Forum Replies Created
June 22, 2018 at 8:35 pm in reply to: Wrexham Council delete all trace of Kingdom Zero Tolerance Meeting #151408
There are defined times for the retention of CCTV images as set out under the GDPR regulations that came into force 25th May this year. The recording of meetings with the consent of people involved (Councillors have already signed for image retention) is not covered by the GDPR retention policy as CCTV systems which are defined as ‘random capture of images’.
The only point would be is that any member of the public asking a question would have to sign to authorise retention. In years gone by the minute books for Council would be retained by the County Archivist so why does this still occur with electronic recordings.June 22, 2018 at 6:31 pm in reply to: Wrexham Council delete all trace of Kingdom Zero Tolerance Meeting #151384
There is a difference between destroyed and deleted as far as technology is concerned – in most instances a deleted file can be recovered relatively easy so unsure how the Council have come up that it is not available.
In today’s world of mass storage, the space required to hold a webcast would be very small. It would also be very easy to run a webcast file through word capture software that could convert the audio into a Word document that would require considerably less storage.
What has happened seems to be a matter of convenience not to have a true record.
Its bad enough that it has been stolen but would be terrible if someone tried to use it and ended up inflicting hard on the ‘patient’. It looks like the type of thing that kids would try and get a kick out of by giving each other shocks.
Hope the offenders are caught and dealt with appropriately
If the person is employed by a business to put them up – ultimately it would be the business being prosecuted. If there is no contract in place (which in most cases there probably isn’t as this is often done by cash in hand)then the individual can be prosecuted. There are some case that has been reported where the flyposter won’t say who is paying him so he gets prosecuted even though it is obvious by the details on the poster to see who is paying for them
I can assure you I am a doer and not just a “keyboard warrior”
I am unsure about your analogy of the Clapham community cleanup and flyposting cleanups.
The first was as a result of civil unrest/action – Flyposting has a clear financial benefit for those running events- anyone making financial gains from flyposting should be fined/charged for the cleanup. They can be tracked down easily – I will reiterate that this is a case of people being paid to do a job on behalf of residents who are not fulfilling their responsibilities to ratepayers.
Simple if someone does not do a job that they are paid to do they should be removed and the funding used to employ someone who will do what is needed.
We already have a “team” of paid staff wandering the streets of Wrexham that could have the removal added to their job description- Street Scene operatives already go around so why cat they take them down when they first appear.
Are all these flyposters setting them up under the cover of darkness or during the day in full view? If flyposting was defined as more kit – which has been done in some Council areas then Kingdom should get it sorted (appreciate not much chance under current arrangements).
Is Andrew Atkinson a self-publicist or in fact Councillor that is doing more than others!! For many people, their Councilor is faceless and only to be seen every five years leading to an election whilst hibernating for the other four.
This is not about a pop at an individual it reflects on the way people are being asked to volunteer to do something that the Council as a whole has a legal responsibility to sort. Volunteering should be about doing ‘extras’ for the community not to do the work of paid officials. There are enough other volunteering roles that people could do – helping in Nightingale, Playgrounds, Football Clubs etc. Time is precious and should be used for others not doing roles such as cleaning the flyposters.June 15, 2018 at 7:30 am in reply to: Llay United YFC Driven Off Alyn Waters over Parking Charges #150875
As an income generator, the Council in year one is unlikely to make a single £1. The actual cost of purchasing a machine and installation is approx £10 – £5500 for the machine and £4,500 for installation, tarmac etc. more if the machines are mains electric rather than solar). On top of this is the cost of a security firm to empty the machines (currently planned as daily). As most people in business will tell you income is not profit.
The principle of having an asset (car park) and lots of users (paying to use the asset) is logical but in this instance does not balance the books. The only solution then will be to increase the charge from £1 day to a level that actually achieves what the Council want which is profit. The Council have made no statement to cover the implication of insufficient revenue to cover the cost of the machine and ongoing operational expenses.
This is one for Wrexham.com to press the Council on for an answer to what happens if the car parking charges actually don’t generate enough income, will they turn the machines off and scrap the scheme. The above costings are going to be roughly the same on all the sites – Ty Mawr visitor numbers are 25% less than Alyn Waters.
- This reply was modified 1 week, 1 day ago by Council Watcher.
Great they have the funding as clearly the £300 that the Welfare Rights Department charge. My point re AA was taken from Wrexham.com report will view the whole webcast when it becomes available. There is still the whole issue of why it became personal and political infighting.
Complaint? Please use the report post tools or contact Wrexham.com .