Newbury's CCTV Options

[Cognosco]

If I were the Boss being complained to, I'd point the complainant to our official complaints procedure. Does WBC have one?

As a complainer, I have found that the most effective results are when you go straight to the top.

This is WBC we are talking about here is it not? User confirmed for us that they do not take any notice of forums internet etc? It seems they do not comply with Freedom Of Information acts? So even starting at the bottom of the complaints ladder, halfway up, or on the top rung it is all the same? If you are complaining you are ignored or brushed off as a trouble maker.

As for complaints procedure by the time that has gone through you will probably have aged enough to have forgotten what it was all about anyway?

Heads they will tails you lose?

[Richard Garvie]

I didn't go straight to the top. The Lib Dems had got the same answers as everyone else, so I went to Graham Jones. He got the officer responsible to email me, I was misled, and it was only after I spoke to Windsor that I realised that.

[Richard Garvie]

This is WBC we are talking about here is it not? User confirmed for us that they do not take any notice of forums internet etc? It seems they do not comply with Freedom Of Information acts? So even starting at the bottom of the complaints ladder, halfway up, or on the top rung it is all the same? If you are complaining you are ignored or brushed off as a trouble maker.

As for complaints procedure by the time that has gone through you will probably have aged enough to have forgotten what it was all about anyway?

Heads they will tails you lose?

I will complain, and if that fails I will take it as far as I can. People should not be allowed to lie. By not taking action, the council will effectively be supporting thos who acted improperly.

[Sidney]

It's all very well "outing" people if the whole thing has gone wrong, but crime is up in Newbury since all and sundry publicised (correctly or incorrectly) that they don't work.

[Richard Garvie]

It's all very well "outing" people if the whole thing has gone wrong, but crime is up in Newbury since all and sundry publicised (correctly or incorrectly) that they don't work.

The crime mapping website would suggest that these crimes have been happening for sometime, it was just people typically got caught when the CCTV was working.

This story would never have been published until after the thing was working had the council told the truth. It was only after the council said everything was fully operational that the story was published in the media.

[Sidney]

The crime mapping website would suggest that these crimes have been happening for sometime, it was just people typically got caught when the CCTV was working.

This story would never have been published until after the thing was working had the council told the truth. It was only after the council said everything was fully operational that the story was published in the media.

So are you saying that the council said it was working .... and someone took it upon themselves to prove otherwise ?

[Richard Garvie]

So are you saying that the council said it was working .... and someone took it upon themselves to prove otherwise ?

The story was first published on 6th January after all and sundry at the council said it was working. I disputed it in the paper and Anthony Stansfield then went on the radio admiting all was not well and it suddenly snowballed from there. Is it fully operational now? That is the question I will be asking at the council meeting tonight, but I've already been told the answer. Whether the council admit it or not is another matter.

[Sidney]

The story was first published on 6th January after all and sundry at the council said it was working. I disputed it in the paper and Anthony Stansfield then went on the radio admiting all was not well and it suddenly snowballed from there. Is it fully operational now? That is the question I will be asking at the council meeting tonight, but I've already been told the answer. Whether the council admit it or not is another matter.

You seem to be missing my point. If you are right (and I suspect you are) I don't think its a good idea to publicise that its not working. By all means report the whole sorry saga, when you know it works FOR CERTAIN but in the meantime keep quiet ?

For example if the whole Met Police cameras crashed one day - do you think it's in the interests of national security that we all know, terrorists and all ?

Reading between the lines in your posting above,YOU are implying that it still doesn't work. If this is true whos best interests do you have at heart to expose this ???? The only people who would benefit, at this point in time , would be our very own Chavs !!

[Andy Capp]

If the CCTV is not working, is it not incumbent on the council to make provisions for such an eventuality? If London's system crashed, I would imagine there would be a strategy for such events. I'm not sure how effective the cameras are in Newbury anyway and I am unsure if the knowledge was either new to the chavs, or whether it mattered.

[Cognosco]

You seem to be missing my point. If you are right (and I suspect you are) I don't think its a good idea to publicise that its not working. By all means report the whole sorry saga, when you know it works FOR CERTAIN but in the meantime keep quiet ?

For example if the whole Met Police cameras crashed one day - do you think it's in the interests of national security that we all know, terrorists and all ?

