Devices on lamp-posts

831 views
Skip to first unread message

Phil Chung

unread,
Mar 10, 2008, 12:53:13 PM3/10/08
to
Some devices have been cropping up on some lamp-posts in my street and
neighbouring streets. The devices look like cylindrical devices,
mounted vertically on the side of the lamp-post, with a upturned dome
at the bottom end. This device is connected to a box, also on the
lamp-post. An aerial comes out of the box. the aerial's on a long
pole and looks like the ones on some of the electronic displays for
available car parking places around the city.

I always thought they maybe cameras, but these devices are in a quiet
cul-de-sac (Arbury Park end of Histon Road). Anyone know what they
are? I have only noticed them there very recently.

Patrick Gosling

unread,
Mar 10, 2008, 12:54:39 PM3/10/08
to
In article <07a6e4c9-ff97-46b3...@e60g2000hsh.googlegroups.com>,

If you look a little lower down the lamp-posts, you'll see a dinky
little sign saying "CCTV".

-patrick.

Phil Chung

unread,
Mar 10, 2008, 12:58:33 PM3/10/08
to
On 10 Mar, 16:54, j...@eng.cam.ac.uk (Patrick Gosling) wrote:

> If you look a little lower down the lamp-posts, you'll see a dinky
> little sign saying "CCTV".

What's the point of having so many CCTV cameras on a quiet residential
street?

Duncan Wood

unread,
Mar 10, 2008, 1:02:52 PM3/10/08
to

When I lived there there was a mjor issue with young people riding
skateboards and hanging around at all hours of the early evening,
sometimes as late as 9:00PM, perhaps the neighbourhood watch have finally
found a solution?

Tim Ward

unread,
Mar 10, 2008, 1:08:30 PM3/10/08
to
"Phil Chung" <pylc...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1c79df27-54f6-40dc...@h25g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...

Almost certainly, like at least 100:1 on, it's because the local residents
asked for them, and whatever problem they've got was judged to be worse than
the current competing demands.

--
Tim Ward - posting as an individual unless otherwise clear
Brett Ward Limited - www.brettward.co.uk
Cambridge Accommodation Notice Board - www.brettward.co.uk/canb
Cambridge City Councillor


Paul Rudin

unread,
Mar 10, 2008, 1:09:04 PM3/10/08
to
"Duncan Wood" <bodg...@dmx512.co.uk> writes:

Why would riding skateboards and "hanging around" be a problem? Would
you rather they were watching telly and playing on their Xboxes?

Duncan Wood

unread,
Mar 10, 2008, 1:38:22 PM3/10/08
to
On Mon, 10 Mar 2008 17:09:04 -0000, Paul Rudin <paul....@rudin.co.uk>
wrote:


Sorry, my sarcasm level obviously wasn't high enough. Apparently leaving
black shiny marks on the kerb is a mjor publi order issue or something.

Mike W Miller

unread,
Mar 10, 2008, 1:39:58 PM3/10/08
to
On Mar 10, 5:09 pm, Paul Rudin <paul.nos...@rudin.co.uk> wrote:
> "Duncan Wood" <bodged...@dmx512.co.uk> writes:

> > On Mon, 10 Mar 2008 16:58:33 -0000, Phil Chung <pylch...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >> On 10 Mar, 16:54, j...@eng.cam.ac.uk (Patrick Gosling) wrote:
>
> >>> If you look a little lower down the lamp-posts, you'll see a dinky
> >>> little sign saying "CCTV".
>
> >> What's the point of having so many CCTV cameras on a quiet residential
> >> street?
>
> > When I lived there there was a mjor issue with young people riding
> > skateboards and hanging around at all hours of the early evening,
> > sometimes as late as 9:00PM, perhaps the neighbourhood watch have
> > finally found a solution?
>
> Why would riding skateboards and "hanging around" be a problem?

And how exactly do CCTV cameras 'solve' the 'problem'? If there's a
known problem with illegal things going on, a camera isn't going to
stop them in the way a policeman walking around the area would. If,
however, only legal things are going on, are we all supposed to stop
doing them just because somebody some miles away may be watching us on
a screen?

