IPB

Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

5 Pages V  < 1 2 3 4 > »   
Reply to this topicStart new topic
> Newbury CCTV's a goer!
dannyboy
post Feb 10 2011, 02:14 PM
Post #21


Advanced Member
***

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



QUOTE (Iommi @ Feb 10 2011, 02:10 PM) *
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.



Why not go & chuck a brick through one of Strada's windows ( other Italian eateries are avaliable ) and see if the market place camera follows you around?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Iommi
post Feb 10 2011, 03:09 PM
Post #22


Advanced Member
***

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



QUOTE (dannyboy @ Feb 10 2011, 02:14 PM) *
Why not go & chuck a brick through one of Strada's windows ( other Italian eateries are avaliable ) and see if the market place camera follows you around?

Because I don't want to break the law.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
dannyboy
post Feb 10 2011, 03:11 PM
Post #23


Advanced Member
***

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



QUOTE (Iommi @ Feb 10 2011, 03:09 PM) *
Because I don't want to break the law.

Spoil sport.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Iommi
post Feb 10 2011, 03:30 PM
Post #24


Advanced Member
***

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



Yeah, I'm squeamish like that! tongue.gif
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Richard Garvie
post Feb 10 2011, 03:38 PM
Post #25


Advanced Member
***

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



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.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Simon Kirby
post Feb 10 2011, 03:54 PM
Post #26


Advanced Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 6,326
Joined: 20-July 10
From: Wash Common
Member No.: 1,011



I rather think Cllr Stansfield is reported today in the NWN as saying that the whole thing is fully operational - that quote is from memory, but I believe that was the substance of it, no equivocation, fully operational.

Ed: "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."


--------------------
Right an injustice - give Simon Kirby his allotment back!
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Biker1
post Feb 10 2011, 04:21 PM
Post #27


Advanced Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 5,064
Joined: 26-May 09
Member No.: 103



Again I ask - Is the CCTV and the new control room linked in to the Shopwatch radio as it was before?

Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Iommi
post Feb 10 2011, 04:22 PM
Post #28


Advanced Member
***

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



QUOTE (Simon Kirby @ Feb 10 2011, 03:54 PM) *
I rather think Cllr Stansfield is reported today in the NWN as saying that the whole thing is fully operational - that quote is from memory, but I believe that was the substance of it, no equivocation, fully operational.

Ed: "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."

It would suggest then, that Cllr Stansfeld is tabling an untruth (again). As far as I have been made aware, the system isn't fully operational.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Richard Garvie
post Feb 10 2011, 04:29 PM
Post #29


Advanced Member
***

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



This is what I find unbelievable. They put out a media statement claiming the cameras are "operating successfully", yet at the same time they publish information confirming that they still have problems controlling the cameras they can see from Windsor, that some of the cameras can still not be seen and that some cameras have yet to be replaced.

I don't know how to describe it. Arrogance? It must be, for themto try something this elaborate and not get caught, they really must believe that they are invinsible.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Iommi
post Feb 10 2011, 05:07 PM
Post #30


Advanced Member
***

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



Or simply not used to be putting under such scrutiny? Or incompetent? Or both?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Cognosco
post Feb 10 2011, 05:28 PM
Post #31


Advanced Member
***

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



QUOTE (Richard Garvie @ Feb 10 2011, 04:29 PM) *
This is what I find unbelievable. They put out a media statement claiming the cameras are "operating successfully", yet at the same time they publish information confirming that they still have problems controlling the cameras they can see from Windsor, that some of the cameras can still not be seen and that some cameras have yet to be replaced.

I don't know how to describe it. Arrogance? It must be, for themto try something this elaborate and not get caught, they really must believe that they are invinsible.


So much for transparency then? So much for the Freedom Of Information Act? These obviously do not apply to WBC then?

Even with something as simple as a press statement they are unable to give out correct information.
Economic with the truth is an understatement if this is the case?

Surely there must be an independent investigation how can there not be?

The questions that need answering are:


Are there the same amount of cameras on the new system as the old system?

Is the coverage of the new system the same as the old system?

Are all the cameras installed able to be operated ( fully able to have full telemetry operating) by the operators at Windsor?

Are the cameras data able to be fully recorded by Windsor?

Are the operators at Windsor able to make full contact (radio) with the police, pubwatch, and all other parties that were able to be in full contact with the old system?

Until these questions are answered in full then the taxpayers have the right to have no confidence in the WBC?