Reading between the lines in your posting above,YOU are implying that it still doesn't work. If this is true whos best interests do you have at heart to expose this ???? The only people who would benefit, at this point in time , would be our very own Chavs !!

If the CCTV system is so vital as suggested why was the changeover handled in such a slipshod way?
Why was the project handled in such an amateurish way? Why weren't tests carried out on a single camera to see how the system would work before changing over the whole amount
How many cameras are on the new system?

If the CCTV fiasco had, as you suggest been kept quite, would the council have pulled their finger out to get it working? Would the taxpayers have been informed of the major problems caused through bad planning and just to reduce the bottom line? Would it have all been hushed up and taxpayers been none the wiser? Would the taxpayers and business community and others still have been lied to?
Is the new system working now? Is the new system cost effective for the cover we are getting?
None of these questions would have been raised and the fiasco would probably be going on a lot longer that it appears it is now? None of these questions have been answered and it cannot be put down to security reasons can it?

Until there is a proper investigation then the taxpayers are never going to know for sure?
WBC at the moment are none accountable to the taxpayers and this must change and rapidly?

[Sidney]

If the CCTV system is so vital as suggested why was the changeover handled in such a slipshod way?
Why was the project handled in such an amateurish way? Why weren't tests carried out on a single camera to see how the system would work before changing over the whole amount
How many cameras are on the new system?

If the CCTV fiasco had, as you suggest been kept quite, would the council have pulled their finger out to get it working? Would the taxpayers have been informed of the major problems caused through bad planning and just to reduce the bottom line? Would it have all been hushed up and taxpayers been none the wiser? Would the taxpayers and business community and others still have been lied to?
Is the new system working now? Is the new system cost effective for the cover we are getting?
None of these questions would have been raised and the fiasco would probably be going on a lot longer that it appears it is now? None of these questions have been answered and it cannot be put down to security reasons can it?

Until there is a proper investigation then the taxpayers are never going to know for sure?
WBC at the moment are none accountable to the taxpayers and this must change and rapidly?

Agree with pretty much most of the above. However, I think it was exposed for political point scoring and nothing more !!

And I don't think for one moment there will ever be a proper published investigation do you ?

[Andy Capp]

Agree with pretty much most of the above. However, I think it was exposed for political point scoring and nothing more !!

It might be, but shop keepers are now (and did before) expressing concern about the functionality of the new system.

[Sidney]

It might be, but shop keepers are now (and did before) expressing concern about the functionality of the new system.

True again - but the views of shopkeepers are pretty much ignored around here too ..... unless of course you're Tesco !

[Richard Garvie]

Agree with pretty much most of the above. However, I think it was exposed for political point scoring and nothing more !!

And I don't think for one moment there will ever be a proper published investigation do you ?

Not political point scoring, but I wanted to ensure accountability. My whole drive for getting into local politics is the lack of accountability and transparency at West Berkshire District Council. Despite the rumours, I've not been parachuted in by the Labour Party to stir it up here. I'm not setting myself up for a career in politics. I just want accountability and transparency, afterall, all taxpayers should want that.

Tonight at the council meeting, Graham Jones read out a four page dossier aimed at discrediting me and has openly said that all cameras were visible in Windsor before Newbury Control closed. This is yet another story to add to the list of answers that we have had. Graham Jones actually stooped to insulting me in the meeting, and if comparing me to Peter Mandelson is the best he can come up with, my skin is a lot thicker than that. He also very curiously read out responses from User23 and Dannyboy in response to some of the posts I've put up here, so fair play to him for reading through the thread.

He openly challenged me to publish anything I have that shows the people were misled. I have an email from the Chief Exec dated 7th january that says only 20 cameras were visible in Windsor, and I will be asking the paper to publish this on Thursday. So there we are Graham, on the same day that the Chief Exec says we had 20 cameras visible, Anthony Stansfield was in the paper saying evrything was pretty much working and Keith Ullyat said everything was recording and digital. Anthony Ansfield went on Newbury Sound hours after the paper went on sale admitting things weren't working and that's when the whole story unravelled.