Fevric J Glandules

unread,
Mar 10, 2008, 1:42:08 PM3/10/08
to
On Mon, 10 Mar 2008 17:08:30 +0000, Tim Ward wrote:

> Almost certainly, like at least 100:1 on, it's because the local
> residents asked for them, and whatever problem they've got was judged to
> be worse than the current competing demands.

Why don't we just cut the crap and issue everybody over the age of
two with a GPS-equipped headcam, the whole lot linked to a national
identity databa... hang on, let me think about this some more...


--
One way ticket from Mornington Crescent to Tannhauser Gate please.

Paul Rudin

unread,
Mar 10, 2008, 1:41:28 PM3/10/08
to
"Duncan Wood" <bodg...@dmx512.co.uk> writes:

> On Mon, 10 Mar 2008 17:09:04 -0000, Paul Rudin
> <paul....@rudin.co.uk> wrote:
>
>> "Duncan Wood" <bodg...@dmx512.co.uk> writes:
>>
>>> On Mon, 10 Mar 2008 16:58:33 -0000, Phil Chung <pylc...@gmail.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 10 Mar, 16:54, j...@eng.cam.ac.uk (Patrick Gosling) wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> If you look a little lower down the lamp-posts, you'll see a dinky
>>>>> little sign saying "CCTV".
>>>>
>>>> What's the point of having so many CCTV cameras on a quiet residential
>>>> street?
>>>
>>> When I lived there there was a mjor issue with young people riding
>>> skateboards and hanging around at all hours of the early evening,
>>> sometimes as late as 9:00PM, perhaps the neighbourhood watch have
>>> finally found a solution?
>>
>> Why would riding skateboards and "hanging around" be a problem? Would
>> you rather they were watching telly and playing on their Xboxes?
>>
>
>

> Sorry, my sarcasm level obviously wasn't high enough...

Ah, sorry, I'm afraid newsgroup reading does tend to put me in a rather
literal frame of mind.

Phil

unread,
Mar 10, 2008, 2:01:01 PM3/10/08
to
On 2008-03-10 17:08:30 +0000, "Tim Ward" <t...@brettward.co.uk> said:

> Almost certainly, like at least 100:1 on, it's because the local residents
> asked for them, and whatever problem they've got was judged to be worse than
> the current competing demands.

I'm sure the house with the camera right outside a bedroom would be
most pleased :-)

The only 'problem' around here are a few kids playing with their
football and acting as moving chicanes when I'm driving home from work.
That hardly warrants CCTV cameras.

--
Phil Chung
pylc...@gmail.com

Tim Ward

unread,
Mar 10, 2008, 2:09:49 PM3/10/08
to
"Phil" <pylc...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:fr3t0t$lk6$1...@news.datemas.de...

> On 2008-03-10 17:08:30 +0000, "Tim Ward" <t...@brettward.co.uk> said:
>
>> Almost certainly, like at least 100:1 on, it's because the local
>> residents
>> asked for them, and whatever problem they've got was judged to be worse
>> than
>> the current competing demands.
>
> I'm sure the house with the camera right outside a bedroom would be most
> pleased :-)

Not a problem, if this is the city CCTV system. Not only does the system
black out the bedroom window, but it records having done so and the duty
operator has to report in writing why he panned across the bedroom window.

> The only 'problem' around here are a few kids playing with their football
> and acting as moving chicanes when I'm driving home from work. That hardly
> warrants CCTV cameras.

At a guess (not actually knowing anything about this particular deployment)
your neighbours don't agree with you.

