Should All Police Officers Have Chest-Mounted Cameras?

Forbiddenbiker said:
Cool way to sort the wheat from the chaff I think.... In LA over the pond a few forces have been doing it, hits are up and statistics show a massive drop in complaints against officers.

But the cynic in me has already decided the videos captured will probably go missing when we want them as evidence....so we'll have to carry our own.

In the meantime this idea could seriously help our officers gather evidence and defend themselves against malicious accusation.

Or is this a bad idea?
Click to expand...

Seems rather unfair isn't it?

If we try to take photos of police officers whom we think is doing a duty outside the law. Say a police car parked in a disabled parking bay, even if the blue lights is not on and the officer just popped in to a local cafe for a cup of coffee, we would be booked for taking photos of the police car. Maybe even in rare cases if we were to caught an officer in the act, like say a police officer beating someone, we could be arrested for taking photos of the officer. It's becoming harder and worrying to try to take photos of police officers up to something no good, to use as evidence against them.

Yet the police can use those sort of cameras to film us and use as evidence against us!!!

What about their control of the images? They can delete the video clips and caim that the camera's battery went dead. So their own video cameras can't even be used againt them. Remember that time when the police shot the wrong man in the London Underground, and oddly enough the CCTV cameras were all out of order?
 
Major Eazy said:
If we try ]o take photos of police officers whom we think is doing a duty outside the law. Say a police car parked in a disabled parking bay, even if the blue lights is not on and the officer just popped in to a local cafe for a cup of coffee, we would be booked for taking photos of the police car.
Click to expand...

How is that possible if it's not an offence?

Major Eazy said:
we could be arrested for taking photos of the officer.
Click to expand...

No. You can only be arrested for an arrestable offence.


Steve.
 
Last edited:
Steve, I have a feeling that Major Eazy is not UK based.......
 
Video is far harder to fake though. Obviously it can be done but at a cost. I think it's only fairly recently that digital stills have been allowable as evidence but video has been for longer.
 
I would agree with body cameras.
If I'd had one 90% of my complaints wouldn't have been complaints. A large number of complaints are not justified. Some are not against the officer per sae, more policy or procedure, those wouldn't go away. Some are 'tactical'. Making a complaint can weaken the prosecution case. Some are malicious and some are genuine. Recordings would help Police Officers in 2 of the 4 cases, and the complainant in the last.
Would it be used one sided? Probably not no. Yes, it would have to be tendered in evidence if it captured someone commit an offence, but thats no different to CCTV. Could it be used by an officer for deformation proceedings? yes it could, but thats fair and reasonable as it would also be used for Police misconduct.
The cost could be paid for by the reduction in complaints, which are very expensive to investigate, and I'm sure the numbers made would reduce hugely.

The storage might be an issue, as not only do the Police as a Public body have to comply with the data protection act, they also would have to show that the recordings are tampr proof, otherwise it's a wast of time.
But thats not an insurmountable problem even for the biggest police forces.

Would it have made much difference with Duggan? If it had shown what the Police Officers claim, then yes, of course it would. If it hadn't then by now the officer would be explaining that, (remember its the officers perception of what he had and that it was a threat, not necessarily what he did have or what he intended to do).
 
Blimey we really are all on the same boat on this one, even me and bernie! :D ...no group hugging please, yulk!

Yesterday the Mayor of London announced he was funding this idea saying “sunlight is the best disinfectant”

I see a small amount of cross talk between the lines in this Telegraph article but generally the positive aims of management seems to concur.

If, and its a big IF isn't it....If we could use them to full potential as Boris suggests with that phrase I think, ie, All parties concerned get obvious clear access all of the time and faults being equal. I think that could give us the full loaf rather than putting up with half and inevitable division that we are/should be trying to counter, assuming that is, the police force want their officers to be respected for their actions and public examples... both defending false accusation, supportive evidence or and the courage to admit mistake or poor example ...rather than, the belligerent misuse of authority and 'cover ups' that many numbers have, and are being, criticised for or worse.
(I know I've twisted that half loaf thing around from Arclight, I just like'd it)

I'm slightly frustrated at the sentence 'Sir Bernard said maintaining trust between the police and the public was crucial after the Plebgate scandal.' I think its a badly written snippet added though ...but if not and part of the conversation quoted, well cynically Im thinking, has he not noticed all of the problems before this? or is he just sucking bottoms now it might affect his career prospects. ....doh!

