council only came clean after I established the facts surrounding CCTV from the people in Windsor, otherwise nobody would have known. Gives you a lot of faith in the people currently elected to lead the council, doesn't it.

Posted by: dannyboy Jan 9 2011, 02:21 PM

What a surprise.

You moan about 'council gagging' & secrecy & as soon as you get the chance you do exactly the same!

Posted by: Richard Garvie Jan 9 2011, 02:28 PM

Hardly, if I posted the email from the chief exec, I'd open myself up to legal action. I've already stated that only 20 cameras are operational and that control in Windsor have no operational control of the cameras they can see. Those are the main points. Totally in contrast to what Anthony Stansfield was suggesting. The question is, Cllr Stansfield had access to the same information as me. Why did he say it would be sorted by Friday? It's now Sunday, and still only half of the cameras are visible and Windsor have no operational control. Did he intentionally mislead the public again?

Posted by: user23 Jan 9 2011, 02:33 PM

Doesn't surprise me at all.

Posted by: dannyboy Jan 9 2011, 02:37 PM

But why should we believe you & not Cllr Stansfield? Who can say if you are cherry picking the bits that support your argument & leaving out bits that don't ? Who can say wether you are being misleading without access to the facts?

You are no more entitled to be privy to the information in the email than another local tax payer.

Posted by: dannyboy Jan 9 2011, 02:37 PM

..

Posted by: Richard Garvie Jan 9 2011, 02:41 PM

The email says:

It was originally anticipated that the switching over of the cameras from Newbury to Windsor would take place over the course of the week beginning 13th December. During that week it was made clear that there would be periods of downtime when potentially camera images would not be available at either location. The transition period has proved more problematic than anticipated. This is not due to incompetence but rather a combination of poor weather and technical complexities that were not foreseen by either BT, Chubb and others involved in this project. In reality we are still in the transition period although the number of cameras now active at Windsor totals 20 as at 5.00 pm on January 5th. We expect the vast majority, if not all of the cameras to have been transferred across by January 10th.

There is an ongoing problem with the telemetry (viz moving the cameras remotely from Windsor) and this is currently being investigated. I have not been given a time as to when this will be remedied but the contractors are working on it.

------------------------------------------------------------------------

This has never been about technical issues as such, just the way that elected members have misled the public about those issues. Apparently there were further issues last night, although details are sketchy right now.

Posted by: NWNREADER Jan 9 2011, 02:41 PM

What action would that be? You are a citizen, with no official/commercial status. Anything a Council Officer says to you, while a private communication, has no legal caveat. If it does, then the information should not be imparted to you in the first place.
If you choose not to reveal a conversation that is a matter for you, but don't over-state your situation.

Posted by: dannyboy Jan 9 2011, 02:45 PM

During that week it was made clear that there would be periods of downtime when potentially camera images would not be available at either location

I take this to mean that until a camera is switched to Windsor, it is viewable in Newbury. Only during the actual switch over itself would there be no image in either location.
Could this be why your emphasis is no longer on the CCTV system itself, but on the possibility the council has 'lied'?
ie the system was not in quite the 'shambolic condition' you were first alledging?

Posted by: user23 Jan 9 2011, 02:47 PM

You're advocating moving to a system that you yourself say costs more and that less people will use.

Case closed.

Posted by: Richard Garvie Jan 9 2011, 02:50 PM

Not at all. There is no facility in Newbury to view cameras since the old control room closed. So only twenty cameras are viewable in Windsor, none of which can be controlled. Go back to the start of the email, all of my comments are along the lines of seeing what the plans were, variances to the plans and what problems have occurred. There was always the possibility of tech issues, but the fact that elected members and certain officers have continually misled the public is a disgrace and is fast becoming the bigger issue here.

There is a data hub in Newbury, but whether this is operational or not remains to be seen. I was told by an employee of West Berks on Friday that it is not yet operational. Nick didn't mention the data hub in the email, so that I can't clarify at this stage.

Posted by: dannyboy Jan 9 2011, 02:54 PM

We'll never know will we now you are choosing to play the same games as you accuse the council of.

