No more to say really.  (expect that WBC have suddenly become as tight as a gnats chuff and they aint saying anything to anybody - and have been keeping shtumm all week)


Happy Christmas to smack-heads, crack-heads, shoplifters, drunks, fighters, innocent by-standers, trouble makers and those who've paid for it.

From your all your friends at WBC.

Surely they would have accounted for this in the planning stage and this must be a slight glitch? Or not?

Or not. (apparently)


Threep.

Quoted from richard.garvie

Surely they would have accounted for this in the planning stage and this must be a slight glitch? Or not?

Planning?  Great plan to change the system and find it doesn't work on one of the busiest weekends of the year.

Keep the Magistrate's court here, but can't see any of the criminals to fill it! Nice one WBC!

How did the world cope before CCTV?

Quoted from user23.3

How did the world cope before CCTV?

Why do you think it was 'invented'?

Quoted from Greenham Common

Why do you think it was 'invented'?

To add to the plot of 1984? Wasn't that where it was "invented"?

So because it wasn't planned correctly, we should go without CCTV? I guess that would save the council even more money...

The thing is, if this is down to poor planning, someone needs to take the can. Too often do we have to put up with hideous decisions or outcomes and yet everyone keeps their jobs. Let's have some accountability for a change. Does anyone know how long the radio systems were / are off for?

It's not just the 'normal' CCTV cameras that have moved base, it's also the ENPR monitors. Those who have seen any of the Police 'documentaries' on telly will know of these Electronic Number Plate Recognition cameras. There's a set in the middle of St Johns Roundabout for instance. Connected to the national database they go 'ping' when a known (flagged) vehicle passes. The database contains the numbers of those cars etc that have insurance, mot's and tax. Cars believed to be involved in robberies, violence and the drugs trade are also on it. As are the registration numbers of known sex offenders and those on the Sex Offences Register.

Under the old system, a known pedophile caused a 'ping' as he /she drove onto the roundabout, thus alerted, the monitoring team followed it down Bart Street and into Northbrook Street. Because of their local knowledge, the monitoring team would know which coppers were on duty, and even probably where they were. Thus a message would go out asking - let's call them Shane and Matt - to go round to the Early Learning Centre where tha car belonging to a known sex offender had just stopped. They could thus knock on the car window and find out if there was a lawful excuse as to why the car was there.

But no more.

Do you have any idea how many cameras they have to look at now in Windsor? How many screens they monitor? Can you imagine how often those pings go off? Almost continually. Thus the volume is turned down and no action is taken. There are just too many 'pings' and a complete lack of 'local knowledge' or time to track anyone in particular. If a sex offender now sets off a ping as he / she drives into town, NO camera tracking wil take place, No calls to the nearest coppers (by name), No 'just pop round to Early Learning will you?

This move has put people at risk, not just businesses and their stock, (that's bad enough) but real law-abiding citizens

That's the real thoughtlessness here, sure they now got really good quality images of you being beaten to death, but what they won't have is footage of the cops turning up in time and saving you. ('specially this week, as Windsor can't speak to anyone here on the radio)

Welcome to Newbury, it's open house, fill yer boots.


Threep.

That's why I love this place, and to be fair most local forums.

The rabid scaremongering based on third hand rumour can't fail to amuse anyone with a sense of humour.

Ironic that CCTV is the name of one of the largest television broadcasters in Asia, with all these Chinese included in this thread.

Well, until someone is prepared to be a whistle blower, it is likely to remain a rumour.  At the end of the day user23.3, your opinion carries no more kudos that than the post previous one.  Possibly even less so.

Quoted from Greenham Common

Well, until someone is prepared to be a whistle blower, it is likely to remain a rumour.  At the end of the day user23.3, your opinion carries no more kudos that than the post previous one.  Possibly even less so.

All opinions are equal but some are less equal than others?

There's a theme developing in this thread.

I've not read the paper yet, but isn't there a story about this? I am only going by what I've been told on here and by email, and that is that there have been numerous problems since the move and there seems to be no quick fix to all of them. There was bound to be teething problems, but I guess we will never know why these issues have come about. No accountability on this or anything else for that matter.

Quoted from user23.3

All opinions are equal but some are less equal than others?

