Newbury CCTV's a goer! Options

[Iommi]

but two cute smart alecs don't make for a productive exchange do they?

One is being paid out of our taxes to be (un)smart and one is attempting to curry favour. RG can do what he likes for the moment, but I am concerned that people in the council might be getting away with shoddy and deceitful performance.

[NWNREADER]

http://www.westberks.gov.uk/index.aspx?articleid=22197

Have a look at the CCTV transfer project document on the right hand column. Telementry is still not working (not all cameras visible at Windsor can be controlled), not all cameras can be seen at Windsor and some cameras are yet to be replaced. So when Keith Ullyat said all 40 cameras were working, recording and digital a few weeks ago, it wasn't true.

If the quote attributed to Keith Ullyat is accurate then it does seem he was incorrect. But he works entirely on information he is given to present, he does not research the details himself. If Keith said it, that was what he was told to say.

As for the spreadsheet, is it a live document? If so, when was it last updated?
if the published version is just a snapshot then what it says today, tomorrow or next week may not change even if the situation does.

[Iommi]

If the quote attributed to Keith Ullyat is accurate then it does seem he was incorrect. But he works entirely on information he is given to present, he does not research the details himself. If Keith said it, that was what he was told to say.

If so, is there any point for someone like Keith Ullyat to be in the position he is?

[dannyboy]

One is being paid out of our taxes to be (un)smart and one is attempting to curry favour. RG can do what he likes for the moment, but I am concerned that people in the council might be getting away with shoddy and deceitful performance.

And so it has been & will be forever.

The CCTV issue is a storm in a teacup, mountains out of molehills.

What WBC should have done is buried the 'news' in a deluge of fact & information. My guess is that there isn't the manpower for such a response. So, idle hands & all

A council's failing is its arrogance.

[Iommi]

And so it has been & will be forever. The CCTV issue is a storm in a teacup, mountains out of molehills. What WBC should have done is buried the 'news' in a deluge of fact & information. My guess is that there isn't the manpower for such a response. So, idle hands & all. A council's failing is its arrogance.

Steady on, you'll lose your bonus!

All what you say might be true, but that doesn't mean we should allow them an easy ride.

[dannyboy]

Steady on, you'll lose your bonus!

All what you say might be true, but that doesn't mean we should allow them an easy ride.

As Wilson said - a week is a long time in Politics.

[NWNREADER]

If so, is there any point for someone like Keith Ullyat to be in the position he is?

As a journalist he uses his experience to prepare Council information for presentation to the media. he may guide on content so he can present a coherent statement, but his role is not to go out and get the information. That is for Officers and Members to provide.

[Iommi]

As a journalist he uses his experience to prepare Council information for presentation to the media. he may guide on content so he can present a coherent statement...

Is that a euphemism?

With a lot of things it is about managing expectations and the council are guilty of making bold statements like to paraphrase: moving to Windsor will not be detrimental to the system whatsoever. While long term that might come to pass, but they seem to be making a fist of it, and if people would have any idea that the transition would be as it seems it is, I wonder if there might have been more objection to the plan in the first place. Indeed, perhaps that might account for the 'deception'. Either way, it seeks to undermine confidence in the authorities.

[Richard Garvie]

Dannyboy, if the cameras cannot be controlled by the control room staff, they are not fully operational. The fact is, we're still at less than 30 cameras in the district out of the 40 we will eventually have.

In a press statement this week, Anthony Stansfield said he was delighted that the network is fully operational. Today, he doesn't say anything like the network being fully operational, but that it is being delivered in stages. Luckily Iommi, I have kept recordings of all of his radio statements and copies of the NWN. Unless I get the answers I have requested by the end of today, I will be complaining to the standards committee. If I have to, I will take this to the ombudsman.

This whole issue is now about integrity and trust. On Tuesday they said very clearly that all of the cameras in Newbury were recording and operating successfully. On the same day, the council published some information as a result of an FOI stating that some cameras have still to be replaced, some of the cameras and still in pre set position and cannot be controlled and that some cameras cannot be seen in Windsor.

Keith Ullyat has been used as a scapegoat on all of this, and I'm sure that he has only put out what he was told to send out. Cllr Stansfield and the officers in charge of the move have continually moved the goalposts throughout this mess, and now they have been caught out (again).

[dannyboy]

RG - I'm fully aware of what is involved with a modern CCTV system - its capabilitities & what is involved with such a system.

Problem is your entire sentence ' if the cameras cannot be controlled by the control room staff, they are not fully operational' hinges on the word 'if'.


Take your 'understanding' of Tuesday - you have arrived at - On Tuesday they said very clearly that all of the cameras in Newbury were recording and operating successfully. On the same day, the council published some information as a result of an FOI stating that some cameras have still to be replaced, some of the cameras and still in pre set position and cannot be controlled and that some cameras cannot be seen in Windsor.

Seems to me that the cameras waiting to be replaced, & those not able to be controlled ( funny, no 'if' this time ) & those not yet viewable in Windsor are cameras not in Newbury. If This is the case, then the council are correct. What is incorrect is your comprehension. Instead of offering, with a flourish, your take on the events, offer up some proof to back up your allegations. Any fule, and most of them appear on Newsnight, can waffle on with out ever actually saying anything with any meat to it.

It is a bit like Masterchef - you take one set of ingredients offered up by the council & end up with a dogs diner, I take the same & end up with Quiche Lorraine.

