CCTV Cameras

Eck · Post by **Eck** » 17 Mar 2009, 12:27

BeachBum wrote:Nope. No need to question it. Dog foul is a very minute aspect of my job. If I questioned every policy & protocol that I work to I wouldnt have time to any work at all.

Also, im not sure why it would be a waste. If im with a co-worker anyway, and they seen it anyway, im not sure why thats a waste because giving a brief incident statment takes less than ten minutes and the provising of stills & footage of CCTV takes less than 10 minutes (including paperwork). Its not like extra esources are being drafted in.

I'm talking about two workers having to view the CCTV at the same time. If you are in the CCTV van, unless practices have changed, the van must be stationery whilst the camera mast is used, therefore there will have to be two workers in the van at one time. Usually the van would be used for a number of hours in one area and not just taken out for 10 mintues or so. Also, if you are at City in View, why should two workers have to view the same screen at the same time. It's a complete waste of time and defeats the purpose of CCTV evidence which was to free up resources.

It's 10 minutes here, and 10 minutes there. It all adds up. It's also 10 minutes where someone could be doing something that is useful. The courts don't request the two witnesses so what's the point in it?

Eck · Post by **Eck** » 17 Mar 2009, 12:28

BeachBum wrote:
Eck wrote: This is just another strand of red tape that is un-necessary.
Perhaps you should start a campaign group.

Have you started one against CCTV? I seem to recall you posting complaing about the council putting CCTV facilities in the local area?

I wasn't complaining about CCTV being used in the local area. I was complaining at them putting cameras in places where they weren't warranted... ie: very little crime or anti-social behaviour.

BeachBum · Post by **BeachBum** » 17 Mar 2009, 12:32

Eck wrote:
I wasn't complaining about CCTV being used in the local area. I was complaining at them putting cameras in places where they weren't warranted... ie: very little crime or anti-social behaviour.

There must have been a reason. Locations arnt just picked out of a hat.

Did you contact the relevant parties and request an explanation?

Did you complain to the relevant parties? What was their response?

BeachBum · Post by **BeachBum** » 17 Mar 2009, 12:33

Eck wrote:
BeachBum wrote:Nope. No need to question it. Dog foul is a very minute aspect of my job. If I questioned every policy & protocol that I work to I wouldnt have time to any work at all.

Also, im not sure why it would be a waste. If im with a co-worker anyway, and they seen it anyway, im not sure why thats a waste because giving a brief incident statment takes less than ten minutes and the provising of stills & footage of CCTV takes less than 10 minutes (including paperwork). Its not like extra esources are being drafted in.
I'm talking about two workers having to view the CCTV at the same time. If you are in the CCTV van, unless practices have changed, the van must be stationery whilst the camera mast is used, therefore there will have to be two workers in the van at one time. Usually the van would be used for a number of hours in one area and not just taken out for 10 mintues or so. Also, if you are at City in View, why should two workers have to view the same screen at the same time. It's a complete waste of time and defeats the purpose of CCTV evidence which was to free up resources.

It's 10 minutes here, and 10 minutes there. It all adds up. It's also 10 minutes where someone could be doing something that is useful. The courts don't request the two witnesses so what's the point in it?

Pass you had best ask on of the Councils CCTV operators from CIV or from the mobile team.

Eck · Post by **Eck** » 17 Mar 2009, 12:39

It doesn't really bother me. It's a flaw in the Councils workings, but it may be worth you raising with your 'high heid yin's' so that you can free up some of your colleagues time from carrying out un-necessary work.

I pick my dogs crap up, however, now that I know that the Council require two witnesses watching the screen I might just not bother.

BeachBum · Post by **BeachBum** » 17 Mar 2009, 12:51

Eck wrote:It doesn't really bother me. It's a flaw in the Councils workings, but it may be worth you raising with your 'high heid yin's' so that you can free up some of your colleagues time from carrying out un-necessary work.

I pick my dogs crap up, however, now that I know that the Council require two witnesses watching the screen I might just not bother.

I disagree. Its not my place to raise it. It doesnt concern me.

I wouldnt let any of the wardens see you, I would think they dont need a co worker to witness it with them.

Eck · Post by **Eck** » 19 Mar 2009, 12:24

BeachBum wrote: I wouldnt let any of the wardens see you, I would think they dont need a co worker to witness it with them.

The chances of them issuing a fine is remote... i'd have to be VERY unlucky going by these statistics:

http://edinburghnews.scotsman.com/topst ... 5082374.jp

BeachBum · Post by **BeachBum** » 19 Mar 2009, 13:54

Eck wrote:
BeachBum wrote: I wouldnt let any of the wardens see you, I would think they dont need a co worker to witness it with them.