Duncan Wood

unread,
Mar 10, 2008, 2:14:02 PM3/10/08
to
On Mon, 10 Mar 2008 18:09:49 -0000, Tim Ward <t...@brettward.co.uk> wrote:

> "Phil" <pylc...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:fr3t0t$lk6$1...@news.datemas.de...
>> On 2008-03-10 17:08:30 +0000, "Tim Ward" <t...@brettward.co.uk> said:
>>
>>> Almost certainly, like at least 100:1 on, it's because the local
>>> residents
>>> asked for them, and whatever problem they've got was judged to be worse
>>> than
>>> the current competing demands.
>>
>> I'm sure the house with the camera right outside a bedroom would be most
>> pleased :-)
>
> Not a problem, if this is the city CCTV system. Not only does the system
> black out the bedroom window, but it records having done so and the duty
> operator has to report in writing why he panned across the bedroom
> window.
>
>> The only 'problem' around here are a few kids playing with their
>> football
>> and acting as moving chicanes when I'm driving home from work. That
>> hardly
>> warrants CCTV cameras.
>
> At a guess (not actually knowing anything about this particular
> deployment)
> your neighbours don't agree with you.
>

Presumably his neighbours who complain loudest don't agree with him,
assuming they're representative of his neighbours may well be a fallacy.
It definitely was where I lived.

Alan Braggins

unread,
Mar 10, 2008, 2:06:38 PM3/10/08
to
In article <42b906c3-2f23-443e...@e39g2000hsf.googlegroups.com>, Mike W Miller wrote:
>
>And how exactly do CCTV cameras 'solve' the 'problem'? If there's a
>known problem with illegal things going on, a camera isn't going to
>stop them in the way a policeman walking around the area would.

If there aren't enough policemen to walk around everywhere, they can
choose to walk those places the cameras are showing them problems at
the moment.
That won't stop anyone who knows that the CCTV coverage won't be enough
to identify them and that they will be well clear of the area before
anyone actually turns up after whatever short-lasting thing they've done,
but nor will random patrols.

Chris Forecast

unread,
Mar 10, 2008, 2:58:59 PM3/10/08
to
"Phil Chung" <pylc...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1c79df27-54f6-40dc...@h25g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...

> What's the point of having so many CCTV cameras on a quiet
> residential street?

If they're the two I'm thinking of (which went up on Friday) then they're (I
believe) in response to a number of attempted burglaries in recent weeks. I
had a quick chat with the Council guy who was putting them up - and
apparently they're typically left in place for a few weeks.

Chris Forecast


Roland Perry

unread,
Mar 10, 2008, 3:05:50 PM3/10/08
to
In message <63lbreF...@mid.individual.net>, at 18:09:49 on Mon, 10
Mar 2008, Tim Ward <t...@brettward.co.uk> remarked:

>> I'm sure the house with the camera right outside a bedroom would be most
>> pleased :-)
>
>Not a problem, if this is the city CCTV system. Not only does the system
>black out the bedroom window, but it records having done so and the duty
>operator has to report in writing why he panned across the bedroom window.

Only until the policy changes.
--
Roland Perry

Tim Ward

unread,
Mar 10, 2008, 3:26:49 PM3/10/08
to
"Roland Perry" <rol...@perry.co.uk> wrote in message
news:XI4UVuZO...@perry.co.uk...

Which would have to be voted for by a majority of councillors, including the
several here, which I personally think would be exceedingly unlikely.

Base reaction

unread,
Mar 10, 2008, 3:30:37 PM3/10/08
to
> I always thought they maybe cameras, but these devices are in a quiet
> cul-de-sac (Arbury Park end of Histon Road). Anyone know what they
> are? I have only noticed them there very recently.

Wouldn't be Molewood / Hazelwood Close by any chance? That little area
seems to punch well about its weight in scumbag activities.


Tim Ward

unread,
Mar 10, 2008, 3:39:36 PM3/10/08
to
"Base reaction" <badte...@loon.fsnet.co.uk> wrote in message
news:0NednY9JjJj9EUja...@bt.com...

That's where I ended up guessing was meant. (For future reference "H&M" is
clearer than "Arbury Park end", as at least that makes it clear which side
of the city boundary is involved.) There are two clear factions there - one
that thinks that feral youths should be discouraged from terrorising little
old ladies by riding their illegal motorbikes down dark pavements at 60mph
with no lights on, and one that thinks that it's nice to have happy little
children playing outside one's window. (Personally my main issue with that
area is the dogs.)

