N

Nige

Guest
Installed a new CCTV system for my father in law yesterday & the results blew me away. As stuffs getting
cheaper it's also getting so much better. The clarity from the cameras was amazing & the DVR was so easy
to use. You can also send the pictures down broadband to another PC in case the on site one gets nicked!

The reason I'm posting this is we all have either businesses or property we want to protect. The prices
are superb & functionality is great. Anyone want details etc, let me know. I'm not affiliated with the
company I bought it from, but could negotiate if required etc.

Nige

--
Subaru WRX (The Bitch)

Series 3 Landrover 88" (Albert)

'"They called him Jimmy the gent"


 
MVP wrote:
> On Sun, 17 Apr 2005 16:26:03 +0100, "Nige"
> <nigel.inceFANNYFART@btinternet.com> wrote:
>
>> Installed a new CCTV system for my father in law yesterday & the
>> results blew me away. As stuffs getting cheaper it's also getting so
>> much better. The clarity from the cameras was amazing & the DVR was
>> so easy to use. You can also send the pictures down broadband to
>> another PC in case the on site one gets nicked!
>>
>> The reason I'm posting this is we all have either businesses or
>> property we want to protect. The prices are superb & functionality
>> is great. Anyone want details etc, let me know. I'm not affiliated
>> with the company I bought it from, but could negotiate if required
>> etc.
>>
>> Nige
>>
>
> I'd appreciate some info on this, hoping to set-up a studio in an
> industrial unit towards the end of the year and some shiny nickable
> stuff will be in there.
>
>
> Regards.
> Mark.

I'll gte some info Mark, I get trade prices too with the business. It is easy enough for enyone who can
handle a hammer to install themselves. The one i fit did 4 cameras & audio too (req in the shop for
tossers etc)

The whole kit including top spec cameras, top spec DVR & even the cable was around £1000, but less spec
would be less.

It is so easy to fit & setup anyone could do it who had half a brain.

The one i fit had the network already installed. You can even use it as a burglar alarm too. Motion
sensors & even fire detection by motion & UV detection.

Amazing stuff Mark.

Nige

--
Subaru WRX (The Bitch)

Series 3 Landrover 88" (Albert)

'"They called him Jimmy the gent"


 
"Nige" <nigel.inceFANNYFART@btinternet.com> wrote in
news:3cffoqF6n9s9nU1@individual.net:

> MVP wrote:
>> On Sun, 17 Apr 2005 16:26:03 +0100, "Nige"
>> <nigel.inceFANNYFART@btinternet.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Installed a new CCTV system for my father in law yesterday & the
>>> results blew me away. As stuffs getting cheaper it's also getting so
>>> much better. The clarity from the cameras was amazing & the DVR was
>>> so easy to use. You can also send the pictures down broadband to
>>> another PC in case the on site one gets nicked!
>>>
>>> The reason I'm posting this is we all have either businesses or
>>> property we want to protect. The prices are superb & functionality
>>> is great. Anyone want details etc, let me know. I'm not affiliated
>>> with the company I bought it from, but could negotiate if required
>>> etc.
>>>
>>> Nige
>>>
>>
>> I'd appreciate some info on this, hoping to set-up a studio in an
>> industrial unit towards the end of the year and some shiny nickable
>> stuff will be in there.
>>
>>
>> Regards.
>> Mark.
>
> I'll gte some info Mark, I get trade prices too with the business. It
> is easy enough for enyone who can handle a hammer to install
> themselves. The one i fit did 4 cameras & audio too (req in the shop
> for tossers etc)
>
> The whole kit including top spec cameras, top spec DVR & even the
> cable was around £1000, but less spec would be less.
>
> It is so easy to fit & setup anyone could do it who had half a brain.
>
> The one i fit had the network already installed. You can even use it
> as a burglar alarm too. Motion sensors & even fire detection by motion
> & UV detection.
>
> Amazing stuff Mark.
>
> Nige
>
> --
> Subaru WRX (The Bitch)
>
> Series 3 Landrover 88" (Albert)
>
> '"They called him Jimmy the gent"
>
>
>

If it is of any interest, I run a very small part time video business which
means I get sent catalogues.

One which arrives regularly is from a firm called HBL. They have a web site
at http://www.hbhitherland.co.uk.

They appear to deal in end of line items and the prices quoted are
"discounted trade". Might be worth a look. I'm told the prices are very
good indeed.

