Author Topic: Savile Row FOI: £9,500 loss per month!!  (Read 11299 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Esinem

  • Follower
  • **
  • Posts: 641
Re: Savile Row FOI: £9,500 loss per month!!
« Reply #60 on: 25 May, 2011, 11:01:38 PM »
It has been suggested that "a passenger vehicle" is a vehicle built or adapted solely or principally for the purpose of carrying passengers. Certainly, within the RTA they have a definition for a "passenger carrying vehicle" (not, I note, a "passenger vehicle"; although I expect they will claim it is the same thing. 
Here's something relevant re driving licence categories:
PASSENGER CARRYING VEHICLES (including minibuses)
Driving Licence Category D (9 or more passenger seats) or Category D1 (9 to
16 passenger seats).
« Last Edit: 01 January, 1970, 01:00:00 AM by Guest »
Wastemonster City Council can      NoToMob are watching you!

Offline Esinem

  • Follower
  • **
  • Posts: 641
Re: Savile Row FOI: £9,500 loss per month!!
« Reply #61 on: 27 May, 2011, 11:19:20 AM »
[font=georgia:3kany9c4]Compare and contrast these two replies of $CAMera car deployment at Savile Row. Hmm, Lee clearly thinks it takes 461hrs 58m to drive there?! Let's see, 2 crew @ £124ph each x 462hrs = £57,288. Gosh! What a saving over under £2,370 for a fixed CCTV*. I wonder what could have lead to such financially 'beneficial' arrangement in these hard pressed times? I think we should be told!
[/font:3kany9c4]
[font=georgia:3kany9c4]From: Lee Rowley[mailto:lee_b_rowley@yahoo.com]
To: Bruce
Sent: 12 March 2011 23:11

On Saville Row:

Happy to try to clarify further.  A man in a car can assess the compliance levels of a road or junction within a few hours (ie the time taken to drive there); the erection of a camera would, say, probably take a few days.  It doesn't seem to be the most mind-blowing comparison to get your head around in terms of why I might suggest one was a bit more "flexible" than the other. 

You also continue to throw figures around regarding cost, when I'm pretty sure you know that the comparisons are based on a woolly premise. We have access to a number of CCTV cars as part of a contract we have agreed (and which has saved the Council a number of millions of pounds) - we do not pay for the cars on a day rate .  Thus, the non-use of the cars would not save the Council money in the way you infer, meaning that the comparison is meaningless. Only a formal contract variation would do that.




From: Goad, Kevin [mailto:KGoad@westminster.gov.uk]
Sent: 27 May 2011 08:39
To: Bruce
Subject: RE: Your lies in response to FOI #65569

Bruce

My apologies for the delay in getting back but extracting the information has been a manual process and taken longer than have expected.  From the data that has been collated the vehicles were deployed for 461hrs and 58mins at the Saville Row location. However, I have to advise that the records are incomplete and only go back to the end of 2009. The deployed  figure is therefore likely to be higher.

Let me know if you require anything further

Regards

Kevin
[/font:3kany9c4]

* From FOI request: The approximate costs to deploy a CCTV camera to a pre-designated camera housing are either £1590 or £2370.  The lower figure applies where no system configuration is required.
« Last Edit: 27 May, 2011, 11:21:52 AM by Esinem »
Wastemonster City Council can      NoToMob are watching you!

 


Supporters of the NoToMob

In order to view this object you need Flash Player 9+ support!

Get Adobe Flash player