The following posting appeared on our forum earlier today.

The story has been verified.

A few weeks ago, a pensioner I know in Greenham took her dog to the shop in Nightingales to get some cigs for her husband. She tied her dog up and walked past the hoodies to get in to the shop. Upon returning, the dog had gone. One of these nice young men explained that she could have her dog back if she gave them the cigarettes she'd just bought. She duly obliged, got her dog back, and made her way home where she called the police.

It turns out both the cameras are out of action. She's not political or anti-WBC,but as a 77 year old, she can't understand why her council switches off CCTV cameras to make her less safe, while spending £2m cobbling the town centre.

She hasn't been out of the house since....I think that's why people feel we all need more monitoring.

Quoted from Administrator

The following posting appeared on our forum earlier today.

The story has been verified.

A few weeks ago, a pensioner I know in Greenham took her dog to the shop in Nightingales to get some cigs for her husband. She tied her dog up and walked past the hoodies to get in to the shop. Upon returning, the dog had gone. One of these nice young men explained that she could have her dog back if she gave them the cigarettes she'd just bought. She duly obliged, got her dog back, and made her way home where she called the police.

It turns out both the cameras are out of action. She's not political or anti-WBC,but as a 77 year old, she can't understand why her council switches off CCTV cameras to make her less safe, while spending £2m cobbling the town centre.

She hasn't been out of the house since....I think that's why people feel we all need more monitoring.

WBC have got a new CCTV system! We are paying good money for this system! But it would appear it is rather a tad expensive for the supply of cameras that are not actually being used or are not actually capable of seeing anything unless those being observed are in exactly the right spot to within a couple of millimetres of the camera.

Perhaps the cameras should be installed complete with a loudhailer asking those acting suspiciously or committing crimes to come forwad a bit, left. left, forward a bit more. right, right, back just a step. Ok turn and look at the camera, head slightly up a bit. Ok once we have enhanced the picture the police will be in touch please do not leave the country whilst our specialists enhance your photograph using the latest Microsoft picture Manager enhancements.  

We should be told. I'm sure the council will tell us they can't comment!!

Quoted from richard.garvie

We should be told. I'm sure the council will tell us they can't comment!!

If I was a diligent opposition politician, I'd be all over this calling for Stansfeld to say sorry to her face to face. She could be the local version of Gillian Duffy (the Rochdale 'bigot' who felled Gordon Brown). Tiresome for the rest of us, but it keeps them occupied while the Supreme Leader puts the next stage of His Glorious 25 Year Plan in place behind their backs.  

Quoted from Muddler

If I was a diligent opposition politician, I'd be all over this calling for Stansfeld to say sorry to her face to face. She could be the local version of Gillian Duffy (the Rochdale 'bigot' who felled Gordon Brown). Tiresome for the rest of us, but it keeps them occupied while the Supreme Leader puts the next stage of His Glorious 25 Year Plan in place behind their backs.  

This is just the latest of a string of incidents in the past week or two that have taken place in areas where old cameras have been left up to act as a precautionary measure.

Now is the time that all of the old cameras should be taken down.

Quoted from richard.garvie

This is just the latest of a string of incidents in the past week or two that have taken place in areas where old cameras have been left up to act as a precautionary measure.

Now is the time that all of the old cameras should be taken down.

Hoi! What do you think you are doing? The council, purely for security reasons you understand, want the local scallies to think they are working cameras? Even though they have not moved from spotting the space station or the tops of  trees for months. The local scallies and their Aunties all know that we have had, practically, no CCTV coverage for over a year.  

Quoted from Cognosco

Hoi! What do you think you are doing? The council, purely for security reasons you understand, want the local scallies to think they are working cameras? Even though they have not moved from spotting the space station or the tops of  trees for months. The local scallies and their Aunties all know that we have had, practically, no CCTV coverage for over a year.  

Dead right. And crime's down 12% in the same period. Strange

Quoted from Muddler

Dead right. And crime's down 12% in the same period. Strange

What is the detection rate figures??