Al Grant

unread,
Mar 10, 2008, 4:35:06 PM3/10/08
to
On 10 Mar, 19:26, "Tim Ward" <t...@brettward.co.uk> wrote:
> Which would have to be voted for by a majority of councillors, including the
> several here, which I personally think would be exceedingly unlikely.

Why would a majority have to include the several here?
Are some councillors more equal than others?

Philip Chung

unread,
Mar 10, 2008, 8:11:05 PM3/10/08
to
On 2008-03-10 19:30:37 +0000, "Base reaction"
<badte...@loon.fsnet.co.uk> said:

> Wouldn't be Molewood / Hazelwood Close by any chance? That little area
> seems to punch well about its weight in scumbag activities.

No, the other side of Histon Road.

--
Phil Chung
pylc...@gmail.com

Philip Chung

unread,
Mar 10, 2008, 8:12:53 PM3/10/08
to
On 2008-03-10 19:39:36 +0000, "Tim Ward" <t...@brettward.co.uk> said:

> That's where I ended up guessing was meant. (For future reference "H&M" is
> clearer than "Arbury Park end", as at least that makes it clear which side
> of the city boundary is involved.) There are two clear factions there - one
> that thinks that feral youths should be discouraged from terrorising little
> old ladies by riding their illegal motorbikes down dark pavements at 60mph
> with no lights on, and one that thinks that it's nice to have happy little
> children playing outside one's window. (Personally my main issue with that
> area is the dogs.)

It's the two that has appeared down Martingale Close that I was talking about.

--
Phil Chung
pylc...@gmail.com

tony sayer

unread,
Mar 11, 2008, 3:48:15 AM3/11/08
to
In article <fr4iq5$vl8$1...@news.datemas.de>, Philip Chung
<pylc...@gmail.com> scribeth thus

I often wonder if they get the signals back to base seeing that they are
supposed to work on 2.4 Ghz ....
--
Tony Sayer



Roland Perry

unread,
Mar 11, 2008, 5:12:25 AM3/11/08
to
In message <63lgbpF...@mid.individual.net>, at 19:26:49 on Mon, 10
Mar 2008, Tim Ward <t...@brettward.co.uk> remarked:

>>>Not a problem, if this is the city CCTV system. Not only does the system


>>>black out the bedroom window, but it records having done so and the duty
>>>operator has to report in writing why he panned across the bedroom window.
>>
>> Only until the policy changes.
>
>Which would have to be voted for by a majority of councillors, including the
>several here, which I personally think would be exceedingly unlikely.

Times change, as sometimes does the adherence of officials to "official"
policy.
--
Roland Perry

Chris Forecast

unread,
Mar 11, 2008, 5:54:39 AM3/11/08
to
"Philip Chung" <pylc...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:fr4iq5$vl8$1...@news.datemas.de...

> It's the two that has appeared down Martingale Close that I was talking
> about.

Try doing a search here:

http://www.cambs.police.uk/myneighbourhood/crimeinfo.asp

for crimes in the area since the beginning of February.

Chris Forecast


Bill

unread,
Mar 11, 2008, 6:16:56 AM3/11/08
to
In message <ysU$FmG$kj1H...@bancom.co.uk>, tony sayer
<to...@bancom.co.uk> writes

>I often wonder if they get the signals back to base seeing that they are
>supposed to work on 2.4 Ghz ....
+/- a bit


They used to be in the clear Tony but all should now be encrypted.

DPA and all that, some one suddenly realised that some dodgy people were
looking at the links!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
--
Bill

tony sayer

unread,
Mar 11, 2008, 6:46:06 AM3/11/08
to
In article <qLALEC8Frl1HFw7$@birchnet.demon.co.uk>, Bill
<Bi...@birchnet.demon.co.uk> scribeth thus

It wasn't so much that but with the background level of 2.4 G noise
these days its a wonder it works in all locations!....
--
Tony Sayer

Bill

unread,
Mar 11, 2008, 7:24:19 AM3/11/08
to
In message <K5QhA7Hu...@bancom.co.uk>, tony sayer
<to...@bancom.co.uk> writes
>

>It wasn't so much that but with the background level of 2.4 G noise
>these days its a wonder it works in all locations!....