Posted by: Richard Garvie Jan 9 2011, 03:04 PM

How do you mean? I've posted from the email above. I've done what you asked, and yet you still aren't happy. Why are you always so defensive of the current administration? It has proven very clearly that the CCTV system was not "transferred and recording" as claimed way back in December. So they lied then, then lied repeatedly throughout Christmas when challenged, then lied in the NWN last Thursday claiming everything was ok. It only started unravelling when Anthony Stansfield went on the radio to try and defend himself, saying "only a few" were not working and everything would be working by Friday (two days ago). Another lie, it would appear.

The email from Nick Carter clearly states that only 20 cameras can be viewed but none can be controlled by Windsor. That blows everything out of the water, and proves that the current Conservative Party administration is riddled with lies and mistruths from top to bottom. It also shows that there is a lack of integrity within certain parts of the district council staff who are paid for from our taxes. For once, it has been proven beyond reasonable doubt that the Conservative Party and certain council employees are guilty on all counts, the question is now what action will be taken???

Posted by: dannyboy Jan 9 2011, 03:14 PM

But, only you have all this incriminating evidence - and you are not exactly un-biased. Why should we believe you with your claims as to what is & isn't working over what WBC says?

Nothing has been 'proven clearly'. Your unwillingness to post or PM the full information you have makes one wonder what your are hiding.

Sound familiar? You see the problems ?

Posted by: user23 Jan 9 2011, 03:16 PM

Why's he lying to us?

Posted by: Richard Garvie Jan 9 2011, 03:22 PM

Retailers now have the full facts, as does the local paper I presume. I will be presenting all available evidence to retailers at a meeting on Tuesday. Once the full network is up and running, I'll happily post everything I have, including the locations of the seven cameras that were being seen by Windsor over Christmas but unable to be operated. But there isn't really much to be learnt from what I have that hasn't been posted here, just a paper trail of lies told by elected members and certain council officers.

In an effort to be transparent, I am happy to meet anyone this evening to go through the evidence that I have put together.

Posted by: Richard Garvie Jan 9 2011, 03:25 PM

I'm not. Good to see that you acknowledge the council were though.

Posted by: user23 Jan 9 2011, 03:50 PM

Where have I done that Richard?

Posted by: Richard Garvie Jan 9 2011, 03:53 PM

You wrote it, and then edited your post. Post #258

Posted by: Bartholomew Jan 9 2011, 03:54 PM

I am somewhat curious about User23 and Dannyboy as both seem to post and agree with each other in very short time frames (look back at the previous posts here) and amazingly both last amended their profiles within 5 minutes of each other on the same day (14th May 2009 at 7:17 and 7:12 pm). I think that there is a very strong possibility that they are the same person. If so, it leaves the credibility of both of them open to question.

Posted by: Iommi Jan 9 2011, 03:55 PM

For an apparently intelligent person you come-out with some bullsh*t.

Posted by: user23 Jan 9 2011, 03:56 PM

You're saying I wrote in my post that the council were lying and then I edited it out?

Does this seem consistent with anything I've posted on here before?

Posted by: Richard Garvie Jan 9 2011, 04:00 PM

Dannyboy wrote:

But, only you have all this incriminating evidence - and you are not exactly un-biased. Why should we believe you with your claims as to what is & isn't working over what WBC says?

Nothing has been 'proven clearly'. Your unwillingness to post or PM the full information you have makes one wonder what your are hiding.

Sound familiar? You see the problems ?

You originally wrote:

Why's he lying to us?

Posted by: Richard Garvie Jan 9 2011, 04:01 PM

Interesting.

Posted by: Iommi Jan 9 2011, 04:01 PM

They are both clearly biased. As is their prerogative I suppose.

Posted by: user23 Jan 9 2011, 04:03 PM

And how do you get to me accusing the council of lying from this?

Posted by: Richard Garvie Jan 9 2011, 04:08 PM

you tell me. Why did you edit your post?

Posted by: user23 Jan 9 2011, 04:10 PM

Pretty desperate of you Richard, making things up like this.

Does it seem consistent with anything I've posted on here that I would accuse the council of lying.

