PDA

View Full Version : Police Statements


WorkingHard
20th Oct 2008, 21:58
A question for all you knowledgeable people please?
I recently gave a voluntary statement to the police, who were very polite, correct and quite charming I should say, so I have no problem at all with that. What I do have a problem with is not being allowed to keep a copy of the statement made (I may be needed as a witness) and so I politely refused to sign the same until I was allowed to take a copy for my own retention. What ensued was not really satisfactory and I refused to sign the statement. Your views please on what is right and wrong learned people.

many thanks

preduk
20th Oct 2008, 22:01
WorkingHard,

If you want I can try and find out the answer for you, I'm a SC Police officer in training.

Champagne Anyone?
20th Oct 2008, 22:22
Beware the Specials answer...

Scottish law is different from England and Wales....

Most of the time when I was in the mob, if a witness asked for a copy they got it.

No problems as long as they were a witness and not suspected of being an offender. If that was the case, they would be told that they would be able to refresh their memory, should the case go to court, from their statement should the need arise prior to giving evedence.

If suspected as an offender you woldnt give them a chance to refresh their memories of the lies they might have concocted in order to profess their innocence.


Am house sitting for Champers so don't blame him for my posts....

Lost man standing
20th Oct 2008, 23:15
Watch this piece of advice (http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-4097602514885833865) and take it seriously. I think you have the right attitude. In my opinion if someone wants some information they will not allow you to have then they are dishonest.

preduk
21st Oct 2008, 00:40
Ok.. I found out for you... There is a forum (similar to PPrune) for police officers so I could get an opinion from others.

The best response I got was:

As far as i'm aware a person is not entitled to a copy of their statement. Its an evidence gathering form which conveys a perspective on an incident. If they were required to give evidence at court, then copies are available to certain persons (I am unsure if they are given to witnesses) by not signing the form he is refusing to confirm whether it is a true an accurate account! Maybe the officer who was dealing with it could not word it to satisfy your acquaintance but i cannot think of any examples of anyone allowing a witness to keep a copy of their statement

To be fair to most officers... Most of the time when taking statement we hand write them. So to provide a copy for the witness to sign it would be physically impossible at that moment in time.


Followed by:

Look, we need people to help us, that's how we do our job! What on earth is the problem with giving somebody a copy of the words that they signing off as their own?!?

If you can't do it there an then tell them they can pick a copy up from the front counter the next working day. The important thing is that you record their evidence, and if the quid pro quo of that is that you provide them with a copy, well so what?

Don't you PACE jockeys already provide people interviewed on tape with a copy? What's the difference with respect to a written statement?


Hope that helps.

Whirlygig
21st Oct 2008, 07:27
So to provide a copy for the witness to sign it would be physically impossible at that moment in time.
" 'Ang on Ociffer, I'll just pop this on my scanner to take a copy".

Hardly impossible.

Recently my mother had reason to complain about a police officer's behaviour and she wrote to the Chief Constable. The outcome was dealt with satisfactorily with a personal visit from a senior officer to ascertain the both sides.

Try a letter explaining the situation.

Cheers

Whirls

WorkingHard
21st Oct 2008, 16:03
Thanks for the reponses so far folks. The thing is I was intrumental in apprehending a thief and this is what the statement was all about. I am very happy to do my civic duty and assist the police as and when required and do not expect anything except courtesy etc. When it comes down to something as simple as a copy of my statement, taken in my 21st century office with scanners copiers etc, I find it very hard to continue to be helpful. If this continues I am very sorry to say I shall have to have a very poor memory as to make a statement not worthwhile!

teeteringhead
21st Oct 2008, 16:44
I'm just about sure you could request a copy under FoI (Freedom of Information) legislation.

I've recently dealt with a broadly similar request.....

...perhaps a tame lawyer could help?

dazdaz
21st Oct 2008, 16:55
"The thing is I was instrumental in apprehending a thief and this is what the statement was all about"

Hope the thief is not having thoughts of you infringing his human rights:suspect: Having said that, well done for stepping in, too many of us might turn the 'blind eye'

G-CPTN
21st Oct 2008, 17:25
Ask to have contact with the witness protection scheme . . .

pubicAir
21st Oct 2008, 23:33
s:mad:t they'll probably give a copy of your statement to the crim' and he'll be 'round your door wif his mates to give you a pasting! Good old British justice the good boys always get the sh:mad:ty end of the stick. I'd think twice about being a good citizen again. Take G-CPTN's advice and get on the witness protection scheme before its t...............

parabellum
22nd Oct 2008, 00:29
WorkingHard - Seriously, go have a chat with a lawyer, some will give you 30 minutes for free, check with Citizens Advice etc. Purely my thoughts and in no way authoritative but a statement written by them but signed by you is your statement, I would have thought? You should keep the original, as if you had written it yourself, give them the copy - yes/no?

peterpallet
22nd Oct 2008, 07:56
When I was a young man I committed a (in my mind at the time) a reply to another (agressive) motorist that was almost unanswerable -- I kicked the side of his car in with my steel toe capped boots. He leapt in his car and drove off like all the hounds of hell were after him.

It was wrong yet felt right. It was about 1970 and the police came to ask me for a statement, but I remembered my Dad´s advice which was NEVER give the police a statement, I didnt´t and I heard no more about the matter.

Not proud of it just reminded me of my Dad!!!!!!!!!!

Miserlou
22nd Oct 2008, 11:00
I asked a lawyer if he would answer a question for free.

He said, "No. That'll be £25 please!"

A A Gruntpuddock
22nd Oct 2008, 13:15
Many years ago a colleague had just finished doing up his car and parked in the street outside his house.
Someone reversed out of a driveway across the street, banged in the side of his car and drove off.
He went to the police station to report this and was asked to make a statement.
The officer then inspected his car and charged him with having an illegal number plate (painted on the mini's bonnet) and several other minor infractioms such as havig the tax disc in the wrong place.
Person who hit his car was never prosecuted.
He steered well clear of the police after that.

flowman
22nd Oct 2008, 16:02
Here is another question for the policemen on here.
Back in February of this year a white van man reversed into my car causing 1400 euros worth of damage. He was extremely abusive, threatened to set his dog on me, threatened my wife with violence and drove off to park his van and carry on with his unloading as if nothing had happened. I asked him for his insurance details and he basically told me to f off and that I had no witnesses. It was in central London so by this time everybody who may have seen the incident had disappeared.
I had to call the police because of his refusal to supply insurance details. They duly arrived, in about 10 minutes, and questioned him. Whilst talking to the policemen he admitted reversing into my car. The police, however, in follow up enquiries by my insurance company have simply stated that they did not see the accident and cannot help me further.
Does a verbal statement in front of two police officers count for nothing? Could the police officer not at least tell my insurance company that this statement was made?
:confused:
flowman

Parapunter
22nd Oct 2008, 16:56
A few moons ago, I nearly killed a motorcyclist.

Wasn't my fault though, I was rolling along at rush hour about twenty or so and the motor bike guy was running up the outside of a queue of stationary traffic when a car full of teenagers pulled out on him, sending the guy across the white line into me, head on at a closing speed of about fifty mph the coppers reckoned.

There were plenty of witnesses, all of whom said it was the kids fault and yet although the driver was charged, the case was dropped for a lack of evidence - the traffic guys had concentrated on clearing the scene rather than getting statements & the cps said nah when it came to court.

That one really pi$$ed me off - I didn't care about the car, it was an old shed of an Audi 80, but I felt very sorry for the guy on the motorbike. It wasn't his fault & he almost died & lost a large section of bowel as a result of the crash & ended up with a limp & a colostomy bag.