Major Eazy said:
Yet the police can use those sort of cameras to film us and use as evidence against us!!!

What about their control of the images? They can delete the video clips and claim that the camera's battery went dead. So their own video cameras can't even be used againt them. Remember that time when the police shot the wrong man in the London Underground, and oddly enough the CCTV cameras were all out of order?
Click to expand...

Im with you fella, but its been on the cards for a long time now, it is happening as some have said ....But I agree, if they use them purely or biasedly as evidence or defence for themselves only. Id be very worried about the general public taking that as signature for that of which they are accused.

It could be I think the perfect solution to gain respect, or it could be the nail in the coffin if used badly.
 
Last edited:
Im with you fella, but its been on the cards for a long time now, it is happening as some have said ....But I agree, if they use them purely or biasedly as evidence or defence for themselves only.
Click to expand...

It would be impossible to do that.

Once issued, the existence becomes common knowledge, and anything recorded on them would have to be disclosed to any defence in any prosecution. Yes, it's very easy to make the claim that "Oh Police would lose the video" or "They wouldn't admit it existed". But that is in no ones interest, and an attitude that owes much more to urban myth than reality.

Like all big firms the Police are fairly inefficient in the administration departments, and things do get lost, and sometimes things are wrongly accounted for. It happens because people are involved, and not, with very few exceptions as a desire to suppress evidence.

In any case, as I said, if this is done correctly, and not on the cheap as it likely, it's perfectly possible to prevent any 'abuse', admin cock ups and error.
 
You do realise that your 'impossible to do that' statement contradicts with bits of your post Bernie!
Clearly it would be possible, Its in no ones interests you said, yet we all know its in the the polices interest to look as if they are acting professionally at all times. The police have been caught lying, one officer has just admitted it over the plebgate thing. Large organisations USE that inefficiency excuse to defend themselves but its not necessarily the truth.

Few exceptions you say, yes maybe, and far between may be, but certainly not impossible.
 
Forbiddenbiker said:
one officer has just admitted it over the plebgate thing.
Click to expand...

Mistakes happen, after all the other officers there didn't even realise that that officer wasn't present and so couldn't have heard what he claimed! :rolleyes:
 
I like the idea.
The more recording devices the better when there are police around.
Bad things are much less likely to happen.
I just hope they make a humungous effort to make the footage available to all concerned when it would be in the police's interest to make it disappear.
 
Adam

The difference is, having working in the aforementioned "Big Firm", I know that it does happen!

But, thats not actually what I meant.

What was said is this

.But I agree, if they use them purely or biasedly as evidence or defence for themselves only.
Click to expand...

And my impossible statement is in relation to that. Police cannot just keep evidence for their own ends, and not admit it exists. Besides, as I said, its in no ones interest. If cameras are issued, even the dimmest Solicitor is going to realise that there should be a video, and is going to demand it. Now, the force concerned might well loose one or 2 or the video gets corrupted on occasions. We are all only to aware that happens with data recording media, happens with camera memory cards and it happens to hard disks. That isn't evidence of 'tampering' it's a fact of life. And thats the only time that the defence wouldn't have access to recordings.

So it's impossible for Police to keep for their own use only. So, no there's no contradiction, there's 2 different things being talked about.

Gramps

Thats a sweeping statement. Care to show the evidence that the only person that heard Mitchell said that the officer that pleaded guilty to misconduct was there?

In fact, I'll save you the bother. He didn't. Had he done so, he'd be standing with him in the dock.

Please don't invent 'evidence' that doesn't exist, apart from being libel, it's also the sort of cobblers that reinforces the fiction that all police officers are bent. Clearly they aren't!
 
Last edited:
Gotcha Bernie, fair enough.

But what my sentence above is also referring too is USE and bias, not just all about losing the evidence, but how it will be used by the police. Ie. Will they be prosecuting their own when the evidence suggests so? Us and Solicitors will need the CPS? to bring a charge, but will the police be using the same process so to speak, or will they turn to internal discipline. (which has its place Im sure)

This is one of the areas where biased use could be used to their advantage I feel.

The problem is Bernie, I feel certain that they will want to protect 'good officers' who are caught doing naughty things. And inevitably this will tempt them to do the impossible.

It will happen i feel, if it doesn't we will have one fantastic police force where EVERY officer gets respected all of the time.
 
