Cyclists, car passengers and pedestrians are being urged by police to help catch bad drivers by filming dangerous motorists.
They are being asked to submit footage of anyone committing driving offences such as dangerous driving, using a mobile phone at the wheel or even not wearing a seat belt.
The police promise that each piece of footage uploaded by the citizen detectives to a central national database, whether captured on a dashcam, CCTV or mobile phone held by a passenger, will be reviewed by specially-trained staff.
First observation is that “Be a Nark!” will be a very popular scheme. The Stasi would have had no recruitment problems here – as it didn’t there. People are like that.
But, erm, here’s the police insisting they will watch all video. So, what gets sent to them then? Obviously, there will be flashes and so on – just will be. But what if they get sent all hte CCTV etc of crimes that they won’t normally deal with? Shoplifting, bike theft, burglary (at least some Ring cameras must have that on tape) and so on?
And what if someone were keeping records of what was sent in and the results that came out? That would be fun, no?
“Be a Government informer. Betray your family and friends. Fabulous prizes to be won!”
“Don’t be stoopid, be a smartie….”
Speaking as a cyclist, I see far more dangerous behaviour from them than from car drivers.
Tim’s suggestion sounds like a great idea. Let’s see how how hard the woke have to work ignoring crime they don’t care about 🙁
Actually Rupert, I don’t think they’d find it hard at all!!
Bearing in mind that nowadays it can take the best part of a year for the police to confront the author of an allegedly mean tweet I don’t see this being particularly effective.
There’s some really clear CCTV footage of some Pakistani blokes attacking policewomen at Manchester Airport and seriously injuring them.
I just happened to be cycling past….
/applause for Simon Neale
Perhaps we could have people do my work and send it to me whilst I sit on my lazy arse.
The police like this because they don’t have to confront anyone. Check the vehicle registration and send off a letter saying £X fine and Y points and if you don’t like it you can appeal, but if you lost it will be double both plus costs.
In their eyes what’s not to like.
They’ll ignore burglary, shoplifting and any other crime that means they have to do some work to identity the suspect then arrest them, and that risks confrontation which thanks to the feminisation of the police they generally come of 2nd best or have to go in mob handed.
The only thing they seem to do these days is harassment of motorists and it would appear they don’t even want to do that.
The original version of cleaner streets (I love lewisham by a Mr Tyrell iirc ) which is now https://cleanerlewisham.lovecleanstreets.com/reports was actually interesting in that way.
It had the complaints with photos and when whoever was dispatched ‘fixed’ the issue there was an ‘after’ picture as well which now seems missing. The original idea was public transparency and photos meant the correct dispatch of a works unit – broom or dumpster lorry etc – first time.
What was originally shown was actually the real works queue mostly submitted by the bin men who were issued gps tagging cameras in the days before smart phones. Was opened up to the public and pretty much everyone else – police , councillors etc – and the whole queue was visible so you could see and track what was done when. Police submissions were allowed to be tagged for urgency but otherwise that was it.
They then analysed the picture, tracked graffiti tags rerouting the bobbies and so on although much legal gymnastics was undertaken to stop it sending the crime figures through the roof.
Sadly the latest incarnations lost the plot and was swallowed by fixmystreet and similar programmes which were only a complaints mechanism. It was tried in a couple of other boroughs but tended to be less than well received by those unionised entities that liked overtime and did not like photographic evidence.
Always stuck in my mind as the whole idea of a public service having a truly open job queue fascinated me,
Add in the option of allowing contractors to bid in to clean up and you have a nice pilot programme in public efficiency – tried to sell that idea to Essex CC once!
Rowdy:
Mark: « The only thing they seem to do these days is harassment of motorists »
Be fair – they’re also quite hot on non crime hate incidents!
Apologies, Rowdy – the site ate my ‘thumbs up’ emoji.
