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.

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.

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

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.

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

Yes, and some might not.

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?

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

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.

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...

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.

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

Hello

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.)

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.

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.

£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).

It's all relative depending on what you're discussing.

I'd be interested to see which crimes it had actually solved, particularly after midnight, compared to the current cost.

Whenever I walk through Newbury after midnight the place is largely deserted.

So then, if its down to cost - outsourcing overseas wins hands down over Maidenhead, an even higher cost area than West Berks.

Add a 10p levy to each drink sold within the CCTV catchment area to pay for it.

Not a bad idea, but CCTV is used during the day too.

Perhaps a voluntary tax of 10p on all purchases in town?

If so, then why have we been wasting tax payers money on this up to now, when it could have gone to more deserving causes?

and pubs seem to open at 10 these days, for the hardened drinker. How about charging places like the Snooty Fox a fee for taking over part of the pavement for their smokers area?

Do these cameras assist in apprehending more shoplifters or more aggressive drunks?

Yes and I would imagine they assist in other ways as well, not to mention as a deterrent for some. If not, why have we been 'wasting' our council tax money on this up to now?

Yes very much so, they also catch alot going on after midnight that would otherwise go unseen. As you said town is largely deserted after midnight so anything going on is observed more intently.

When there are the odd fights outside the pubs CCTV can track the offender and direct the police to them. It's not just shoplifters and drunks they catch. Missing persons, drink drivers, dangerous drivers, anything really CCTV can have an input.

They also reduce the Fear of Crime too.

Just seen this topic.

What a bl00dy disaster!!

A short sighted appoach if ever I saw one. Once it's gone to Maidenhead, it will be nigh on impossible logistically and financially to get it back. It is in the interests of everyone who lives in areas covered by CCTV to have the control room in the town.

Referring back to an earlier post, let's let the Green goblins go! By my reckoning that would save around £400,000 in salaries alone!

Also, where has the money that was allocated initially to the upgrade that they talk about gone to? Surely it should only have been a matter of putting it out to tender, choosing the best (cheapest?!!) option, getting it done an dthen paying the money.

This would never happen in a democracy.......

As far as I am aware drinking in the Snooty Fox or having a smoke outside is legal, although some people seem to want all pubs closed down and smoking banned. Shouldn't the fines raised from illegal actions that are caught by the cameras be used to subsidise this service?

Apparently the Snooty Fox are taking over a large portion of the Market Place for their own private enterprise and I think the post referred to this rather than the normal everyday drinking and smoking.

Isn't this legal too?

They could have been referring to the pub, it gets quite busy in there after midnight.

You are quite correct, but what the original poster referred to was that the Snooty Fox have actually cordoned off what is apparently the PUBLIC PAVEMENT outside the pub for use as a Smoking Area. I seem to remember a couple of years ago Sid & Veronica Alden were made to remove the hanging baskets ( that made the place a lot more attractive than it looks now i may add !! ), from outside the 'Bricklayers' for fear of endangering the public, but somehow a blind eye is being turned to the former !!!

What makes you think a blind eye is being turned? The Snooty Fox applied to WBC for permission to put tables on the pavement (as they also applied to use part of the Market Place). On neither occasion did they get everything they wanted but they have been granted permission to use the pavement in the way they are doing - as, no doubt have the Hogshead, Ask, Brasserie Gerard and Strada (why no complaints about these?).

Well, excuse me for my mistake (s) !. So the obstruction of the pavement around any of the above establishments ( & others i may have missed ) does not constitute any type of offence, correct.

If you apply for permission and it's granted that's right, it's not an offence.

Just to get back on track, surely the whole point is that CCTV is TV, so it can be beamed anywhere and operated from anywhere so does it matter where the office is?

Well it depends if you have bothered to read the thread or not!

I'm not sure of the relevance of where the CCTV is located and whether it is recorded or someone is looking at it 'Live'. In this day and age if a violent crime takes place such as GBH, Assault, attemped Murder or Murder the Police would not 'intervene' until the crime had finished taking place. Elf & Safety don't you know.

http://www.womenagainstrape.net/war%20webs...rverMarch07.htm

....So you may as well just record 'crime' on tape.

I would like to refer you to my previous post in this thread.

I was interested in reading in the Newbury Advertiser today that WBC have said that the CCTV team's move was a good idea and was a potentially a 'win win' situation. But I've talked to a few police officers and they have told me that they disagree with the move, and our resident forum patrolling police officers also don't think it is a good idea. Talking to people in the street (which I have done) and seeing the replies on here nobody thinks it is a good idea other than WBC. Either they know something we don't or they are totally out of tune with the people they represent in Newbury and surrounding areas.

it is also interesting to note that when the NWN asked Thames Valley police their take on it they decided not to comment. So reading between the lines not even the police back this 'brilliant' idea of theirs. The conclusions one can draw from this is that this is a money exercise only and the public's welfare must take second billing.

The answer is that West Berks Council are £1m in deficit, probably because they have not planned their budget very well.
Losing the CCTV department will save them money. Never mind putting the public at risk.
So you can expect your Council tax to be rising again next year to compensate for the "oversight"

How could they have planned for the current recession?

How would the recession affect the council?

Their costs go up and receipts go down, mainly.

So it is not a 'win-win' situation but a hope that they save money and sod everything else.

I'm sorry, I just don't see it. Council tax is unchanged, as are the costs. There might be more people claiming benefits and therefore a little more help being given out but other than that I don't see it.

Whether you see it or not, doesn't matter, but it is true.

UK recession causes sharp drop in council income

* One in five councils is providing local people with help with their mortgage payments
* Eight in ten councils have concentrated resources on ensuring local people receive take up of the benefits they are eligible for
* Half of councils have set up or supported credit unions to help local people borrow money from a reliable source
* One in four councils has allowed businesses to defer paying their rates
* Seven in ten councils have provided or plan to provide tailored support to local business