Last edited:
Bernie174 said:
Gramps

Thats a sweeping statement. Care to show the evidence that the only person that heard Mitchell said that the officer that pleaded guilty to misconduct was there?

In fact, I'll save you the bother. He didn't. Had he done so, he'd be standing with him in the dock.

Please don't invent 'evidence' that doesn't exist, apart from being libel, it's also the sort of cobblers that reinforces the fiction that all police officers are bent. Clearly they aren't!
Click to expand...

Sorry Bernie, you are going to have to decipher that for me!

The officer who is being prosecuted alleged that he heard the conversation between Mitchell and the other police officer - it seems odd to me that the other officer(s) present at the scene did not appear to know that he (the officer being prosecuted) was in fact not there, i.e. close enough to them to overhear the conversation.
It is also puzzling that no officer, responsible for the scheduling of these officers duties, appears to have come forward to say that the officer (the one being prosecuted) was not actually on duty at the time of the alleged incident.
All coincidence, quite possibly, but I am sure that you can understand how events such as these give rise to the public perception of things not all being well in the police service.
Of course headlines like today's comment from Sir Andrew Dilnot regarding the warning from the Office of National Statistics that police recording of crime appears to "overstate the true rate at which crime has been falling by failing to take into account hundreds of thousands of offences" and that "massaging figures to hit targets is 'ingrained in policing culture'", don't help.
Tom Winsor Chief Inspector of Constabulary is reported to have said that he expects to find some fiddling of crime figures, Sir Bernard Hogan-Howe admits truth to the allegation and ex-Met Chief Lord Stevens has confirmed that the "fiddling of figures" has been going on since he joined the police. You and I both know that is true!
 
Last edited:
Gramps

The officer prosecuted didn't claim he was on duty. He claimed he was passing.
I've seen nothing to suggest that the original officer, who had the conversation with Mitchell claim that other one was there. In fact, he's said nothing in public. It is fair to assume that he made no such claim to the IPCC/PSD, otherwise they would be dribbling with pleasure as they summonsed him as well.

As for fiddling crime figures, and blaming "The Police" is again misleading.

I reported a crime, and I classified it. I always did so in accordance with what it was, so, for example Child 1 approaches child 2 and says, "Give me your bike, or I'll punch your lights out". It's Robbery. However, I have no control over what some idiot civvie, or senior officer does with that crime report later on. I know for certain that many of exactly that sort of offence is 'reclassified' as "Theft-Person". because it makes the robbery stats look better. Now thats a simple example of what is meant, but there others, for example, get called to a pub fight. All quiet on arrival, but blood on the floor. So it has to be reported (as opposed to ignored when I joined) as an assault, but is then cleared up, by calling it "no crime", that is Government imposed, not a police idea. Albeit, some idiots with scrambled eggs think it was a good idea.

Now, having said that, to blame "The Police" and conclude from it that all Police Officers are corrupt is utter rubbish.

It's not "The Police" it is a few senior Police Officers and Civvies trying to make themselves look good. Now I'd love to blame them entirely, but The Government also play a part in that by pressuring Forces to reduce certain types of crime and imposing rules on reporting, but I think you'll find that most officers of my rank found the practice repugnant. Unfortunately, once the crime goes off to the Yard (in my forces case) I have no idea what it is reclassified as, or which idiot messes about with it, if I did, I'd happily be speaking to the IPCC/ONS!
 
Last edited:
Sorry Bernie, but from my own experience and from the quotes in my previous post, the practice of 'padding' (failing to report a crime) and fiddling the crime stats has always been endemic in the police service.
 
gramps said:
Interesting and sad report on public perception of police 'trust': http://news.sky.com/story/1196380/police-cover-up-wrongdoing-most-britons-say
Click to expand...
I would say that the reason that most people don't trust the police is that either most of them have had bad experiences of them or have been told about other people's bad experiences, and often the bad experiences they've been told about have been exaggerated or untrue, which doesn't help.

I've had both good and extremely bad experiences. The good experiences have been from the people on the ground and, almost without exception, the bad experiences have been from very senior officers, covering up their own misconduct and telling a pack of lies. These are the people who, in my experience, let down both the public and the ordinary police officers.
 
odd jim said:
The use of body worn video by officers isn't to pacify the public, let's be clear about that. It's an evidence gathering tool for the officer.
Click to expand...