The chances of them issuing a fine is remote... i'd have to be VERY unlucky going by these statistics:

http://edinburghnews.scotsman.com/topst ... 5082374.jp

I linked to that article on this forum yesterday in the Environmental Wardens thread. Its probs more relevant for discussions on that subject to be held in there.

Im sure wangi will move this at some point.

Those figures published by the evening news are a bit dodgy. The number of fines etc have simply been divided by the number fo wardens giving the figures of 7 fines each in a space of 12 months.

This does not take account of the fact that not every environmental warden goes out on patrol. Seniors are included in the 32 staff figure but they do not go out on patrol etc; on a routine basis. It would have been more accurate to have deducted the number of team leaders and seniors from the staff figure of 32 first.

Lets face it, if the wardens dished out 30,000 fines they would be under attack for issuing too many and targeting the public with some sort of stealth tax.

Its a no win situation.

The guys moral must have really suffered yesterday with such a public attack on.

Still, the Evening News is doing its job.

Im not defending CEC

Pal of Porty · Post by **Pal of Porty** » 20 Mar 2009, 10:00

BeachBum wrote:Those figures published by the evening news are a bit dodgy. The number of fines etc have simply been divided by the number fo wardens giving the figures of 7 fines each in a space of 12 months.

This does not take account of the fact that not every environmental warden goes out on patrol. Seniors are included in the 32 staff figure but they do not go out on patrol etc; on a routine basis. It would have been more accurate to have deducted the number of team leaders and seniors from the staff figure of 32 first.

Whether you choose to divide the number of fines by the 32 staff members or just 1 - fine income still only amounts to 3% of expenditure!

BeachBum · Post by **BeachBum** » 20 Mar 2009, 13:03

Pal of Porty wrote:
BeachBum wrote:Those figures published by the evening news are a bit dodgy. The number of fines etc have simply been divided by the number fo wardens giving the figures of 7 fines each in a space of 12 months.

This does not take account of the fact that not every environmental warden goes out on patrol. Seniors are included in the 32 staff figure but they do not go out on patrol etc; on a routine basis. It would have been more accurate to have deducted the number of team leaders and seniors from the staff figure of 32 first.
Whether you choose to divide the number of fines by the 32 staff members or just 1 - fine income still only amounts to 3% of expenditure!

FFS, in the quote you refer I do not make any statment about the total expendature. I only comment on the number of fines issued.

Pal of Porty · Post by **Pal of Porty** » 20 Mar 2009, 13:42

Whether one chooses to divide the number of fines by the 32 staff members or just 1 staff member - the fine income amounts to only 3% of expenditure!

Porty · Post by **Porty** » 26 Mar 2009, 14:41

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/ ... llers.html

Seems like our 3 dozen or so environmental wardens aren't doing so bad with only 7 fines each.

I've never understood the economic justification for ticket inspectors on the buses. A friend of mine used to do the job and at the time i worked out he would need to capture 28,000 fare dodgers a year for the bus company to break even. It ain't going to happen. I know it is partly a deterrent but it doesn't make sense. Issuing tickets that are subsequently thrown away doesn't make much sense either.

Eck · Post by **Eck** » 26 Mar 2009, 15:57

Porty wrote:http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/ ... llers.html

Unfortunately the Surveillance Commissioner requires every surveillance that is mounted, be it for a matter of hours, or months, to be launched and recorded under the RIP(S)A. This also goes for retrospective surveillance.

Although this article states that these powers are to be used for Anti- Terrorist purposes, the Act itself does not differentiate between the subjects of surveillance, be it Bin Laden or Wee Tommy who chores the fairy lights. Therefore, surveillance is surveillance.... regardless of who it caught (or not).

Porty · Post by **Porty** » 26 Mar 2009, 16:06

Bin Laden or Laden Bin it seems to matter not.

Eck · Post by **Eck** » 26 Mar 2009, 16:09

Lad- ChorIn' Bin?

Porty · Post by **Porty** » 26 Mar 2009, 17:24

Illegal crab sellers are a bit of a worry right enough. What did they do?

SoupDragon · Post by **SoupDragon** » 26 Mar 2009, 19:37

Sell illegal crabs?

Logic would suggest it would be shellfish from areas where there is contaminated waters

OR

It's a new nanny state clampdown.
They are after anyone selling bread, pasta, scones, cakes...
Illegal carb sellers

Porty · Post by **Porty** » 27 Mar 2009, 11:27

I thoght it may be refugee crabs that shouldn't be here in the first place.