I don't know if he pursued it, but I would think he was entitled to feel let down by the police that day.

preduk
22nd Oct 2008, 18:24
WorkingHard - Seriously, go have a chat with a lawyer, some will give you 30 minutes for free, check with Citizens Advice etc. Purely my thoughts and in no way authoritative but a statement written by them but signed by you is your statement, I would have thought? You should keep the original, as if you had written it yourself, give them the copy - yes/no?

And what is a lawyer going to do? March in and demand the piece of paper which isn't an official statement within a notebook which isn't allowed to be given to a member of public.

Many years ago a colleague had just finished doing up his car and parked in the street outside his house.
Someone reversed out of a driveway across the street, banged in the side of his car and drove off.
He went to the police station to report this and was asked to make a statement.
The officer then inspected his car and charged him with having an illegal number plate (painted on the mini's bonnet) and several other minor infractioms such as havig the tax disc in the wrong place.
Person who hit his car was never prosecuted.
He steered well clear of the police after that.

Ah well.. shouldn't have had an illegal car then I'm afraid I have no sympathy.

Sadly it's very hard to catch these people that long after an incident, it would have been good if they caught them.

Parapunter,

Sadly it does happen, in fact it happened to me. My brother was assaulted when he was about 13 by an 18 year old lad. At the incident the police women told me that my brothers face looked very bruised and sore. When we got to court it was thrown out because she said there were no signs of injury.

Does a verbal statement in front of two police officers count for nothing? Could the police officer not at least tell my insurance company that this statement was made?

If he made it under caution yes, but you would need the case to go to court and for him to be made guility before your insurance company would take it into consideration.

Capot
22nd Oct 2008, 18:31
The most imnportant reason for wanting a copy of a statement is that this is your protection against alteration to it by the Police. As numerous occasions have shown, this is a very real prospect.

NRU74
22nd Oct 2008, 19:33
In regards to witness statements [under S9 of the Criminal Justice Act 1967] the English Criminal Justice System works on the fiction that a witness statement is a statement made by a witness.In a sense this is true - but - it's actually a statement taken [usually] by a Police Officer,hand written by a Police Officer,in response to prompted questions by a police officer, and written in terms that are often quite alien to everyday speech.There's a caveat at the beginning of a S9 about it being true etc etc and it has to be signed by the witness.Initially, pre-charge, it will be on a Police File.Post Charge it will be on both a Police and a CPS file.It will be served on the Defence post charge and if the matter goes to Trial it will be in typed form.It will always be given to a witness immediately prior to a Trial to read.Go down your local Mags Ct/Crown Ct and you will often see a group of Police Officers [witnesses or complainants] reading them -it's called 'Choir Practice'.
But, if you are a witness, it is your statement and if you want it then write [politely] to CPSand ask for it.If you write to Plod he'll invariably not reply or refer you to the case lawyer.
Obviously in some cases - Domestic Assaults come to mind - at an early stage in the proceedings the Defendant may lean on the complainant to obtain it to see what she's said and CPS may be reluctant to disclose - but - pre trial it will be served anyway on him or his Solicitor.
To reiterate - it's your statement and you are usually entitled to a copy.
PS Don't know I've ended up with this font

Beethoven
22nd Oct 2008, 19:59
The MG11 clearly states "restricted when complete". Of the thousands I have taken only a handful of witnesses have asked for a copy. I do not give them a copy and will not. When you go to court you are usually given a copy of it before the case to refresh your memory. As for altering the contents well I am sure it has happened but in all honesty that's not really an issue is it? You are asked to sign any corrections and crossings-out and the crossed out words must be visible through the crossing-out (if you know what I mean!). It is a requirement that evidence (of which a statement taken on an MG11 is just one type) is kept secure and who would be to blame if a copy of a witness statement got into the wrong hands and harm befell someone as a result..probably the officer that made the copy.

Best wishes,

Beet.

NRU74
22nd Oct 2008, 20:42
I do not give them a copy and will not. Beethoven -why not - if there's no likelihood of witness nobbling eg a bog standard shoplifting where the shopkeeper merely requires a copy of what he's said is nicked ?
Is there a protocol in place [that we don't know about] ?

r1flyguy35
22nd Oct 2008, 20:51
A shopkeeper requires a copy to remind him of what was nicked!!! he would have a pile big enough to fill his stock cupboard by the end of the week!

I have seen a lot of rubbish on this post so far, all the usual people guessing and not actually knowing what they are talking about other than slating what they don't know and adding their ten pence worth. :ugh:

If you want to be a witness then you provide a witness statement, when and if the case ever goes to court then on the day of the hearing you will be given a copy of the statement to read and refresh your memory. What more do you want?

WorkingHard
22nd Oct 2008, 21:35
r1flyguy35, the simple answer is a copy of what I have signed there and then. I really cannot see why it is not readily given. However if that is going to be the case then I am afraid the witness staement will not be forthcoming. A question for you police men and women on here then. Do you really want our co-operation or is it simply subservience you seek? I believe it is the former but some of the responses from (supposedly) police men suggest I may be in error.

charliegolf
22nd Oct 2008, 21:43
NRU wrote:

In a sense this is true - but - it's actually a statement taken [usually] by a Police Officer,hand written by a Police Officer,in response to prompted questions by a police officer, and written in terms that are often quite alien to everyday speech.

That's my gripe- a plod with a crayon asking leading questions, and writing my answers down in capitals and stilted lingo.

In future, i won't give a statement unless i write it myself, and without prompting. People can quiz me on it later.

CG

Lost man standing
22nd Oct 2008, 22:02
This seems to be another element of the fundamental disclocation of the police from the people, a failing of the contract between the public and their law enforcement. The police work for the people, and must remember that.

In this case why do they have a copy of this and not the person who write it? Why are they not open with the public? If there is a good reason for not being open, then that should be explained; otherwise the police should be as open as reasonable.

Other cases of this dislocation are even more worrying. There have been several reported cases of the police objecting to perfectly legal filming or photography in a public place. This destroys the balance of the relationship between law enforcement and the public, especially when the public are filmed so much, and the police demand more surveilance.

Even darker is the police response to crime and to the response of ordinary people to crime. There is a contract, that the people will not take violent retribution, and in exchange the police will protect from crime and respond to public concerns. The police have broken the contract. They ignore real crime, and prosecute people who recognise the contract is broken and try to protect themselves, and persecute people for what they think and believe, regardless of them having broken no laws.

gingernut
22nd Oct 2008, 23:40
Avoid all contact with the police if at all possible, it's likely you'll end up on a "database."

The guys on the front line appear nice enough, it's the system that can't be trusted.

Whirlygig
23rd Oct 2008, 00:26
Ah well.. shouldn't have had an illegal car then I'm afraid I have no sympathy.
Really?! :rolleyes: So would that give me carte blanche to ram any car I saw that had a dodgy type-faced number plate? Don't be daft! Just because someone has a car with an illegal plate does not mean that the crime committed against their property is any the less punishable.

Cheers

Whirls

Lost man standing
23rd Oct 2008, 00:37
gc2750

What you have posted simply confirms why law enforcement is dissociated from the people it should serve in the UK. It appears to have been completely divorced from human nature.

A statement could be made in the witness's own words, with guidance as to what can be included. A statement used as a memory aid acknowledges how human memory can distort if not refreshed occasionally. Witnesses are only human.