And for the member of the public!! assuming it would be made available to the member of the public in the event of a complaint......(I feel laughter welling up from deep within)

The only way we can be protected is to wear body cameras too filming those that would film us and so on.........I mean police are not immune to being tempted to fabricate the truth......when its suits them.
 
why waste more money to record via a camera ,
very few get banged up for crime , they mostly get let off as we don't have enough prisons and our government don't want the cost of keeping them in prison anyway
 
LASTOLITE said:
And for the member of the public!! assuming it would be made available to the member of the public in the event of a complaint......(I feel laughter welling up from deep within)

The only way we can be protected is to wear body cameras too filming those that would film us and so on.........I mean police are not immune to being tempted to fabricate the truth......when its suits them.
Click to expand...
Of course they are available to the public if a complaint is made. Like I said, anything recorded cant be deleted, it force uploads on charge to a central server and can be accessed by anyone with authority to do so.

Like I said, I had three complaints against me recently. All malicious and a load of BS. The "Professional" Standards dept had already viewed the video and quashed the complaints before I even knew they were made. The video was even shown to the complainants before they were told to leave the station.

The majority of complaints against police are malicious, and only a very small percentage are upheld. I honestly think there is a massive amount of paranoia out there amongst the public, who are for want of a better word, wholly ignorant when it comes to the procedures and even culture of the modern police force. For sure,the MET have let the side down lately, with issues the other 43 forces don't seem to suffer from.

Believe you me, in my force, if there is a slight glimmer the PSD dept can shaft an officer and get them out on their ear, no matter how dubious the complaint is, they will go after the officer hammer and tongs.

But anyway my point with my post you quoted is this - the Home Office provide these cameras to the officers to record evidence. This is for the prevention and detection of crime, NOT to make officers accountable. You must remember that officers have a serious job to do. If we pandered to every conspiracy theorist and anti establishment nut job out there we wouldn't be able to go out and do our jobs, we have enough to worry about as it is with the job we do. The fact that they can be retrieved in the event of a complaint is a helpful by-product.
 
Last edited:
Interesting interviews about Police cameras on yesterdays Sunday Politics at 42.49 three quarters of the way through...the madness of the 45/50p tax just before.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b03sg9c6/Sunday_Politics_02_02_2014/

What are the logistics are storing 500? cameras 24/7 video footage for say 3/6/12 months. large yes, but is it that unusual a task to accomplish? How do they store Londons cctv which much be far larger?

Many things to consider, but I also like the calming effects of the cameras on bad public behaviour ... It does sound like when used they defuse aggression and overall make an officers life a little more reasonable. ... it all sounds good to me, why would an officer not want it on 24/7?
 
Last edited:
why would an officer not want it on 24/7?
Click to expand...

I know a fair number of police officers who would have one on 24/7, but not to prevent complaints!
I had a camera put into my section house (Single Police accommodation) room once as I was having cash nicked. It was installed with very serious warnings about making home movies!

Anyway, back to the point.....In London, it's likely to be a huge number more than 500 cameras, the force strength is around 30,000. OK, many of those are inside masons, so wouldn't need a camera, but there's still a huge number. In terms of practicality though simply having sufficient batteries and spare cameras would be logistically a challenge, but it's not insurmountable. The same applies to the actual downloading process, something that would probably have to be done at the end of each shift. That does take time, and of course sufficient computers to do it on.

Storage time would depend though, and is likely to be over 12 months. Thats going to take a very large database! "They" don' store London's CCTV. Most CCTV systems are on private premises for the protection of those premises, or owned by the Local Authorities. So each system owner has its own storage, they are not kept by police.
 
Did you watch the program Bernie? Pretty sure they said 500 for the beat?. I didn't say the police kept cctv, I wondered if an IT person? actually new what the sats where as there's no use for this discussion in guessing stuff.

They're talking procedures for switching on and off, but why? Why an officer wouldn't want it on 24/7? What/why would they need not to record?
 
Last edited:
Forbiddenbiker said:
Why an officer wouldn't want it on 24/7? What/why would they need not to record?
Click to expand...

Going to the toilet [/scrivens]

other less gross sugestions would be 1) during meal/coffee breaks (assuming police have those anymore) , 2) when a member of the public is telling them something off the record, 3) during any other kind of private conversation.

