Newbury's CCTV Options

[NWNREADER]

One of the problems about exercising the right to free speech whilst not being in any way responsible for the outcome is that it is easy to rattle a cage and look brave, without having a thought for the outcomes.

I am quite happy that any ****-up should be exposed in an appropriate way and at an appropriate time. I'm equally happy for discretion with the 'whole truth' until that time arrives. That is not, to my mind, a cover up.
If I owned a shop and my alarm company told me their monitoring system had crashed I would not run to the press complaining that all shops covered by that company had no coverage, or put a sign in the window telling people to ignore any activation as the alarm is faulty.
However, once a correction was in place I would be looking for quality answers......

[Squelchy]

I am quite happy that any ****-up should be exposed in an appropriate way and at an appropriate time. I'm equally happy for discretion with the 'whole truth' until that time arrives.

I'm sure them at WBC wish everyone was as happy as you.

[Cognosco]

One of the problems about exercising the right to free speech whilst not being in any way responsible for the outcome is that it is easy to rattle a cage and look brave, without having a thought for the outcomes.

I am quite happy that any ****-up should be exposed in an appropriate way and at an appropriate time. I'm equally happy for discretion with the 'whole truth' until that time arrives. That is not, to my mind, a cover up.
If I owned a shop and my alarm company told me their monitoring system had crashed I would not run to the press complaining that all shops covered by that company had no coverage, or put a sign in the window telling people to ignore any activation as the alarm is faulty.
However, once a correction was in place I would be looking for quality answers......

yes I understand exactly what you are saying but the CCTV issue has been going on since before Christmas. Every person in Newbury must know about it so there is nothing to be gained in trying to keep it quiet for security reasons is there?

It seems very strange that the council has not refuted any of the allegations, which in my opinion means most if not all the rumors must surely be correct, if as you say I was a shopkeeper/trader I would like to know what security there is in place in Newbury to enable me to do a risk assessment security wise to enable me to put them in myself even if I had paid a fair wedge of money for the existing system that is now allegedly non functional.

As to waiting for the exposure to come out in an appropriate way and time; if the council work to their normal standard we will probably wait another couple of years before hearing anything and they would hope by then it would all be forgotten.

To reiterate the cat is well and truly out of the bag now so nothing to be gained by delaying? If the system is not working then the more pressure put on the council the better. It will hopefully make them get their finger out and get it sorted. Or scrap the whole idea anyway instead of wasting more taxpayers money on a system that is next to useless for Newbury as has been suggested.

It will only be a saving on expenditure if it is more cost effective on the older system but with a comparable quality of service. If it is just saving some cash but is ineffective then some project manager or councillor needs to be sorted rather quickly and major decisions need to be made.

Come on WBC lets have some action? Either state it is working or it is as suggested useless? If it can be salvaged when will this be and what is the final cost likely to be?

[Richard Garvie]

Or if this issue hadn't of been forced, maybe we would never have known!!!

As for RBWM: http://www.rbwm.gov.uk/web/sdop_cctv_background.htm

[NWNREADER]

I'm sure them at WBC wish everyone was as happy as you.

My 'happiness' is limited....

If there has been a mess in the planning/execution/contractual arrangements then a row should follow. I suspect accountability will bounce around a bit, if there really has been a problem. It may be, of course, that the plan was for reduced service and what we have/had may be to that plan.......
Citizens are entitled to ask, but when the answer can be given may mean delaying tactics.....

[Richard Garvie]

My 'happiness' is limited....

If there has been a mess in the planning/execution/contractual arrangements then a row should follow. I suspect accountability will bounce around a bit, if there really has been a problem. It may be, of course, that the plan was for reduced service and what we have/had may be to that plan.......
Citizens are entitled to ask, but when the answer can be given may mean delaying tactics.....

The story was only published after West Berks had said everything was working. It wasn't a case of causing a security issue, if the media had been told it was all not working, the story would have been delayed. The lies are the problem, not the tech problems as such. People can deal with a lack of CCTV, but they can't do anything if people say it's working when it's not.

[NWNREADER]

The story was only published after West Berks had said everything was working. It wasn't a case of causing a security issue, if the media had been told it was all not working, the story would have been delayed. The lies are the problem, not the tech problems as such. People can deal with a lack of CCTV, but they can't do anything if people say it's working when it's not.

Your naivete is touching, but dangerous. It trust journos barely more than I trust politicians.

You use the word lies with relish. I am holding my position yet a while until I know if the information was passed out to mask a problem with the CCTV or a problem with the plan.
When people hold responsibility for something they find the occasional need to take a holding position while something is not fit for public knowledge. Untruths to protect an individual against censure is one thing, holding the whole truth for a sound reason is another.

As I said earlier:
If I owned a shop and my alarm company told me their monitoring system had crashed I would not run to the press complaining that all shops covered by that company had no coverage, or put a sign in the window telling people to ignore any activation as the alarm is faulty.
However, once a correction was in place I would be looking for quality answers......

