Newbury's CCTV Options

[user23]

I know.


Exactly. It forms a part of a greater whole.

But you could quite easily have the Exclusion Order Scheme without CCTV so trying to claim that CCTV had reduced shoplifting by 50% would be untrue.

[Iommi]

But you could quite easily have the Exclusion Order Scheme without CCTV so trying to claim that CCTV had reduced shoplifting by 50% would be untrue.

My post was a quote, so it is nothing to do with my opinion, however; I'm sure that the CCTV system helps enforce the order.

[Cognosco]

The Exclusion Order Scheme isn't CCTV.

It's something that can be enforced by a number of measures, including CCTV.

User you are just picking out bits from the post that you can try and discredit!

We need answers and swiftly?

Does CCTV help to reduce crime?

Does CCTV help police convict wrongdoers?

Was the old system effective or obsolete?

Was the old system not cost effective?

How many camera's were on the old system?

How many camera's are on the new system?

What is the cost per camera of the new system compared to the old system?

Is the new system up and running 100%?

Is the new system an improvement on the old system?

Does the new system cover the same area's as the old system?

Does the new system liaise with all the groups of the old system? Such as Pubwatch etc?

Until someone gives honest answers to the above then the council are going to keep getting comeback!

Why is there a wall of silence from the council, apart from User trying to discredit any criticism of the council on here, why will no one in authority supply any answers or even give a very good reason or explanation for why they are unable to give answers? The "for security reasons" has long been discredited you will not find many who are not aware of the CCTV alleged fiasco!

The longer this silence continues from the council the more shouting needs to be done from the taxpayer!

[user23]

My post was a quote, so it is nothing to do with my opinion, however; I'm sure that the CCTV system helps enforce the order.

To what degree though and is it better value than traditional methods like uniformed officers patrolling the streets?

[NWNREADER]

I see the 'ANPR' cameras have been raised again. Was it ever proven/acknowledged they even exist?
If they do, they would doubtless be totally separate from any CCTV monitoring system and their number cannot be included any more than all the 'private' CCTV systems around the district.

The list of simple questions is absolutely the way to go. Presented individually they put a responder on the spot as the issue cannot be avoided/diverted. Supplementary questions can then be put based on the answer to check out any queries the response create. Such simple questions are also apolitical, so cannot be palmed off as point scoring.

One problem politicos have is thinking only political people take any interest in issues. The truth is sooooo different, but us simple citizens feel sidelined

[dannyboy]

I love it how you can speak for a supposedly different person. Just admit it, you think the same, use similar writing style and you both last changed your profiles within minutes of each other, You're either twins, lovers or a gemini!!!

Are you saying I should have answered - "No, I don't think I do".

[Cognosco]

To what degree though and is it better value than traditional methods like uniformed officers patrolling the streets?

Just like radio for communications CCTV's are tools for police and others to use.

A policeman on the beat has a limited vision of the street he/she is patrolling. A camera usually sighted much higher and being able to zoom in has a much clearer field of vision and an operator can cover a vaster field of vision area using several camera's and monitors. The CCTV operator can direct the foot patrol to where any incident is occurring and of course you have the evidence of the CCTV to produce in court as well. One operator can cover several monitors at once so I would imagine much more effective than a constable on the beat. One CCTV operator can track a person the length of Newbury, providing their are camera's and operating of course, he can record the whole incident for future reference if needed. A poor constable, if not directly witnessing the incident happening has to be called to the scene and if the person who was involved in the incident has left he needs to stop and take a description from any witnesses, which can be very conflicting at times, before proceeding to give chase. The CCTV does this all for him and gives him/her directions, providing the council has not turned off the cameras of course and disabled the radio links, must make policing more efficient surely. To have the same sort of cover it would take far more police to be patrolling the streets. Of course I have no idea on the cost of a constable on patrol but to have the same sort of cover as CCTV you would need shifts of constables to give twenty four hour cover I would estimate that CCTV would win hands down and do the job far more effectively.

That is of course if the system is working and there are enough camera's of suitable quality with proper communications. Perhaps one day we will find out.

Not being an expert in this field of course I wait to be corrected if wrong.

[Richard Garvie]

Are you saying I should have answered - "No, I don't think I do".

or "How the heck would I know what he thinks"!!

[Iommi]

To what degree though and is it better value than traditional methods like uniformed officers patrolling the streets?

Good question and one that I would be interested in knowing the answer.

[dannyboy]

or "How the heck would I know what he thinks"!!

exactly. see - not so hard is it.

[dannyboy]

The fact is, CCTV cameras in the district have been more than halved in the past 12 months.

Halved?

[blackdog]

Halved?

No - more than halved.

[Richard Garvie]

No - more than halved.

Correct.

[Weavers Walk]

Administrator you are wrong. I wrote to the Weekly News last week about that councillor and the mistakes in his letter and you didn.t print it. So dont pretend

[Iommi]

Just for the record, your 'sources' are wrong. The only letter the newspaper received was from Richard Garvie as mentioned above which is being considered for publication for next week.

Administrator you are wrong. I wrote to the Weekly News last week about that councillor and the mistakes in his letter and you didn.t print it. So dont pretend

Perhaps it was lost in the post? I have heard of other people's letters not being published as well (one I heard was delivered by hand). Would you resubmit it via email today? And then tell everyone here that you have?

[Cognosco]

Perhaps it was lost in the post? I have heard of other people's letters not being published as well (one I heard was delivered by hand). Would you resubmit it via email today? And then tell everyone here that you have?

I know of at least another five letters that have been written to the NWN regarding the CCTV.

[Cognosco]

I know of at least another five letters that have been written to the NWN regarding the CCTV.

Still a deafening silence from the council.

[Iommi]

If it is true that letters have been sent about the CCTV, I wonder why the NWN have chosen to not publish them and state they haven't received any? Someone is telling porkies.

[dannyboy]

I think we need in enquiry into the NWN.

[Iommi]

I think we need in enquiry into the NWN.

If the NWN was a public service, that would definitely be true.