Why do you think people "have a go at the police" now? I think you know, because you hint at it in your post.

Many of us believe that they have been politicised by the left wing. The left wing are now in government, and use the police as a means of enforcing their ideology. The police, most notably Ian Blair but there are many other cases, have agreed to do so, and therefore sacrificed their mandate which comes from independent application of justice and service of the people not political masters.

I believe the worst case of many was when the West Midlands police made a complaint against Channel 4, when they had no right ot make such a complaint and every duty to investigate the claims made in the programme concerned. It was blatant political interference with legitimate free speech, while failing in their job, which was to enforce the equally legitimate limits to free speech (incitement to violence).

So why should we trust the police, when they have broken the compact?

G-CPTN
23rd Oct 2008, 01:47
An incident occurred.
The Police received a complaint (about me) from the other party. They came to question me (not under caution) to learn my side of the story. During the discussion, I made certain comments that had not been part of the original incident. Subsequently the Police decided that there was a case to answer and I was charged. When the case reached court, the witness statements made by the other party included the details that I had revealed to the Police during the informal pre-charge discussion - details that the other party just couldn't have known unless they had been prompted by the Policeman taking their statement.
I pleaded not guilty and elected to go forward to the crown court (as was my right). This caused confusion and the CPS offered to withdraw the case in return for me being bound over to keep the peace. My solicitor advised me to accept, suggesting that he couldn't guarantee that a jury would find in my favour.
I heard afterwards that the CPS prosecutor had remarked (during the negotiations with my solicitor) that they believed that the wrong person had been in court (implying that the case had been manipulated by the Police in favour of the other party - who turned-out to be a social acquaintance of the investigating officer . . . ).

Some time later I was arrested and charged for a different incident, and, again, the evidence (in the form of the witness statements) was, again a concoction of untruths.
Again, the witness turned out to be a social acquaintance of the senior police officer. This time the case found against me (after an extended deliberation by the magistrates) and I was convicted.
Some months later, after the senior police officer had been moved out of the region, the arresting officer told me (not in front of witnesses) that he knew that I was innocent, but the senior officer had provided the evidence (there was no material evidence it all hinged on the statements made by the primary witness who claimed that they had SEEN me commit the offence and supported by a secondary witness who had not witnessed the incident but had provided a collaborative statement (of damage to property - no proof of which was demonstrated in court).

I know that I did not commit this offence, but the court believed that I did.

Can you wonder that I now have a different opinion when I hear of people protesting their innocence, whereas prior to all this I assumed that they were guilty but merely denying the truth. Travesties of justice do happen, believe me.

I've never been able to determine why the particular police officer decided that I was worthy of such treatment. Even the 'friendly' policeman couldn't find out what it was that prompted this behaviour.

I have been critical of the local police turning a blind eye to the actions of certain 'respected' citizens (who happen to be members of a dinner-party circle that includes senior police). No doubt this also involves membership of a particular society too. I made statements to the local council that there appeared to be no action taken involving regular major obstruction of pavements such that there was inadequate space for wheelchair users or mothers with pushchairs who had to move onto the highway to pass these vehicles regularly parked on the footpath outside the houses of the the vehicle owners. No prosecutions were ever made of those parking (completely) on the pavement.
Who do you complain to when the police won't take the necessary action?

parabellum
23rd Oct 2008, 04:45
Preduk - My suggestion that WorkingHard should consult a lawyer was, very obviously, so that he could have his rights as a witness, regarding his statement, explained to him from someone who would know rather than from a whole load of anecdotal stuff from the unqualified here on PPRuNe -

So, please, take your petty and uncalled for sarcasm and stick it.

Capot
23rd Oct 2008, 11:28
Parabellum..

See PREDUK's post

If you want I can try and find out the answer for you, I'm a SC Police officer in training.Says it all really. He has already absorbed the arrogance that characterises many Police officers in the UK today.

To say nothing of the institutional corruption that exists at every level from trainee to Chief Constable. Up to the Commissioner of the Met, in fact.

It won't concern you in your Oz outpost, but anyone in the UK is well advised to learn the Masonry trade to avoid any further Police harrassment, to say nothing of generating some for people you don't like.

PS..... New Thread? What's an SC Police Officer?

S****d C**t is my starter for 10.

G-CPTN
23rd Oct 2008, 13:31
What's an SC Police Officer?They're Special Constables. PoliceSpecials.com - What is a Special Constable (http://www.policespecials.com/whatisa.htm)
Sort of like TA (Territorial Army) . . .

NRU74
23rd Oct 2008, 13:35
Capot says

Says it all really. He has already absorbed the arrogance that characterises many Police officers in the UK today.


PS..... New Thread? What's an SC Police Officer?

S****d C**t is my starter for 10.I think you are being just a tad discourteous here - he- Preduk [or she] is only trying to assist the starter of this thread and ought not to be vilified for his efforts

Parapunter
23rd Oct 2008, 13:43
Nor do I see how that constitutes arrogance on the part of preduk.

Beethoven
23rd Oct 2008, 14:10
Ok so we have got from a query as to why we don't give witnesses photocopies of their statements ( as explained they are "Restricted When Complete") to insulting. That's sad but I have spent most of my career being insulted on a daily basis when only trying to do my job and help people. Won't bore anyone with the many tales but suffice to say that if we do have a contract with "the people" then myself and most of my colleagues fulfil the terms. Contrary to what some may believe, if one of my cases goes t**s up because a witness won't make a statement then I have ABSOLUTELY NO INTEREST in rescuing it by underhand means. It will be filed and I move onto the next and never ever look back. The victim may, or the suspect if your statement would provide an alibi or explanation, but not me. With due regards to this "contract", I think I have taken enough punches, threats and saliva on the general public's behalf to say that I have fulfilled my end of the bargain. I don't give copies of statements out because to the best of my knowledge IT IS NOT PERMISSIBLE. Once I am made aware it is permissible I will give people a copy, no skin off my nose.

The police has been ruined, but the frontline officers need all the support we can get, not constant bagging for things that we can't help because we are the public face of a shamefully under-resourced and undervalued organisation run by educated idiots

So, your statement is primarily EVIDENCE in criminal proceedings and that must be considered before anything else and treated accordingly.

Binoculars
23rd Oct 2008, 14:58
The police has (sic) been ruined, but the frontline officers need all the support we can get.....

I am curious to know how the police have been ruined from your perspective, and rest assured this is not a problem limited to the UK. Every person who would philosophically be on the side of the police in their almost unwinnable war on crime, especially given our ludicrous drug laws, but is then turned away by anecdotal stories such as repeated on here is one more person whose respect has to be regained.

I couldn't be a cop for millions. Dealing with ferals all day every day is the nature of the job, and it's also human nature therefore to assume that anybody who sets foot in a police station is yet another feral. The world famous "law-abiding citizen" who reports a crime and is made to feel partly responsible is another supporter walking away from their support of a job that desperately needs public support, and that is the problem police forces worldwide have to address.


gc2750, I am a serving Detective Inspector and am appalled but not surprised by the anti-police tone of this forum 'plod with a crayon'. As someone with two university degrees I take exception to this. It is like reading the 'Daily (Hate)Mail'.

I suggest you climb down from the lofty perch of having two degrees and recognise that the tone of this forum is not "anti-police" by design but by circumstance. We're not all still sixties kids saying Hate the Pigs. Most of us are reasonably mature adults these days, and the average age of most of the disillusioned posters here is about double yours. We've been around, recognised that degrees aren't everything, and tend to treat people as they treat us. It is only those who have a legitimate gripe who are posting, and they are doing that because they see the system as having let them down.