If you have a number of people with differing opinions, it is feasible that one or more will be accurate and others not.  The council are seemingly trying to play down expectations regards CCTV footage of an incident in Bart St.  Whether due to the changes or not is unclear.

Quoted from user23.3

That's why I love this place, and to be fair most local forums.

The rabid scaremongering based on third hand rumour can't fail to amuse anyone with a sense of humour.

Trust me, I'd dearly love to be wrong about this, if I am. I will be the first to put my hands up....

But time will tell, as the truth comes out, who is right and who is wrong.

NO-ONE is safer because of this move. No one.  Crime detection rates may indeed go up...crime prevention won't.

Two weeks ago, anyone kicking in a shop window would be followed by the cameras as they made their way down the road and the Bill directed to where they were. Indeed, it is more than likely our operators would recognise the scrote. But now? Not enough cameras, no communication between Windsor and Newbury. No local I.D. and we've got high def. pictures of where the incident wasn't.

Brilliant. I feel safer all ready.


Threep.

But it's not simply a one issue story. This is about how the council have allowed for severe communication breakdown and what seems to be a complete lack of forward planning. What about partial handovers involving both Newbury and Windsor control rooms until Windsor were ready to take over and were feeling confident there woukld be no loss in effectiveness? I would suggest that this decision was purely financial and only now is it becoming an issue of effectiveness for our elected members. If they want to make these decisions regarding sharing facilities etc. fine. But at least ensure that it is seen through to the end so that shop keepers and residents have the same level of protection. Unfortunately, that won't be the case either as West Berks have slashed the number of cameras dramatically.

Quoted from Threepwood

Trust me, I'd dearly love to be wrong about this, if I am. I will be the first to put my hands up....

But time will tell, as the truth comes out, who is right and who is wrong.

NO-ONE is safer because of this move. No one.  Crime detection rates may indeed go up...crime prevention won't.

Two weeks ago, anyone kicking in a shop window would be followed by the cameras as they made their way down the road and the Bill directed to where they were. Indeed, it is more than likely our operators would recognise the scrote. But now? Not enough cameras, no communication between Windsor and Newbury. No local I.D. and we've got high def. pictures of where the incident wasn't.

Brilliant. I feel safer all ready.


Threep.

What he said.

Quoted from Greenham Common

Well, until someone is prepared to be a whistle blower, it is likely to remain a rumour.  At the end of the day user23.3, your opinion carries no more kudos that than the post previous one.  Possibly even less so.

Surely the whistle has already been blown.

Quoted from user23.3

How did the world cope before CCTV?

How did the world cope before Mobile phones
How did the world cope before Television
How did the world cope before Washing machines
How did the world cope before Computers
How did the world cope before Google
How did the world cope before Newbury.net

How did the world cope before The plough share
How did the world cope before The wheel.

Sort of a daft statement really, we use it because it's there and a step forward

Quoted from brian

Sort of a daft statement really, we use it because it's there and a step forward

It's not a step forward in my view.

It's daft to think that because something exists one should use it.

Steady lad, "it's a step forward"  were the exact words used by WBC when they got local retailers to stump up for additional cameras on the CCTV network.

It was probably also something along those lines that they said when they got SLI to stump up S.106 money for cameras in the new shopping horror.


Threep.

I need to be a little careful here because of the sensitive nature of these things. I have been assured that good quality images are being received and recorded at Windsor. I don't know what form of monitoring of these images is taking place.

Well try this one......why not ask if audio links have been installed or were even ordered?

Clue:

It's a two letter word beginning with 'N'


Threep.

So are you saying that no audio link was even planned? Surely that can't be the case?

Happy Christmas Richard, looks like you had a good one.

Thanks! It was great...

The story so far...

As readers of this forum may remember a few weeks ago the CCTV control centre was moved from it's 'secret' location  (in the Town Hall) to Windsor.

During the year many of the 100+ existing cameras have been turned off, so that on the day of the change over the Council could quite legitimately say that only a small number were not 'moving' to Windsor. (West Berkshire had nearly 120 at one time)

The idea was that after the move all would be up and running by Christmas. (indeed, that was the party line for quite a while)

Under the old town centre 'Shop Safe' scheme, those on the scheme had hand-held walkie talkies which enabled them to talk to each other and to the CCTV control room. Thus they could alert each other to any incidents, or ask the CCTV chappies to follow someone by camera, or the CCTV people could both warn shop staff as to any 'faces' that were about, and those miscreants could be monitored as they moved about.