[Richard Garvie]

Your naivete is touching, but dangerous. It trust journos barely more than I trust politicians.

You use the word lies with relish. I am holding my position yet a while until I know if the information was passed out to mask a problem with the CCTV or a problem with the plan.
When people hold responsibility for something they find the occasional need to take a holding position while something is not fit for public knowledge. Untruths to protect an individual against censure is one thing, holding the whole truth for a sound reason is another.

As I said earlier:
If I owned a shop and my alarm company told me their monitoring system had crashed I would not run to the press complaining that all shops covered by that company had no coverage, or put a sign in the window telling people to ignore any activation as the alarm is faulty.
However, once a correction was in place I would be looking for quality answers......

But the information was in fact held by myself and ither peopl until the 6th Jan after the council had said everything was now working, Read the thread from the start. The reason I say they have lied is because I have a lot of information and facts from various sources. Having a business myself, I can totally understand why those businesses that have been misled are upset.

[Cognosco]

Your naivete is touching, but dangerous. It trust journos barely more than I trust politicians.

You use the word lies with relish. I am holding my position yet a while until I know if the information was passed out to mask a problem with the CCTV or a problem with the plan.
When people hold responsibility for something they find the occasional need to take a holding position while something is not fit for public knowledge. Untruths to protect an individual against censure is one thing, holding the whole truth for a sound reason is another.

As I said earlier:
If I owned a shop and my alarm company told me their monitoring system had crashed I would not run to the press complaining that all shops covered by that company had no coverage, or put a sign in the window telling people to ignore any activation as the alarm is faulty.
However, once a correction was in place I would be looking for quality answers......

I still do not understand why you need to hold your position as you say? Why wait? What for? Security reasons have been dismissed as it is now common knowledge that there are supposed to be major problems with the system. If it were untrue then surely the council would be declaring it from the rooftops? The only reason I can think of is that the council are trying to find out all the facts of what has actually gone wrong with the plan. Or in my language find some way to explain how to make the best of a cover up?

Still a deafening silence from the council.

[NWNREADER]

I still do not understand why you need to hold your position as you say? Why wait? What for? Security reasons have been dismissed as it is now common knowledge that there are supposed to be major problems with the system. If it were untrue then surely the council would be declaring it from the rooftops? The only reason I can think of is that the council are trying to find out all the facts of what has actually gone wrong with the plan. Or in my language find some way to explain how to make the best of a cover up?

Still a deafening silence from the council.

What do you want them to say? "Yes, it is true none of the cameras can be controlled, none are recording etc"? Or leave the crims in doubt as to what the situation is? Consider the situation with safety cameras - people slow down 'just in case' the camera is operational. In places where it is public knowledge they are turned off there is already evidence that speeds have increased. Maybe in time there will also be evidence of pace-related crashes increasing. If the police were to find they had no patrol staff at all for a period (it happens) would you want a public statement that was the situation? The cims would have great fun in those locales.

If the Council believe the rumours are not accurate it would be dangerous for them to get into a public debate about what is fact and what is fiction - or even just misunderstanding - because some would dissect every answer and go public with any discrepancy they think they find.

At the moment this is best dealt with by the Council, working with the trade associations, police etc.

Don't take that to mean I am supporting either position. I do not know the truth, but I believe mid-crisis (if it be one) is not the time for the problems to be made public. I certainly do not think people who just want to make noise should be given access to information. As I said before, if there has been a monumental then the responsible people should be held to account. On the same basis, if there has not, then some people should prepare to retire gracefully.

[Richard Garvie]

What do you want them to say? "Yes, it is true none of the cameras can be controlled, none are recording etc"? Or leave the crims in doubt as to what the situation is? Consider the situation with safety cameras - people slow down 'just in case' the camera is operational. In places where it is public knowledge they are turned off there is already evidence that speeds have increased. Maybe in time there will also be evidence of pace-related crashes increasing. If the police were to find they had no patrol staff at all for a period (it happens) would you want a public statement that was the situation? The cims would have great fun in those locales.

If the Council believe the rumours are not accurate it would be dangerous for them to get into a public debate about what is fact and what is fiction - or even just misunderstanding - because some would dissect every answer and go public with any discrepancy they think they find.

At the moment this is best dealt with by the Council, working with the trade associations, police etc.

Don't take that to mean I am supporting either position. I do not know the truth, but I believe mid-crisis (if it be one) is not the time for the problems to be made public. I certainly do not think people who just want to make noise should be given access to information. As I said before, if there has been a monumental then the responsible people should be held to account. On the same basis, if there has not, then some people should prepare to retire gracefully.

This is why we need an investigation. Once everything is working, let's establish the facts and deal with those responsible.

[Squelchy]

At the moment this is best dealt with by the Council, working with the trade associations, police etc.