I’ve noticed a pattern in this New Country that I now inhabit. Get the peasants used to an idea, then mould it to your wishes, then enforce it on them. So at Southport; yes, some little girls were knifed to death. No it wasn’t a terrorist incident! The suspect is a little black lad. Look how cute this little Welsh lad is! He’s a Christian from Rwanda, not an immigrant, you far right thug! Nobody must discuss it because we all want to see justice done, don’t we? After a month of detailed investigation we’ve discovered a terrorist in a pdf file that was hidden under the mattress which is why we didn’t find it straight away and we also found some ricin krispies in the pantry. But it’s not a terrorist incident and you’re still not allowed to talk about it! Full details will be released in February 2025 when it comes to court and you’ve forgotten about it and we can have passed new laws.
This latest morsel is to get the peasant used to acting as informants on naughty people, initially for naughty deeds so when we get them to report on naughty words they’ll be used to it.
I first noticed the M.O. with the Huw Edwards episode; yes he had some naughty photos, but it was only of a young man’s bum and he did £32,000 pay for them so nothing to see here. Oh! it turns out it’s really vile pedo porn! (note to editors-don’t mention the money again) He’s pleaded guilty and it’s his first offence that we’ve found out so no punishment. But you, you far right thug, you threw that brick didn’t you? Right 2 years inside! Release that rapist to make room for him.
The chances of it being pushed back further than February 2025 are quite likely, followed by a quiet period, followed by some member of the elite judgerati declaring that he’s mentally unfit to stand trial so gets sent to a cushy nut house for an undisclosed period.
But all of this has got nothing at all to do with Starmer the Farmer Harmer.
Honest Injun Gov.
Chain of evidence?
I doubt any such video would have any evidential value. Driver should just say “No”.
And just think of the fun one could have mocking up politicians committing such an ‘offence’ outside their other family’s house – or brothel – or druggie, etc.
“I am convinced this is a major improvement to road safety!”
Oh such fun.
“you, you far right thug, you threw that brick didn’t you?”
In the saddest case all the silly old chap had done was hold up a placard and shout a bit. He’s dead now and will soon be forgotten. He won’t bother St Armer’s conscience because he doesn’t have one.
@The Meissen Bison
Forgot that!
Hope that doesn’t constitue a hate crime.
Of thought crime
There are many documented cases of people whose property was stolen telling the police where it can be found (via bluetooth tracking) and the police refusing to get involved.
I would wager a pound to a pinch of snuff that most of the people now doing two or three years for saying ‘That’s a bit off!’ on Twitter in respect of the riots last year are there because they either didn’t get legal advice and spoke to the traitorous police in unwise ways, or did get advice and were badly advised (eg plead guilty you’ll get a lower sentence etc).
It seems to me that it is the absolute duty of every Briton every arrested for anything a) to make no comment and b) to put the prosecution to proof via a trial.
Here is an oldie but goldie – in which Law Professor James Duane advises students never, ever to talk to the police if arrested, because all it does is give a group of absolute bastards who will be high-fiving each other if they get you locked up, even if you’re innocent and they know (or strongly suspect) it, an opportunity to trip you up and spin accidental mistakes and inconsistencies in your story into ‘proof’ of your guilt.
It’s American, but applies here:
https://youtu.be/d-7o9xYp7eE?feature=shared
It seems likely that we cannot beat the system. But what we can do is lawfully use the system against itself – as happened in Scotland, when their filth were subsumed under a tsunami of hate crime allegations a year or so back.
It’s not just the police, either. It applies to the entire parasite class. This humorous old book, I’m sure familiar to many readers, is a useful guide:
https://www.amazon.co.uk/Bureaucrats-Annoy-R-T-Fishall/dp/0099293706
Snag @ 10.34. Some years ago my grandson had his mobile phone stolen, at knife point. My daughter did some research and found the phone for sale on Faceache. Gave plod all the details. Plod not interested.
I really want to trust and support the police but they have this habit of continually fucking things up……..
If Snag’s grandson was to recall how during the incident he was called a nancy boy by the thief and has suffered mental anguish ever since, Plod might belatedly become interested. I guess it would depend on who was higher up the intersectional league table.
