IPB

Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

 
Reply to this topicStart new topic
> CCTV camera at the bottom of Pound Lane, Thatcham
Richard Garvie
post Nov 14 2011, 09:18 PM
Post #1


Advanced Member
***

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



As some of you may know due to reports in the media, since the CCTV transfer to Windsor, the camera at the bottom of Pound Lane in Thatcham has been pointing into the large trees. After this was repeatedly pointed out to the council, they refused to say if it was being retained or not. The council then sent a team out to work on the camera and the position was moved. Despite moving the camera, it was simply moved tp point into a different section of the trees.

Despite concern from residents in the area, the council refused to disclose if it was working or not (by now, we pretty much figured it was not). Following a spate of cars being broken into and a lorry reversing into a wall and not stopping or reporting it to the relevant people, further cmplaints were made. After emailing our local newspaper over the weekend, a team of engineers finally turned up today and removed the camera. What I find bizarre is that even now, after the camera has been removed, the council still refuse to confirm whether it is, was or will be operational in the future!!!

Why is it that it takes a certain amount of damage or hurt before the council act on anything?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
NWNREADER
post Nov 14 2011, 10:31 PM
Post #2


Advanced Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 3,414
Joined: 20-November 10
Member No.: 1,265



QUOTE (Richard Garvie @ Nov 14 2011, 09:18 PM) *
As some of you may know due to reports in the media, since the CCTV transfer to Windsor, the camera at the bottom of Pound Lane in Thatcham has been pointing into the large trees. After this was repeatedly pointed out to the council, they refused to say if it was being retained or not. The council then sent a team out to work on the camera and the position was moved. Despite moving the camera, it was simply moved tp point into a different section of the trees.

Despite concern from residents in the area, the council refused to disclose if it was working or not (by now, we pretty much figured it was not). Following a spate of cars being broken into and a lorry reversing into a wall and not stopping or reporting it to the relevant people, further cmplaints were made. After emailing our local newspaper over the weekend, a team of engineers finally turned up today and removed the camera. What I find bizarre is that even now, after the camera has been removed, the council still refuse to confirm whether it is, was or will be operational in the future!!!

Why is it that it takes a certain amount of damage or hurt before the council act on anything?


I suspect there is a certain amount of 'bluff the bad guy' going on - leave all the cameras and not disclose which ones are connected. Bearing in mind they are there to prevent as well as identify, that makes sense. I wouldn't want them to say which ones are operating. Maybe some are connected up from time to time, like Safety Cameras....
I also see some sense in them not giving away their plans to replace (or not) some cameras. They have an operational function that exceeds political point scoring.

As for why it takes 'something' to happen - that can be called prioritisation. Spending money to prevent something happening is risky in politics as it is hard to show a benefit the majority group can claim credit for. How do you demonstrate money well spent, preventing something that may not have happened anyway? A capital project to resolve a real problem makes much more sense when it comes to vote winning.

I am not defending WBC, just setting out there could be a sound justification for how they are handling the situation you see from your window. Plus, of course, the RG perspective is not the only one, nor (maybe) the most important one
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Andy Capp
post Nov 14 2011, 10:41 PM
Post #3


Advanced Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 11,902
Joined: 3-September 09
Member No.: 317



What people do see though, is a system that was 'working', now is not; despite incidents that suggest it would be advantageous if it was working. Of course councils will have priorities, but that doesn't mean people aren't entitled to kick up a stink, even if it seems over the top to some.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Dodgys smarter b...
post Nov 14 2011, 10:59 PM
Post #4


Advanced Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 462
Joined: 20-September 10
Member No.: 1,100



The bad guys are often 'one step ahead'. But WBC think we are all as stupid as they are.

The cameras in Lower Way were analogue, big grey box-like things. The reason given for the move to Windsor was the change over to digital (remember)?. Digital cameras are the small dark hemispheres.

The baddies know which is which. WBC were fooling no-one by leaving them up.

