concerned
Posts:49
 |
| 03 Aug 2008 19:30:20 |
 Alert
|
[Kingswells Sommelier I mistook you for Ellier you all sound exactly like one person who becomes very confused on occasions. My last reply to ellier was on 18th July 2008 posting.
The reply you refer to (RUBBISH) is from resident@4 this is someone who you previously referred to
quote]Posted By Kingswells Sommelier on 11 Jul 2008 13:49:04
#4, you've clearly got a lot of enthusiasm for your local environment. It seems to be one of the problems with faceless communication that people can very easily get misunderstood in a way that does not happen in a face to face environment. Can I suggest (impartially) that you consider yourself for KCC? I'd be happy to have you representing me too. I'm guessing KCC need people who have the energy to get involved. You can then be involved in the decision-making process. Maybe Ian doesn't even want all the roles he has; maybe he just has to take them on as someone has to do it. From my own experience of being on various committees, there are often people very happy to sign up but will shy away from taking on responsibility for a variety of reasons. It always seemed to be the same 2-3 people of a committee of 15 taking on the roles and work. I'm not saying that is what happens with KCC (I've never been to a meeting and have no plans on attending) but I wouldn't be surprised if that is the case.
I can only concur with resident@4 “RUBBISH"
|
|
|
|
|
concerned
Posts:49
|
| 03 Aug 2008 21:15:31 |
Alert
|
[quote]Posted By andy92 on 03 Aug 2008 14:33:14
Concerned, You do not make any sense.
REPLY;
You need to try harder and read the posts very carefully. It may hurt your head but persevere.
(quote)I think you will find the majority of Kingswells residents are behind the scheme, I certainly am. If it makes Kingswells a safer place, thats a good enough reason for me.
REPLY;
How can anyone tell if the majority of Kingswells residents are behind the scheme when no consultation was held? If its good enough for you then it must be OK. You seem to think your opinion can not be challenged. Try removing your dummy and thinking.
(quote)I dont see your point about the Police not getting on board. The majority of CCTV systems (apart from City Centres) have nothing to do with the Police, they are run by retail premises.
REPLY;
You almost got the point there, retail premises are not residential areas where cameras can intrude into peoples homes and gardens. Remember this system is being administrated by a community council. If for instance a data protection blunder were to happen who will be held responsible and who will compensate the affected parties. The Tax Payer?
You really are a child, andy92, aren’t you?
quote)When are you standing for KCC if you think you can make a difference?
REPLY;
You really do come over as one person. IanC, Kingswells Sommelier, Ellier, you all believe that a visit to a community council meeting is the unquestionable reply to any uncomfortable question, you all make illogical unsubstantiated claims. You really are a child, andy92, aren’t you?
|
|
|
|
|
Ellier
Posts:20
|
| 04 Aug 2008 07:29:12 |
Alert
|
TO Concerned - It has been a couple of weeks since I was on the forum and I see you are still harping on about the same old thing!! I wonder why we all sound the same to you - is it because you are the only one against the cctv? Have you got something to hide?
You aren't prepared to listen to anyone else or if advice is offered you just start moaning. I think you are the child Concerned with your me me me attitude! Grow up, get off your computer chair and get up to the community centre - what are you actually achieving on this forum apart from exchanging a few cross words with people you don't even know!!! |
|
|
|
|
concerned
Posts:49
|
| 04 Aug 2008 08:56:10 |
Alert
|
To Ellier
I am still harping on about the same old thing, check the total views. More people seem to be interested than in footprints.
I believe I have raised some questions and challenged some statements. At least I am consistent in my criticism.
Your first post 16th July found my posts interesting, and then on the 17th and 18th amusing although you still managed to get in a moan your opinion of my posts really has come downhill now its moan moan moan
|
|
|
|
|
IanC
Posts:119
|
| 04 Aug 2008 10:30:06 |
Alert
|
KCC now know who "Corncerned" is as they have written to request that the camera be moved. This will be discussed at the next meeting on the 11th @ 8pm at the community centre. Everyone is welcome at the meeting.
As Concerned has asked their identity to be kept secret KCC will respect this request.
Historically when Concerned has a problem they make a lot of noise, bother everyone under the sun and listen to no-one. If you have followed this thread then you probably have come to that conclusion yourself. Nothing anyone can say or do will make any difference to Concerned.
If Concerned was really bothered about the camera then this issue would have been resolved a long time ago, and the thread would only have 5 or 6 posts.
