Newbury's Maidenhead based digital CCTV system failed to deter or identify 'roof thieves'. Newbury's old analogue CCTV system needed upgrading. It was said it sometimes failed to adequately identify criminals which included lead thieves operating in the highstreet. It seems our whizzy new CCTV system can't do it either! When will the carnage end!

http://www.newburytoday.co.uk/2012/irrepla...ewbury-building

If they are worried about privacy, why not have your system hosted somewhere else; like Newbury has! They spot nothing!

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-19812385

Yawn,

I suggest you stop reading 2000AD & Tornado & actually find out how CCTV works.

Or not, as appears the case with Newbury's...

Shhhhh, troll go sleepy-bye-bye.

You quite clearly don't get it. Never mind.

Sorry, did I wake you?

What is clear:

1 You fail to recognise satire.
2 You are over-sensitive to certain criticisms.
3 If you don't like a post, you are quick to insult (see point 2)


As for not knowing how CCTV works; that is privileged information, but regardless of the technical reasons, the current CCTV system has not been helpful in protecting the buildings from theft. That is a fact.

Points 1-3, just like every one else, yourself included, who posts on here.

CCTV catches hardly any crime in progress. Fact. I'd be amazed if it had caught 1-2 blokes climbing scaffolding in the dead of night, or some bold opportunist during the daytime.

No it is not like everyone else, but I have noticed that lately you are numero uno; you seemed to have substituted rational arguments for tiresome and catty posts; even in reply to posts that are not directed at you in person ... or is that the problem; they inadvertently are?


So my post is correct?

Partly. You seem to think it is a problem with Newbury's CCTV. It isn't. It is a problem with all CCTV.

Maybe my patience is wearing thin. Same old, same old on this forum.........

Tiresome? Stick me on ignore.

But it is a problem with our system, but it makes you wonder why they are so popular if it is commonly known that they are so ineffective. Or is it maybe because it is not CCTV that is problem, but the application?

If your patience has worn so thin, perhaps you might consider your own advice.

Why I am not bothered by it.

You may be correct that it is a problem with all CCTV; but only Newbury made me pay a contribution for a system that at worst does not work and at best is no better in solving crime than the old cheaper system.

Being honest to yourself is the first step towards recovery.


Anyway, what about Newbury's rubbish CCTV system. They don't even have a better idea than a 5 day window of when the event occurred. I'd have thought an avid CCTV monitoring operative might have at least cast a gaze over the building site once during the week, considering scaffolds offer opportunist easy access to things they might not otherwise consider. Or is that maybe another reason why, perhaps there aren't any operatives to do it.

CCTV isn't like something out of Mission Impossible.

Perhaps we ought to think about rasing our sights for Community Radio. I'm actually being serious - what would be wrong with broadcasting the pictures from the cameras on line? I'm sure we could find a few bob for anyone who managed to spot and report a successful prosecution. What might seem mind blowingly boring to us, might not be to others.

Unless CCTV has sophisticated software that raises an alarm when suspicious movement is detected where it shouldn't be, it's only as effective as the people who operate it, and how attentive and alert they are.

I am no expert in the matter, but I think I am stating the obvious.

Ours isn't; no.

I agree with OTE, perhaps we could 'out-source' the control to 'willing busy bodies' to monitor it for us. At least they might have some local knowledge - should that be important.

Cameras record. There isn't a bloke watching the screen,

Something happens & the images captured by the camera is reviewed. End of story.

When Newbury was covered by the old Analogue system, I think there was something in the order of 100 cameras.

Even having 8 feeds to a screen, thats still 13 screens. Allegedly all run form a single room in the Town Hall.........

Like this one for example, you mean?





Or are you referring to Newbury's system in particular? Because you seemed to imply that all CCTV installations are the same. Not quite "end of story", eh?

I notice Mansfield has 160+ camera & their picture shows 1 feed to a screen. Do they have 160+ screens then.......

How many staff do you think it would take to properly watch 160+ screens at the same time? Panning & tilting, zooming etc............

this idea that there is a team of trained people constanly monitoring the CCTV system is a joke.

There are handful of staff who sit & wait for a call from someone in the field ( police / security staff ) & they then isolate the feeds from the cameras in that area & then manually operate them. If there is no call they'll pick a feed & watch that. Chances of catching a crime in progress - very small.


The rest of the time the cameras are just recording to a pre set pattern. This is why when there is a crime committed in any given area, one of the first things done is a review of the CCTV to try & build up a picture of suspect movements etc.

Lucky Mansfield!

"Since electronic records were started in May 2000, the cameras have directly assisted police in making more than a staggering 10,000 live arrests, with a further 2,500 arrests being made by police after viewing footage collected by the cameras.

Since 2000, operators at Mansfield CCTV have dealt with over 47,000 incidents, which as well as crimes have included finding lost children, alerting the ambulance service about injured people and issuing warnings via their 'talking' cameras."

It suggests from the gumph that there is indeed a certain amount of proactive monitoring in place. I think Newbury once had a locally monitored system that worked along similar lines. Of course it is a matter of luck sometimes, but locals would know where 'hot spots are' and would keep an eye. I doubt it was the police that alerted Newbury's control room to warn them of my (pretending to be) taking a piss in a doorway, once. Equally, it would take a vigilant operator to monitor sites of interest, like building sites, when they are located in camera range.

I still think we have been sold a pup, but it would be interesting to know what the statistics are for their usefulness.

Lucky Mansfield!

I'd imagine WBC could produce the same gumpf if they wanted, and that the Control room where the feeds from Newbury's cameras ends up is fairly similar to the one shown.

The set up isn't dissimilar - Cameras are controled from Mansfield, and that control also handles the cameras from two smaller towns with populations similar to that of Newbury.......

Has it not occurred to anybody, that the cctv is probably aimed at ground level in most installations?


That would explain the fact that roof thefts go undetected.!!!!!!!!!!!

Many people who steal from roofs eventually use the ground ; however, I understand that camera's can be moved about ... oh yeah, nearly forgot: !!!!!!!!!!!

And I wonder if those similarly sized towns are also supplied the same quality service as Newbury, compared to their 'own' town. You seem to know a lot about it.

You mean CCYV staff spot nerdowell with a dragon shaped bulge under their coat & look closer?

If they were paying attention they might!

Eh? What's that wall of screens in the picture then? Or have I had too much wine with my dinner so I am seeing at least 27 screens where there is only one?

Edit: Oh I think you are saying that each screen is showing only one view rather than a split screen.

Jeff - we have the Baird system and the Nipcow disc keeps slipping on its bearing.