Quoted from Muddler

Dead right. And crime's down 12% in the same period. Strange

So if crime has dropped such a percentage without CCTV; does this mean the councils business case figures for upgrading to an, allegedly, inferior system and less cameras were completely wrong?  

Should we abandon CCTV altogether and see the crime figures drop even lower? Or is it the case that less crime has been reported because people know it is a waste of time as there is no evidence available to help solve the crime?

It appears that either way the poor taxpayer suffers.

     A: We pay for a system of CCTV thas is, allegedly, inferior as to be practically useless; the council refuses to reveal evidence to the    contrary.

     B: We save taxpayers money by scrapping the CCTV system. we are then, possibly, suffering more crime which goes  unreported as taxpayers know it is a waste of time as there is no recorded evidence available.

The council could certainly do more to quell the unease regarding the CCTV system. Let them demonstrate a couple of times per year, to interested parties, that the sytem works by touring the control center and showing them just how good the system is?

I complained last weekend about the Pound Lane camera, by Monday afternoon it was gone. If an official complaint is made and there is potential liability to the authority, they will whip them straight out.

Bit like the Newbury FC floodlights a few years back!!!

You're campaigning for the removal of CCTV cameras now?

Quoted from user23.3

You're campaigning for the removal of CCTV cameras now?

No, simply pointing out that leaving cameras up which do not work give a false sense of security.

Quoted from richard.garvie

No, simply pointing out that leaving cameras up which do not work give a false sense of security.

Perhaps they act as a deterrent.

What analysis have you done of this before asking for them to be removed?

Read the thread about the Pound Lane example.

Quoted from richard.garvie

Read the thread about the Pound Lane example.

I'm talking about a full risk analysis and consultation.

Can you post a link to this please?

Quoted from user23.3

I'm talking about a full risk analysis and consultation.

Can you post a link to this please?

Ah but there's the rub. Only the local authority are obliged to carry out a risk analysis and consultation.
Local people use commone sense that tells them when something has a good chance of being wrong.
Local authorities need legislation to force them to do risk analysis....as parliament know they have not a very good record for having common sense, hence the legislation, ...of course still does not ensure they get it right though does it?
Look at past experiences....nudge nudge wink wink!  

Quoted from user23.3

I'm talking about a full risk analysis and consultation.

Can you post a link to this please?

It's WBC that has removed the camera, not Richard G.  Perhaps you could find their risk analysis and consultation?

Quoted from blackdog

It's WBC that has removed the camera, not Richard G.  Perhaps you could find their risk analysis and consultation?

I'm referring to Richard's suggestion of the removal of all of the old cameras, not just one.

Quoted from user23.3

I'm referring to Richard's suggestion of the removal of all of the old cameras, not just one.

I'm sure you would be able to access a bog standard template on the sytem that you could churn off the printer to cover the risk analysis for the removal of the cameras yourself.

Richard has more important things to do you know as I am sure you are aware, he has to ensure we are all aware of the inane goings on at the Supreme Leaders Headquarters.  

Quoted from user23.3

I'm referring to Richard's suggestion of the removal of all of the old cameras, not just one.

So you don't think assessment is needed for the removal of a camera?

Quoted from blackdog

So you don't think assessment is needed for the removal of a camera?

No need if Richard has his way

Quoted from richard.garvie

Now is the time that all of the old cameras should be taken down.

Quoted from user23.3

I'm talking about a full risk analysis and consultation.

Can you post a link to this please?

You talk rubbish sometimes. It should be the council publishing information relating to the risks of keeping cameras in position despite the fact they are switched off. There is obviously a risk of liability on them, as when the incidents in Pound Lane went unmonitored, the first thing they did was whip the camera out. What damages are the council exposed to? What will the damages be in other areas (if any)? This whole thing appears to have been done on the hoof, the review pretty much said that. But still, there you are, the sole defender of the realm (on this issue anyway). What's in it for you?