Concerned, as I said a while ago, in my opinion, the help you need is not available on this forum. For your own good, please seek it.
|
|
|
|
|
concerned
Posts:49
|
| 04 Aug 2008 12:41:38 |
Alert
|
IanC
So much for your last word on the subject.
You are confused again, I am “concerned” and I can categorically state that I have not written to KCC.
This makes the remainder of your post completely wrong, you jump to conclusions, far too quickly. Your blundering and bullying approach is the reason the issue of the camera has not been resolved before now. The onus is on the administration to comply with the Information Commissioners Office CCTV Code of Practice, not for individuals to view images you may wish to show.
The camera adjustment is important and it must be addressed.
Other issues also needed to be aired and questions still require answers in an open, honest, forthright manner.
You have been very personal in your final sentence so I feel justified to respond in kind.
The Forum is littered with your opinions in many subjects and it seems to me If individuals dare to challenge your opinion then nothing can be done to help, only if they massage your inflated sense of self importance and ego can anything be done, you seek publicity and your quest for importance is very evident, You volunteer for anything you can. Perhaps you should take your own advice and seek help.
|
|
|
|
|
Kingswells Sommelier
Posts:13
|
| 04 Aug 2008 13:08:37 |
Alert
|
Concerned,
Congratulations!!! You've finally got something right! I do apologise, it was not yourself who said "RUBBISH". Lets all have a celebration for the first time on the thread you've got something right.
Shall we try a different tack with you? I wonder what your objective was for first posting about the CCTV? I'm assuming you feel yourself to be an intelligent being, so there must have been some objective to your post, otherwise we're being treated to the ramblings of an idiot. As I assume you feel yourself to be an intelligent person, we can rule out idiotic ramblings.
So then we ask ourselves what are you hoping to achieve with your posting. If it was to raise awareness, then I feel you had achieved all the level of awareness you can reasonably hope to have by about page 1. After this you are actually detracting from your message. If it was to try to change something, then you have managed to alienate yourself from the person whom you seek to change something with. You have also ruled out attending any meetings from which you could hope to influence any decision. In essence you have cut yourself off from anyone who has any power to do anything. Pursuing an isolationist policy when you have no power yourself is not a very clever strategy.
And then there is the issue of the camera and the view in the garden. I note it is not your garden, so I presume you are doing this on behalf of your friend. I sorely hope she is not expecting any results, for the reasons given above. And if they have not asked you to do this, I would wonder why you use that angle at all (though this isn't the sole reason given).
There are at least two other options open to you, but I'm certainly not going to help you because:
a) it would spoil the fun of watching you trying to string half an argument together badly, rife with double standards
b) based on your attitude I'm not inclined to help you
Believe it or not I think the way Ian has dealt with things in the past could be improved. I also accept the world is not perfect, and given I am not willing to give my own time and effort to castigate someone who is needlessly. However, if you had been capable of constructing a more reasoned and intelligent debate you may have found you had more people willing to back you up on the issue. |
|
|
|
|
andy92
Posts:48
|
| 04 Aug 2008 15:16:33 |
Alert
|
| Concerned, you should be on the TV, your talents are wasted on this forum :L |
|
|
|
|
IanC
Posts:119
|
| 04 Aug 2008 18:55:59 |
Alert
|
Concerned,
You are correct, the letter was in you wife's name.
May main concern was for the other posters wasting their time; but it is clear they take some pleasure from this forum
. . . so let the fun continue . . .
|
|
|
|
|
concerned
Posts:49
|
| 04 Aug 2008 18:58:56 |
Alert
|
Kingswells sommelier
I do not consider myself to be very intelligent but I hope I have a modicum of common sense;
IanC is one member of a community council.
I have been advised that the Community Council are a friendly bunch and welcome residents who attend the meetings and that they don’t hold grudges. I am sure they will understand how distressing a camera pointed towards an individual’s home and garden would be for that person.
My disagreement with one member does not bar me from attending the meetings, or even joining KCC as a member.
Any decisions taken by KCC should be made on hard facts not on personal likes or dislikes.
The camera decision should be made dispassionately especially when the present adjustment is contrary to the Independent Commissioners Office CCTV Code of Practice, old ground but you never seem to get it.
Decisions based on personal likes, or dislikes lead to bullies and bad decisions which can backfire.