Under the new scheme that is not now possible.

But wait, it gets more interesting.....

After the weekend of the move, 'problems' were discovered. An indication of how serious these problems were / are can be judged by how difficult it was to get any answers from anyone at WBC as to what had happened.

At first, the line was ' everything has gone to plan' that then became 'it is a move that involves lots of different agencies' (this is the forerunner of 'any cock-ups will be someone elses fault').......that later became ' pictures are being recorded at Windsor' (no mention of audio links).

When pushed about radio links the line became 'there were no radio links in the old CCTV control room' This is blatently untrue.

So, no radio links for the Shop Safe scheme. Not the end of the world. In time that could be put right. It's a bit embarassing but it wouldn't account for a total stonewall for all enquiries would it?  I mean, pictures were still being recorded at Windsor, they said, so the official line was that even though they couldn't react instantly to crimes being committed, at least they would have a hi-def record of it happening for future prosecutions.

Or maybe they won't.

Not only are there no radio links between Windsor CCTV and Newbury Town Centre but so far, there are no camera links either, that's right, no pictures are being recorded at all in the Windsor control room. None have been recorded over Christmas and none will be recorded over the New Year either. It is not known when the links will finally be up and running.

At the moment there are several people at WBC who are busy putting on their teflon jackets and are preparing to play the 'blame game' when everyone gets back next week.


Threep.

I would love to know what is going on with our CCTV. Is anyone able to tell me?

The whole thing appears to have been a complete cock up.

Even more disturbing when you read articles like this http://www.newburytoday.co.uk/news/Article.aspx?articleID=9684 and realise that if there hadn't been major blunders in 2009 that we could probably have upgraded our old system, retaining it in Newbury and not ending up in the current dilemma.

Quoted from Threepwood

Not only are there no radio links between Windsor CCTV and Newbury Town Centre but so far, there are no camera links either, that's right, no pictures are being recorded at all in the Windsor control room. None have been recorded over Christmas and none will be recorded over the New Year either. It is not known when the links will finally be up and running.

Right, time to can the idea and get control back, and put back the missing cameras, surely? However much that might cost, or be seen to waste, the current plan of everything being controlled at Windsor has only a handful of cameras and isn't even working anyway. At the very least revert to how things were, apologise for the mess and put it down to experience. Otherwise this ends up being like the Eurofighter saga where each review of what's gone wrong suggests that the plan should have been scrapped after the previous review.

What a pathetic local newspaper we have. There is obviously a serious problem with CCTV and it doesn't seem to warrant a mention at all.

I think we should rename it "Everywhere else except Newbury Weekly News"

Quoted from Archie

What a pathetic local newspaper we have. There is obviously a serious problem with CCTV and it doesn't seem to warrant a mention at all.

I think we should rename it "Everywhere else except Newbury Weekly News"

Why is there obviously a serious problem with CCTV?

I see User 23 is playing the usual denial card.

I'm glad I'm a law abiding chap. Otherwise reading that the camera system is allegedly off might have had me on a crime spree.

Quoted from user23.3

Why is there obviously a serious problem with CCTV?

Is Threepwood a liar then?

Quoted from Nobby

I see User 23 is playing the usual denial card.

Could it be something to do with his job perhaps.  

Well, this forum has always been proud of the fact that it's better informed than some of the others.. so here goes....

This info is freely given so that anyone interested can find out for themselves.

Pamela Bale is the lady busy telling people that there was no radio linkage between the Shop Safe scheme and the old CCTV control room. Ask anyone who is or was on the scheme and they will confirm that there was.  There was always someone there with a hand-held radio. Anyone interested could ring Pamela and ask her why she is confused and / or giving out wrong information.

The Chief Exec's P.A. was the first to start the blame game by bringing up  the fact that the project involved multiple agencies. Anyone interested could ring Rachel and ask her at what point it was deemed pertinant to bring it up and who told her to do so.

