IPB

Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

5 Pages V   1 2 3 > »   
Reply to this topicStart new topic
> Newbury CCTV's a goer!
Iommi
post Feb 8 2011, 06:56 PM
Post #1


Advanced Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 4,138
Joined: 13-May 09
From: Newbury
Member No.: 20



I have heard a rumour that the Police love the new CCTV system and it is up and running and everything. If, so well done, albeit, about time to!
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Cognosco
post Feb 8 2011, 07:33 PM
Post #2


Advanced Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 2,452
Joined: 31-October 10
Member No.: 1,212



QUOTE (Iommi @ Feb 8 2011, 06:56 PM) *
I have heard a rumour that the Police love the new CCTV system and it is up and running and everything. If, so well done, albeit, about time to!


Yes indeed about time!

Still no details on the original questions though?

How many camera's are working? What area's are covered?

How does it compare to the old system?

For all we know they could only have a few camera's working and that is all they are going to have?

I believe the statement says the camera's are working?

How soon we will be given the information to make a calculated decision if the system is comparable to the old system?


--------------------
Vexatious Candidate?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Biker1
post Feb 8 2011, 07:45 PM
Post #3


Advanced Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 5,040
Joined: 26-May 09
Member No.: 103



QUOTE (Cognosco @ Feb 8 2011, 09:33 PM) *
Yes indeed about time!

Still no details on the original questions though?

How many camera's are working? What area's are covered?

How does it compare to the old system?

For all we know they could only have a few camera's working and that is all they are going to have?

I believe the statement says the camera's are working?

How soon we will be given the information to make a calculated decision if the system is comparable to the old system?

AND, is the control centre linked in to the Shopwatch radio?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Iommi
post Feb 8 2011, 07:57 PM
Post #4


Advanced Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 4,138
Joined: 13-May 09
From: Newbury
Member No.: 20



Yes, amongst the back slapping, there are some details that haven't been mentioned.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Richard Garvie
post Feb 8 2011, 10:11 PM
Post #5


Advanced Member
***

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



Hate to poop the party, but a few questions from me:

LABOUR HIT OUT AT MISLEADING PRESS STATEMENT REGARDING CCTV

Newbury Labour Party today seek to clarify some of the points surrounding the current status of CCTV cameras in West Berkshire and the operational capabilities of the network. First of all, may I congratulate the council for continuing to move forward with their programme to get the CCTV network back into some kind of operational capability. May I also state again that the Labour Party in West Berkshire FULLY support the Council in upgrading the network and looking to achieve best value for the tax payer. Whether these goals have been fully realised or not is another matter.

Today, the council have released a press release stating that "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, 7 days a week at the new control room in Windsor". There are 40 cameras in West Berkshire as a whole, yet the council have only chosen to reveal the status of the 21 cameras in Newbury. They claim that all 21 are recording and "operating" successfully, but that isn't quite true as I will come onto in a moment.

On the 9th January 2011, I once again requested access to the following documentation surrounding the relocation of the CCTV Control Room:

* Project brief
* Plan to move control room
* Any variances that took place
* Any problems that have occurred as a result of the above

Previous to this further request for information, I had previously been told by the Chief Executive of the Council on the 7th January that this information would be made available to me, only for the officers in question to withold it for over a month. On the 8th February, I finally recieved some of the information in the form of a single Excel Spreadsheet. If this is this is the only documentation that exists relating to this project, then let there be no doubt as to why we currently find ourselves in this situation. This document is available online at:

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

Under the heading "Transfer and Testing Period", the comments entry suggests that the "testing" phase was originally planned to last until the 10th January. We have already established through press comments and previous council statements that the testing phase was running late and that "all works would be completed by the 10th January, around a week later than planned". So what is correct? This spreadsheet on the council website, or the press statements and emails sent at the end of December / start of January?