To reply to User's post wgich seems to have gone missing (on my computer anyway):

You tell us buddy, have the council done any work to point out what risks are involved in keeping them up? Have they assessed the liability they are exposed to in each case? Worst case scenario, somebody is "taken" in the wharf area late at night, and when the national media ask for CCTV images from the camera by the library, the media are told it wasn't working. Can you imagine the ramifications for the council? If you are telling me there is no need to look at potential outcomes and scenarios in the case of each camera that has been left up, they should be uninstalled immediately as they are given a false sense of security.

So, I'm saying the unoperational cameras should be taken out. Why is it me who should provide you with information about the risks and hazards? I'm simply saying that people should know if the camera looking over their home / place of work is operational or not, because it's in the interests of the aurthority long term to avoid a PR nightmare as described above.

Which takes us back to the whole "taxi rank should not be in the wharf without proper CCTV monitoring and half decent lighting" argument.

Quoted from user23.3

No need if Richard has his way

So you have no view either way? Or are you, as usual, unprepared to give your opinion.

Quoted from blackdog

So you have no view either way? Or are you, as usual, unprepared to give your opinion.

He hasn't been told what his opinion should be yet!  

Quoted from Administrator

The following posting appeared on our forum earlier today.

The story has been verified.

A few weeks ago, a pensioner I know in Greenham took her dog to the shop in Nightingales to get some cigs for her husband. She tied her dog up and walked past the hoodies to get in to the shop. Upon returning, the dog had gone. One of these nice young men explained that she could have her dog back if she gave them the cigarettes she'd just bought. She duly obliged, got her dog back, and made her way home where she called the police.

It turns out both the cameras are out of action. She's not political or anti-WBC,but as a 77 year old, she can't understand why her council switches off CCTV cameras to make her less safe, while spending £2m cobbling the town centre.

She hasn't been out of the house since....I think that's why people feel we all need more monitoring.

I went to see her again this morning, and bought her a copy of the local paper, which has now reported on my post of 3 weeks ago. Lady and dog doing fine, husband still in poor health, and upset that he couldn't do more to help.

Good to see the police now admitting the CCTV is useless outside daylight hours. Surely it's time to scrap it, and give the money either to TVP so it doesn't have to get rid of any Newbury coppers, or give it back to the businesses who paid for it to improve their own security.

Quoted from richard.garvie

You talk rubbish sometimes most of the time!. It should be the council publishing information relating to the risks of keeping cameras in position despite the fact they are switched off. There is obviously a risk of liability on them, as when the incidents in Pound Lane went unmonitored, the first thing they did was whip the camera out. What damages are the council exposed to? What will the damages be in other areas (if any)? This whole thing appears to have been done on the hoof, the review pretty much said that. But still, there you are, the sole defender of the realm (on this issue anyway). What's in it for you?

Surely the issue is not to remove the CCTV, but to reinstate those not working, and improve on it, for the additional safety of all.
Just taking then out is not just a waste of funds invested in the installation of them in the first place, but also giving the undesirables a free hand to do whatever they like, undetected, 'cos sure as eggs are eggs, we won't be seeing enough Mr Plods on the streets to make up for their (CCTV) loss.

Quoted from LocalRes

Surely the issue is not to remove the CCTV, but to reinstate those not working, and improve on it, for the additional safety of all.
Just taking then out is not just a waste of funds invested in the installation of them in the first place, but also giving the undesirables a free hand to do whatever they like, undetected, 'cos sure as eggs are eggs, we won't be seeing enough Mr Plods on the streets to make up for their (CCTV) loss.

I think one of the main issues is the lies from the council.  The CCTV will be better quality there will be no problems having the control centre in Windsor.....

Quoted from LocalRes

Surely the issue is not to remove the CCTV, but to reinstate those not working, and improve on it, for the additional safety of all.
Just taking then out is not just a waste of funds invested in the installation of them in the first place, but also giving the undesirables a free hand to do whatever they like, undetected, 'cos sure as eggs are eggs, we won't be seeing enough Mr Plods on the streets to make up for their (CCTV) loss.

The CCTV isn't a loss....see OP.

Of course it is a loss, if camera's are turned off, unused, or removed!

It is a great loss to the security of the community, if they are not used as intended in the first place, regardless of financial costs!