Posted by: dannyboy Jan 9 2011, 04:10 PM

Do I ?

Both sides are being economical with the truth IMHO.

Posted by: Richard Garvie Jan 9 2011, 04:12 PM

I didn't suggest you did it directly, but you accused me of lying then edited your comment to "sounds the same to me". As in I'm doing what the council is doing.

Posted by: user23 Jan 9 2011, 04:14 PM

Wriggle, wriggle.

Posted by: kellsbells Jan 9 2011, 04:14 PM

User23 is pHIL rUMENS from wEST bERKSHIRE cOUNCIL

Posted by: Richard Garvie Jan 9 2011, 04:15 PM

Posted by: user23 Jan 9 2011, 04:18 PM

Do you also think Iommi and GMR are the same person?

Posted by: Richard Garvie Jan 9 2011, 04:24 PM

But the question is: Were all of the cameras working? No. Did the certain elected members and officers claim they were? Yes. Are they all working now? No. Everything I have posted is based on what evidence I have, maybe an independent investigation might be best?

Posted by: dannyboy Jan 9 2011, 04:26 PM

The only interesting thing about it is that every time User & I don't toe the anti WBC bashing that is a dreary constant on this forum, we are accused of being one & the same person.

Posted by: dannyboy Jan 9 2011, 04:27 PM

It might well be.

Posted by: Cognosco Jan 9 2011, 04:28 PM

Two council Jekyll's without an Hyde??

Posted by: user23 Jan 9 2011, 04:29 PM

You can pay for that then danny.

I'd rather not fund this storm in a tea-cup some are trying to use to further their political careers with my taxes.

Posted by: Richard Garvie Jan 9 2011, 04:32 PM

I'm happy to provide what I have in person to anybody. I'm just not prepared to publish it all here until the network is at least functioning as it should. That is nobody's interest.

Posted by: Richard Garvie Jan 9 2011, 04:35 PM

But you are happy for elected members to lie to the local business community and the wider public? If they lie about this, what else have they lied about?

Posted by: user23 Jan 9 2011, 04:38 PM

Just to re-cap, who's lied to the local business community and the wider public?

Posted by: Cognosco Jan 9 2011, 04:44 PM

Exactly User! No one knows exactly what has or has not happened with the CCTV. That is why it is crucial for a proper investigation now. The accusations have gone too far now for there not to be an official investigation in my opinion. It would be unfair for all to live under a cloud of suspicion; Councillors, the Business Community, Richard and everyone. This just can't be left to a small local forum to argue over for weeks to come.

Transparency starts today!!

Are you prepared to call for an investigation too User and Danny? Only way now to really get to the bottom of it eh?

Posted by: Richard Garvie Jan 9 2011, 04:44 PM

The Conservative leadership who put out the statement claiming everything was fine, and the council officers who have intentionally misled the public in the media and via email communications and telephone calls.

Posted by: user23 Jan 9 2011, 04:48 PM

Personally I wouldn't like to see a taxpayer funded investigation for every rumour posted on a "a small local forum" just because it creates "a cloud of suspicion".

Posted by: Richard Garvie Jan 9 2011, 04:51 PM

But it's not rumour. Anthony Stansfield was the first to admit that all statements made up until Thursday were false. The Chief Exec has clarified the current position. Therefore it is now fact. The current situation is that we have 20 cameras visible in Windsor, and none of them can be controlled by the control room. The only part of this that is open to further debate is whether the data hub is operational. Based on everything we have learned regarding cameras themselves, the silence speaks volumes.

Posted by: Cognosco Jan 10 2011, 06:37 PM

OK fair enough I can live with that. If it is just rumour then surely the council would be falling over themselves to prove it false? How much would it cost for a councillor to come forward on here and in the NWN and refute all the rumours and provide a copy of all Emails sent to Richard Garvie and others who claim they have Emails and other evidence the council has lied and deceived the business community and electorate. If I was a councillor reliant on being elected again and completely blameless I would want all the facts made public as soon as possible.

What odds do you give me of this happening if the rumours are true though?

Transparency today!