I don't know what it is like your way but here they use anything up to
1m dishes at the RX site! At only a couple of miles.

--
Bill

tony sayer

unread,
Mar 11, 2008, 8:39:24 AM3/11/08
to
In article <pHxLXaAB...@birchnet.demon.co.uk>, Bill
<Bi...@birchnet.demon.co.uk> scribeth thus

Well these use smallish panel aerials around 4 to 5 inches square and
across Cambridge makes me wonder seeing the amount of wireless access
points now in operation here?.

Unless their using 5.8?..
--
Tony Sayer



Bill

unread,
Mar 11, 2008, 9:20:11 AM3/11/08
to
In message <ObUAISI8...@bancom.co.uk>, tony sayer
<to...@bancom.co.uk> writes

>Well these use smallish panel aerials around 4 to 5 inches square and
>across Cambridge makes me wonder seeing the amount of wireless access
>points now in operation here?.
>
>Unless their using 5.8?..


Maybe 5.8, I have installed some but there is not a lot available yet.

Does anyone out there have any knowledge?

Most of the ones over here have been up for quite sometime and are
around 2.4
--
Bill

Tim Ward

unread,
Mar 11, 2008, 9:43:56 AM3/11/08
to
"Philip Chung" <pylc...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:fr4iq5$vl8$1...@news.datemas.de...
>
> It's the two that has appeared down Martingale Close that I was talking
> about.

In that case I'm slightly surprised that I haven't heard anything. I knew
there was activity in H&M at the moment.

Tim Ward

unread,
Mar 11, 2008, 9:44:39 AM3/11/08
to
"tony sayer" <to...@bancom.co.uk> wrote in message
news:K5QhA7Hu...@bancom.co.uk...

>
> It wasn't so much that but with the background level of 2.4 G noise
> these days its a wonder it works in all locations!....

Extensive surveying was carried out before they were bought.

Roland Perry

unread,
Mar 11, 2008, 10:34:40 AM3/11/08
to
In message <63ngksF...@mid.individual.net>, at 13:43:56 on Tue, 11
Mar 2008, Tim Ward <t...@brettward.co.uk> remarked:
>> It's the two that has appeared down Martingale Close that I was talking
>> about.
>
>In that case I'm slightly surprised that I haven't heard anything. I knew
>there was activity in H&M at the moment.

Is it outside H&M that they need to put some cycle racks?
--
Roland Perry

tony sayer

unread,
Mar 11, 2008, 4:02:48 PM3/11/08
to
In article <63ngm7F...@mid.individual.net>, Tim Ward
<t...@brettward.co.uk> scribeth thus

>"tony sayer" <to...@bancom.co.uk> wrote in message
>news:K5QhA7Hu...@bancom.co.uk...
>>
>> It wasn't so much that but with the background level of 2.4 G noise
>> these days its a wonder it works in all locations!....
>
>Extensive surveying was carried out before they were bought.
>

Yes that was then;!. Theres a link running around 800 metres near the
Queen Anne terrace car park thats regularly borked most days of the week
sheer number of wireless point vying for space;!..
--
Tony Sayer


Paul Oter

unread,
Mar 11, 2008, 4:33:54 PM3/11/08
to
On Mar 11, 2:34 pm, Roland Perry <rol...@perry.co.uk> wrote:
> In message <63ngksF28csp...@mid.individual.net>, at 13:43:56 on Tue, 11

If you mean the one in St Andrew's Street then most definitely yes. If
you mean the one in the Grafton Centre then probably not.

PaulO

Sarah Brown

unread,
Mar 11, 2008, 11:32:19 PM3/11/08
to
In article <42b906c3-2f23-443e...@e39g2000hsf.googlegroups.com>,

Mike W Miller <mikewill...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>And how exactly do CCTV cameras 'solve' the 'problem'? If there's a
>known problem with illegal things going on, a camera isn't going to
>stop them in the way a policeman walking around the area would. If,
>however, only legal things are going on, are we all supposed to stop
>doing them just because somebody some miles away may be watching us on
>a screen?

