PeterJames

As above power up mains first then battery

hi

Hi and welcome, sorry I cant help either

Hi and welcome

meh! we still shut the door after the horse bolted

All the while I have worked in electronic security, we have stayed one step ahead of the criminals, burglars used to disable main, so batteries for stand by were added, bells were ripped of walls, so anti tamper and self actuating bells were developed, sounders and bells used to get filled with foam, so anti foam boxes were developed, wires were cut and shorted together in lofts, so eol was developed, detectors obscured, anti mask was developed. As soon as a loophole is discovered its closed. But as a technical person myself, I can see the weaknesses in non wireless systems let alone wireless, wireless systems to anyone with basic electronic skills and some inside knowledge is vulnerable

We dont share them here, sort of tells you what should be happening. Most companies are looking for ways to protect themselves by using site specific engineer codes and code of the day.

Although the big G was always a clever pane, I used to really like it, l but it has always looked dated compared to the competition.

ive emailed you a quote

you dont have to use it if your on local or have a fixed ip

http://www.paxton.co.uk/products.asp?id=011,24&strStage=product_page&strFamily=net2&strGroup=group-05125

I do know of a Chinese alternative for this but I dont know much about it

you could run it from driod using RDC though so login to a remote comp that then logs into the remote server job done

The bail hostels use domestic dvd recorders in there interview rooms

- I wasn't aware of that change, thanks for that Dick, although my comments on the Police not knowing the laws/ regulations was still valid as the conversation was about three years ago

And you would be breaking the law to do so

Charlie lets look at some scenarios where audio would be an invasion of privacy. A couple walking down the street discussing the sex they have just had. People who they don't know that may overhear their discussion its not important, even you videoing and recording their conversation its not a problem because you don't know them. With CCTV its a different story the operator is likely to know the people. So what I hear you say, well what if that couple are married but not to each other, all of a sudden the CCTV operator knows something about two people that is none of the operators business. That information could have all sorts of consequences depending on the operators attitude. At worst there could be blackmailing or the information given to each of the couples partners. Again you could say well they should not have been up to no good, but they haven't broken any criminal laws, and the purpose of the CCTV is for capturing crimes. I cant think of hundreds of similar scenarios. The other problem you have is some CCTV operators are nice people some are not (Bit like the real world) if the recording of audio was fully allowed you wouldn't be able to say this person can record audio, but this one cant. So all those horrible people like racists and peados will be using audio recording to there own advantage

The law on privacy is rather vague, and much of what is set down applies not to individuals, but to organisations. For example, Article 8 of the Human Rights Act 1998 provides general protection for the privacy of an individual’s home and family life, and their personal correspondence, and this obviously extends to recording what people say among themselves. In a similar spirit, the CCTV Code of Conduct (revised 2008) from the Information Commissioner’s Office recommends that operators generally shouldn’t record conversations: CCTV must not be used to record conversations between members of the public as this is highly intrusive and unlikely to be justified. You should choose a system without this facility if possible. If your system comes equipped with a sound recording facility then you should turn this off or disable it in some other way. There are limited circumstances in which audio recording may be justified, subject to sufficient safeguards. -

I agree, Police officers seldom know the law regarding CCTV I had one try to tell me that I could not have a camera viewing the customers car as it viewed the street. I was so surprised that not only did she know the law that she was supposed to upheld, but she was spouting complete and utter rubbish to someone that is familiar with the laws regarding CCTV. I have many times had to explain to the Police how to use the evidence that we have recorded for them, if the system is not compliant then it has to be used to get an admission not as evidence.

Hi Charlie You are absolutely right, however, it is one thing for a person to stand in the street with a camcorder filming, it is obvious that sound is likely to be recorded and people observing this are unlikely to divulge any personal private matters in front of your camera. With CCTV on the other hand it may not even be immediately obvious that there is a camera present, and even so, there is still no reason to assume that audio is being recorded. Therefore if allowed, CCTV could capture audio that was intended as private but not unlawful. In the UK we put signs up to warn people that CCTV is in operation, if people ignore the signs and continue to break the law then they deserve everything they get. But people that are not breaking the law and going about their everyday business are entitled to have their conversations kept private. The whole purpose of CCTV is to deter or capture crime, not invade peoples private conversations.

I prefer snooker to pool, I don't mind playing pool but I cant watch it its to americanised on TV

Yeah when I saw it with all the toys I thought that's what I want, that and the fact that I really missed my X Type

I purchased my jag on the review JC gave he beat the sun from Lands End to somewhere near Essex

No adverts on Netflix, if it went on ITV I would have to wtch it on catch up to avoid the adds

I reckon that JP would make their own mind up about it