Camera upgrade to dome cameras: Work was expected to be completed by the 10th January, yet is still ongoing. The cause of this has been the severe weather, yet we only lost two weeks due to snow. We are currently four weeks late, and the work is still ongoing and this is partly due to rusting of the cameras causing work to take longer than expected. Were the existing cameras not inspected before the project commenced? If not, why not?

AI software installation commences: "The timetable for this work slipped due to software having to be reconfigured due to incorrect presentation of BT circuits". Was the presentation of circuits not checked prior to the work commencing? If not, why not?

Testing of Cameras 'linked' to Windsor Control Room: Apparently "Video confirmed and some persistent telemetry issues". What is causing the telementry issues?

Communications about Shopsafe and Pubwatch reconnection with Windsor Control Room: "This has slipped due to cabling and severe weather issues." Was due to commence week of 17th January, yet the reason given for nothappening is "severe weather". Can someone advise what this "severe weather" was please?

Co Channel to be instructed to connect Radio System to Windsor Control Room: Once again "This has slipped due to cabling and severe weather issues." Can somebody please advise of said bad weather?

Apparently the "Testing of Cameras 'linked' to Windsor Control Room" is supposed to be ongoing at this stage (despite media comments at the beginning of January claiming everything was expected to be working by 10th January). Which statement is correct?

Some generic questions arising from this document:

What is the status of the Newbury Control Room? Despite equipment having been ripped out already, a discussion has yet to take place surrounding decommisioning. If this is true, why was equipment allowed to be removed before the decommissioning discussion took place?

What is the estimated completion date for this project?

Why has the original project brief not been supplied?

Why have the actual documentation requested not been provided in full?

Has a radio sytem been ordered to connect the new control room with ShopSafe / PubWatch?

If telementry is still not operating correctly, how can the council claim that the cameras are operating successfully?

Out of the 40 cameras in the district, how many are fully operational (how many have telementry)?

SUMMARY

We dispute claims from West Berkshire Council that all 21 cameras in Newbury are operating successfully. We do give full support to the officers in achieving a network that is fully operational, but we cannot support the continuing release of factually misleading statements and disguising of the full facts. What we need is a full, independent investigation into this matter that looks into the conduct of the officers who have project managed this move on behalf of the council, the conduct of Cllr Anthony Stansfield and the role he has played in the release of information to the media that wasn't factually correct and the cause of the problems that have resulted in this project being delayed. The Labour Party also call for the full release of all documentation relating to the transfer of the CCTV Control Room, not just a cobbled together spreadsheet that can be accessed on the council website.

Richard Garvie
Newbury Labour Party
07593 278690

Additional Press Quote:

"Once again the council have released a statement to the media that does not give the full facts of the situation. 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. It's about time we had a full and independent investigation on this matter, and that action is taken against thse who appear to have tried to conceal the facts of what has happened".
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
user23
post Feb 8 2011, 10:23 PM
Post #6


Advanced Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 4,024
Joined: 14-May 09
Member No.: 50



Ah, that's where he's been.

Writing a massive essay.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Iommi
post Feb 8 2011, 10:34 PM
Post #7


Advanced Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 4,138
Joined: 13-May 09
From: Newbury
Member No.: 20



Oh no...please don't say the official press release I alluded to was ambiguous, incomplete and misleading!!!
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Berkshirelad
post Feb 9 2011, 10:36 AM
Post #8


Advanced Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 810
Joined: 13-August 09
Member No.: 271



QUOTE (Cognosco @ Feb 8 2011, 07:33 PM) *
I believe the statement says the camera's are working?


Did the statement then go on to say what it was that belonged to a camera that was working?

Or did the originator mean cameras?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
JeffG
post Feb 9 2011, 01:56 PM
Post #9


Advanced Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 3,762
Joined: 14-May 09
Member No.: 56



That's the sort of thing I get abuse hurled at me for saying.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Cognosco
post Feb 9 2011, 06:46 PM
Post #10


Advanced Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 2,452
Joined: 31-October 10
Member No.: 1,212



QUOTE (Berkshirelad @ Feb 9 2011, 10:36 AM) *
Did the statement then go on to say what it was that belonged to a camera that was working?