Derry
 
MVP wrote:
> On Sun, 17 Apr 2005 16:26:03 +0100, "Nige"
> <nigel.inceFANNYFART@btinternet.com> wrote:
>
>
>>Installed a new CCTV system for my father in law yesterday & the results blew me away. As stuffs getting
>>cheaper it's also getting so much better. The clarity from the cameras was amazing & the DVR was so easy
>>to use. You can also send the pictures down broadband to another PC in case the on site one gets nicked!
>>
>>The reason I'm posting this is we all have either businesses or property we want to protect. The prices
>>are superb & functionality is great. Anyone want details etc, let me know. I'm not affiliated with the
>>company I bought it from, but could negotiate if required etc.
>>
>>Nige
>>
>
>
> I'd appreciate some info on this, hoping to set-up a studio in an
> industrial unit towards the end of the year and some shiny nickable
> stuff will be in there.
>
>
> Regards.
> Mark.


We are mucking about with cheap IP cameras from Aria technology -
they're pretty amazing little things, and will do everything Nige's will
do I reckon. Aria charge around 50 quid for 'em.


Steve
 
"Steve Taylor" <steve@ravenfield.com> wrote in message
news:42628eea$0$2592$da0feed9@news.zen.co.uk...

>
>
> We are mucking about with cheap IP cameras from Aria technology - they're
> pretty amazing little things, and will do everything Nige's will do I
> reckon. Aria charge around 50 quid for 'em.
>
>
> Steve

I have been known to tinker .. like I fitted a Camera from Maplin which cost
me £80 I recall, got IR too. It runs into a video, the output of which runs
into my TV card on a spare machine which happily pumps images through a
cracking bit of software called Gotcha to my web space. www.gotchanow.com

The software allows lots of tinkering such as ignoring movement in certain
parts of an image...such as a busy street. You can remote dial into the
machine with a laptop or similar and view video footage (or rapid succession
of stills equally as good as video)

Oh and the set up will pump pitcures through my coax lead all the way around
the house.

Well... I was impressed and it cost peanuts.

Lee D


 
On Sun, 17 Apr 2005 16:26:03 +0100, Nige wrote:

> Installed a new CCTV system ...

I hope you have complied with all the legislation regarding CCTV and
allowing it to be used as evidence. I'd hate for you to have the super
quality image full face image of a scrote walking away with your
property but not be able to use that image in court.

--
Cheers new5pam@howhill.com
Dave. pam is missing e-mail



 
On Sun, 17 Apr 2005 20:41:09 +0100 (BST), "Dave Liquorice"
<new5pam@howhill.com> made me spill my meths when he wrote:

>I hope you have complied with all the legislation regarding CCTV and
>allowing it to be used as evidence. I'd hate for you to have the super
>quality image full face image of a scrote walking away with your
>property but not be able to use that image in court.

Can you tell us more? Do you have to register that fact that images
may be recorded on your property etc, and if you don't, can they be
ignored? Will a 2 inch high sign to that effect located in the eaves
of the roof suffice :)
--

Wayne Davies, Harrogate 07989 556213

Just another point of view...
www.4x4prejudice.org
 
In message <deh561p6hhrfjthith5gqcvmgsussg99bq@4ax.com>,
wayne@lardrover.co.uk writes
>On Sun, 17 Apr 2005 20:41:09 +0100 (BST), "Dave Liquorice"
><new5pam@howhill.com> made me spill my meths when he wrote:
>
>>I hope you have complied with all the legislation regarding CCTV and
>>allowing it to be used as evidence. I'd hate for you to have the super
>>quality image full face image of a scrote walking away with your
>>property but not be able to use that image in court.
>
>Can you tell us more? Do you have to register that fact that images
>may be recorded on your property etc, and if you don't, can they be
>ignored? Will a 2 inch high sign to that effect located in the eaves
>of the roof suffice :)

I think you will find that it needs to be displayed at the entrance to
the property. The reason for recording needs to be stated e.g. crime
prevention and public safety. I think if I remember the regs correctly
there has also to be the organisation/person responsible for running the
system.

Having said that many notices about cctv on the average high street do
not seem to conform to what I think (from memory) the regs are.

I would be interested in the details of the system mentioned earlier in
the thread Nige wasn't it.
--
Malcolm Kane
 
I fitted cctv to my house this year and have two signs at the start of each
end of the property. They read "CCTV recording operated by P Tasker" These
are the size of a brick and are fitted to the wall in a bronze colour. I
understand they need to be visible ( i:e you can see them)

The upshot is, some light fingered yosser broke into a neighbours car and it
was all captured, good enough for the police to be interested and take the
evidence away.

