CCTV hub will move to Maidenhead, Outsourcing CCTV Options

[Iommi]

I would imagine there will be operators feeling bad about the loss of their jobs, but while there might be a saving of £100,000.00, it might come as a reduced service as well.

I have heard that the cameras will not be operated at night; only on record mode. Also, we lose the local knowledge the current operators might have, which under certain circumstances, can help to save police time.

[JeffG]

While I regret losing a local operation, is local knowledge that important? Each camera will be labelled with its location which can be passed to emergency services who do have that knowledge.

[Iommi]

An example from the another site, all alleged of course.

If I may give one example, (and this is when D** worked there) I can recall a shoplifter being caught by shop staff, marched round to stand in front of a camera, (by which time the Police had been called) and a call went out from CCTV "it's ok. it's G**** G******", and to save a bit of time, the images were stored and they went round and arrested him that evening.

All that local knowledge will be "lost like tears in the rain"

Anyone care to guess what the Officers behind the original 'Shop Safe' scheme think of this? I could tell you but the swear filter couldn't handle it. (there may have to be another Hitler parody)

[Good Boy Racer]

I would imagine there will be operators feeling bad about the loss of their jobs, but while there might be a saving of £100,000.00, it might come as a reduced service as well.

I have heard that the cameras will not be operated at night; only on record mode. Also, we lose the local knowledge the current operators might have, which under certain circumstances, can help to save police time.

Hold on, you are saying that these cameras are not going to be operated by someone, only on
record? I know exactly what Newbury is like after midnight, ive seen it and been there to be honest with you. This isn't good.

[Iommi]

Hold on, you are saying that these cameras are not going to be operated by someone, only on
record? I know exactly what Newbury is like after midnight, ive seen it and been there to be honest with you. This isn't good.

Allegedly, they will not be manned at night.

[JeffG]

I know exactly what Newbury is like after midnight, ive seen it and been there to be honest with you. This isn't good.

You do have the option not to be in (central) Newbury after midnight.

[Iommi]

You do have the option not to be in (central) Newbury after midnight.

Yes, and some might not.

[Biker1]

If one had to be cut to save expenditure given the choice, which one would you choose............

The Newbury CCTV Control Centre .................. or the Green Goblin Army?

[Guest_Bill1_*]

You do have the option not to be in (central) Newbury after midnight.

You should also be free to be where you want when you want and be safe.

[Berkshirelad]

An example from the another site, all alleged of course.

I hope that the example provided is alleged as private security staff/store employees do not have the authority to march anybody anywhere.

[JeffG]

I hope that the example provided is alleged as private security staff/store employees do not have the authority to march anybody anywhere.

If you apply that argument literally, that means that a store's security staff would be powerless to stop someone leaving the store after picking something up and walking out without paying.

Edit: Unless, of course, a public street camera outside the store was meant.

[ossy1]

While I regret losing a local operation, is local knowledge that important? Each camera will be labelled with its location which can be passed to emergency services who do have that knowledge.

JeffG this would be a disaster, The operators do a great job and speak directly to the police using police radios. It takes a lot more time to pass information by phone. It's not just about local knowledge it's about other operations too. CCTV is accesable to the police whilst on the doorstep. If an officer needs CCTV now they will have t otravel from Newbury to Maidenhead to collect it!!!!

They also have a direct link to local shops and pick up things much quicker that way. They know where officers are when they are in trouble and can get others officers to them quicker, they also pick up things happening before any member of public can make a call. From an operational police point of view it's a disaster...

[Iommi]

I hope that the example provided is alleged as private security staff/store employees do not have the authority to march anybody anywhere.

That's not true, I have seen store security forcibly apprehended a suspect off premises.

As for the out-sourcing, it can only mean a less useful service. I therefore suspect the crims will realise this also.

[user23]

Who here is in favour of tax rises to pay for a continued CCTV service in Newbury?

[leigh]

Hello

[JeffG]

JeffG this would be a disaster

Thanks for giving us (or me mainly) more of an insight into how the CCTV cameras are used. I wasn't saying in my post that it didn't matter - not having the facts, it was more of a question, which you have now answered.

And thanks to Leigh for his input, which I haven't fully read yet.

And yes, User23, I would be happy for more of my Council Tax being spent on keeping a local control room. (Perhaps there are less useful projects that could supply the extra funding.)

[On the edge]

Quite surprised they haven't gone the whole way. Why can't this be done in India? After all, its simply a data stream. The basic 'watching' could also be done by a non English speaking employee - there is no direct customer contact; so potentially cheaper still. Indeed, most of the local government administration could be similarly outsourced - following the banks and telephone companies etc. Potential to save huge sums.

[Iommi]

Who here is in favour of tax rises to pay for a continued CCTV service in Newbury?

How much would £100,000.00 add to the bill? In any case, why would there be a tax rise, isn't the CCTV an established cost? Mind you there was the wasted money from the upgrade that didn't happen, apparently.

[user23]

How much would £100,000.00 add to the bill? In any case, why would there be a tax rise, isn't the CCTV an established cost?

£100,000.00 is probably quite a lot of social care for the elderly I would imagine and the need for this sort of service is growing all the time hence the alleged overspend, as I understand it.

If we really want this continuing CCTV service in Newbury, someone needs to pay for it.

[Iommi]

£100,000.00 is probably quite a lot of social care for the elderly I would imagine and the need for this sort of service is growing all the time hence the alleged overspend, as I understand it. If we really want this continuing CCTV service in Newbury, someone needs to pay for it.

It was a while ago you thought that over double this was a rather small, almost insignificant amount of the overall budget. Now you spin it to say that the elderly would otherwise suffer.

Get rid of CCTV, I don't care, I am hardly in a position to worry about it, but I suspect there are other people that are. The police for instance, their work burden will now grow which means the tax burden will shift to their responsibility (and our council tax, which is payed by some people that don't even use Newbury town).