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.
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.
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
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.
vonhosen wrote:Sign of the times & the levels of evidence required now days.
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
MGF wrote: however it may well adversely affect the employer/employee relationship.
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?
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.
vonhosen wrote:Sign of the times & the levels of evidence required now days.
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.
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.
Return to General Car Chat Forum
Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot] and 33 guests