I would wager a pound to a pinch of snuff that most of the people now doing two or three years for saying ‘That’s a bit off!’ on Twitter in respect of the riots last year are there because they either didn’t get legal advice and spoke to the traitorous police in unwise ways, or did get advice and were badly advised (eg plead guilty you’ll get a lower sentence etc).
I would suspect most of those people will have seen the duty brief, if they had any legal advice at all. Be interesting to know what they were told. Most of those cases would have been unlikely to survive a jury trial. Especially when several months had gone by & the fuss had died down. It’s the regrettably now late guy with his sign. A jury would be unlikely to convict with a custodial on the table.
The appointed lawyer may be paid by the State but his duty is supposed to be to his client. If those people have been misinformed about their prospects, shouldn’t that be grounds for appeal or a mistrial? It’d be interesting getting statements from all of them on what they were told. They shouldn’t all read the same, because each one should be an individual case with individual circumstances..
@BiS From what I’ve heard it was strongly implied to them that if they were to plead guilty it would all be over quickly and would go away. Being mostly law abiding people they probably believed this.
I also read that because they did plead guilty it will be much harder to get things straightened out.
What a state this country is in nowadays.
When dealing with police interference the mantra always used to be “Nobody talks, everybody walks”. When was this forgotten?
Interested. Your right about the crap legal advice the people who are currently locked up got. One man decided to ignore that advice and plead not guilty. He was found not guilty and walked away from the court.
The mantra is “Nobody has ever talked their way out of trouble with the police. But plenty have talked their way into it.”
@MNtM25
But that clearly wasn’t going to be true after 2Tier’s bleating about exemplary punishments. And he bleated before the cases were heard not after. So were they aware of this? I really don’t know what goes on in nick these days. Were these people held in police cells or prison? People on short term remand were always kept separate from the general population. Used to be banged up & exercise & not much in the way of privileges. So you wouldn’t know what was going on outside in the world.
Incidentally, you’re plea is what you make in court in front of a judge. Not anything you might of said beforehand. It would be a defence to say any confession made before was done under inducements either by the filth or a brief..
I think (but someone should fact check me) that they were basically taken off the street and put in front of a magistrate right away.
In other words, they took advantage of people who still have some sort of trust in the system.
All this “Cough for this now Sonny & it will go easier for you” stuff is actually perverting the course of justice.
I think (but someone should fact check me) that they were basically taken off the street and put in front of a magistrate right away.
As far as I’m aware they can’t actually do that without offering you the opportunity to get legal advice. That’s what the duty brief is about. Tame lawyer they keep on tab. And as lawyers say, any legal advice you get is worth exactly what you pay for it.
Particularly said about the “free” legal advice insurance companies offer. If the supplement on your policy costs 20 quid that will be precisely what it’s worth. 6 minutes of a lawyer’s time. And if it’s inclusive…
“Speaking as a cyclist, I see far more dangerous behaviour from them than from car drivers.”
That was my experience too during a quarter century of commuting by bike.
Here’s a project for you pensioners or unemployed with time on your hands, feeling spiteful. Dashcam footage of cyclists breaking road traffic laws. Any short drive should net you at least 20 instances. Copy the data card & use a video editor to separate the segments & give them file numbers. Now individually mail them off to Plod, not forgetting to to tick the “mail received advice” box. Give it 6 months, then start lodging individual complaints about the ones they haven’t opened. That’ll give them something to occupy their tiny minds..
The opportunities for maliciously monkey-wrenching such a scheme are too-numerous to even begin to list them. The people who dream up stupid ideas like this never, ever stop to think ‘Now, how could my worst enemy exploit this against me?’
llater,
llamas
I wonder how much of the submitted video will actually be what they used to call “blue” movies.
Which would be another reason for them to shut it down.
bis,
“ All this “Cough for this now Sonny & it will go easier for you” stuff is actually perverting the course of justice.”