Posted by: NWNREADER Jan 10 2011, 09:26 PM

I find the language combative and counter-productive.
Councillors are briefed by Officers. Councillors are not Subject Matter Experts, that is what the Officers are there to be. If the Councillors approve a project and are briefed on progress it is difficult for them to challenge their brief unless it is fairly clearly wrong.
I wonder if Councillor Stansfield, whoever he might be, is having words with Mr Carter? I'll happily be wrong, but the situation rather suggests to me any error is not party political.

Posted by: Richard Garvie Jan 10 2011, 09:33 PM

As Keith Chopping once said to me, "we run our portfolio's, the officers are there to advise". The elected members can't have it both ways, they either run their portfolio or they don't. When I spoke to Cllr Stansfield, I told him that it was unacceptable that he didn't know what the detail was. It was only after the piece in the paper did he actually get on the radio and start to admit some of what we already knew.

Don't get me wrong, Cllr Stansfield sounds like a nice enough chap, but when he went on the radio two days running last week claiming everything would be sorted by close of business Friday, you would think that he would have checked the facts before making that statement. Even Richard Benyon got involved, and was happy to say everything was ok. Now we know that only half of the cameras were visible at the end of last week, and none can be controlled by Windsor, it just seems like a ridiculous judgement call. The officers were telling me that there were issues, surely Cllr Stansfield had the same information?

Posted by: NWNREADER Jan 10 2011, 09:43 PM

I fear you have a lot to learn. Maybe you are flagging a valid issue, that Councillors are ill-briefed. Maybe I am wide of the mark.
I just know there are many circumstances in which a brief can be defective and when the source is otherwise trusted the spokesman can find a hole opening under him (or her).

I rather suspect the fact that it was Mr Carter who gave the fresh brief is indicative the original presentation was not scripted by a Councillor. Officers do not brief against Members.

Posted by: Richard Garvie Jan 10 2011, 09:59 PM

It was Pamela Bale who first sent the staement from all of the emails that I have seen, and that was in an email to certain people on the TCP. The whole situation needs to be looked at impartially, and I'm happy to make all the information I have available if that happens.

EDIT: I understand where you are coming from though, I remember Emma Webster being dropped in it from a great height.

Posted by: Squelchy Jan 10 2011, 10:14 PM

I fear you are deluding yourself. Remember John King?, John Parfitt? Vernon-Jackson? Try poping into the Dolphin after a Council meeting and keep your ears open.

Posted by: NWNREADER Jan 10 2011, 10:30 PM

'Talking' is not 'briefing'.

How do I 'pope'?



Overall, The Dolphin after a Council meeting is a rather hellish image, if I'm totally honest

Posted by: Bartholomew Jan 11 2011, 09:12 AM

Whether or not a councillor chooses to accept advice is their choice. The responsibility still lies with the councillor to act or not on that advice and the responsibility for their future actions is theirs. This is part of the job.

Posted by: Squelchy Jan 11 2011, 09:36 AM

What happens when that advice is either incorrect, incomplete, or not the whole truth?

Posted by: Richard Garvie Jan 11 2011, 10:46 AM

I think this is why an investigation is needed. Even if they were misinformed, last Thursday and Friday, Cllr Stansfield went on the radio to say everything was being sorted and that everything would be working by close of play on Friday. I then got an email from the Chief Exec telling me only 20 cameras were operational, so surely Clrr Stansfield (in charge of CCTV via his portfolio) would have checked the facts before going on the radio? It's just incompetance, and has lifted the lid on the murky dealings of the council. How many other issues have been covered up like this? How can traders believe a word Cllr Stansfield says?

Posted by: NWNREADER Jan 11 2011, 03:44 PM

Who would he check with? If he is given a brief that he has no reason to challenge (it looks like a duck, it quacks like a duck, why ask an ornithologist what it is?) the (up until now, perhaps) I can understand him presenting the brief. Ok, someone might have sexed it up between hands, but unless the Cllr was complicit in making salt sweet it is not his integrity in doubt.
It may be incompetence, it may be economy of truth, it may be spin, but to heap the odure without knowledge can cause humble pie feasting.

Ask the question, test the answer, be a terrier, but deciding guilt based on hunch or political value is not the way to go.