--------------------
Vexatious Candidate?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Richard Garvie
post Feb 10 2011, 06:11 PM
Post #32


Advanced Member
***

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



I think confidence was lost in the council a long time ago.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Simon Kirby
post Feb 10 2011, 06:20 PM
Post #33


Advanced Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 6,326
Joined: 20-July 10
From: Wash Common
Member No.: 1,011



Richard, have you thought about reporting Cllr Stansfeld to the Standards Committee. I'm by no means saying he's guilty of anything, but if there's an allegation that he's misled the public and brought WBC into disrepute then the Standards Committee is the way to hold him to account, and of course the proper forum for him to defend his conduct.

And have you made an official complaint agianst WBC, because I guess if there has been mismanagement that again is the appropriate way to hold them to account, and if that fails then there's the Ombusman, but I'd be interested to know if there's been a first-stage complaint yet.


--------------------
Right an injustice - give Simon Kirby his allotment back!
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
dannyboy
post Feb 10 2011, 06:59 PM
Post #34


Advanced Member
***

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



QUOTE (Richard Garvie @ Feb 10 2011, 03:38 PM) *
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.


All it states re telementry [sic] is 'some persistent telemetry issues'. Instead of assuming this means it ain't working full stop, why not do your self a favour & find out what these issues actually are?

If I were to do as you do & read as much as I want into single sentences I could say that the line 'Discussions with Newbury Town Council to take place in relation decommissioning the former Control Room' means it isn't decommissioned & therefore is still working in some capacity.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Richard Garvie
post Feb 10 2011, 11:00 PM
Post #35


Advanced Member
***

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



QUOTE (dannyboy @ Feb 10 2011, 06:59 PM) *
All it states re telementry [sic] is 'some persistent telemetry issues'. Instead of assuming this means it ain't working full stop, why not do your self a favour & find out what these issues actually are?

If I were to do as you do & read as much as I want into single sentences I could say that the line 'Discussions with Newbury Town Council to take place in relation decommissioning the former Control Room' means it isn't decommissioned & therefore is still working in some capacity.


What it does mean is that the cameras are not "fully operational". Asfor decommissioning, why have they ripped out some / all of the equipment before having the decommissioning meeting??? There's another question for Cllr Stansfiekd and the officers involved.

Simon, I'm hoping a lot of the concerns I have raised will be addressed by the Chief Executive by close of business Friday. If not, complaints will now be raised.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
dannyboy
post Feb 10 2011, 11:05 PM
Post #36


Advanced Member
***

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



QUOTE (Richard Garvie @ Feb 10 2011, 11:00 PM) *
What it does mean is that the cameras are not "fully operational". Asfor decommissioning, why have they ripped out some / all of the equipment before having the decommissioning meeting??? There's another question for Cllr Stansfiekd and the officers involved.

no it does not.

Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Iommi
post Feb 10 2011, 11:33 PM
Post #37


Advanced Member
***

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



QUOTE (dannyboy @ Feb 10 2011, 11:05 PM) *
no it does not.

I think it does and it seems the council are being disingenuous with their language.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
dannyboy
post Feb 10 2011, 11:36 PM
Post #38


Advanced Member
***

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



QUOTE (Iommi @ Feb 10 2011, 11:33 PM) *
I think it does and it seems the council are trying to be 'clever' with their language.

No cleverer with it than RG likes to be interpreting it.

It could mean anything & given the space left for comments in the spreadsheet, being sucinct is a pre-requisite.

Still, once RG has the top BID job.....
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Iommi
post Feb 10 2011, 11:52 PM
Post #39


Advanced Member
***

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



QUOTE (dannyboy @ Feb 10 2011, 11:36 PM) *
No cleverer with it than RG likes to be interpreting it. It could mean anything.....

And that is the point I'm getting to. I think RG should step up his pressure. It is clear to me that the council are trying to throw cold water on this issue, but meanwhile; I don't think this CCTV system is yet up and working, fulfilling all its rolls that it did when it was 'upgraded'.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
dannyboy
post Feb 10 2011, 11:53 PM
Post #40


Advanced Member
***

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



QUOTE (Iommi @ Feb 10 2011, 11:52 PM) *
And that is the point I'm getting to. I think RG should step up his pressure. It is clear to me that the council are trying to throw cold water on this issue, but meanwhile; I don't think this CCTV system is yet up and work fulfilling all it's rolls that it did when it was changed.

but two cute smart alecs don't make for a productive exchange do they?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post

5 Pages V  < 1 2 3 4 > » 
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: 1st June 2024 - 03:52 AM