We've had these temporary cameras in our street a few times, where we
have a particular problem with groups of kids congregating until the
small hours of the morning and *screaming* their heads off
incessantly, more or less preventing anyone from sleeping. They do
seem to act as a deterrant.

tony sayer

unread,
Mar 12, 2008, 4:25:20 AM3/12/08
to
In article <k4sja5-...@narcissus.dyndns.org>, Sarah Brown <sarahlizzy@ntlworld.n
o_uce_please.com> scribeth thus

Perhaps a real policemen would be a better deterrent, one who lived and worked in
the area perhaps?

Nah can't have anything like that.

After all they can't come out to collect some illegal immigrants anymore instead
they give them a train ticket to Croydon and tell them to be on their way..

And they want to spend how much in ID cards??.

Barking.. No other way to describe it;(...

http://www.cambridge-news.co.uk/cn%5Fnews%5Fely/DisplayArticle.asp?ID=265481
--
Tony Sayer


Tim Ward

unread,
Mar 12, 2008, 4:41:55 AM3/12/08
to
"tony sayer" <to...@bancom.co.uk> wrote in message
news:7EH9$mMwN5...@bancom.co.uk...

> In article <k4sja5-...@narcissus.dyndns.org>, Sarah Brown
> <sarahlizzy@ntlworld.n
> o_uce_please.com> scribeth thus
>>In article
>><42b906c3-2f23-443e...@e39g2000hsf.googlegroups.com>,
>>Mike W Miller <mikewill...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>And how exactly do CCTV cameras 'solve' the 'problem'? If there's a
>>>known problem with illegal things going on, a camera isn't going to
>>>stop them in the way a policeman walking around the area would. If,
>>>however, only legal things are going on, are we all supposed to stop
>>>doing them just because somebody some miles away may be watching us on
>>>a screen?
>>
>>We've had these temporary cameras in our street a few times, where we
>>have a particular problem with groups of kids congregating until the
>>small hours of the morning and *screaming* their heads off
>>incessantly, more or less preventing anyone from sleeping. They do
>>seem to act as a deterrant.
>
> Perhaps a real policemen would be a better deterrent

CCTV is not really a deterrent. ("Except in car parks" was the established
wisdom, but even this is now being challenged.) What it does do is make
detection and prosecution *lots* easier and cheaper. (And on at least one
occasion it has got someone off a charge they might otherwise have been
convicted of, as the tapes showed that they really were an innocent
bystander on this particular occasion.)

Paul Rudin

unread,
Mar 12, 2008, 4:51:40 AM3/12/08
to
"Tim Ward" <t...@brettward.co.uk> writes:

> CCTV is not really a deterrent. ("Except in car parks" was the established
> wisdom, but even this is now being challenged.) What it does do is make
> detection and prosecution *lots* easier and cheaper.

You'd have thought that if it really makes detection and prosecution
"lots easier" then it would have some deterrent effect.

Tim Ward

unread,
Mar 12, 2008, 5:12:06 AM3/12/08
to
"Paul Rudin" <paul....@rudin.co.uk> wrote in message
news:87od9k7...@rudin.co.uk...

On the whole, it seems, criminals tend to be stupid.

Sarah Brown

unread,
Mar 12, 2008, 2:29:38 PM3/12/08
to
In article <7EH9$mMwN5...@bancom.co.uk>,

tony sayer <to...@bancom.co.uk> wrote:
>
>Perhaps a real policemen would be a better deterrent, one who lived and
>worked in
>the area perhaps?

They come eventually, when enough residents phone at 3am and complain,
but they just seem to be effective at chasing them off - not stopping
the problem in the first place.

Roland Perry

unread,
Mar 12, 2008, 6:13:19 PM3/12/08
to
In message
<a56a7ab2-8751-417b...@s12g2000prg.googlegroups.com>, at
13:33:54 on Tue, 11 Mar 2008, Paul Oter <paul...@googlemail.com>
remarked:
>> >> It's the two that has appeared down Martingale Close that I was talking
>> >> about.
>>
>> >In that case I'm slightly surprised that I haven't heard anything. I knew
>> >there was activity in H&M at the moment.
>>
>> Is it outside H&M that they need to put some cycle racks?
>
>If you mean the one in St Andrew's Street then most definitely yes.