My guess is that they were told if the don’t plead guilty they’ll spend a long time on remand and then the penalty will be even longer because they won’t get the 50% discount for pleading guilty.
All above board and factually correct, but a sign of a vindictive state that doesn’t really care about the truth because it wants to make an example of anyone who challenges its authority.
I’m more worried about AI tbh.
So the UK is covered in CCTV, but there aren’t enough human eyeballs to watch you all the time. CCTV is mostly used retrospectively, to go back and see if they can derive evidence from the tape after a reported incident.
But AI could ingest petabytes of video footage and spot potential “crimes” in real time. Including automated tickets for driving and parking offences.
John Spartan you are fined one credit for violation of the verbal morality statutes for calling Rachel Reeves a cupid stunt!
I like to think (and
the sooner the better!)
of a cybernetic meadow
where mammals and computers
live together in mutually
programming harmony
like pure water
touching clear sky.
I like to think
(right now please!)
of a cybernetic forest
filled with pines and electronics
where deer stroll peacefully
past computers
as if they were flowers
with spinning blossoms.
I like to think
(it has to be!)
of a cybernetic ecology
where we are free of our labors
and joined back to nature,
returned to our mammal
brothers and sisters,
and all watched over
by machines of loving grace.
– Richard Brautigan’s poetry collection All Watched Over by Machines of Loving Grace. Published in 1967
JG – magnificent. Whatever happened to Adam Curtis?
My guess is that they were told if the don’t plead guilty they’ll spend a long time on remand
Again, they can’t actually say that. Whether one is remanded in custody is a decision for a judge in court. Not for a copper or a brief in a police station. What would the grounds be for a remand in custody? They’re a flight risk or a danger to the public? At this point they are innocent. They can’t just lock innocent people away without reason.
They can’t just lock innocent people away without reason.
Lucy Connolly begs to differ.
https://amp.theguardian.com/uk-news/2024/oct/17/wife-tory-councillor-jailed-lucy-connolly-racial-hatred-southport-attack
Sad piece in the Guardian: “The family of a woman found dead in a car boot in east London have accused police of not doing enough to protect her, saying she had filed a complaint alleging domestic abuse by her husband weeks before.”
The poor girl was new to the country otherwise she might have had the nous to accuse her husband of hurty tweeting. That would have settled his hash.
No Interested. She’s been before a judge & received a sentence. You can argue with the rightness of that but you can’t argue with the process produced it on those terms.
What I’ve been saying is the actual process of the law has been perverted. It’s not whether or not people have committed offences. It’s whether they’ve had fair trials.
Essentially, that these people were rushed through court at unprecedented speed whilst the police etc were withholding information regarding the why of why these people were involved in these disturbances. In fact the rumours that were flying around provoked them were largely correct.
If they’d gone for jury trials, after all this information has has come out was in the public space, it’s unlikely juries would have convicted for these offences. And people do have a right to a jury trial, which they’ve been convinced not to exercise.
No Interested. She’s been before a judge & received a sentence. You can argue with the rightness of that but you can’t argue with the process produced it on those terms.
What I’ve been saying is the actual process of the law has been perverted. It’s not whether or not people have committed offences. It’s whether they’ve had fair trials.
No, you said;
“My guess is that they were told if the don’t plead guilty they’ll spend a long time on remand”
Again, they can’t actually say that. Whether one is remanded in custody is a decision for a judge in court. Not for a copper or a brief in a police station. What would the grounds be for a remand in custody? They’re a flight risk or a danger to the public? At this point they are innocent. They can’t just lock innocent people away without reason.
What are you on about? She was remanded in custody immediately and stayed there for many weeks before her ‘trial’.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cn49zv9kp39o.amp
It’s what I’m saying about these cases. Normally a remand in custody would be for specific reasons. A flight risk or a danger to the public if left at large are two of them. Quite a lot of applications for r in c are turned down. There’s people out on bail now facing much more serious charges than she did. The system’s there to stop the process being the punishment. Or the authorities could just bang people on any pretext.