PeterJames

I am not familiar with your panel so couldn't confirm if you can do that. But many panels on the market can be programmed that way so it is feasible

Its unfair for me to say anything to that Jan, that said I would treat anyone I terminated the same way, unless it was gross misconduct You cant tell me that you would let an employee that you have terminated work his notice? Your tighter than I thought!

Monitored alarms can be silent, but I think you may be getting confused with second alarm verification. This works as follows: Any detector activates alarm inc sounders (if permitted) it sends an non-confirmed intruder signal to the ARC, and the key-holder is called. Any second detector activates within a predefined period of time, the ARC is sent a second signal known as a confirmed intruder, the Arc will call the Police and advise the key-holder that the activation has been upgraded.

Lots of staff can be that bad, but if you terminate someone's employment its sensible for both parties not to give the employee an opportunity to pee in the fuel tank

I suppose it depends on the employee, I have let engineers go and paid their notice and I have let engineers work their notice. The last one was on garden leave and then paid notice on top, but I terminated his employment and I couldn't let him near any of my customers after that tbf

I see, that speed reading for you thanks Jan

They have to pay you your notice its the law

Hi and welcome. Why is my first question? surely the whole point of an audible alarm is to get the burglar out

You are getting paid, its summertime, go and sit on the beach for a few weeks (If you live near a beach) theres plenty I could find to do. I'm looking forward to my retirement

hi and welcome

Which bit is not gonna work?

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. -

Chap has asked for advice he thinks that being a subby is easier and that he can pick and choose, that's unlikely to be the case, he thinks he will earn more, that's also unlikely unless he is happy not to pick and choose, and he thinks the tax man is gonna buy him a new set of tools. Its not negativity I am all for people moving up in the world, I don't think becoming a subby is necessarily a move upwards. Especially if you think you can pick and choose. Whereas a chat with the boss about where you want your career to go, there is a good chance he will respect the fact that you want to move up and find somewhere you can move up to (If he wants to keep you)

I think you will find you cant have your cake and eat it only one of the above works as a subby Not that I am trying to put you off here or anything but, the tax man doesn't pay you for the tools you just pay him a little less. So its not free tools its just less tax. Personally I would have a chat with your boss about whats on your mind, you have nothing to lose if you are thinking about leaving anyway, your boss may have a better career choice for you. Being a subby is not all its cracked out to be, you need insurance and all the H&S certification cards, some co's will expect you to have up to date cards for MEWPS and platforms along with your own PPE and harnesses. You will get work from co's that don't ask for these but you wont earn the money. Subbies that I used have all these, I only use subbies that I know and trust.

doubt you would have liked working for hime either, he didnt have any sense of humour

Hi plasmarb Firstly can I ask why you want to become a subby? Whats the appeal?

Hi Neil where are you based? do you cover Fareham ?

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