I will endeavour to construct a more reasoned and intelligent debate.
|
|
|
|
|
concerned
Posts:49
|
| 04 Aug 2008 19:22:47 |
Alert
|
IanC
You are wrong again,
Your main concern is as it has always been Your own interest and self promotion |
|
|
|
|
concerned
Posts:49
|
| 04 Aug 2008 21:27:50 |
Alert
|
IanC
Since you have decided to offer your opinions once more, perhaps you could offer some answers to outstanding questions.
1. Is a community council considered part of a public authority?
2. Can you give a plausible explanation as to the setting of the considine camera?
3. What are the proposed locations of future camera locations?
4. What are the costs involved?
5. How will the future cameras be funded?
6. What were / are the issues involved gaining access to the system when required? “These issues should be resolved in the near future. This means the police can only access the system after normal office hours?” (You’re posting 20th July 2008)
7. What is the preferred method for an individual to access recorded images under section 7 of the 1998 Data Protection Act? This information must be supplied in permanent form by way of a copy; your telephone number is printed on the CCTV signs. You should have this covered. |
|
|
|
|
Ellier
Posts:20
|
| 05 Aug 2008 07:51:57 |
Alert
|
| I am now bored of this Concerned - all you want to do is have a slanging match with anyone who has shown an interest in this thread. Off to do something more useful with my time -think I'll watch a bit of Big Brother!!!! |
|
|
|
|
IanC
Posts:119
|
| 06 Aug 2008 11:28:23 |
Alert
|
Concerned,
1. Is a community council considered part of a public authority?
Ans: No, so it is not subject to the Freedom of Information Act - if that is where you were going on that point.
2. Can you give a plausible explanation as to the setting of the considine camera?
Ans: You have been told this many times. The camera is recording car movements in and out of the Coop carpark. If you are who I think you are then your house is obscured and is so small nothing can be seen. The camera is not intrusive in your private life, and it complies in every way with the requirements for a CCTV camera. If this was not the case then KCC would have responded to your request when the issue became apparent.
3. What are the proposed locations of future camera locations?
Ans: Behind the shops.
4. What are the costs involved?
Ans: Confidential - see 5.
5. How will the future cameras be funded?
Ans: The shopkeepers will fund 2 additional cameras.
6. What were / are the issues involved gaining access to the system when required? “These issues should be resolved in the near future. This means the police can only access the system after normal office hours?” (You’re posting 20th July 2008)
Ans: This is no longer an issue.
7. What is the preferred method for an individual to access recorded images under section 7 of the 1998 Data Protection Act? This information must be supplied in permanent form by way of a copy; your telephone number is printed on the CCTV signs. You should have this covered.
Ans: You are not correct - if agreeable then a hard copy need not be provided.
The preferred method has already been offered to you. View the image on the system. There will be no fee and no hard copy.
If a hard copy is requested then this will be provided in paper form at a cost of £10.00 per request. Only one or two key images will be provided per request.
To make a request to view the images simply call the telephone number on the signs, and a mutually agreed time will be arranged.
To make a request you should call and make a request, or write to the address in the contacts list for KCC members. In your request please identify which camera you want the image to be taken from, the date and approx time the image was recorded. You should describe the clothing you were wearing and what 'action' was taking place at the time.
If you are unknown to me then you will have to provide a photograph to identify yourself.
If the request is for evidence for an insurance company, for example, then the images will be in the form of a CD.
KCC will try to be as accommodating as possible, but at the same time need to consider the integrity of the system and the privacy of others who may be included in the images.
Time wasters will be given little leeway.
|
|
|
|
|
concerned
Posts:49
|
| 09 Aug 2008 02:49:03 |
Alert
|
IanC
We still await an answer to question 6, (what was the issues involved gaining access to the system when required? These issues should be resolved in the near future. This means the police can only access the system after normal office hours?) (You’re posting 20th July 2008)
I believe the answers given to question 7 is designed to confuse rather than enlighten for example
Question;
What is the preferred method for an individual to access recorded images under section 7 of the 1998 Data Protection Act? This information must be supplied in permanent form by way of a copy; your telephone number is printed on the CCTV signs. You should have this covered
Quote:
“The preferred method has already been offered to you. View the image on the system. There will be no fee and no hard copy”
The above mentioned is an agreement not a method for an individual to access recorded images under section 7 of the 1998 Data Protection Act? This information must be supplied in permanent form by way of a copy.
Quote:
“If a hard copy is requested then this will be provided in paper form at a cost of £10.00 per request. Only one or two key images will be provided per request.”