The old 'secret' location of the CCTV room was in the Town Hall...it's 'secret' phone number was 01635524677

That is the number recently rung by a local landlord on the 'Pubwatch' scheme, who needed help.( His pub is in the 'Cafe Quarter') It gave him a recorded message telling him to ring another number. This he did. This number put him through to Windsor.

The chappie on the end of the line there said there may be some images being received somewhere, but they had 'no proper' displays and the certainly couldn't focus on either his pub, or indeed any other location in Newbury*. Anyone interested can follow the same trail.

*(this is slightly at odds with what I had been told a few days earlier when I rang - " look mate, there's nothing coming down the line from Newbury. You got problems there, are you sure it's switched on?")

The N.W.N has been unable to get any kind of reponse from any of the P.R.and Press people at WBC,  messers Ulyatt, Stoddart Crompton and Spray. (see previous posts regarding tigh-tlipped spokesman) Without a comment from WBC it seems that the NWN felt coverage would appear 'biased'. Thus no story in ths weeks issue. But anyone interested can take it up with NWN for themselves.

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.

Threep BTW, why don't you post this on the NWN site?

Quoted from Threepwood

Pamela Bale is the lady busy telling people that there was no radio linkage between the Shop Safe scheme and the old CCTV control room. Ask anyone who is or was on the scheme and they will confirm that there was.  There was always someone there with a hand-held radio. Anyone interested could ring Pamela and ask her why she is confused and / or giving out wrong information.

Without a comment from WBC it seems that the NWN felt coverage would appear 'biased'. Thus no story in ths weeks issue. But anyone interested can take it up with NWN for themselves.

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.

Sorry is this Councillor Pamela Bale ? If the woman is talking rubbish, where or to whom is she saying this ? Could the NWN not make a story from this alone ? She is an elected councillor - so surely the voters have a right to know ??

This in my opinion is the whole problem with politics and the media.  We vote for them and unless we are avid followers thereafter, we know very litle about what they do, and don't do unless the press expose them.

All enquiries have been met with the same stock response....


From the office of Pamela Bale:pbale@westberks.gov.uk


"It is my understanding that there was no radio link to the CCTV control room in Newbury from the Shop safe scheme."



One can only assume that she thinks they used two tin cans and a length of string.



Threep.

According to Cllr Stansfield, 7 cameras are operating as normal (recording digital) and knows of no issues.

Cllr Stansfield:

"Only seven cameras are being recieved in Windsor as they were switched over in groups, but the vast majority were connected to Newbury so images were still being recorded".

A controller from Windsor has gone on record to say that they can only see seven cameras. None of which can be controlled by them, as there is a technical fault preventing them from being able to operate them. The other 33 were not being recieved as of last Friday (New Years Eve), the current status is unknown as the CCTV control team have been banned from discussing Newbury. The facts are that none of the 40 have been able to be operated by a controller since 17th December, the seven that I know are being recieved in Newbury are all panned out too, meaning that it is very difficult to see anything.

The Facts:

December 17th: Council send email to Brian Burgess and Jonathan Hopson that all cameras have been transferred and are therefore recording. Also issue the very same statement publicly.
December 24th: I arrived home to be contacted by numerous traders about the CCTV issue, they say they have spoken to council who deny there are any issues.
December 27th: I sent an email to Graham Jones asking for detail on the issues, he replies straight away asking the project manager to get in touch with me.
December 29th: Project manager sends me same statement, and in follow up emails confirm everything is ok. Just as I start tio feedback that problems with the CCTV could just be rumour, I call Windsor to ask them directly, expecting to be told they can't discuss it. Windsor controller tells me only seven are being recieved and they have no control, he says it's a shambles and that they don't really know what is going on, but the situation isn't expected to change until January 10th. That was still the situation on the morning on of December 31st.

What they say now:

Windsor CCTV Control: Can't discuss it, but the situation shouldn't change until January 10th at the earliest.

Cllr Stansfield admits there are issues, and only seven cameras are viewable at Windsor. He claims that most of the other 33 are connected to the data hub at blank and those are recording. (Is this an admission that some are not?)

Council PR: Everything has transferred and images are digital and being recorded.

Project Manager: We've had some technical problems which are to be expected with a project size, weather was a factor, running a week behind schedule.