Those in Lower Way, were, in actual fact, turned off when Venom folded.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
NWNREADER
post Nov 14 2011, 11:21 PM
Post #5


Advanced Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 3,414
Joined: 20-November 10
Member No.: 1,265



I didn't say it was the case, just putting forward a possibility. It is, after all, the stupidity of crims that makes many of them easy to catch!

Maybe by kicking up RG has had the camera stand removed, also removing all chance of deterrence......

I knew the cameras were only ever put in after a long campaign over what was really a nothing situation, so no surprise if they were not used after the premises closed.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Dodgys smarter b...
post Nov 15 2011, 12:49 AM
Post #6


Advanced Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 462
Joined: 20-September 10
Member No.: 1,100



QUOTE (NWNREADER @ Nov 14 2011, 11:21 PM) *
Maybe by kicking up RG has had the camera stand removed, also removing all chance of deterrence......


Much of what you say is correct, but even the most silly of crims wouldn't have been put off by an old camera pointing directly in a tree for three years.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Guest_xjay1337_*
post Nov 15 2011, 01:29 AM
Post #7





Guests






QUOTE (Richard Garvie @ Nov 14 2011, 09:18 PM) *
As some of you may know due to reports in the media, since the CCTV transfer to Windsor, the camera at the bottom of Pound Lane in Thatcham has been pointing into the large trees. After this was repeatedly pointed out to the council, they refused to say if it was being retained or not. The council then sent a team out to work on the camera and the position was moved. Despite moving the camera, it was simply moved tp point into a different section of the trees.

Despite concern from residents in the area, the council refused to disclose if it was working or not (by now, we pretty much figured it was not). Following a spate of cars being broken into and a lorry reversing into a wall and not stopping or reporting it to the relevant people, further cmplaints were made. After emailing our local newspaper over the weekend, a team of engineers finally turned up today and removed the camera. What I find bizarre is that even now, after the camera has been removed, the council still refuse to confirm whether it is, was or will be operational in the future!!!

Why is it that it takes a certain amount of damage or hurt before the council act on anything?


Do you live on Pound Lane, or in fact anywhere near the area?

I for one actually do live in Pound Lane (well, off one of the roads at the bottom of the hill, yes - that's right - closest to the poo factory, although I can't actually smell anything unless I go outside and even when you can smell anything (which is rare) it smells more farmy than pooey) and I nor neither my flatmate or the 4 neighbours I talk to could give much of a crap either way whether there is a camera which wouldn't be protecting us as residents anyway.

Now if they said "OK we're going to put up a 360 degree camera on a pole in your residential car parking areas" then I'd say "Okay, great" - whether it was actually working or just a deterrent it's better than nothing. If it was working I'd warn them to have a filter on my bum-crack when I bend over when I'm washing my car. So a camera which isn't actually at the bottom of Pound Lane anyway (it's on Lower Way) makes no difference.

Most, in fact all of us, especially towards the bottom of Pound Lane, don't actually park our cars on Lower Way at all ( as we have residential parking, some places have slightly undercover places, some across the road have garages the lucky gits). Those closer towards the A4 where there are cars parked on the road (the round being Pound Lane), and even then it's only 3 or 4 at a push at any one time.

In the 13 months I've lived here I've not known a single car burglary occur. Not saying it hasn't happened but I've not heard about it. The only crime was the arson at the bin place and about 4 months ago there was a police car parked outside a house across the road for a worryingly long time. So I feel this is a bit of a pointless thread!

Anyway I felt it necessary to at least make a serious point, so; *coughs and clears throat*

In answer to your ever so pressing question...

"after the camera has been removed, the council still refuse to confirm whether it is, was or will be operational in the future!!!"

If the camera was removed it's highly unlikely it is or will be operational. BECAUSE IT'S NOT THERE ANYMORE. rolleyes.gif
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Richard Garvie
post Nov 15 2011, 08:19 AM
Post #8


Advanced Member
***

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



QUOTE (xjay1337 @ Nov 15 2011, 01:29 AM) *
Do you live on Pound Lane, or in fact anywhere near the area?