You may think that the usual "left-wing intelligensia (sic)" are all responsible. As a long term inhabitant of this forum, but someone with zero degrees, I'm here to tell you that is not the case. Listen to what people are saying rather than taking everything personally and you may come out with a better perspective.

In short, my friend, don't shoot the messenger.

Lost man standing
23rd Oct 2008, 15:32
Beethoven

You misunderstand. The compact is not fulfilled by your suffering, regretable though that is and commendable that you are willing to carry on in the job. It is fulfilled when the police actually respond to the concerns of the people, not the political ideals of thought crime. When I can call the police because someone is throwing lit fireworks into a busy highstreet in the early evening (fireworks including roman candles which throw out multiple projectiles while sitting in the road, fireworks that are going off near a pram, in front of moving cars which might swerve and hurt someone, and under parked cars) and actually get a response.

As it was I waited 15 minutes while the fireworks were still being thrown, called again, then left in disgust when two plastic policemen (PCSOs) happened by, completely by chance and oblivious to the incident. However I could just point out the place and leave them to deal with it. I left my phone number as I had witnessed this behavious and could have identified the flat from which they were thrown and the individual responsible. I was not contacted.

The compact is that police respond to our concerns, and yes put themselves in danger. In return we do not respond. Yet the police have broken the compact, and also refuse to allow us to defend ourselves. I agree that it is not the fault of front-line officers, but people still have to grasp the reality and not blindly help people who can no longer be assumed to be on the side of those who support civilised society.

sisemen
23rd Oct 2008, 17:01
Oh bugger! I agree wholeheartedly with everything that Binos has written. :ok:

Another point worth mentioning, and which is well documented and gradually beginning to gain acceptance, and that is by continuing to hound the minor road transgressors (10kph over the limit) in situations where is palpably safe and safer to do so you also lose support by those who feel aggrieved. The argument that it is saving lives and, "if you had to knock on the door of the relatives of the deceased" doesn't really wash.

Real crime and antisocial behaviour is being largely ignored in order to police easy targets who, by and large, don't spit in your face or cause you hassle. They are just Joe Blow who meekly contributes to the government coffers but makes it a lot harder for you to make your case in court when they're sitting on a jury.

The majority of law abiding public didn't suddenly go off the police and have a down on them. You had to earn that. Every cop on the beat who treats an individual with less than respect, every sergeant who backs his constable despite all the evidence that he's not done the right thing, every inspector with a "two degrees" arrogant attitude, and every Chief Constable who's shagging his subordinates (male or female) or letting his mates in the purple circle off is earning that reputation. The road back is going to be very very hard.

Capot
23rd Oct 2008, 17:42
Beethoven,

I'm sure you are one of the majority of individual Police Officers who try and do a good job.

I'm sure too that you were not trying to be funny when you wrote

As for altering the contents well I am sure it has happened but in all honesty that's not really an issue is it?

Not an issue? NOT AN ISSUE?

Of course it's an "issue", meaning problem, when statements are altered by the Police. It's a huge "issue". You seem to think that we should just turn a blind eye. That's how little you understand what people are trying to tell you. There is no longer any trust in the Police. This is the result of what the Police have done, not what the public has done.

Most of us don't think the Police are stupid ("plod with a crayon") although sometimes we wonder. We do think the Police are institutionally corrupt, and assertions like "that's not an issue" about a criminal offence confirm our worst fears.

Beethoven
23rd Oct 2008, 19:26
Good point, badly worded on my part. I am sure altering of statements must have happened, let's face it just about everything that can happen has happened and corrupt officers are no exception. What I was referring to is that it happens so rarely so as not to be an issue for the vast vast majority of cases. I can assure you that there are not many of us willing to risk our livelihoods doing something like that so I am not condoning or turning a blind eye to criminal behaviour and would not.

Nigd3
23rd Oct 2008, 20:31
Not sure if I would talk to the police or not but one thing is for sure, they are on a loser from all sides in the present climate.
Maybe the instances where the police could not respond for 15+ minutes was because they were dealing with a minor traffic incident that escalated into criminal damage and an assault between two "grown" men? Maybe the station they are based at have had their resource cut? I have no idea. Where do you draw the line at being lenient and turn a blind eye to minor offences?

I know a man who was arrested for being a complete drunken prick who, albeit accidently, gave the policeman a fat lip during his arrest. Even though the drunken man was a complete knob who deserved a good slap himself, the policeman conducted himself with unbelievable restraint, was always civil and made sure the idiot didnt walk into the cell door. As the policeman had received stitches for his lip it was now on record why, however he told the court he believed it was accidental and not to be taken into consideration.
I know this is true because the drunken idiot was.

Having just defended the police in the above, the "2 degrees" comment and other postings also smack of the "We know what we are doing, just shut up and run along, there's a good boy" type of attitude.

WorkingHard
23rd Oct 2008, 21:15
gc2750, I started this thread to ask a simple question and I very firmly resent your assertion that it was started with some other motive - IT WAS NOT. Now I do hope your 2 degrees have at least taught you the rudiments of English language and grammar so that you can understand that. As someone above said get off your tower and start listening to the people who pay you and whom you are SUPPOSED to serve but so few now believe you do serve. You tell me, what is your raison d'etre then? Next time you want my help, with the attitude you appear to display, I may be reluctant

Nigd3
24th Oct 2008, 06:26
gc2570

I have to say that I'm impressed by your meteoric rise through the police.
Constable, sergeant, detective, then detective inspector - forgive me if the order is wrong - and picking up two degrees by the age of 29!!!!!

Do you have the need to sleep like us mere mortals?

Overdrive
24th Oct 2008, 06:51
The majority of law abiding public didn't suddenly go off the police and have a down on them. You had to earn that. Every cop on the beat who treats an individual with less than respect, every sergeant who backs his constable despite all the evidence that he's not done the right thing, every inspector with a "two degrees" arrogant attitude, and every Chief Constable who's shagging his subordinates (male or female) or letting his mates in the purple circle off is earning that reputation. The road back is going to be very very hard.



All very true... and this is well realized "upstairs". Alas, there is to be no road back. "Evenin' all" and its later gestations are long consigned to the Golden Age. The major part of the frontline police force are laughably ineffective and politically hog-tied against much traditional crime, and they'll be less needed with the ever-growing surveillance and data-based system that's on the way.

Back when gc2750 was all starry eyed about joining and making a difference, what a stir would've been caused by the >20% inaccuracy in the violent crime figures (an underestimate naturally). Now, it doesn't warrant a sarcastic yawn.

The Police are now simply the fingernails of Politics. It's all about concepts and words. Be more careful what you say than what you do.

WorkingHard
24th Oct 2008, 07:16
Beethoven, I started this thread and I assure you I try not to insult anyone. I am truly appalled at some of the attitudes displayed here and really do wonder how we ended up in this mess of public attitude to our police. Please bear in mind it is in your hands only to put right the public perception.

