Keith Sansum1
- Location: london
- Registered: 25 Aug 2010
- Posts: 23,948
#1
Well you may recall I posted on here some time ago with regard to the tram shelter on the corner of elms vale junction.
today there are 8 smashed windows which will cost the council more than
£800 to repair
You may recall the council DECLINED to take up the offer of a local resident who lives a few yeards from the shelter, who offered to have a camera sited on his property to hopefully catch those responsible.
Some posters were of the opinion move the shelter, whilst I understand the reasoning behind this, do we give in to vandals every time they go about there deeds??
I did suggest a number of initiatives to the council which hopefully solve the problems presently encountered, but once the council declined there end it makes you lose heart.
Then to have walk past the shelter over 4 times a day it's heartbreaking
heres a plea to all those that may know the culprits, or be protecting them.
PLEASE LEAVE THE SHELTER ALONE
IT BRINGS HAPPINESS TO A LOT OF PEOPLE
ALL POSTS ARE MY OWN PERSONAL VIEWS
#2
That is disappointing Keith - the shelter is a lovely piece of street furniture. I can't imagine why the council would decline a camera, unless it is something around "human rights"- I don't know that of course. Just a guess. What a shame, though.
Guest 725- Registered: 7 Oct 2011
- Posts: 1,418
#3
Awful but not unexpected. When a police presence is virtually non-existent more of this stuff will go on. It's been said many times before here and in the press but take away any visible sign of authority (bobbies on the beat for example) and this sort of behaviour will become more common.
howard mcsweeney1- Location: Dover
- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 62,352
#4
keith
it was you that shouted the loudest when i suggested that this piece of local history be moved to somewhere more fitting and above all safer.
it has been half term after all.
Keith Sansum1- Location: london
- Registered: 25 Aug 2010
- Posts: 23,948
#5
HOWARD;
I still shout loud(can you hear me??? lol)
I still oppse giving in to the vandals.
ALL POSTS ARE MY OWN PERSONAL VIEWS
Guest 717- Registered: 16 Jun 2011
- Posts: 468
#6
Sorry to hear the shelter has suffered the same fate as the Seafront shelters
Unfortunately CCTV is a complicated matter as you can see below;
CCTV code of practice
4. Deciding whether to use CCTV or continue using CCTV
Using CCTV can be privacy intrusive, as it is capable of putting a lot of law-abiding people under surveillance and recording their movements as they go about their day to day activities. You should carefully consider whether to use it; the fact that it is possible, affordable or has public support should not be the primary motivating factor. You should take into account what benefits can be gained, whether better solutions exist, and what effect it may have on individuals.
Example: Cars in a car park are frequently damaged and broken in to at night. Consider whether improved lighting would reduce the problem more effectively than CCTV.
You should consider these matters objectively as part of an assessment of the scheme's impact on people's privacy. This does not have to be an extensive or time-consuming process in all cases. The extent of assessment necessary will depend on the size of the proposed scheme and the level of impact it is likely to have on people's privacy1.
You should use the results of the impact assessment to determine whether CCTV is justified in all the circumstances and if so how it should be operated in practice.
The things to cover in any impact assessment include:
What organisation will be using the CCTV images? Who will take legal responsibility under the Data Protection Act (DPA)?2
What is the organisation's purpose for using CCTV? What are the problems it is meant to address?
What are the benefits to be gained from its use?
Can CCTV technology realistically deliver these benefits? Can less privacy-intrusive solutions, such as improved lighting, achieve the same objectives?
Do you need images of identifiable individuals, or could the scheme use other images not capable of identifying the individual?
Will the particular equipment/system of work being considered deliver the desired benefits now and remain suitable in the future?
What future demands may arise for wider use of images and how will you address these?
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?
Where the system will be operated by or on behalf of a public authority, the authority will also need to consider wider human rights issues and in particular the implications of the European Convention on Human Rights, Article 8 (the right to respect for private and family life). This will include:
Is the proposed system established on a proper legal basis and operated in accordance with the law?
Is it necessary to address a pressing need, such as public safety, crime prevention or national security?
Is it justified in the circumstances?
Is it proportionate to the problem that it is designed to deal with?
If this is not the case then it would not be appropriate to use CCTV.
1 If you are establishing a large system, or considering a use of CCTV which could give rise to significant privacy concerns, you may wish to consider using the ICO's Privacy impact assessment handbook.
2 If CCTV is used by a business or organisation, then it is the body that is legally responsible under the DPA (the "data controller"), not an individual member of staff.
Keeps politics to myself
#7
Thank you Helen - it is a complex issue, I know. Not as simple as just "let's do it"!
howard mcsweeney1- Location: Dover
- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 62,352
#8
keith
your stance on the shelter gives in to vandals, not many of us put our bone china on the pavement at closing time.