When I called the ICO help line, I was advised that six specific requests in a month in the form of a CD. Would be considered acceptable. With a maximum charge of £10
Any reader of the postings who wanted to gain access to recorded images under section 7 of the 1998 Data Protection Act might be advised to call one of the help lines prior to making a request.
The help line numbers: 08456 306060 and the number charged at the national rate 01625 545745
The claim that time wasters will be given little leeway is a typical empty meaningless statement from IanC .There is a legal requirement for an individual to access recorded images under section 7 of the 1998 Data Protection Act.
|
|
|
|
|
IanC
Posts:119
|
| 09 Aug 2008 12:15:21 |
Alert
|
The Code of Practice for CCTV systems can be found at http://kwells.org/kwells3/node/433
To clarify KCC will follow the above Code of Practice, the fee of £10 will be charged each time a request for hard copy is made, and the format will be paper unless there is a good reason for a CD.
|
|
|
|
|
concerned
Posts:49
|
| 09 Aug 2008 22:36:51 |
Alert
|
The Information Commissioners Office CCTV Code of Practice this is available at:
www.ico.gov.uk (left hand column click A to Z) then (letter C) then (CCTV) then (CCTV Code of Practice)
|
|
|
|
|
concerned
Posts:49
|
| 09 Aug 2008 22:42:40 |
Alert
|
IanC,
Regarding your ans: question 2. Posting 6th Aug 2008
It is clear that a house is viewed by the considine camera. The purpose of this camera is to record car movement at the coop car park.
Therefore the camera should be readjusted so as not to overlook this house in any way, and only cover the entrance to the car park. This will be a simple adjustment and the camera will still be carrying out its stated purpose.
You have been advised of this before.
The CCTV Code of Practice section 4 (what are the views of those who will be under surveillance?) (What could you do to minimise intrusion for those that may be monitored, particularly if specific concerns have been expressed? Under section 10 of the data protection act is the right of the individual to prevent processing which is likely to cause distress. The act also requires primarily the effect on the people recorded to be taken into account. Cameras should be sited and adjusted to ensure they do not view areas that are not of interest, such as individual’s private property. The existing setting of the spy camera is not logical to view car movement. It is intrusive and does not comply with the CCTV Code of Practice. This is enforceable. This is a human right, privacy matter.
Claims that the house is obscured, and is so small that nothing can be seen are not accepted and will become less so in autumn when the leaves fall off the trees. There is no reason to have any house viewed.
An official request has been made in writing to the data controller to have the camera readjusted, this matter is due to be discussed at the next KCC meeting Monday 11th August 2008 If this request is delayed or refused, then a complaint will be registered with the Independent Commissioners Office and will be pursued vigorously. |
|
|
|
|
concerned
Posts:49
|
| 18 Aug 2008 17:26:31 |
Alert
|
I have just read the Kingswells News August 2008 edition.
With regard to the Community Council page ( 3 ) Heading CCTV System.
QUOTE; The CCTV System in the village has now been fully “APPROVED” by the police.
MY REPLY;
I feel I must respond to the nonsense reported above; and the unsubstantiated claim made.
I have checked with the police before leaving my comments on this forum.
It is not part of the POLICE responsibilities or duties, to approve or otherwise, private CCTV Systems. The onus is on the administration of the system to comply with the Independent Commissioners Office, Code of Practice.
Police Officers who were invited to note the camera positions at the Kingswells CCTV System did so, but did not pay any particular attention to camera adjustments or settings. I have been advised that the POLICE OFFICERS in attendance did not view any images, from any of the cameras installed at the above location as this is not part of there function or duties.
To make the claim “The CCTV system in the village has now been fully APPROVED by the police” is contemptuous and insulting of the reader.
To confirm for any reader in doubt. It is not the responsibility or duty of the police to confirm or otherwise “APPROVAL” for any private CCTV system.
THE ONUS IS ON THE NAMED DATA PROTECTION OFFICER TO COMPLY WITH THE
Independent Commissioners Office; Code of Practice.
|
|
|
|
|
concerned
Posts:49
|
| 04 Sep 2008 19:21:40 |
Alert
|
Despite a contrary report in the minutes of the Kingswells Community Council
Meeting of August 2008. (created 2nd September2008)
The controversial camera was readjusted as requested. 11:30am Thurs 04/09/2008
A VERY BIG THANKS TO ALL WHO ASSISTED IN THIS ENDEAVOUR.
|
|
|
|
|