But don't take my word for it. Newbury Sound are required by law to keep recordings of output for three months after broadcast, as are the BBC. The paper have a copy of all editions ofthe paper, so have a look through and see for yourself how often the story has changed. To correct a comment from the dossier, it wasn't me feeding the press false stories, but the council issuing conflicting statements. Even the excel spreadsheet contradicts all of the emails they were sending and the media statements they made.

Graham Jones refuses to talk to me on the phone, but may I suggest he meets me in the council offices to go over the news cuttings and the audio from the radio stations? Maybe have an independent person there too? Come on Graham, you are big and strong in the council chamber when I'm only allowed one supplementry, but come on here and tell me when we can meet to review the media coverage and statements from the council or give an explanation as to why you won't do it.

I won't get my hopes up.

[Roost]

I guess the thing from my point of view is:

RG (dude, you picked up a nickname already!) makes a h e l l of a lot of good points and I know that a lot of what he has said is accurate.

BUT

Any investigation to be carried out now would without a shadow of a doubt, cost the taxpayer money in some form or another.

All I would actually need would be (in retrospect if need be) an admission from somebody that 'actually, no, it didn't quite go to plan but it is bring rectified and we've learnt from it'.

Instead all we get is 'it's 8 o'clock and all's well!'

[Iommi]

Retirement is going to be harder than I thought...

Graham Jones. Whether the cameras were showing pictures in Windsor or not, is not the issue.

As of today...

1 Is the CCTV system upgrade finishedy?
2 Are the people in Windsor able to control all the cameras in Newbury that is intended according to the migration plan?
3 Can Windsor communicate efficiently with Newbury security teams such as the police and 'doormen'?
4 Has the ShopSafe and Pubwatch schemes been fully reinstated?

For me, these are the pertinent questions.

[Richard Garvie]

I guess the thing from my point of view is:

RG (dude, you picked up a nickname already!) makes a h e l l of a lot of good points and I know that a lot of what he has said is accurate.

BUT

Any investigation to be carried out now would without a shadow of a doubt, cost the taxpayer money in some form or another.

All I would actually need would be (in retrospect if need be) an admission from somebody that 'actually, no, it didn't quite go to plan but it is bring rectified and we've learnt from it'.

Instead all we get is 'it's 8 o'clock and all's well!'

I will post an email I sent to Andy Day just a week ago saying exactly that: this all would have been avoided if they said "we've had a few issues, we've got extra police out and we advise shops to take extra care with security measures". Something like that and this would never have been a public issue. It was only made public because people have lied, and whatever way you look at it, some people ARE lying. They must be, as all of the comments to the media are so different, sometime three different stories from three people connected to the council. It's been a complete farce.

[Richard Garvie]

Retirement is going to be harder than I thought...

Graham Jones. Whether the cameras were showing pictures in Windsor or not, is not the issue.

As of today...

1 Is the CCTV system upgrade finishedy?
2 Are the people in Windsor able to control all the cameras in Newbury that is intended according to the migration plan?
3 Can Windsor communicate efficiently with Newbury security teams such as the police and 'doormen'?
4 Has the ShopSafe and Pubwatch schemes been fully reinstated?

For me, these are the pertinent questions.

Answer to 3 and 4 is yes. Answer to 1 and 2 is no. Yet he still tried to make out that I was wrong with a four page essay / rant about me in the council meeting tonight.

[Iommi]

Answer to 3 and 4 is yes. Answer to 1 and 2 is no. Yet he still tried to make out that I was wrong with a four page essay / rant about me in the council meeting tonight.

Surely a lack of 2 means that 4 must be no?

If what you say is true, it rather dispels user23's idea that forums like this are not treated seriously. For Graham Jones to quote this forum is quite amazing!

[Richard Garvie]

Surely a lack of 2 means that 4 must be no?

If what you say is true, it rather dispels user23's idea that forums like this are not treated seriously. For Graham Jones to quote this forum is quite amazing!

I was quite impressed. Just a bit gutted that he massaged the ego's of User and Danny!!! Basically, he said shopsafe and pubwatch have now been restored. Whether it works or not, I'll physically have to see it to believe it I'm afraid, I've been lied too that often.

He says 20 of the 21 cameras in Newbury are visible at Windsor, nothing about remote control though. He said progress with the other 19 cameras is ongoing but wouldn't comment on specifics. That's fair enough, nobody has ever asked for specifics.