I for one actually do live in Pound Lane (well, off one of the roads at the bottom of the hill, yes - that's right - closest to the poo factory, although I can't actually smell anything unless I go outside and even when you can smell anything (which is rare) it smells more farmy than pooey) and I nor neither my flatmate or the 4 neighbours I talk to could give much of a crap either way whether there is a camera which wouldn't be protecting us as residents anyway.

Now if they said "OK we're going to put up a 360 degree camera on a pole in your residential car parking areas" then I'd say "Okay, great" - whether it was actually working or just a deterrent it's better than nothing. If it was working I'd warn them to have a filter on my bum-crack when I bend over when I'm washing my car. So a camera which isn't actually at the bottom of Pound Lane anyway (it's on Lower Way) makes no difference.

Most, in fact all of us, especially towards the bottom of Pound Lane, don't actually park our cars on Lower Way at all ( as we have residential parking, some places have slightly undercover places, some across the road have garages the lucky gits). Those closer towards the A4 where there are cars parked on the road (the round being Pound Lane), and even then it's only 3 or 4 at a push at any one time.

In the 13 months I've lived here I've not known a single car burglary occur. Not saying it hasn't happened but I've not heard about it. The only crime was the arson at the bin place and about 4 months ago there was a police car parked outside a house across the road for a worryingly long time. So I feel this is a bit of a pointless thread!

Anyway I felt it necessary to at least make a serious point, so; *coughs and clears throat*

In answer to your ever so pressing question...

"after the camera has been removed, the council still refuse to confirm whether it is, was or will be operational in the future!!!"

If the camera was removed it's highly unlikely it is or will be operational. BECAUSE IT'S NOT THERE ANYMORE. rolleyes.gif


I live opposite the Veolia depot. Didn't realise you live just down from me, you will probably be delighted to know that the hard standing car park is now being used for "meets" on the weekends...

As for the camera, there have been numerous stories in the paper about crimes going unrecorded because the camera was facing the trees. The straw that appears to have broken the camels back was a lorry reversing into a wall just up from me and when it was reported to the police and council, there was no CCTV. After a few emails to the council and the paper, the camera was removed yesterday.

Yes, the camera is located on Lower Way at the bottom of Pound Lane, and since I have lived in Thatcham it has always pointed up Pound Lane. Since December, the camera has been pointing into the trees so the council may as well removed it, instead of refusing to comment then and giving victims of crime false hope that the incident had been recorded.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Guest_xjay1337_*
post Nov 15 2011, 09:36 AM
Post #9





Guests






QUOTE (Richard Garvie @ Nov 15 2011, 08:19 AM) *
I live opposite the Veolia depot. Didn't realise you live just down from me, you will probably be delighted to know that the hard standing car park is now being used for "meets" on the weekends...


Ohhhh shii...What a small world!! laugh.gif Come round for a Tea? Sleep with my wife while you're over too, help yourself to my food as well. (I don't have a wife but there are lots of chicken nuggets) I'm a good host. Yeah I've hung out in that car park many times. (I haven't ever)

QUOTE
As for the camera, there have been numerous stories in the paper about crimes going unrecorded because the camera was facing the trees. The straw that appears to have broken the camels back was a lorry reversing into a wall just up from me and when it was reported to the police and council, there was no CCTV. After a few emails to the council and the paper, the camera was removed yesterday.


Was the crime going unrecorded because the camera was facing the trees? Or was it because no-one reported a crime. Camera's don't detect crime. Half of the time even the active ones aren't monitored 24/7. It's easy to miss an incident and it's only if the camera operator is looking at the right time (it does happen) that a prompt re-active decision can be made. Most of the time, Jo from up the street would report a crime and they would then look through any CCTV footage on/around the date/time of the reported incident for corroborating evidence!

QUOTE
Yes, the camera is located on Lower Way at the bottom of Pound Lane, and since I have lived in Thatcham it has always pointed up Pound Lane. Since December, the camera has been pointing into the trees so the council may as well removed it, instead of refusing to comment then and giving victims of crime false hope that the incident had been recorded.


Never seen it and normally I go to work along lower way. blink.gif The only cameras I saw where the ones near the Pinball place.