Beethoven
24th Oct 2008, 09:01
Sorry Working Hard, deleted the post shortly after posting as knew I was onto a loser. Yes I agree that the Police and public confidence in the Police is are at an all-time low. Quite right too when only 8 of us are sent out to Police a town of 130000. There are just not the numbers to give an effective service to anybody. Without wishing to offend the general public, we do have to attend an awful lot of people who waste our time and your money by using us as a weapon in petty neighbour/ex-partner disputes. If we weren't so scared of offending the public then we would be able to do our job more effectively ie primarily catch criminals but we are expected to be social workers, paramedics, baby-sitters (mainly for adults) and all the things no-one else wants to do. One chap started shouting at me this week as the Police didn't take enough of an interest in his petty neighbour dispute (50/50 as childish as each other) and I asked him how many Police he thought was on that night...200 was his answer and there were 3 of us! for the whole town. Occasionally officers are rude to people and that is not right, some members of the public could play more of a part in making our job easier and more effective for them by also being less rude, also being less arrogant, realising that sometimes even WE can't help with certain problems, not attacking us physically and verbally on a DAILY basis. This supposed "contract" which has been postulated on here has 2 parties both of which need to respect each other (no one likes a rude officer and there is nothing more guaranteed to get an outraged citizen reaching for the phone to complain than a rude officer, often forgetting the tirade of abuse they directed at his/her way just before the alleged rudeness (I know people can post ad nauseum about the unprovoked rudeness from officers...).

I'm rambling now so will sign off...just to clarify a couple of points from my experience. Supervisors WILL NOT stick up for erring constables in the slightest, any whiff of impropriety these days leads to swift retribution from Professional Standards and possibly legal/ criminal action, any allegation of rudeness usually leads to an apology being made on behalf of the officer (often without the officers consent) and a bollocking. The other point is that someone said on here that the attitude is "we know best"...Maybe that is true and maybe, just maybe, we DO know best in police matters and if we tell you we can't give you a copy of a statement then its not just us being beligerent, its the law. Most of us are not thick (some are, but they usually end up out of harms way costing the taxpayer money from behind a desk), we don't use crayon (budget won't allow it, see previous) and many of the officers I serve/ have served with only want to do a good job for the victims and are quite brave people really, considering what can happen.

One final point, I have said it before on here, UK prisons are full and it is us that filled them on the publics behalf.

henry crun
24th Oct 2008, 10:46
If anyone wants to get a better appreciation of what the average bobby has to put up with, read "Wasting Police Time" by David Copperfield.

It is a wonder any of them can fight their way out from under the mountain of paperwork to get out of the station.

Nigd3
24th Oct 2008, 10:49
Beethoven

If you were refering to my "we know best" comment, I completely agree that you most certainly do. It was more related to certain posters attitude/responses to pertinent questions, ie "why can't I have a copy of a document that I have just signed?".

To get a brush off, no reasonable explanation and with a "we know best" attitude will always put peoples back up and descend into a slanging match.

I for one would/could not do your job and feel sorry for the majority of the police trying to do a very difficult job with the current situation with the government, legislators and the general public.

PS are you a DI like gc2570? ;)

Parapunter
24th Oct 2008, 10:55
I was chatting to a couple of coppers one Saturday night a couple of years ago when a group of yoofs walked past. One of them shouted I'm on drugs mate! Suitably emboldened, the other joined in, calling the coppers a bunch of c***s, W******s etc.

The coppers ignored it. Aghast, I asked them how they put up with that, they said and I quote: You get used to it.

I'd bite, every time if it were me.

Beethoven
24th Oct 2008, 11:10
Nigd3 sadly no, just a PC on an inner city response shift. I would not be a DI for all the tea in China as I simply don't have the brain or aptitude. Regardless of people on here taking offence at the DI's comments about his/her education, that job is NOT for the faint-hearted and the responsibility is unthinkably huge. Its not ALL the doom and gloom I have painted though and it can be a proper laugh with both colleagues and members of the public alike when taken for what it is. I for one will certainly take on board what has been said on this thread and if I do find myself creating a "them and us" situation I will keep it in check. I would obviously ask the same of the public I am dealing with.

Parapunter, usually its water off a ducks back but occasionally can rile as you know the only reason you can't deal with them is that if you do your shift will be under-resourced if anything more important comes in. Also sometimes I just have a plain bad day and then it's worse. I am also not ashamed to say that sometimes it does actually hurt my feelings!!, especially when perhaps some aspect of my physical appearance precedes the "C" word for no reason whatsoever. My mum would go mad if she heard some of the things people are going to do to her!

Best wishes,

Beet

radeng
24th Oct 2008, 12:24
I have a work colleague who is a special constable. Talking to him this morning, we worked out that IF YOU ARE LUCKY, Wiltshire with a population of aroiund 2 million, will on average have about one policeman per 10,000 head of population on duty at any on time. That's allowing for manning the few stations that are manned, court appearance, training, sickness, holidays etc.

That seems rather low to my mind. Admitting the relationship between public and police seems to be breaking down (and especially between the 'middle class' - the relatively affluent home owner) one cannot help wondering if what appears prima facie to be chronic under manning ( which is basically chronic underfunding) is really the prime cause.

Katamarino
24th Oct 2008, 14:00
What confuses me is that taxes are constantly going up, and services such as the police are constantly being cut due to lack of money. Where is all the money? Its going in as taxes, and then seemingly disappearing...?

pineridge
24th Oct 2008, 15:40
Nigd3 said......................

gc2570

I have to say that I'm impressed by your meteoric rise through the police.
Constable, sergeant, detective, then detective inspector - forgive me if the order is wrong - and picking up two degrees by the age of 29!!!!!


The Metropolitan Police had a rapid promotion programme many years ago whereby a young hopeful could join as a constable at age 19, do two years on the beat, whilst studying hard off-duty and then take the Sergeants` exam. A pass amongst the top few and a successfull interview could mean a course at Bramshill Police College in Hampshire, three years at university culminating in a law degree, and then out to the divisions at the rank of Inspector. CID course at Chelsea and Detective Inspector at the age of 29-not beyond the realms of possiblity.

Nigd3
24th Oct 2008, 15:57
pineridge
I have to addmit I was a touch sceptical about the DI at 29 but it is of course not impossible.

However the 2nd degree in your summaried career progression would have been taken when?

I didnt think a DI, or a DS/DC would have enough time to undertake a part time degree off duty.

If all is true with gc2570 claims, then fair do's to him, he's a very hard working bloke.

Two's in
24th Oct 2008, 20:05
Police service recruitment - Could You? - Police officers - What's the scheme like? (http://www.policecouldyou.co.uk/officers/hpds/whats_it_like.html)



The high potential development scheme is currently being revised by the National Policing Improvement Agency (NPIA). The revised scheme will launch in April 2008.

If you would like any further information, please contact the Police Leadership Services team at the NPIA on 020 7021 7070.

Your police career is really on the fast track once you get onto the high potential development scheme.

If you're accepted onto the high potential development scheme (HPD), you will spend two years ‘on probation' as a police constable, after which you will have the opportunity to rise to the level of sergeant, perhaps managing a team of officers on the beat.

Later, you may progress to inspector level, where you will need to exhibit excellent management and policing skills. You would typically be managing teams of officers, and organising and supervising their work. Throughout your early career you'll take training designed to help you develop particular skills, and to experience the tactical and strategic challenges of leadership.

overfly
24th Oct 2008, 21:24
>>>What confuses me is that taxes are constantly going up, and services such as the police are constantly being cut due to lack of money. Where is all the money? Its going in as taxes, and then seemingly disappearing...?

benefits, benefits and more benefits.
Look the numbers up (ONS) - you will be horrified

None of the above
25th Oct 2008, 12:27
A number of posters have referred to the police being under funded.
Police funding has been increased mightily over recent years. The question that must be asked is 'what do they do with the money'?

From the Parliamentary Home Affairs Committee:

“We know the police have had a major increase in funding over the last decade but it is much more difficult to tell what they have done with it".