Who are we to believe??? Why can't somebody come clean to the local business community rather than misleading them??? Those are the facts of the situation, and as I've said many times before. It's not about the teething problems, they were to be expected. It's about how prepared the council were for the move, and now the issue of intentionally misleading the local business community.

Quoted from richard.garvie

December 17th: Council send email to Brian Burgess and Jonathan Hopson that all cameras have been transferred and are therefore recording. Also issue the very same statement publicly.

Richard,

I am rather curious to know how you obtained a copy of an e-mail sent to me by West Berkshire Council?

I have forwarded copies to various councillors who even though they are councillors were unable to achieve any dialogue on their own behalf (What is the point of being a councillor if the council officers won't speak to you).

I have tried to be reasonably confidential which is one of the reasons why I have not joined in too much with the dialogue on the various web forums.

The whole thing is totally unacceptable and the town has lost a valuable asset which will never be replaced. One of the reasons that images were so poor is that the magnetic coating on the old VHS videotapes had worn so thin that they were practically unusable.

I have lost count of the meetings that I have been to over the last 12 months where I have been denied even the basic facts associated with the move. Indeed at one meeting I was told to sit down and shut up.

Kennet Centre upgraded from analogue to digital for minimal cost and the same could have been achieved for Newbury. The only potential difficulty was caused by the Town Hall which was regarded as a security risk. However now thanks to Richard Garvie the world is aware of where the new data hub is located.

Sorry Brian, I thought it was a well known fact where the new data hub was, I've now removed it from my posting.

Your right, everyone knows about the town hall.

Yes, but "everybody" might not have known about the new location, and I'd hate to be the person blamed for that being public knowledge.

Anyway, back on topic, this is just another example of the council misleading the local business community to cover their tracks. Not good. If they lie to the TCP, lie to the media and lie to opposition parties, how can we have any faith in this administration on anything? They fudged the consultation on the leadership model and didn't try to hide that fact, they tried to railroad the reduction in affordable housing quotas at the racecourse through and even asked over half of the day care facilities in West Berkshire with no consultation. How can we trust anything they say or do?

Quoted from richard.garvie

Yes, but "everybody" might not have known about the new location, and I'd hate to be the person blamed for that being public knowledge.

Believe me, it is a badly kept 'secret'?

I think every man and his dog knew about the town hall!!!

Quoted from richard.garvie

I think every man and his dog knew about the town hall!!!

So that is okay then? Fine talk from a wannabe.

I assumed it was common knowledge so I carried on regardless.

Quoted from 78

So that is okay then? Fine talk from a wannabe. I assumed it was common knowledge so I carried on regardless.

The control room wasn't a state secret.  If it is such of a problem then it should have been located somewhere else and the location made privileged information.

You, Brian B, etc, are making a mountain out of a mole hill on this one.

http://www.newburysound.co.uk/cctv-switch-defended-i-8199.php

So now Cllr Stansfield in admitting publicly some cameras are not operational and some haven't been recording. I'd love to know why the official line from the PR department is still "everything has gone over, everything is now digital and everything is recording". What is becoming clear is that Cllr Stansfield knew all along that not all of the cameras were operational or recording, yet he was happy for his department to tell the local business community that they were. For this reason, he needs to do the decent thing and resign. How can the local community trust him with safety issues, when he is prepared to mislead the public to this effect.

What this also does is open up huge question marks over why certain council officers have acted in this manner.

Quoted from Greenham Common

The control room wasn't a state secret.  If it is such of a problem then it should have been located somewhere else and the location made privileged information.

You, Brian B, etc, are making a mountain out of a mole hill on this one.

Guess where we got that idea from!

I want to know about the email scandal!

Quoted from richard.garvie

http://www.newburysound.co.uk/cctv-switch-defended-i-8199.php

So now Cllr Stansfield in admitting publicly some cameras are not operational and some haven't been recording. I'd love to know why the official line from the PR department is still "everything has gone over, everything is now digital and everything is recording". What is becoming clear is that Cllr Stansfield knew all along that not all of the cameras were operational or recording, yet he was happy for his department to tell the local business community that they were. For this reason, he needs to do the decent thing and resign. How can the local community trust him with safety issues, when he is prepared to mislead the public to this effect.

What this also does is open up huge question marks over why certain council officers have acted in this manner.

Never has so much been read in between the lines!

