We as a community, are still waiting for answers why the cost of the recent purchase of a bodycam was significantly higher than one purchased previously:
• The first bodycam and docking station was purchased on 13/12/2019 at a cost of: £160.70
• The second bodycam and docking station was purchased on 24/11/2022 at a cost of: £3,889.34
Alan Draper – Clerk, refused to release information about the Bodycam claiming it would leave it open to “hacking” however he has now released what he must believe to be the definitive answer to shut us all up once and for all.
He has released a statement from “your choice Fire and Security” who supplied the “luxury” item otherwise known as the bodycam:
This has been done in an attempt, and Ferret believes a poor attempt, to throw people off the scent of what many believe is nothing but a scam.
Firstly there is the old adage that self-praise is no recommendation and as this letter is coming from the company that supplied the bodycams it is definitely not an acceptable source or recommendation.
It is certainly not reassuring on any level.
There are also problems with this letter:
• It is undated.
• The contact telephone number is incomplete.
Erm odd thinks Ferret and a little unprofessional, so with a little more sniffing around Ferret has uncovered the following information, not only have North Yorkshire Police released the required information regarding Body Cams when asked, but so have The Greater Manchester Police.
Well you may say, they are police forces and not councils so what about these for councils who have also released the requested information: Waverley Borough Council and Cherwell District Council.
The above have been open and transparent and released the details of the bodycams they use, yet here we have a local company (Kinsley) and Alan Draper, who promote themselves to a higher level of authority than these police forces and Councils and seem to think their recommendations outweigh those that we would expect to be eminently more experienced in these matters than a lowly Kinsley firm.
Concern has been raised that this could possibly be a scam and or a lack of due diligence, both of which are very serious issues.
Ferret got to thinking, this firm sounds familiar, oh yes now Ferret remembers and the name Jason Begg jumps out.
Readers will remember that “free” store of Jim Kenyon’s that came “asbestos free” but was found to contain asbestos.
Alan Draper left it to a person named Jason Begg to seek quotes for its removal and in fact Alan draper admitted he never even saw the quotes or verified that they were bone fide before recommending to the Town Council that they accept.
In other words he failed in his job role and responsibility to this community of “Due diligence”
We now also have the company (Jason Begg) being paid to monitor the Bodycam on top of its claimed purchase price and once again the cost is not insignificant:
Hemsworth Town Council and the company don’t want to release the details of this camera, or let people see it for themselves to establish the truth of the matter.
The truth of the matter appears to be that the relevant information is being withheld from the public domain for no genuine reason.
Police forces and District and Borough Councils have released more information than is being asked for from the town council at Hemsworth.
Openness and Transparency are an alien concept at Hemsworth Town Council.
Given the above facts please make up your own minds as to why and vote accordingly in the May Elections…
How do these people sleep at night? They are nothing but a set of thieves.
The community is now more than ever aware of the wrong doings,
the community is now more aware of the total financial debacle this Independent HTC have caused to our community.The sheer disgraceful spending of the communities precept money as resulted in the reserves already needing to be spent to put right and repair the destruction the Independent HTC as caused.Lavish over prised Bodycam which appears to be so top of the range a make and model cannot be supplied it should definitely prevent anymore break-ins .The accounts show that HTC appear to buy lots of expensive ,lavish items shame they don’t appear to be for all the communities benefit only a certain few but it’s the communities precept money paying for them.Let’s hope May brings in the changes and VOTES will give the precept money back to the community.
Please can you post on FB Thankyou.
The very expensive bodycam, well let me assure you the features on this bodycam are not unique/tailored to HTC this type of bodycam is on the open marketplace for much less, this is why they won’t reveal the make/ model number The letter from the security firm in my opinion is just a smoke screen why , because basically it’s saying what the camera can do all dancing all singing ,well anyone can read a brief description of a cameras capabilities just go to curry’s/argos, as for hooking up to a monitoring station no big deal here ,this capability as been around for year’s and is usually a separate annual fee Now here’s the sentence that caught my eye, it’s only a RECOMMENDATION that the make/model number not to be revealed , this I believe is his own opinion, as for hacking etc this is HTC not the CIA come on , the only people who spy on on peoples is HTC themselves ask Ian
Letter states more than one camera supplied strange as HTC bodycam policy clearly states only one dedicated person is authorised to carry a camera ,so where’s all these cameras who’s wearing them.
Our councillors hoodwinked AGAIN!! because they don’t know there own policies and don’t ask the right questions or is it they don’t want to, keep them FOI coming. But do agree on one thing HTC does have a duty of care to its employees. NO JUSTIFICATION FOR NOT REVEALING THE MAKE/MODEL NUMBER .