That's the one.
--
Roland Perry

Duncan Wood

unread,
Mar 13, 2008, 11:07:58 AM3/13/08
to
On Wed, 12 Mar 2008 22:13:19 -0000, Roland Perry <rol...@perry.co.uk>
wrote:


Conveniently they seem to have not put them in and are using the space to
store materials for the path in front of Grand Arcade. Rather than putting
bollards in to trip the pedestrians up they've just made the kerb twice
the height of a normal one.

Dan Sheppard

unread,
Apr 4, 2008, 8:46:36 PM4/4/08
to
Tim Ward <t...@brettward.co.uk> wrote:
>Almost certainly, like at least 100:1 on, it's because the local residents
>asked for them, and whatever problem they've got was judged to be worse than
>the current competing demands.

If local residents ask for them not to be installed, is that also considered?

What weight is each kind of request given, and why?

[Not just for Tim]

Dan.

Tim Ward

unread,
Apr 5, 2008, 4:56:49 AM4/5/08
to
"Dan Sheppard" <da...@chiark.greenend.org.uk> wrote in message
news:y2l*7l...@news.chiark.greenend.org.uk...

> Tim Ward <t...@brettward.co.uk> wrote:
>>Almost certainly, like at least 100:1 on, it's because the local residents
>>asked for them, and whatever problem they've got was judged to be worse
>>than
>>the current competing demands.
>
> If local residents ask for them not to be installed, is that also
> considered?

I expect it would be, but I've not heard of it ever happening.

> What weight is each kind of request given, and why?

There's an officer group who make the decisions and their criteria are on
the web somewhere (if only in some committee minutes) ... bit busy to
search for it just right now.

Dan Sheppard

unread,
Apr 5, 2008, 10:42:01 AM4/5/08
to
Tim Ward <t...@brettward.co.uk> wrote:
>There's an officer group who make the decisions and their criteria are on
>the web somewhere (if only in some committee minutes) ... bit busy to
>search for it just right now.

No problem: I do worry that we grill all you councillors too much. But
you have actual facts, :).

Dan.

007licenc...@gmail.com

unread,
Jan 19, 2018, 11:44:03 AM1/19/18
to
On Monday, March 10, 2008 at 5:02:52 PM UTC, Duncan Wood wrote:
> On Mon, 10 Mar 2008 16:58:33 -0000, Phil Chung <pylc...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On 10 Mar, 16:54, j...@eng.cam.ac.uk (Patrick Gosling) wrote:
> >
> >> If you look a little lower down the lamp-posts, you'll see a dinky
> >> little sign saying "CCTV".
> >
> > What's the point of having so many CCTV cameras on a quiet residential
> > street?
>
> When I lived there there was a mjor issue with young people riding
> skateboards and hanging around at all hours of the early evening,
> sometimes as late as 9:00PM, perhaps the neighbourhood watch have finally
> found a solution?

A major issue with Skateboards OMG... and hanging around at all hours?! "as late as 9PM” you say? OMG well that is terrible, sounds like they had it coming to them! Perhaps you were the neighbourhood Snitchwatch by the sounds of it Duncan Wood! Perhaps you were the solution finder!!! Yep Guilty as charged!!!

007licenc...@gmail.com

unread,
Jan 19, 2018, 11:47:51 AM1/19/18
to
On Monday, March 10, 2008 at 5:02:52 PM UTC, Duncan Wood wrote:

kiamt...@gmail.com

unread,
Apr 6, 2020, 5:32:34 AM4/6/20
to
On YouTube are saying this are device to activate 5G

The Natural Philosopher

unread,
Apr 6, 2020, 8:36:55 AM4/6/20
to
On 06/04/2020 10:32, kiamt...@gmail.com wrote:
> On YouTube are saying this are device to activate 5G
>
Is they?

--
"Socialist governments traditionally do make a financial mess. They
always run out of other people's money. It's quite a characteristic of them"

Margaret Thatcher
Reply all
Reply to author
Forward
0 new messages