Quoted from 78

Never has so much been read in between the lines!

I don't see much between the lines. Threep got it right in the beginning and it seems that all the good and great are now trying to cover up the whole fiasco. I believe that now would be the time for a statement so that the whole thing could be put to bed. Four weeks down the line and we will have forgotten all about it unless they allow it to drag on by trying to hush it all up. We may have our own Cameragate.

Quoted from brian

I don't see much between the lines. Threep got it right in the beginning and it seems that all the good and great are now trying to cover up the whole fiasco. I believe that now would be the time for a statement so that the whole thing could be put to bed. Four weeks down the line and we will have forgotten all about it unless they allow it to drag on by trying to hush it all up. We may have our own Cameragate.

Threep was in fact bang on with this one. In addition to the traders and licencee holders who flagged this up, they all desrve a massive pat on the back for standing up to the council. The fact that they did not roll over when the council lied to them about this is a credit to them.

Quoted from richard.garvie

Threep was in fact bang on with this one. In addition to the traders and licencee holders who flagged this up, they all desrve a massive pat on the back for standing up to the council. The fact that they did not roll over when the council lied to them about this is a credit to them.

And not without a tincy-wincy bit of encouragement from you!  

To both of them.

Quoted from Greenham Common

And not without a tincy-wincy bit of encouragement from you!  

I only got my teeth into it after every other avenue was exhausted!!!

Quoted from richard.garvie

I only got my teeth into it after every other avenue was exhausted!!!

It's all very well talking about it, but what the situation needs is action - because it speaks louder than words - so WHAT EXACTLY are you Richard going to do about it ....... or indeed anyone else Brian ?? Sounds like a lot of hot air - try Panorama or something ?

Well, I've done what I can to get the media to pick up on it. I'm already persuing various channels with regards to finding out why the council have intentionally lied about this, and I have presented evidence that I have research to support my claims. What I'd like to happen now is for the council to come out and apologise and take action against whoever is responsible. The next step would be to write off to independent bodies to request an investigation, but I'm sure it won't get that far. What I don't get is why the Lib Dems didn't do anything about this? Someone told me they had asked questions but been turned away with the same answers that the traders got. I just hope they now propose a motion at the next council meeting, asking for an investigation into the conduct of the council on this issue.

Considering CCTV is not a council obligation, it serves little more than to embarrass an authority who might claim to be good at organising civic affairs.

Quoted from PaulaM

It's all very well talking about it, but what the situation needs is action - because it speaks louder than words - so WHAT EXACTLY are you Richard going to do about it ....... or indeed anyone else Brian ?? Sounds like a lot of hot air - try Panorama or something ?

Actually Paula, RG is just a citizen of West Berks and has no authority as such and does not have a direct line to God but, you are in fact a retailer in Newbury and you do have a direct line either through the TCP or NRA. I would suggest that, if you belong to either group and have a concern, that would be a route to the top. Liz Chandler from Nature's Corner as the chair of the TCP or of course Brian Burgess for the NRA. A formal note or email should produce a result.

Quoted from Greenham Common

Considering CCTV is not a council obligation, it serves little more than to embarrass an authority who might claim to be good at organising civic affairs.

Really, then why are they (WBC) saving money by transferring it to a new centre. or by council, do you mean the Town Council.

Quoted from brian

Really, then why are they (WBC) saving money by transferring it to a new centre. or by council, do you mean the Town Council.

I assume that the council (whatever one) have no obligation to provide a CCTV solution.  If they do, then that make this issue a little more serious.

CCTV is actually not a requirement. I applaud WBC for continuing to fund CCTV, but that does not mean we should not question the council when they set out to decieve the public at these lengths.

Quoted from brian

Actually Paula, RG is just a citizen of West Berks and has no authority as such and does not have a direct line to God but, you are in fact a retailer in Newbury and you do have a direct line either through the TCP or NRA. I would suggest that, if you belong to either group and have a concern, that would be a route to the top. Liz Chandler from Nature's Corner as the chair of the TCP or of course Brian Burgess for the NRA. A formal note or email should produce a result.

Actually Brian, I am "just a citizen of West Berkshire" - you will find I am no longer a retailer in Newbury, and yes thanks I know Brian and Liz.  So back on topic ...... trying to "embarass the council" is in my opinion "point scoring" from a budding politician - and is not at present achieving anything.