How would you fancy being under video surveilance 24/7 ? Perhaps every citizen in the uk should carry a compulsory chest mounted camera - should cut down on crime sharply, but i'm fairly sure the civil liberties lobby would go berserk
 
lol @scrivens joke.

Yeah ok that makes sense to a degree, so any time between being 'live' so to speak then. Off the record I don't agree with though, an easy get-out clause that will be abused I'm absolutely sure.

How does 'off the record' work in terms of privacy and law. I mean if the parties agree its off the record and that agreement is recorded, does that in effect make a contract ?

What you on about I am already under surveillance 24/7 this is London remember. ;)
 
There's no 'contract' with off the record. If someone wants to tell you something, it's not really worth a lot evidentially on it's own. It'd be hearsay, and couldn't be used in Evidence anyway. It could be disclosed, in that it exists in a prosecution, if it led to one, but I'd guess the same rules that apply to any informant would come into play.
Not sure I'd like something recording as I use the loo, and a pocket book entry explaining the time and reason for switching it off would work. Same applies to playing cards at grub break, although I am told that breaks are as rare as hens teeth these days.
 
Obviously police officers would need to be able to switch the cameras off at times and, personal privacy aside, their unofficial sources of information would pretty much dry up if the couldn't switch them off.

As I see it, the problem would be mainly one of perception - the perception that many members of the public have that police officers suppress evidence, manufacture evidence and generally lie through their teeth when it suits them. Whether this perception is correct or not isn't really the point. The public would need to be confident that cameras would only be switched off when really appropriate, and that recordings wouldn't disappear.
 
Garry Edwards said:
Obviously police officers would need to be able to switch the cameras off at times and, personal privacy aside, their unofficial sources of information would pretty much dry up if the couldn't switch them off.

As I see it, the problem would be mainly one of perception - the perception that many members of the public have that police officers suppress evidence, manufacture evidence and generally lie through their teeth when it suits them. Whether this perception is correct or not isn't really the point. The public would need to be confident that cameras would only be switched off when really appropriate, and that recordings wouldn't disappear.
Click to expand...

I think that's bang on Garry.

Fingercrossed they do it right, sounds like they might, but words cannot be trusted any more so it will be their actions only that count in the end.
 
Forbiddenbiker said:
Unofficial sources though, what is that in reality? .... I mean bobbies don't wander down the streets everyday while informants furtively dash over to stitch people up do they? or do they?
Click to expand...

I wasn't really thinking of informants per se - I presume they are largely dealt with by CID who wouldn't be wearing these cameras anyway. I was thinking more of the victims of crime who don't necessarily want to be recorded saying " I know damn well its those little scrotes from number 38"
 
theres an awful lot of crap on that site like this bit for example

"Now I don’t know about you but on a public highway and/or a public footpath, unless you have actually committed a crime and are under arrest you are not LAWFULLY required to aid or assist the police in any way whatsoever. It is your right not to in fact. (Rice vs Connelly 1966 see link below). Nor are you LAWFULLY required to do anything they order you to do"

Given the degree of bias shown here I'm not sure we can trust anything on that report to be objective, or not edited to give an anti police slant. It also overlooks that the protestors and cameramen concerned are on private land (being on a public footpath does not give you the right to protest or film there) and the police have the right to ask them to leave and evict them if they don't
 
Garry

If so many people think the way you suggest, why are so many defendants convicted on the evidence of Police Officers?

Of course some people don't believe Police, sometimes because of reality, sometimes because thier recollection of an event is different from a Police Officers, which does not always mean that one side or the other has lied. Sometimes it's because they are silly and impressionable, and once heard their third cousin removed was stitched up by Police for doing 30.000000000000000000000000000001 mph in a MPH limit.

Sometimes it is because yes, there has been some truth in what they think. It happens, Police Officers are human beings.

This cameras idea IS a good opportunity to prove that 90% of the perception is rubbish. It will convince some, it wont convince others who will spend their time thinking up reasons why or how Police have managed to circumvent the system. The real situation is of course that in the main, Police will just go with it.

Adam
Unofficial sources though, what is that in reality? .... I mean bobbies don't wander down the streets everyday while informants furtively dash over to stitch people up do they? or do they?
Click to expand...

There are some anti policing groups who will tell you that is exactly what happens, and why community policing exists. Does it happen, yes. A lot? Depends where you work.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top