[Richard Garvie]

Cllr Stansfield has said this morning on Newbury Sound:

But despite continued problems in getting all of the cameras working, Councillor Anthony Stansfeld, who's responsible for community safety says a review just wouldn't be possible: "I'm not going to go into detail about which areas it's working perfectly and which areas some are recording and others are not, that's obviously a foolish thing to do".

Are they working, or are they not working? He's now saying he won't tell us which cameras aren't recording, but didn't the council said they are now all recording??? Listen to the news on the Newbury Sound website.

In addition, the FOI material states clearly that the cameras are not fully operational.

[dannyboy]

Cllr Stansfield has said this morning on Newbury Sound:

But despite continued problems in getting all of the cameras working, Councillor Anthony Stansfeld, who's responsible for community safety says a review just wouldn't be possible: "I'm not going to go into detail about which areas it's working perfectly and which areas some are recording and others are not, that's obviously a foolish thing to do".

Are they working, or are they not working? He's now saying he won't tell us which cameras aren't recording, but didn't the council said they are now all recording??? Listen to the news on the Newbury Sound website.

In addition, the FOI material states clearly that the cameras are not fully operational.

I know the entire system isn't fully operational.

"We are still awaiting a final update on the cameras outside Newbury so are not in a position to confirm any numbers yet.”

[Richard Garvie]

West Berkshire Council has announced that all cameras are operating successfully, following weeks of uncertainty

FOLLOWING weeks of uncertainty, West Berkshire Council has announced that all of the CCTV cameras in Newbury are now working. A statement released on Tuesday by the authority said: “All of the cameras are operating and recording successfully, and 18 of the 21 cameras in Newbury are being monitored live 24 hours a day, seven days a week at the new control room in Windsor.”
A link will also be installed to Newbury Police Station and Thames Valley Police Control Room so that officers can view live and recorded footage.
The move to the new hi-tech system in Windsor and Maidenhead is expected to save the council £250,000.
The entire switch-over project is still not complete however, and the status of the remaining 19 cameras across the district is unclear.
Newbury Labour Party spokeman Richard Garvie, while praising the council for the upgrade, criticised the timing of the release and said he disputed that all the cameras were operational, citing information published on the West Berkshire Council website under the heading “CCTV systems in West Berkshire”.
Mr Garvie requested a copy of the CCTV project transfer plan, and has responded to the document on the Newbury Labour Party website, claiming that correspondence with council chiefs indicated that upgrades to some dome cameras is still ongoing.
"I was promised information from the chief executive of the council, and despite waiting over a month, the officers in question have provided me with a spreadsheet that I could have put together in twenty minutes,” he said.
“It’s about time we had a full and independent investigation on this matter, and that action is taken against those who appear to have tried to conceal the facts of what has happened,” he added.
A spokesman for West Berkshire Council, Keith Ulyatt, said: “We are still awaiting a final update on the cameras outside Newbury so are not in a position to confirm any numbers yet.”
The West Berkshire executive member for community safety, Anthony Stansfeld (Con, Kintbury), said he was delighted to see the new system fully operational in Newbury.
“We take our responsibilities to protect resident’s safety very seriously,” he added.
At a meeting of the Newbury Retail Association on Tuesday, chairman Brian Burgess said he was very grateful that the new system was up and running in Newbury, but that the town’s retailers had no confidence those responsible for the incidents of anti-social behavior and crime over recent months would be brought to justice.
However the West Berkshire Local Police Area Commander, Supt Robin Rickard, has hailed the new system.
"The new CCTV arrangements are a really positive move in that the evidential quality of the picture is now far greater than it has been previously.
"Clearly, CCTV is only one element of a crime investigation and cannot on its own prevent and detect crime. However, it is a really valuable tool when it records crime and criminal activity,” he said.
The Liberal Democrats have requested a review of the CCTV switch-over to be carried out by the council’s Overview and Scrutiny panel.
A vote on the matter will take place on Tuesday, March 1.

So in a period of a few days, Cllr Stansfield goes from being delighted that it's all working to admitting on the radio that some cameras are not recording. Surely I am not the only person who thinks this is unacceptable behaviour from an elected member? How can he say to the paper that evrything is fine when he knows it isn't? This is an intentional statement to mislead the public, and had the FOI not been published, would he be admitting today that there are still problems?

[Richard Garvie]

The FOI shows that the cameras in Newbury are not fully operational. The comments on the radio from Cllr Stansfield today show that he knows there is still a problem, yet he was happy to tell the paper something else.

[dannyboy]

The FOI shows that the cameras in Newbury are not fully operational. The comments on the radio from Cllr Stansfield today show that he knows there is still a problem, yet he was happy to tell the paper something else.

Post the bloody proof then!

Some hack you'd make!

[Richard Garvie]

It's on the council website.

[Iommi]

Problem is your entire sentence ' if the cameras cannot be controlled by the control room staff, they are not fully operational' hinges on the word 'if'.

How can that be done if he is denied information, or the council seemingly indulge in obfuscation? With out doubt RG has rattled cages of people that are not familiar with theirs being rattled.

[Richard Garvie]

So in a period of a few days, Cllr Stansfield goes from being delighted that it's all working to admitting on the radio that some cameras are not recording. Surely I am not the only person who thinks this is unacceptable behaviour from an elected member? How can he say to the paper that evrything is fine when he knows it isn't? This is an intentional statement to mislead the public, and had the FOI not been published, would he be admitting today that there are still problems?

[Rosewinelover]

Just been listening to you on Newbury Sound Richard, your voice is not what I imagined it to be! (In a good way )

[Richard Garvie]

Really? I hate the sound of my voice (doesn't stop me from talking though!!!)