I think I would say I was trying to hold the council to account, and really that should be the job of the elected opposition members of the council.

Quoted from richard.garvie

I think I would say I was trying to hold the council to account, and really that should be the job of the elected opposition members of the council.

Maybe the oposition are privy to information you are not - hence their not bothering in this instance?

There are lots of things for which the council are not tasked to provide a solution however, they do have a responsibility to the ratepayers to provide a safe environment for us all to live in. They have happily used the CCTV system and the placement of cameras to support their relationship with traders and the public so I'm afraid that they now can't just pull out of the whole thing because someone somewhere has not carried out their responsibilities in a professional manner. This must be down to the management of the project and the overseeing of the project by the senior management.
It is very handy to blame the weather, this standard excuse really is a nonsense, the planners have had ample time to sort out the hurdles and it should have all gone smoothly. I'm fairly sure that other authorities have paved the way so the technology should be fairly well understood. No excuses I'm afraid, the responsible persons need to stand up and be counted. I have some sympathy with our councillors who are not qualified, not technical and possibly have little understanding of what is involved but WBC pay good money to full time staff who should have those qualifications if not, why are we paying them.

Quoted from PaulaM

Actually Brian, I am "just a citizen of West Berkshire" - you will find I am no longer a retailer in Newbury, and yes thanks I know Brian and Liz.  So back on topic ...... trying to "embarass the council" is in my opinion "point scoring" from a budding politician - and is not at present achieving anything.

Sorry Paula, I thought you were a shopkeeper. I withdraw my suggestions. However, RG even managed to get a name drop in the NWN today so he seems to be busy putting himself about a lot, I'm not sure how many points he scored but election time will tell.

The portfolio holder Anthony Stansfield gets £14k a year of tax payer money. This is why we need accountability. This whole issue for me is bigger than the technical issues, it's about the fact the council have lied to the local business community all through this process.

Quoted from richard.garvie

The portfolio holder Anthony Stansfield gets £14k a year of tax payer money. This is why we need accountability. This whole issue for me is bigger than the technical issues, it's about the fact the council have lied to the local business community all through this process.

Not exactly a King's ransom compared, I have no doubt, with the person(s) who are briefing him. I have the same issue with councillors who are responsible for the Vision or the Parkway development. They are not civil engineers and whilst they have the public face, they have little or no qualifications other than one would hope, the common sense to know when they are being led up the garden path.

See, I thought being a councillor was about coming up with the policy, and being advised by the officers. I know it doesn't happen like that here, but that is how it should work.

It does not happen like that anywhere.

This is all very sad really. At one time Newbury had a CCTV system that was envied by many other towns in the south of England. It was funded originally by the private sector, and when it was installed used all the very latest technology. Over the years it has been allowed to deteriorate even though thousands of pounds have been syphoned off from the S106 contributions allegedly to keep the system running. However, there doesn't even appear to have been enough money in the kitty to buy a new box of VHS videotapes. Presumably this money has been paid to various consultants in recent years who have all taken a huge fee and told the council that they have to outsource it.

The current debacle has been running for over 12 months with everything being decided behind closed doors because of the "sensitive" nature of the issues involved.

It may at the end of the day work efficiently but from the information that I have it certainly won't be achieved by the 10th of January.

Well, as long as the council pretend it's ok, you'll always have a few on here defending them. The fact that Cllr Stansfield has at least divulged further information is a step in the right direction, but no apology or similar release of information from West Berkshire Council would appear to be forthcoming. I find it odd that after partially denying there were issues, Cllr Stansfield does a U-turn but the council continue to attempt to decieve on the issue. Will there be any accountability on this issue? I wouldn't bet on it...

Presumably this money has been paid to various consultants in recent years who have all taken a huge fee and told the council that they have to outsource it.

That sounds so New Labour.

Huge amounts of cash were paid in the first place thanks to lobbying & consultants. btw - can you imagine just how many tapes would be needed?

Quoted from richard.garvie

Well, as long as the council pretend it's ok, you'll always have a few on here defending them. ..

Odd as it might seem I'd be sticking up for you if you were in Stansfield's position & had some twerp with half the facts baying for your blood at the slightest wiff of a problem.