Or did the originator mean cameras?


The telemetry is not working on the camera. tongue.gif

Not all of the cameras are working. tongue.gif


--------------------
Vexatious Candidate?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Cognosco
post Feb 9 2011, 06:55 PM
Post #11


Advanced Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 2,452
Joined: 31-October 10
Member No.: 1,212



QUOTE (Iommi @ Feb 8 2011, 10:34 PM) *
Oh no...please don't say the official press release I alluded to was ambiguous, incomplete and misleading!!!


This is WBC Iommi why do you sound shocked?

Are we ever going to get a full explanation of what the the comparison is between the old system and the new system?
How are taxpayers going to know if the expense of the new system was worth paying?
Are the council responsible to the taxpayer or not? How can we have any confidence in the council over anything they do again?

A full and independent investigation must be called immediately nothing else will now suffice.


--------------------
Vexatious Candidate?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Iommi
post Feb 9 2011, 06:58 PM
Post #12


Advanced Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 4,138
Joined: 13-May 09
From: Newbury
Member No.: 20



QUOTE (Cognosco @ Feb 9 2011, 06:55 PM) *
This is WBC Iommi why do you sound shocked?

wink.gif
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Iommi
post Feb 10 2011, 01:00 AM
Post #13


Advanced Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 4,138
Joined: 13-May 09
From: Newbury
Member No.: 20



The big question...yet to be answered clearly is: do Windsor operators have remote control of the cameras and do they have radio communication with Newbury police and other pubwatch/shopsafe stakeholders?

If no then we are being bullsh*tted by both the council and, in a way, the police.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Richard Garvie
post Feb 10 2011, 10:24 AM
Post #14


Advanced Member
***

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



The cameras are not "fully operational".
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Iommi
post Feb 10 2011, 10:39 AM
Post #15


Advanced Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 4,138
Joined: 13-May 09
From: Newbury
Member No.: 20



So the council and the police are closing ranks and 'playing' with semantics?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
dannyboy
post Feb 10 2011, 11:59 AM
Post #16


Advanced Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 6,056
Joined: 14-May 09
From: Bouvetøya
Member No.: 51



QUOTE (Richard Garvie @ Feb 10 2011, 10:24 AM) *
The cameras are not "fully operational".

Come on - in what way?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Iommi
post Feb 10 2011, 12:34 PM
Post #17


Advanced Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 4,138
Joined: 13-May 09
From: Newbury
Member No.: 20



Subversion! ...looks like a job for dannyboy and user! tongue.gif
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
dannyboy
post Feb 10 2011, 12:42 PM
Post #18


Advanced Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 6,056
Joined: 14-May 09
From: Bouvetøya
Member No.: 51



QUOTE (Iommi @ Feb 10 2011, 12:34 PM) *
Subversion! ...looks like a job for dannyboy and user! tongue.gif

RG most likely means that there are still 19 cameras not yet connected - so he is right
but the council mean the cameras that are connected up are fully operational - so they are right too.

classic filibustering from both sides.

I wonder if they swap scripts?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Darren
post Feb 10 2011, 12:49 PM
Post #19


Advanced Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 1,251
Joined: 15-May 09
Member No.: 61



Your CCTV, is it a goer? Know what I mean? Know what I mean? Nudge nudge. Nudge nudge. Know what I mean? Say no more...know what I mean?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Iommi
post Feb 10 2011, 02:10 PM
Post #20


Advanced Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 4,138
Joined: 13-May 09
From: Newbury
Member No.: 20



QUOTE (dannyboy @ Feb 10 2011, 12:42 PM) *
RG most likely means that there are still 19 cameras not yet connected - so he is right but the council mean the cameras that are connected up are fully operational - so they are right too.

Or he could mean that the cameras are not operable, that is to say, Windsor might not have control over the cameras yet. For me, that is a key component of the CCTV system.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post

5 Pages V   1 2 3 > » 
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: 9th April 2020 - 02:17 AM