But they're not are they? The old bill are somewhat reticent to get dragged into it, and the representative of the main Trade Association is continually told to 'shut up'

Someone needed to shout "the King is in the altogether" and bring the Council to account. They need to know that they ARE being watched. (even if Newbury CCTV isn't)

[Iommi]

As I said before, if there has been a monumental then the responsible people should be held to account.

How does that happen then?

[Richard Garvie]

How does that happen then?

Well, here in West Berks, the council cover things up and pretend it never happened. Then there is no need for an investigation or people to be held to account.

[NWNREADER]

This is why we need an investigation. Once everything is working, let's establish the facts and deal with those responsible.

'We' have no authority to establish facts/deal with those responsible. The real world of local government does not, I believe, allow for an investigative public enquiry. If a Councillor is at fault, unless it is something really serious, they will simply stand aside (voluntarily or otherwise) and be replaced by a colleague. If an Officer is at fault, like any employee, they would be subject to the proper internal process. That outcome is unlikely to be made public in any detail. No problem with putting Members on notice that the date of the system being 100% operational must be made public, immediately after. Then the detailed enquiries can be made.

What needs to happen is for members to be questioned with simple points for clarification, one at a time and not made into a political rant, by their constituents. Deciding 'someone must pay' when we honestly do not know the extent of any wrongdoing, is not a good way to proceed.

[user23]

What needs to happen is for members to be questioned with simple points for clarification, one at a time and not made into a political rant, by their constituents. Deciding 'someone must pay' when we honestly do not know the extent of any wrongdoing, is not a good way to proceed.

Yes, I agree. Probably the worst course of action would be continually refer to people as liars then admit one is not in full possession of the facts of the situation.

[Iommi]

Yes...the facts...that would be nice!

Personally I think West Berkshire Council are lying.

[Richard Garvie]

'We' have no authority to establish facts/deal with those responsible. The real world of local government does not, I believe, allow for an investigative public enquiry. If a Councillor is at fault, unless it is something really serious, they will simply stand aside (voluntarily or otherwise) and be replaced by a colleague. If an Officer is at fault, like any employee, they would be subject to the proper internal process. That outcome is unlikely to be made public in any detail. No problem with putting Members on notice that the date of the system being 100% operational must be made public, immediately after. Then the detailed enquiries can be made.

What needs to happen is for members to be questioned with simple points for clarification, one at a time and not made into a political rant, by their constituents. Deciding 'someone must pay' when we honestly do not know the extent of any wrongdoing, is not a good way to proceed.

With all respect NWNREADER, you don't know the full story. I have almost a hundred emails regarding CCTV ranging from businesses requesting help, council officers and elected members misleading me and others, and then the emails that clarify the situation as it is now. I agree that an anouncement should be made once it is fully operational, and I also believe that an investigation should take place. But unless we press the issue, this will simply be brushed under the carpet.

[Iommi]

Please Mr Mr Stansfeld would you confirm that the following is not true?

Reading were due to have their CCTV also moved to Windsor, but I understand that there is a suggestion that those plans be put on hold as they "learn from the mistakes made by WBC". |(their words, not mine) (This was as part of the East / West Berkshire nonsense that's about to befall us)

Interestingly, Windsor and Maidenhead have their own equivalent 'Shop Safe' Schemes. This involves radiophonic communications between those on the schemes and the Control room.

Windsor Control room stats:

Last Year: 4840 incidents were dealt with by the control room.

1807 of these incidents commenced with information from the Community Radio systems.

825 persons were taken into police custody due to the assistance of the CCTV and Community Radio Systems.

383 of those arrests resulted from information first circulated on the Community Radio.

216 Community Radios are in use on the system.


Radiophonic communication between the Newbury scheme and the Windsor control room is still non-existent.

http://www.newbury.net/forum/m-1289781999/s-/s-new/#num7

[NWNREADER]

Please Mr Mr Stansfeld would you confirm that the following is not true?

Reading were due to have their CCTV also moved to Windsor, but I understand that there is a suggestion that those plans be put on hold as they "learn from the mistakes made by WBC". |(their words, not mine) (This was as part of the East / West Berkshire nonsense that's about to befall us)

Interestingly, Windsor and Maidenhead have their own equivalent 'Shop Safe' Schemes. This involves radiophonic communications between those on the schemes and the Control room.

Windsor Control room stats:

Last Year: 4840 incidents were dealt with by the control room.

1807 of these incidents commenced with information from the Community Radio systems.

825 persons were taken into police custody due to the assistance of the CCTV and Community Radio Systems.

383 of those arrests resulted from information first circulated on the Community Radio.

216 Community Radios are in use on the system.


Radiophonic communication between the Newbury scheme and the Windsor control room is still non-existent.

http://www.newbury.net/forum/m-1289781999/s-/s-new/#num7

He would love that as a question as he would divert into the stats without giving any answer to what you intend to be your core question.

'Is it so that RBC have delayed their plan to move their CCTV control to Windsor?'

'Is there, today and for the future, an operating, fully functioning radio link between Newbury Shopsafe and the Windsor Control Room?'