Keith Sansum1- Location: london
- Registered: 25 Aug 2010
- Posts: 23,948
#9
so then howard, lets give in to the vandals and remove everything
no matter that these places/things are a joy to the local population
moving it would send out the wrong signals
BERN;'
I did have a number of options which could have gone with the CCTV converage, never mind though
helen;
thankyou for the reply;
could i question some of those guidlines, I do realise there not of your making but some are dubious to say the least.
Of course consideration should always be given to the intrusiveness of a CCTV
And this should be considered, but of course there would be those who would say
as long as your not law breaking you have nowt to fear.
I would be interested to know if anyone was not of the opinion to want to catch the vandals
other solutions were suggested but lost heart as council won't over bothered
just as a few to start with
whilst everyone dithers the problem goes on
ALL POSTS ARE MY OWN PERSONAL VIEWS
Jan Higgins
- Location: Dover
- Registered: 5 Jul 2010
- Posts: 13,931
#10
What a shame more money wasted yet again on something that was avoidable.
Vandals win again, and again, and will again unless there is CCTV coverage. Breaking glass must be so much fun.
No point in saying any more as we went over this problem in fine detail last time it was raised.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
I try to be neutral and polite but it is hard and getting even more difficult at times.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Guest 696- Registered: 31 Mar 2010
- Posts: 8,115
#11
I'm in favour of putting back the tramlines and closing Folkestone Road to private cars.
Every tram shelter would be covered by CCTV.
Guest 710- Registered: 28 Feb 2011
- Posts: 6,950
#12
I do recall many of the points raised when last this topic was covered here. No easy answer then either.
While this is not a truely British way to encapsulate the problem in few words; their needs to be more of a sense of 'ownership' in place of responsibility.
Is there no possible use to which the shelter could be put, in it's present (and historic) location? No possible sponsorship deal with a local business?
For the time being...what, if any, objects were used to break the glass? [I hope it was only the larger panes and not the etched ones]
Whether the introduction of either Perspex on laminated glass would dull the enthusiasm of the vandals or present more of a challenge are moot points, but if toughened glass is the current favourite...then little wonder that there is a 'smashing habit' around.
Ignorance is bliss, bliss is happiness, I am happy...to draw your attention to the possible connectivity in the foregoing.
Keith Sansum1- Location: london
- Registered: 25 Aug 2010
- Posts: 23,948
#13
Whilst the debate goes on(or people prefnot to talk about it) the tram shelter windows continue to be broken, it's sad to see.
I'm sure that with a bit of work the CCTV could of been the start of a wider plan to stop the vandals, I also was going to spend a lot of my free time to help.
With the council's negative reply, I, like others lost heart.
ALL POSTS ARE MY OWN PERSONAL VIEWS
Guest 653- Registered: 13 Mar 2008
- Posts: 10,540
#14
I have already written to the Council about it; the panes have been broken over quite a period - first 2, then another one, then another until now. All 6 weren't broken at the same time.
Part of the problem I believe, is that it looks neglected, even with no windows broken, it lookes uncared for.
I had asked/requested that it be refurbished and redecorated last time a lot of panes had to be replaced, but was advised that there wasn't the money to pay for it.
I'm sure/I know, that a local painter could refurbish/redecorate it it much cheaper than the Council's contractor and I now have the paint specifications, so will look for prices to have it done up and in the meantime the panes will have to be re-ordered and the etching done.
Roger
Keith Sansum1- Location: london
- Registered: 25 Aug 2010
- Posts: 23,948
#15
ROGER
I don't disagree with your short term plans, but there needs to be a more long term visiion if we are not to see one of the councils famous over night removals.
ALL POSTS ARE MY OWN PERSONAL VIEWS
Guest 653- Registered: 13 Mar 2008
- Posts: 10,540
#16
There will NOT be an overnight removal Keith.
Roger
Keith Sansum1- Location: london
- Registered: 25 Aug 2010
- Posts: 23,948
#17
In the interests of future times this is a message for paulb
could we make sure we save post 16
the reason I say this, is some time ago there was a very nice aviary at elms vale rec, visited by many.
There was a rumour circulating that it was to be taken away.
At that the time the council said the rumours were unfounded and the aviary was here to stay,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
you guesssed it , overnight the aviary disappeared.
ALL POSTS ARE MY OWN PERSONAL VIEWS
Brian Dixon
- Location: Dover
- Registered: 23 Sep 2008
- Posts: 23,940
#18
the same as brooke house,and that was grade 2 listed.
Guest 710- Registered: 28 Feb 2011
- Posts: 6,950
#19
It has just come to me that the song...
'Gimme Shelter' was by the Stones.
Not that this helps.
You are right Roger. That the shelter is cared about should be evident by it looking cared for.
Ignorance is bliss, bliss is happiness, I am happy...to draw your attention to the possible connectivity in the foregoing.
howard mcsweeney1- Location: Dover
- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 62,352
#20
had a look at it this morning, just looks derelict.
i doubt that the council has a bottomless pit of money to spend on repairing it again.