Regards

Paul


 
On Sun, 17 Apr 2005 22:55:57 +0100, Malcolm Kane
<malcolm@jgj-jewellers.demon.co.uk> made me spill my meths when he
wrote:

>>Can you tell us more? Do you have to register that fact that images
>>may be recorded on your property etc, and if you don't, can they be
>>ignored? Will a 2 inch high sign to that effect located in the eaves
>>of the roof suffice :)
>
>I think you will find that it needs to be displayed at the entrance to
>the property.

Not always the entrance used by the thief then :)

How about someone markets an ally end cap for a 6 D cell Maglite with
the CCTV warning engraved into it. Casualty can contact the police if
they have guests arriving suitably embossed on the forehead.

I'll get me camel
--

Wayne Davies, Harrogate 07989 556213

Just another point of view...
www.4x4prejudice.org
 
On Sun, 17 Apr 2005 20:25:59 GMT, wayne@lardrover.co.uk wrote:

> Can you tell us more? Do you have to register that fact that images
> may be recorded on your property etc, and if you don't, can they be
> ignored?

Not in detail but as far as I'm aware there is a whole raft of stuff
from warning notices about 24hr CCTV recording (noticed how everywhere
that has a camera has a notice...) through to on what, how and where
the images are stored, including the security of that storage and how
long they are kept.

I'm sure if you ask google you'll find more than enough bedtime
reading... As with anything to do with the law and its interpretation
its a mine field and any defence lawyer worth his fee will go through
any evidence with a fine tooth comb to find a way to make it
inadmissable or cast doubt on it's authenticity. I'm sure the
regulations are not that hard to comply with but miss a step or detail
and...

--
Cheers new5pam@howhill.com
Dave. pam is missing e-mail



 
On Sun, 17 Apr 2005 20:25:59 GMT, wayne@lardrover.co.uk wrote:

>Can you tell us more? Do you have to register that fact that images
>may be recorded on your property etc,

The ONLY thing which may prevent video from being used as evidence is
the quality of the footage and/or the time/date stamp being more than
5 minutes out. Even then, footage may be used as evidence to place a
person in a particular place "at no given time". This can be handy if
they deny they've ever been there 'per se'.

 
In message <riba615dp76g2jfgk3c6d8h635rqoqdt89@4ax.com>, Mother <"@ {m}
@"@101fc.net> writes
>On Sun, 17 Apr 2005 20:25:59 GMT, wayne@lardrover.co.uk wrote:
>
>>Can you tell us more? Do you have to register that fact that images
>>may be recorded on your property etc,
>
>The ONLY thing which may prevent video from being used as evidence is
>the quality of the footage and/or the time/date stamp being more than
>5 minutes out. Even then, footage may be used as evidence to place a
>person in a particular place "at no given time". This can be handy if
>they deny they've ever been there 'per se'.
>

I think it is the Data Protection act which requires the notice about
recording not anything to do with its value as evidence.
--
Malcolm Kane
 
On Wed, 20 Apr 2005 23:41:49 +0100, Malcolm Kane
<malcolm@jgj-jewellers.demon.co.uk> wrote:

>I think it is the Data Protection act which requires the notice about
>recording not anything to do with its value as evidence.

Possibly, but I wouldn't count on it as Data Protection has a focus on
the storage of identifiable information that can be directly linked to
an individual. I can look at dozens of people a day on the CCTV here
and haven't got a clue who they are. There's a lot of misinformation
about Data Protection and various pieces of differing lefislation. As
an example, it is widely believed, incorrectly, that it's illegal to
record a telephone conversation.

My comment regarding use as evidence was simply following on the
thread and comments made therein really. You may be surprised at the
type of video evidence that can (and has) been used to gain a
conviction. Usually just the mention of video will be enough to get a
confession and Guilty plea.

 
I heard u need signs on commercial premises so the video can be used as
evidence but not in private homes


 
In message <4npe6196dquno09s783vu917rtagmm8354@4ax.com>, Mother <"@ {m}
@"@101fc.net> writes
>On Wed, 20 Apr 2005 23:41:49 +0100, Malcolm Kane
><malcolm@jgj-jewellers.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
>>I think it is the Data Protection act which requires the notice about
>>recording not anything to do with its value as evidence.
>
>Possibly, but I wouldn't count on it as Data Protection has a focus on
>the storage of identifiable information that can be directly linked to
>an individual. I can look at dozens of people a day on the CCTV here
>and haven't got a clue who they are. There's a lot of misinformation
>about Data Protection and various pieces of differing lefislation. As
>an example, it is widely believed, incorrectly, that it's illegal to
>record a telephone conversation.
>

You may be right I am merely basing my comments on the advice of two
professional trade organisations who both advise that the notice etc. is
a requirement under the data protection act.