Link (http://www.parliament.uk/parliamentary_committees/home_affairs_committee/hacpn070718no37.cfm)

Beethoven
26th Oct 2008, 10:03
Absolutely true, but I think I referred to the Police as being "under-resourced". Vast amounts of money are wasted by the setting up of many mickey-mouse departments who serve only to send critical emails to frontline officers and cost the tax-payer a fortune. They are also useful for putting up posters in Police stations telling the real police officers how badly they are doing and highlighting our "detection" figures in red and threatening to hold us to account if it doesn't improve. This is where our taxes are going. Response officers can't even find a parking space at most nicks due to the huge number of these departments. A huge number of useless officers and non-police staff need to be axed forthwith to be replaced by people who actually want to do the job. Oh if I were in charge:E

WorkingHard
26th Oct 2008, 11:34
And if you were in charge Beethoven could I have a copy of my statement please (if I were to make one of course)?

Scumbag O'Riley
26th Oct 2008, 12:46
The major problem with making a witness statement is that it may result in you having to testify in court as a witness. That is when they really start to **** you about. It's a difficult one. On one hand you sort of have a moral duty to help out the victim, as the next victim could be you. One the other hand the criminal justice system really has no respect for anybody outside of their narrow band of incompetants. Would I be a witness again? Well, I suppose I would be, but if they started any of their nonsense again then I would just pull out and tell them to sod off. Only loser is the victim.

And where has all the billions of our money gone in the public services ? On salaries of course with little or no increase in productivity to show for it. Increased salaries mean increased final salary pension payments. Time to do some major hacking on the public payroll I say, and if that means getting rid of a load of police officers who refuse to have a proper attitude towards the decent public person going out of his way to make a witness statement then so be it.

Beethoven
26th Oct 2008, 15:13
Working Hard, of course you may. With all the money that would be saved you could have as many copies as you like...

WorkingHard
26th Oct 2008, 17:51
Beethoven thank you for lightening this thread a little. It is a shame that there appears to be e plethora of "rule booke coppers" around these days. Good luck to all those who have a sense of duty and have proper moral values.

Flame Lily FX
26th Oct 2008, 18:31
YouTube - The Police - Don't Stand So Close To Me: Video (http://au.youtube.com/watch?v=gXU8kCrRHJY)

A police statement! :p

RatherBeFlying
27th Oct 2008, 01:47
I once very gently interrupted an assault upon a woman in the subway and identified the perp to the authorities; then gave my statement.

Years passed as the perp had trouble retaining a lawyer or showing up or the new lawyer needed time to prepare:ugh:

But finally one day we had the trial and my statement was suddenly thrust upon me while I was on the stand. It was not much good for refreshing my memory as I could barely read the plod's handwriting:}

The lead copper and I talked on the subway back to our jobs; he was relieved that the trial was finally held so that he could go into retirement. The perp was one of his regular customers and he was glad to be done with him;)

Ladymogsy
11th Jan 2018, 16:20
I am currently in a situation, where I gave a statement, witnessing the actions of a defendant in an abh case, breach his bail conditions, the victim being with me at the time.

The defendant pleaded guilty to the breach. I am not being called as a witness in the abh case. However, the defendant has made it clear on social media, that after the abh trial, he will be posting the statements.

The CPS, superintendent, witness welfare officers and the PCs involved have all stated, the defendant is allowed to have posession of the statements. The only thing to do is give another statement based on witness intimidation. Really???

Tashengurt
11th Jan 2018, 21:34
As part of disclosure the defence will be given copies of statements although these may be sanitised if any parts are deemed sensitive. They don't get the reverse page with the witnesses personal details on.
I'm sure you can Google witness intimidation and decide yourself if their behaviour amounts to such.

olympus
12th Jan 2018, 13:59
I have recently been involved with the police as a potential witness in a murder case. In order to take my statement two DCs (one male one female) had to drive from an adjacent county and it took several telephone conversations to arrange a mutually convenient date and time. During one of the calls I offered to compose my statement and email it to them in order to save their (and my) time but this was not acceptable as it apparently had to be taken down by one of the officers in person. I did feel that there was an element of his words rather than mine being used but I did however agree with the final version and duly signed it and the aerial (drone) shots of the scene. (I didn't ask for copies).

I have to say that I was most impressed with the thoroughness with which the two DCs went about their task - my boots and outer clothing worn on the day were taken away for examination (and returned promptly), fur samples from my dogs were taken, copies of the tread pattern from my vehicle etc etc and at no time were they anything other than friendly, polite and professional.

Pontius Navigator
12th Jan 2018, 14:09
Olympus, no imputation, but their behaviour in that last sentence is a known interrogation technique :)

You got soft cop soft cop

Sallyann1234
12th Jan 2018, 14:46
At my last house I was approached by police to allow them to use a back bedroom as an observation point for a suspected drug dealer. They were there for two days before raiding the place. They were very friendly, but the only mark of appreciation I received afterwards was a bottle of "British Sherry".

VP959
12th Jan 2018, 15:21
My experience with the police in the past few years has been mixed. Sometimes they have been outstandingly good at their job, very professional, and even going out of their way to make sure I was OK (as in the phone calls I received to update me and ask if I was doing OK, or if they could help by passing me a list of counselling services after I'd nearly killed a runner, crossing a dual carriageway - not my fault at all).

Other times they've been patently incompetent, as I related here in this post: https://www.pprune.org/jet-blast/516688-dashboard-cameras-7.html?highlight=dashcam#post8348086


In defence of the latter lot, they were, apparently, Specials, who had decided to set up a road side random stop to check for drink-drivers, without telling their Traffic Division colleagues, Judging from the letter I received from an inspector in Traffic I rather suspect these guys were give a bit of "re-training"..............

This is a link to the post describing the outcome: https://www.pprune.org/jet-blast/516688-dashboard-cameras-9.html?highlight=dashcam#post8360002

Gertrude the Wombat
12th Jan 2018, 17:21
In defence of the latter lot, they were, apparently, Specials
I once spent a shift with some Specials, and those two were very good. Especially the woman, in her 30s, day job as a secretary, her idea of a Friday night out was to leave the babies with her husband and go out on patrol!

reynoldsno1
12th Jan 2018, 23:35
Since nearly everyone has a mobile phone these days, and they nearly all have a recording device, what is the view on the the witness recording the taking of the statement - especially if it's in your own home?

G0ULI
13th Jan 2018, 03:46
Perfectly acceptable to record what you want, so long as all parties concerned are advised and consent to the events are being recorded. Police routinely record interviews held in police premises, so if they are unhappy with you recording events in your own home, no doubt they will be happy to take you down to the station to do it properly! :ouch: :} :ok:

KelvinD
13th Jan 2018, 06:25
An interesting topic. Back in the mists of time, perhaps 1959 or 1960, my father was driving home from work and was waiting at a junction, about to join an 'A' road, when the heard an almighty bang. As he joined the 'A' road, he could see the wreckage of 2 Jaguars. He stopped to see what could be done but the occupants were all either dead or dying and the cars had obviously hit each other head on. One car carried 2 middle aged couples who were just coming to the end of a rally (they were about 1 mile from the finish) and the other was carrying either 3 or 4 teenagers. Bodies were strewn everywhere, with one girl having gone from the back seat of her car, through 2 windscreens and out through the small rear window of the other car. All her clothing had been stripped off on that journey and she was obviously dead. After the police had arrived on scene and taken over, Dad came home and he was visibly very shaken, with a neighbour giving him some rum to settle his nerves. He had previously done 2 spells in the R.N. and was used to scenes of death & destruction but this hit him quite hard.
A few days after the accident, which made headline news in most of the press, the police appealed for witnesses. Although my Dad had given a statement at the scene, he went along to the police station and asked if he could be of further help. His was the only other vehicle anywhere near the scene at the time. The Sergeant at the desk was quite rude to him and told him to sod off, they didn't want anything more from him.
Dad came to the conclusion, subsequently borne out at the inquest, that despite Dad's observation that the culprit was most likely the one carrying the rallying couples, the police seemed most anxious to put the blame on the driver of the other car, a teenager who had apparently taken his father's car without permission and was joyriding. Dad's statement carried no weight at the inquest (in fact I think it was never brought in). What the plod didn't know was that my father had recently become a magistrate and from that day forward he would never take the evidence of a lone policeman as honest. Only if a policeman gave evidence that was corroborated by others would he take any notice of the police. I found it quite shocking that my father's attitude to the police had been so radically affected by this. Prior to this, he had been a proper "the police must be listened to" type of bloke.