Now I can understand the questioning about why a security camera would be turned to face the bushes. Maybe it likes bushes. Let me tell you if I could put my camera at a bush or two I'd be very well off and less frustrated. Perhaps it was deactivated and in a cost-saving effort, wasn't removed, just turned away? Similar to the speed cameras in Swindon, they just put a bag over them.

So people pushing and questioning and complaining about what is frankly a non-issue then cost a probable thousand pound plus removal job which will no doubt mean the people who originally complained about a camera not doing it's job will now complain about the "waste of tax payers money"!
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Richard Garvie
post Nov 15 2011, 09:58 AM
Post #10


Advanced Member
***

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



QUOTE (xjay1337 @ Nov 15 2011, 09:36 AM) *
Ohhhh shii...What a small world!! laugh.gif Come round for a Tea? Sleep with my wife while you're over too, help yourself to my food as well. (I don't have a wife but there are lots of chicken nuggets) I'm a good host. Yeah I've hung out in that car park many times. (I haven't ever)



Was the crime going unrecorded because the camera was facing the trees? Or was it because no-one reported a crime. Camera's don't detect crime. Half of the time even the active ones aren't monitored 24/7. It's easy to miss an incident and it's only if the camera operator is looking at the right time (it does happen) that a prompt re-active decision can be made. Most of the time, Jo from up the street would report a crime and they would then look through any CCTV footage on/around the date/time of the reported incident for corroborating evidence!



Never seen it and normally I go to work along lower way. blink.gif The only cameras I saw where the ones near the Pinball place.

Now I can understand the questioning about why a security camera would be turned to face the bushes. Maybe it likes bushes. Let me tell you if I could put my camera at a bush or two I'd be very well off and less frustrated. Perhaps it was deactivated and in a cost-saving effort, wasn't removed, just turned away? Similar to the speed cameras in Swindon, they just put a bag over them.

So people pushing and questioning and complaining about what is frankly a non-issue then cost a probable thousand pound plus removal job which will no doubt mean the people who originally complained about a camera not doing it's job will now complain about the "waste of tax payers money"!


The crimes have been reported, and the camera gave residents false hope that the incidents had been recorded. It had just got to the point where residents were frustrated that nobody would tell them why a CCTV camera was in position at the end of their road, yet it was facing into the trees and missing the crime that does take place.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
blackdog
post Nov 15 2011, 01:44 PM
Post #11


Advanced Member
***

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



The recent talk of cameras (Pound Lane, Wharf) reminds me that the CCTV move to Windsor was sold as a saving of huge amounts of cash with no downside at all - better cameras, better everything.

At the time I wondered whether we were actually paying less money for a reduced service (40 cameras rather than 100+) - now it seems clear that we are.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Richard Garvie
post Nov 15 2011, 02:40 PM
Post #12


Advanced Member
***

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



QUOTE (blackdog @ Nov 15 2011, 01:44 PM) *
The recent talk of cameras (Pound Lane, Wharf) reminds me that the CCTV move to Windsor was sold as a saving of huge amounts of cash with no downside at all - better cameras, better everything.

At the time I wondered whether we were actually paying less money for a reduced service (40 cameras rather than 100+) - now it seems clear that we are.


Absolutely. How many of the remaining cameras are in Newbury, and how many in the rest of the district? If you don't live in Newbury, you have good reason to feel hard done by...
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Angry of Hungerf...
post Nov 16 2011, 12:49 AM
Post #13


Member
**

Group: Members
Posts: 13
Joined: 16-November 09
From: Hungerford
Member No.: 489



QUOTE (Richard Garvie @ Nov 15 2011, 02:40 PM) *
Absolutely. How many of the remaining cameras are in Newbury, and how many in the rest of the district? If you don't live in Newbury, you have good reason to feel hard done by...


Here in Hungerford - what was deemed at one time to be one of the most important cams in the area, still moves... It either points directly at the ground (perhaps danger mouse is about) or it points at a tree (perhaps
It's a bird watching cam).

This cam is located on the A4 junction with Charmham Street and Charnham business park. More importantly it's outside the only 24 hour filling station we have.

