Ah, the old "the rumours are true unless you can prove me wrong" gambit.
I think someone already did this.
Not really what I asked. I only asked if you had any information which would dispel the rumours. If you have, what do you know, if you haven't then say so.
You've already done the "prove it's wrong" thing, so has brian.
Hold-on, you said his arguments were quote: 'featherwieght'. If that is so, stump up the evidence, or you simply are no better than he is, although he does have some evidence.
As I've said before, up until the 31st December when the council gagged Windsor, only seven cameras were visible in Windsor. This is fact, Windsor CCTV control room have gone on record regarding this, and once the CCTV network is fully operational again, I am happy to tell you what those locations were. I'm sure I'm correct in saying that this story only made it to the paper as the council were insisting everything was now operational.
On returning home this evening, I've recieved a full statement of what is and what isn't working from the council, the problems that have been encountered and the expected completion dates. Like I've said on many occasions, this has never been about the technical faults as such. Yes, they are important, but the main issue for me now is the fact that the traders and the licence holders were intentionally misled and then lied to by Conservative elected members and certain officers at the council. I simply ask you, is that acceptable behaviour?
Now that the council have admitted what the situation is, maybe they will apologise to the traders and bodies that were misled and repeatedly lied to over the past few weeks. Maybe the council will also retract the statement they issued in the Newbury Weekly News claiming everything was ok. I know some of you don't like the fact that I am vocal on some local issues, but had I not established the full facts of this people like User23 would continue to dismiss this incident as rumour.
One final thing. I know the weather has been awful, I know that service providers such as telecoms companies and security firms have let the council down badly over the past few months. When the proposals are fully published, we will see exactly how well equipped the proposals to move the control room were. The council can't be held to account for the work of service providers, and that is not what the majority of people are upset about. What has caused this whole situation is the fact that certain people have acted in a completely dishonest way, and are unlikely to be held to account for their actions.
Please be aware that as soon as this post appears, there will a considerable amount of people 'getting their stories straight' and working out what the party line is.
Threep.
Well here is the party line. To be discussed tonight by the appropriately Orwellian Overview & Scrutiny Committee.
"The information given at Town/Parish Council and NAG meetings was provided in the ‘public’ part of the meeting however the information given at the TCP meetings was ‘confidential’ and clearly indicated as such. It was of concern to the Project Team that the confidential nature of some information was not being observed and of significant concern that some of this information was being passed to the local media. The local media chose to publish information that could not be considered to be in the public interest and could have potentially compromised public safety. As a minimum it created a perception that Newbury Town Centre was not a safe place to be."
So there you have it folks. It wasn't WBC's fault, it wasn't the contractors. It was because, after confidentially briefing 11 different organisations, someone leaked it to the media. Trebles all round.
If you read the whole thing, it's a damning account of incompetance. Have a look at the dates of when some of the tech issues were resolved, even now only 30 of the 40 cameras in the district are working.
What is clear is that lessons have been learned. The report fully acknowledges that errors were made and that communication and pre planning was not as good as it could have been.
Where I feel the report lets itself down is when it says that somebody from the TCP leaked the information to the press. That's not true, as the press only published the story on the 6th January after the council, insisted everything was operational (Keith Ulyatt PR). From the 17th December, I started recieving calls from retailers and publicans (despite being in America) that police officers and the Windsor Control Room were telling these people that the cameras were not working. There were seven cameras visible in Windsor from the 17th December through the Christmas period, and none could be controlled by the operators. There is no mention of this in the report.
Overall, I'm happing that the council have finally admitted that there were serious issues with the process, and this report confirms that statements given to the media by Cllr Stansfield and the PR bods at the time were incorrect. Who is to blame though? Cllr Stansfield and the PR team given that they rely on information supplied by the officer in charge, or was it the officer in charge feeding them false information in an effort to try and kill off the speculation and rumour that the system was working as effectively as a chocolate teapot at the busiest trading period of the year?
Next steps:
Are we seeking compensation from the contractors over their shoddy workmanship and services? What steps have been taken to ensure project planning of this scale is more effective in future? What was the cause of the mixed messages from elected members and PR staff in the media? Has disciplinary action been taken against the officers in question based on the systematic failings of the transfer and communications regarding the project?
Are we seeking compensation from the contractors over their shoddy workmanship and services? What steps have been taken to ensure project planning of this scale is more effective in future? What was the cause of the mixed messages from elected members and PR staff in the media? Has disciplinary action been taken against the officers in question based on the systematic failings of the transfer and communications regarding the project?
The council has a legal team who must have been involved in drawing up the contract for this project, penalty clauses should be in place to cover late delivery, snagging issues etc., Can the council confirm that their legal team had these inserted into the contract?
The council has a legal team who must have been involved in drawing up the contract for this project, penalty clauses should be in place to cover late delivery, snagging issues etc., Can the council confirm that their legal team had these inserted into the contract?
A good question but please don't expect an answer will you? WBC are not responsible to any organisation or individual.
Male
Logged