VP959
13th Jan 2018, 10:42
Perfectly acceptable to record what you want, so long as all parties concerned are advised and consent to the events are being recorded. Police routinely record interviews held in police premises, so if they are unhappy with you recording events in your own home, no doubt they will be happy to take you down to the station to do it properly! :ouch: :} :ok:

Which raises an interesting point if, like me, you always drive with a dash cam running. Mine records HD video and audio all the time the car is turned on, and for 5 minutes after the car is turned off. As the car can often be in electric mode, especially when stationary, I rarely bother to turn it off when just stopping for a while and staying in the car, as was the case with my encounter with the unlawful breath test guys.

During that encounter I'd forgotten the thing was recording (having had one for years now you do just tend to forget it's on all the time). Right at the end of the encounter I remembered, and informed the police officers that the camera had been running the whole time, but that was only after the event.

Had they objected I suspect they could have asked me to delete the recording, or perhaps even confiscated the camera, but they didn't, which I assumed, rightly or wrongly, gave me consent to keep it and publish it on YouTube.

I didn't set out to deliberately record this encounter, it was accidental, as I didn't think to turn the dashcam off (it switches on and off automatically when the car powers up or down).

Where do people stand who have dashcams, cyclecams, CCTV etc, where something might be inadvertently recorded? They cannot ask for permission to record in advance, so is it OK to just state that something has been recorded after the event, and wait to see the response?

Tashengurt
13th Jan 2018, 10:49
It's all very well offering to provide your own statement but they are more than just the witnesses account.
How many people would know to include ADVOCAT where identification was an issue? Know which points to prove to cover or what lines of defence may need to be addressed or negated?
That's the problem with Policing. Everyone thinks they know how it's done and what should be done because they've watched Morse or Minority report.
I tire of explaining that we can't track every individual everywhere through CCTV or their phones.

Tashengurt
13th Jan 2018, 10:55
VP959
Assuming you're in the UK the Police have no power to make you delete your recording or confiscate your device.
Nor should they be concerned about being recorded.

VP959
13th Jan 2018, 11:14
VP959
Assuming you're in the UK the Police have no power to make you delete your recording or confiscate your device.
Nor should they be concerned about being recorded.


Thanks for that, it's reassuring to know, especially as I'd need to find and dig the manual out to work out how to turn it off manually, as I've long since forgotten................

Pontius Navigator
13th Jan 2018, 17:49
VP, household webcams abound too. I read last year that if your cameras capture images in public areas then, as with businesses, they should be registered, their use displayed and contact phone numbers listed.

I think where they only record images of people on your private property you are OK.

This would seem to suggest dashcam recording should also fall within the FOR remit.

DaveReidUK
13th Jan 2018, 18:41
VP, household webcams abound too. I read last year that if your cameras capture images in public areas then, as with businesses, they should be registered, their use displayed and contact phone numbers listed.

You don't need anyone's permission to film or photograph in public places.

http://www.theiac.org.uk/resourcesnew/filming-in-public/ACPO_Guidance_PhotographsPublicPlaces.pdf

VP959
13th Jan 2018, 19:38
VP, household webcams abound too. I read last year that if your cameras capture images in public areas then, as with businesses, they should be registered, their use displayed and contact phone numbers listed.

I think where they only record images of people on your private property you are OK.

This would seem to suggest dashcam recording should also fall within the FOR remit.

Interesting. When we had CCTV installed at the new house the guys installing the cameras were pretty careful to make sure that the field of view of each camera only included our own land, plus parts of the lane in the distance. I remember them being quite careful about this, and making sure that the cameras didn't look into any neighbouring property.

This all went for a ball of chalk when the neighbour on the opposite side of the lane from us, who's house is a couple of metres lower, decided to cut down the high leylandii hedge along his side of the stream the other side of the lane. A consequence of this is that our front door CCTV camera now has a very clear view into their teenage daughter's bedroom. As it has motion detection, it often records videos that I strongly suspect may be regarded as somewhat suspect, as the girl in question seems to have no regard for her own privacy and rarely bothers to pull her curtains.

There's no way that the front door CCTV camera can be repositioned to avoid this, as if the camera is pointing anywhere at the inside of our front door, it now has a clear view of the window opposite. We've ordered some (very expensive) mature trees to plant as a screen, that should arrive any day now, but my view is that it's not me that's caused the privacy issue, it's the neighbour, but cutting down the high hedge that screened his house from ours, so I blowed if I'm going to do more than I need to in order to fix things. It's costing us a small fortune to plant the trees as it is.

Pontius Navigator
13th Jan 2018, 19:45
Dave one would have thought so but you will see VP's post supports my comment.

VP, my camera software, while covering one area, say your neighbour's bedroom window, has an option to limit the alarm area. You could exclude the window as trigger but no of course the window itself. In my case the road outside my gate is excluded but anyone crossing the gate threshold steps into the trigger area.

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/libertycentral/2010/aug/31/householders-cctv-public-highway-film

This seems to support your right to use CCTV but equally is open to challenge especially in VP's case.

G-CPTN
13th Jan 2018, 19:51
Interesting. When we had CCTV installed at the new house the guys installing the cameras were pretty careful to make sure that the field of view of each camera only included our own land, plus parts of the lane in the distance. I remember them being quite careful about this, and making sure that the cameras didn't look into any neighbouring property.

Public open space is space where the public have free access.
Photography from and to POS is permitted.

Photographing private land and property is more contentious, although if done from POS is permitted (ask the paparazzi), however, targetting a window of a young lady is 'questionable' (although I realise your situation is not intentional).

Gordy
13th Jan 2018, 20:22
Although this is the US, I am sure the same can be applied in the UK. Here is my advice:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d-7o9xYp7eE&t=16s

Gertrude the Wombat
13th Jan 2018, 20:57
A consequence of this is that our front door CCTV camera now has a very clear view into their teenage daughter's bedroom.
A real public sector CCTV system knows where bedroom windows are, and blacks them out if you pan over them, and records the fact that you've panned over them, so that if you want to keep your job you have to write and sign a log entry saying why you do so, and it had better be a good excuse. (On the occasion I witnessed this the log entry was written as "demonstrating feature to visitors".

VP959
13th Jan 2018, 21:39
I can (and have) selected the motion detection area on this camera so that it is not triggered by movement in that area, which means that it only records that area when the recorder is activated by motion near our front door in other areas. It's not ideal, as it partly disables motion detection right where we really could use it.