This cam was supposed to be watching the garage, vehicles entering and leaving the town... As an early warning to the people of Newbury...

Watch out Newbury it's not teams of shop lifters you need to worry about its Danger Mouse !'n


--------------------
Angry and ALWAYS angry - but still loving life :-)
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Richard Garvie
post Nov 16 2011, 08:28 AM
Post #14


Advanced Member
***

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



To be fair to the news system and the 40 cameras that have been retained, it's a massive improvement on the old one. This (in part), is due to the old system being out of date and using tapes that were years oled and resulted in extremely poor quality. The new system is obviously digital, better quality cameras and makes the job of identifying criminals easier.

My concerns are that a lot of cameras were switched off, never to be used again. Even if money became available to have the extra cameras, the contract the council entered into is only for the existing 40 cameras. Having spoken to Windsor, there is no capacity for additional cameras, which puts us in the amazing situation that if NTC put CCTV in Victoria Park, we may yet again have a monitoring facility in Newbury!!!

Getting back to the OP, leaving old cameras up are giving residents false hope. We have residents in Pound Lane who have been broken into, been the victims of car crime and the final straw appears to have been a lorry destroying a garden wall and driving off without reporting it. Everyone affected asked if the CTV camera had picked up the incidents, and rather than say it was not even connected, the council fobbed people off with excuses.

It turns out that the camera in the Wharf (which now has the potential to be an epicentre for trouble at weekends due to the main taxi rank being moved there) is an old camera and is not connected either. The council need to a) replace the camera with a digital one and have it connected or cool.gif have it removed and put the rank back into the market place. Can you imagine if somebody was abducted late at night or somebody was attacked, and the family of the victim asked if it was picked up by CCTV, only for the council to say it actually doesn't work? Let's get it sorted.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Andy Capp
post Nov 16 2011, 10:40 AM
Post #15


Advanced Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 11,902
Joined: 3-September 09
Member No.: 317



QUOTE (Richard Garvie @ Nov 16 2011, 08:28 AM) *
To be fair to the news system and the 40 cameras that have been retained, it's a massive improvement on the old one. This (in part), is due to the old system being out of date and using tapes that were years oled and resulted in extremely poor quality. The new system is obviously digital, better quality cameras and makes the job of identifying criminals easier.

It has never been made clear to me if the new system works as effectively in the other ways it worked, like as an intelligence gathering system for Pubwatch like schemes.

QUOTE (Richard Garvie @ Nov 16 2011, 08:28 AM) *
Getting back to the OP, leaving old cameras up are giving residents false hope. We have residents in Pound Lane who have been broken into, been the victims of car crime and the final straw appears to have been a lorry destroying a garden wall and driving off without reporting it. Everyone affected asked if the CTV camera had picked up the incidents, and rather than say it was not even connected, the council fobbed people off with excuses.

I'm not sure 'false hope' is something you can seek compensation from the council for. If you want a camera there, you're going to have to justify it, just like the majority of other residents would have to do in similar circumstances.

QUOTE (Richard Garvie @ Nov 16 2011, 08:28 AM) *
It turns out that the camera in the Wharf (which now has the potential to be an epicentre for trouble at weekends due to the main taxi rank being moved there) is an old camera and is not connected either. The council need to a) replace the camera with a digital one and have it connected or cool.gif have it removed and put the rank back into the market place. Can you imagine if somebody was abducted late at night or somebody was attacked, and the family of the victim asked if it was picked up by CCTV, only for the council to say it actually doesn't work? Let's get it sorted.

Having the rank in the wharf is an utterly senseless idea. It is no more than council vanity.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Dodgys smarter b...
post Nov 16 2011, 05:58 PM
Post #16


Advanced Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 462
Joined: 20-September 10
Member No.: 1,100



QUOTE (Angry of Hungerford @ Nov 16 2011, 12:49 AM) *
it's not teams of shop lifters you need to worry about its Danger Mouse


Run, Penfold they're on to us.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post

Reply to this topicStart new topic
1 User(s) are reading this topic (1 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
0 Members:

 

Lo-Fi Version Time is now: 28th November 2021 - 03:41 PM