Newbury's CCTV Options

[dannyboy]

They must be twins, they think so alike!!!

do you think?

[Iommi]

nope. not me.

Only a true member of the West Berkshire Council Defence League would deny their subscription!

do you think?

No you don't, but you both behave similar when it comes to criticism of certain authorities.

We have strong evidence that the council are ballsing-up, yet you are more concerned with belittling RG.

[user23]

No you don't, but you both behave similar when it comes to criticism of certain authorities.

We have strong evidence that the council are ballsing-up, yet you are more concerned with belittling RG.

As do you and Dickie.

I've yet to see any evidence at all.

[dannyboy]

Only a true member of the West Berkshire Council Defence League would deny their subscription!


No you don't, but you both behave similar when it comes to criticism of certain authorities.

We have strong evidence that the council are ballsing-up, yet you are more concerned with belittling RG.

Innocent until proven guilty.

RG does a good job all by himself without any help from others.

[Iommi]

As do you and Dickie.

Do what?

I've yet to see any evidence whatsoever.

That's untrue for a start. We have evidence by statement. We have contradiction from the council and we have witness statements. I grant you that this is not proof, but it is evidence none the less.

I am sure that if the ShopSafe and Pubwatch scheme up and running properly, they would have said so.

[Iommi]

Innocent until proven guilty.

Only in law.

RG does a good job all by himself without any help from others.

TBH - if you and user23 were less transparent and less childish in your methods WRT RG, I probably wouldn't. My concerns with this issue are not the same as RG.

[Richard Garvie]

Innocent until proven guilty.

RG does a good job all by himself without any help from others.

I'm not fighting this alone, I just don't have anything to lose by being vocal on the matter. Many others feel they can't speak out at this stage, but would contribute to an investigation as they would be required to take part by whoever is responsible for it.

[dannyboy]

Only in law.


TBH - if you and user23 were less transparent and less childish in your methods WRT RG, I probably wouldn't. My concerns with this issue are not the same as RG.

Impartiality is the name of the game.

[dannyboy]

I'm not fighting this alone, I just don't have anything to lose by being vocal on the matter. Many others feel they can't speak out at this stage, but would contribute to an investigation as they would be required to take part by whoever is responsible for it.

You have a lot to lose. For instance me, with your first posts on these forums. You can't be critical if you are overtly biased.

[Richard Garvie]

You have a lot to lose. For instance me, with your first posts on these forums. You can't be critical if you are overtly biased.

Let's take this issue:

Back in December we were told everything had transferred and was working fine.
Over Christmas, I raised concerns and was lied too.
Windsor went on record stating what the situation was.
Cllr Stansfield was first to break cover, whilst the council PR continued with the "everything is fine" line.
Nick Carter then confirmed the situation the time, proving everyone else had not told the truth.
We now know that the "24/7" Pubwatch system only works on certain evenings, so more untruths from the council.

If I was wrong on the issue, I would have looked silly. But the REAL FACTS support what I have said on here and in the media. I wish I had been wrong. But the facts are that the system wasn't working and the council misled me and others.

[dannyboy]

Let's take this issue:

Back in December we were told everything had transferred and was working fine.
Over Christmas, I raised concerns and was lied too.
Windsor went on record stating what the situation was.
Cllr Stansfield was first to break cover, whilst the council PR continued with the "everything is fine" line.
Nick Carter then confirmed the situation the time, proving everyone else had not told the truth.
We now know that the "24/7" Pubwatch system only works on certain evenings, so more untruths from the council.

If I was wrong on the issue, I would have looked silly. But the REAL FACTS support what I have said on here and in the media. I wish I had been wrong. But the facts are that the system wasn't working and the council misled me and others.

I coudn't give a toss about the CCTV, or who is right & who is wrong.

[Richard Garvie]

I coudn't give a toss about the CCTV, or who is right & who is wrong.

I asked you a long time ago if you thought it was ok for people to be misled over the matter and you didn't answer. Do you think that is an acceptable way for the council to behave?

[dannyboy]

I asked you a long time ago if you thought it was ok for people to be misled over the matter and you didn't answer. Do you think that is an acceptable way for the council to behave?

Misled ? I think that is a little harsh. Falsehood and delusion are allowed in no case whatsoever: But, as in the exercise of all the virtues, there is an economy of truth.


All councils do it. Get over it.

[Richard Garvie]

Misled ? I think that is a little harsh. Falsehood and delusion are allowed in no case whatsoever: But, as in the exercise of all the virtues, there is an economy of truth.


All councils do it. Get over it.

I'm sorry if I offend you with my style and the way I post comments on here. But I like to think I have principles, and just because others do this it doesn't mean West Berks should. We've never had accountability here, despite some of the huge clangers that have been dropped. I think it's time that changed, whether I personally get elected or not.

[Iommi]

I coudn't give a toss about the CCTV, or who is right & who is wrong.

In practical terms, CCTV is unimportant to me, but I am in no way as casual about it as you.

If the council had figures that demonstrated that CCTV was not good value, then they should explain. They said they could save money and and improve the system. That is far from the way things are at the moment. Indeed, it seems the CCTV system coverage was being reduced before the migration, so they have a smaller footprint to manage (I understand).

They are guardians of the system and I believe it is incumbent on them to do a good job. In this situation, and by all accounts, they have not. They have even sought to conceal the truth in some cases. In my view we should be interested in the migration of the CCTV as it is indicative of how well they might handle other services under their control.

I think it is quite proper, even if it is only for political mischief, for people like Richard Garvie to speak up. If he is wrong, then we have the opportunity to argue the cause. The way I see it, we appear to have little opposition in Newbury these days, other than a few weasel words from Mr Rendel, so someone like Richard Garvie makes a refreshing change or inclusion to the debate.

You could say he is the heir to the 'position' that the now tamed Brian Burgess once held.

[dannyboy]

a refreshing change or inclusion to the debate.

well it is certainly better than the once popular calls for sterilisation & capital punishment. I don't care because I know that that would be a waste of time.

[Iommi]

a refreshing change or inclusion to the debate.

well it is certainly better than the once popular calls for sterilisation & capital punishment. I don't care because I know that that would be a waste of time.

What do you mean?

[dannyboy]

What do you mean?

Should have had a new paragraph.

RG's contribution to the forum is better than the once popular calls for sterilisation & capital punishment which were the staple of discussion here.

I don't care about the CCTV or council accountability because I know that that to care would be a waste of time.

[Iommi]

I don't care about the CCTV or council accountability because I know that that to care would be a waste of time.

OK, but that is very defeatist and also makes me wonder why you bother to post at all; hardly anything here will material change anything. It also doesn't explain why you would be so sensitive to Richard Garvie's anti-West Berks rhetoric.

I think it is surprising you find RG's language and attitude more worthy of ridicule than allegations of your tax money being poorly spent, or the council badly managing a project that undermines the security of the town.

I am still convinced you are not impartial in these matters.

[Richard Garvie]

Should have had a new paragraph.

RG's contribution to the forum is better than the once popular calls for sterilisation & capital punishment which were the staple of discussion here.

I don't care about the CCTV or council accountability because I know that that to care would be a waste of time.

Maybe if we all took a little interest, they would not treat us like fools.