Quoted from 78

Huge amounts of cash were paid in the first place thanks to lobbying & consultants. btw - can you imagine just how many tapes would be needed?

For what?

Quoted from Greenham Common

For what?

Recording footage from 50+ CCTV cameras.

Quoted from Greenham Common

For what?

Recording footage from 50+ CCTV cameras.

Quoted from 78

Recording footage from 50+ CCTV cameras.

I don't follow your logic.  As a tape gets past a certain quality, bin it and get another one.  They weren't expensive.  Better still, get a PVR for a couple of hundred quid.

Quoted from Greenham Common

I don't follow your logic.  As a tape gets past a certain quality, bin it and get another one.  They weren't expensive.  Better still, get a PVR for a couple of hundred quid.

I guess it depends if we are talking continuous recording or just recording when something is up.

Continuous recording on 50 cameras 24hr a day  = 600 2 hour tapes.

it gets more interesting with digital as a single digital camera produces about 40GB of data a day. Most footage is kept for 30-90 days.....

Quoted from 78

I guess it depends if we are talking continuous recording or just recording when something is up.

Continuous recording on 50 cameras 24hr a day  = 600 2 hour tapes.

it gets more interesting with digital as a single digital camera produces about 40GB of data a day. Most footage is kept for 30-90 days.....

10TB will hold 30 days (5pfs, 704x480) from 16 cameras - 30TB for 90 days, 90TB for 48 cameras, 90 days.  Cost of 90TB - £3600 or less.

Peanuts compared to the other costs involved in running a CCTV operation of this scale.  

But we are talking VHS cassettes.

Quoted from 78

But we are talking VHS cassettes.

Are you saying they had 50 VHS recorders?

Quoted from Greenham Common

Are you saying they had 50 VHS recorders?

herein lies the problem wih stabbing in the dark....

Quoted from 78

herein lies the problem wih stabbing in the dark....

Eh...?  

Any chance you could just spit it out?

At least in one interview on the radio today, Mr Stansfield reminded us we were lucky to have a system at all as it wasn't part of WBC remit to supply it. Thanks for that Mr Stansfield and also thanks to Mr Benyon for letting us know that the transfer to Windsor was a jolly good thing and the council have been on the ball ensuring a well conceived transfer. I'm still working out how the saving adds up to £250,000 seeing as we don't need to buy any VHS tapes now and it can all be stored on a hard disc albeit a big one but I'm sure that will be sensitive data.

Quoted from Greenham Common

Eh...?  

Any chance you could just spit it out?

Obvious isn't it?

It's rumour based on rumour based on rumour.

Quoted from user23.3

Obvious isn't it?

It's rumour based on rumour based on rumour.

Do you have any information to the contrary to help dispel the rumours.

Quoted from user23.3

Obvious isn't it?  It's rumour based on rumour based on rumour.

It's a fact that picture quality was hopeless because of the degeneration of the tapes used.  So what do you mean?

Quoted from brian

Do you have any information to the contrary to help dispel the rumours.

Ah, the old "the rumours are true unless you can prove me wrong" gambit.

I think someone already did this.

Quoted from user23.3

Ah, the old "the rumours are true unless you can prove me wrong" gambit.  I think someone already did this.

I take that as a no then.  It would seem there was some weight to the rumours.

Quoted from Greenham Common

I take that as a no then.  It would seem there was some weight to the rumours.

Featherweight at best, buoyed up up a certain radio DJ's hot air.

Quoted from user23.3

Featherweight at best, buoyed up up a certain radio DJ's hot air.

Can you point out where DJ RG was wrong?

Quoted from user23.3

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.

Quoted from Greenham Common

Can you point out where DJ RG was wrong?

You've already done the "prove it's wrong" thing, so has brian.

Quoted from user23.3

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.

Quoted from Threepwood

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.

http://decisionmaking.westberks.gov.uk/mgConvert2PDF.aspx?ID=7460


I refer m'learned friends to Item 16.9

"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.

Usual lies and waffle, and of course "WBC" wording.  i.e. a large pile of shite is described as the best fertiliser ever!

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?

Quoted from richard.garvie

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?

Quoted from jay

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.

Transparency and openess does not exist in WBC.