The problem should be fixed as soon as the trees are planted in the next month or so. I did warn the neighbour of the problem, he seemed pretty laid back about it and said he'd have a word with his daughter, as that window is now very clearly visible from the conservatory of the house behind us and the front room of the house to the other side.

Sallyann1234
13th Jan 2018, 22:51
The Information Commissioner has a reference document on CCTV used on private premises.
https://ico.org.uk/for-the-public/cctv-on-your-property/

Pontius Navigator
14th Jan 2018, 08:26
SallyAnn, thank you. I think the security bit out a gotcha, what if you recording device is your phone or laptop.

We had cause to call the police who immediately reacted in response to a 999 call. We were in Hampshire and our house in Lincolnshire. The CCTV showed our house had been entered and camera angle changed. We saw the strange car on the drive and an arm on the camera.

Our local police reacted within 20 minutes of the call.

All was well, our daughter had made an unannounced trip from Germany.

VP959
14th Jan 2018, 09:38
The Information Commissioner has a reference document on CCTV used on private premises.
https://ico.org.uk/for-the-public/cctv-on-your-property/

Thanks very much for that, it's very useful. It looks like I'm complying with the rules at the moment, by having taken steps to avoid recordings triggered by that area, by keeping the recorder and monitor in a locked area, where no one else has easy access, by informing the neighbour of the problem inadvertently created by him cutting down his hedge (our CCTV had been running OK for 18 months before this and was unable to view this window) and by our plans to replace the screening that the hedge provided by a row of tall trees very shortly.

In terms of camera positioning, the main objective initially was to deter local kids from using our drive as a skate park when we're out, plus provide limited security coverage at night, in what is a "dark skies" area where there is no street lighting and we are dissuaded from putting up any outside lights (everyone in the village walks around with a torch!).

The major crime risk is low, the main problem locally is petty theft from outbuildings, stealing mowers, petrol, bicycles etc, so the cameras are primarily aimed at those areas plus the entrance and all have IR illumination to give a decent night vision capability. The one on the front door, which is inside the house, was suggested by the security firm, on the basis that the area has a fairly high level of "distraction crime", probably because there are a fair percentage of older people living here.

artschool
14th Jan 2018, 10:48
Although this is the US, I am sure the same can be applied in the UK. Here is my advice:


really good video to watch.

I once gave a statement to the police regarding a burglary I had witnessed. only to have one of the subjects in the statement come knocking on my door to discuss it.

result, no more talking to the police.

Sallyann1234
14th Jan 2018, 10:56
Our cameras look towards the road, diagonally across the neighbours' front gardens on both sides - with their prior agreement of course. The houses across the road are too far away for any windows to be significantly overlooked.
Besides any security benefit, it's useful when we are away to be able to check whether deliveries have been made, wheelie bins left on the pavement etc.

skydiver69
14th Jan 2018, 11:26
really good video to watch.

I once gave a statement to the police regarding a burglary I had witnessed. only to have one of the subjects in the statement come knocking on my door to discuss it.

result, no more talking to the police.


Statements are disclosed to the defence but as someone pointed out earlier in the thread, personal details are left out. The trouble with that is that some view points are easily identified from the contents of the statement, however if the witness does have someone knocking on their door that is harassment or witness intimidation so the Police need informing. The police can't do anything if they don't know there is a problem.

Pontius Navigator
14th Jan 2018, 17:34
Skydiver by then it many be too late as the subject may have a more persuasive argument than the police, not least they know where you and your's live and can give you one to one attention unlike the police.

glad rag
14th Jan 2018, 18:13
In my area, there is a householder who has a cctv camera pointed at the pavement to cover the small car that he habitually parks fully along the width of the pavement forcing pedestrians to step into the road to pass, he does this as his garage driveway [which is just over a cars length] is already full of cars!!
what a
>>>>>>>>c==t<<<<<<<<<<<

Pontius Navigator
14th Jan 2018, 18:21
GR,large 8x4 sheet, sneak up to car,leave note, depart.

In the next county you will be prosecuted for parking on pavement.

skydiver69
14th Jan 2018, 20:35
Skydiver by then it many be too late as the subject may have a more persuasive argument than the police, not least they know where you and your's live and can give you one to one attention unlike the police.

I understand that but much of the CJS would grind to a halt if witnesses stopped giving statements because of a fear of reprisals. As a DC I rely on witnesses to be able to do my job and often have some frank conversations with people about safety and what we can do to protect them if a suspect turns nasty. Thankfully witness intimidation is rare.

Pontius Navigator
14th Jan 2018, 20:38
SD, I agree but paramount is the need to ensure witness security as much as possible.

Gertrude the Wombat
14th Jan 2018, 20:40
As a DC I rely on witnesses to be able to do my job
A couple of police knock at the door, and ask for the lad. I call upstairs. He appears to have disappeared.

Eventually I find him in the Wendy house at the bottom of the garden (which he hasn't ventured near for several years). "The police have come to take a statement from you about so-and-so" I say. "That's fine", he says, and comes into the house and gives the statement.

I didn't ask him what else the police might have been after him for, such that he thought it best to hide when he saw them arriving at the front door.

G-CPTN
14th Jan 2018, 21:07
Was it appropriate for the police to reveal their intent to you?
What about confidentiality?

Gertrude the Wombat
14th Jan 2018, 21:22
Was it appropriate for the police to reveal their intent to you?
What about confidentiality?
It worked, though. If they hadn't told me what they wanted, the kid might have remained hidden and not made the statement. (He'd been a witness to an assault. There may or may not also have been some weed at the same party, but the police were, quite reasonably in my view, dealing with the more important issue.)

They probably have rules, anyway, about interviewing children - they're probably supposed to tell the parents what they're up to.

artschool
14th Jan 2018, 21:32
Statements are disclosed to the defence but as someone pointed out earlier in the thread, personal details are left out. The trouble with that is that some view points are easily identified from the contents of the statement, however if the witness does have someone knocking on their door that is harassment or witness intimidation so the Police need informing. The police can't do anything if they don't know there is a problem.

I called the officer and she happily admitted giving my details out to the owner of the building. only problem was that it turns out he was fiddling the insurance and basically was trying to see if I could ID him :eek:

funfly
15th Jan 2018, 14:20
I think you will find that it is not illegal to park on a pavement, however it is against the law to drive on a pavement, correct me if you know different.
(It is, of course, OK to drive over a pavement to allow access to your own property)

G-CPTN
15th Jan 2018, 14:34
PARKING ON THE PAVEMENT LAW (https://www.drivingtesttips.biz/parking-on-pavement.html).

funfly
15th Jan 2018, 14:43
G-CPTN, thanks for that reference.

Currently as the law stands, it is not illegal to park on pavements in areas that do not have pavement parking restriction signs erected by the local council. This of course excludes areas that are outlined in the Highway Code as being illegal such a double yellow lines or zigzag lines near a pedestrian crossing for example.

Apart, as I read it, from London

G-CPTN
15th Jan 2018, 14:52
There is, of course, the chestnut as to whether it is allowed to park 'beyond' double yellow lines - in my village there is a street with pavements wide enough for a car to park and leave room for pedestrians to pass but there are double yellow lines along the edge of the highway.
The police ignore the pavement-parkers.

Sallyann1234
15th Jan 2018, 16:38
(It is, of course, OK to drive over a pavement to allow access to your own property)
Only if the local council has approved a crossover and a dropped kerb.

Pontius Navigator
15th Jan 2018, 17:08
Funfly, read the preceding paragraph. If still in doubt park in Grimsby.