I was also under the impression that identifiable means if someone who
knows you sees the video and recognises you then you are recognisable.
In that if they had access to the video they could then use the
information about you.
--
Malcolm Kane
 
In message <3cqc6fF6m6hmeU1@individual.net>, Angus McCoatup
<nospamta@ntlworld.com> writes
>I heard u need signs on commercial premises so the video can be used as
>evidence but not in private homes
>
>
I don't think this is correct as the notice as far as I know is under
the Data Protection Act and doesn't have anything to do with evidence.

To me the logic of needing a notice to make it suitable as evidence
would rule out a video taken by a bystander at a crime. Which seems
doubtful to me.
--
Malcolm Kane
 
In message <dvue61lmjq36pqfqb7s0l056g12v3s72o7@4ax.com>, MVP
<mr.nice@*nospam*softhome.net> writes
>On Thu, 21 Apr 2005 09:47:19 +0100, Mother <"@ {m} @"@101fc.net>
>wrote:
>
>>On Wed, 20 Apr 2005 23:41:49 +0100, Malcolm Kane
>><malcolm@jgj-jewellers.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>>
>>>I think it is the Data Protection act which requires the notice about
>>>recording not anything to do with its value as evidence.
>>
>>Possibly, but I wouldn't count on it as Data Protection has a focus on
>>the storage of identifiable information that can be directly linked to
>>an individual. I can look at dozens of people a day on the CCTV here
>>and haven't got a clue who they are. There's a lot of misinformation
>>about Data Protection and various pieces of differing lefislation. As
>>an example, it is widely believed, incorrectly, that it's illegal to
>>record a telephone conversation.
>>
>>My comment regarding use as evidence was simply following on the
>>thread and comments made therein really. You may be surprised at the
>>type of video evidence that can (and has) been used to gain a
>>conviction. Usually just the mention of video will be enough to get a
>>confession and Guilty plea.
>
>For what it's worth, as a photographer I can take photos of people as
>part of a general 'street shot' and need no paperwork for the use,
>storing or selling of that photo.
>Compared to a photo of a specific person which, if identifiable
>(usually means face shown) needs paperwork.
>I can see a cctv image falling into the former catagory rather than
>the latter unless there is specific mention of it in legislation.
>
See my other post but as far as I understand the Data Protection Act it
is exactly that point. If the person can be identified as you say face
showing (and for security purposes most set ups I come across try to
show faces) then they fall under the data protection act.
--
Malcolm Kane
 
On or around Thu, 21 Apr 2005 23:32:22 +0100, Malcolm Kane
<malcolm@jgj-jewellers.demon.co.uk> enlightened us thusly:

>In message <4npe6196dquno09s783vu917rtagmm8354@4ax.com>, Mother <"@ {m}
>@"@101fc.net> writes
>>On Wed, 20 Apr 2005 23:41:49 +0100, Malcolm Kane
>><malcolm@jgj-jewellers.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>>
>>>I think it is the Data Protection act which requires the notice about
>>>recording not anything to do with its value as evidence.
>>
>>Possibly, but I wouldn't count on it as Data Protection has a focus on
>>the storage of identifiable information that can be directly linked to
>>an individual. I can look at dozens of people a day on the CCTV here
>>and haven't got a clue who they are. There's a lot of misinformation
>>about Data Protection and various pieces of differing lefislation. As
>>an example, it is widely believed, incorrectly, that it's illegal to
>>record a telephone conversation.
>>
>
>You may be right I am merely basing my comments on the advice of two
>professional trade organisations who both advise that the notice etc. is
>a requirement under the data protection act.
>
>I was also under the impression that identifiable means if someone who
>knows you sees the video and recognises you then you are recognisable.
>In that if they had access to the video they could then use the
>information about you.

besides, it costs little to put up a "CCTV Recording on these premises"
notice, and it might, in and of itself, deter some miscreants.

--
Austin Shackles. www.ddol-las.fsnet.co.uk my opinions are just that
"It is a characteristic of the human mind to hate the man one has injured"
Tacitus (c.55 - c.117) Agricola, 45
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

B
Defender stolen - Heading Elland then Liverpool
Replies
2
Views
742
Gunnerhavesome
Gunnerhavesome
C
Adelaide Defender
Replies
1
Views
774
v8geoff
v8geoff
Booger
Morocco 2010 - Booger's Report
2
Replies
34
Views
12K
onelife
O
N
PING Richard at Bemaends
Replies
3
Views
439
/\\/ / & E
&
N
110 Floors etc
Replies
9
Views
844
beamendsltd
B