ADUK Archive

I see no difference between that and a police officer standing at the side of the road with a hand held zoom lens video camera or a standard still shot camera.

The person (officer) still has to SEE the incident in order to record it.

There is not an ongoing recording which is looked at later - it only records when the operater holds the record trigger.

It would be too much data storage to record and store the lot for future use - like the cctv on the motorways, the cameras are always there but do not record unless an operator chooses to do so in order to save a specific incident.

The added bonus is that it still leaves discression in the hands of the officer at the scene.

Driver fiddling with radio - no danger around - no prosecution

Driver fiddling with radio - hazards present - GOTCHA

ROG wrote:I see no difference between that and a police officer standing at the side of the road with a hand held zoom lens video camera or a standard still shot camera.

The difference is that this technology and operation is designed specifically to its purpose, and therefore I am worried that there may be a factor of seeking to justify its own existence.

Custom24 wrote:

ROG wrote:I see no difference between that and a police officer standing at the side of the road with a hand held zoom lens video camera or a standard still shot camera.

The difference is that this technology and operation is designed specifically to its purpose, and therefore I am worried that there may be a factor of seeking to justify its own existence.

What's the thing that we hear now from those accused of offences when stopped by a Police car ?

They complain if it isn't caught on Provida & what purpose was Provida designed for ?

I can sympathise with the purpose of it and the need to record evidence, or to raise the police's profile. It's just the whole camera thing that bothers me, I think it will just be perceived as yet another £££ generator by most.

I'll adopt my favourite position, on the fence

Provida is one of the arsenal of tools in a Police car - the car and officer can be used for other purposes at the drop of a hat. From the linked video, this does not look like the case with the technology being piloted.

Jonathan wrote:I can sympathise with the purpose of it and the need to record evidence, or to raise the police's profile. It's just the whole camera thing that bothers me, I think it will just be perceived as yet another £££ generator by most.

I'll adopt my favourite position, on the fence

Police officers are now getting cameras attached to them in order to record their interactions with people.

Sign of the times & the levels of evidence required now days.

vonhosen wrote:

Jonathan wrote:I can sympathise with the purpose of it and the need to record evidence, or to raise the police's profile. It's just the whole camera thing that bothers me, I think it will just be perceived as yet another £££ generator by most.

I'll adopt my favourite position, on the fence

Police officers are now getting cameras attached to them in order to record their interactions with people.

This should reduce the amount of assaults by Police on members of the public and raise standards of Police conduct in general however it may well adversely affect the employer/employee relationship.

vonhosen wrote:Sign of the times & the levels of evidence required now days.

Or an indication of the Police prosecuting more and more minor offences than in the past?






I agree with Rog on this one. The camera is not indiscriminately monitoring drivers but used to provide evidence where there is suspicion of an offence being committed. That to me is the important distinction. It also focuses on bad driving rather than merely speeding which has to be welcome although there is a possibility it may be used merely to catch people using their mobile phones.

MGF wrote:

vonhosen wrote:

Jonathan wrote:I can sympathise with the purpose of it and the need to record evidence, or to raise the police's profile. It's just the whole camera thing that bothers me, I think it will just be perceived as yet another £££ generator by most.

I'll adopt my favourite position, on the fence

Police officers are now getting cameras attached to them in order to record their interactions with people.

This should reduce the amount of assaults by Police on members of the public and raise standards of Police conduct in general

A good thing then.
Of course it will also provide evidence of unacceptable behaviour by any party.

MGF wrote: however it may well adversely affect the employer/employee relationship.

And it may positively affect it.

MGF wrote:

vonhosen wrote:Sign of the times & the levels of evidence required now days.

Or an indication of the Police prosecuting more and more minor offences than in the past?

It would appear to me that the Police are keen to off load as much 'dealing with minor offences' as possible to other agencies, so that they may concentrate on priorities.

But is this what officers would prefer to do or what they are actually doing?

Over the last 15 - 20 years we have seen a significant trend in admitting evidence to trial that would previously not have been admitted so I am surprised it is becoming more difficult to convict.

MGF wrote:But is this what officers would prefer to do or what they are actually doing?

Over the last 15 - 20 years we have seen a significant trend in admitting evidence to trial that would previously not have been admitted so I am surprised it is becoming more difficult to convict.

You'll have to expand on that, because I'm not sure what you are getting at.

Is it the case that officers would merely prefer not to be dealing with minor offences or that they are, as a matter of fact, not dealing with more than they were in the past.

vonhosen wrote:Sign of the times & the levels of evidence required now days.

Are you saying more evidence is needed to convict nowadays than in the past? If so that would be very surprising.

It may be the case that Police evidence is considered less reliable nowadays than it was in the past. That I can believe.

MGF wrote:Is it the case that officers would merely prefer not to be dealing with minor offences or that they are, as a matter of fact, not dealing with more than they were in the past.

The Police as a service have off loaded a lot of minor matters & don't deal with them at all. They have given them to other agencies. As time goes by the list grows.

MGF wrote:

vonhosen wrote:Sign of the times & the levels of evidence required now days.

Are you saying more evidence is needed to convict nowadays than in the past? If so that would be very surprising.

It may be the case that Police evidence is considered less reliable nowadays than it was in the past. That I can believe.

Yes.

I am of the opinion that an officer's spoken testimony carried more weight in a court room in years gone by than now. As a result of that, where ever possible, strong corroborative evidence should be used & video can provide strong corroborative evidence to support that spoken testimony.

I agree. In the past Police officers' testimony was given too much weight by the courts, particularly Magistrate's courts. People tended to give them too much credit merely because they were Police officers rather than partial prosecution witnesses.

In my opinion everyone benefits from the use of good corroborating evidence so these developments are positive.

Obviously we can't complain too much about the use of cameras if we can't rely wholly on Police testimonial evidence which is why I am not too concerned about this use of CCTV.