What to do when you've got better data?

[carinaman]

blueg33 said:

I will be interested to see what reply the OP gets.

May be an interesting one for the newspapers. If the do gooders use the same equipment as the police, what is there to say that people have been incorrectly prosecuted through faulty readings fro the same type of device?

Agreed, but from personal experience this is spot on:

over_the_hill said:

Chimune said:

Don't tell them you have this data yet !
get them to dig themselves deeper first with questions about technique, calibration, training etc.

This - Otherwise it will be

"On further investigation we discovered that the operator had missed a recent refresher training course. Therefore the reading is invalid. On this occasion we will overlook it"

or similar.

[blueg33]

carinaman said:

blueg33 said:

I will be interested to see what reply the OP gets.

May be an interesting one for the newspapers. If the do gooders use the same equipment as the police, what is there to say that people have been incorrectly prosecuted through faulty readings fro the same type of device?

Agreed, but from personal experience this is spot on:

over_the_hill said:

Chimune said:

Don't tell them you have this data yet !
get them to dig themselves deeper first with questions about technique, calibration, training etc.

This - Otherwise it will be

"On further investigation we discovered that the operator had missed a recent refresher training course. Therefore the reading is invalid. On this occasion we will overlook it"

or similar.

Agreed, what a great strategy

[Garvin]

poppopbangbang said:

. . . . . but it will be recorded potentialy for future use.

This is the important bit. The busybodies can be ignored but this is where the plod become complicit and go into intimidation mode with nothing but complete bullst. Just how are they going to use it for future use?

Me, I'd pay the £10 (or whatever it is) and stick them with an FOI enquiry and insist on the identification of my accuser. I would also move to get them to strike it all from the record as purely malicious and vexatious. I wouldn't care if it didn't get me anywhere but, personally, I would refuse to be subjected to these bully boy tactics without giving them a run for their money!

Edited by Garvin on Thursday 22 January 09:20

[allergictocheese]

A FOI request wouldn't unearth the individual(s) who pinged you.

[Garvin]

allergictocheese said:

A FOI request wouldn't unearth the individual(s) who pinged you.

Maybe not, but it wouldn't stop me asking. I would want to know what data they were holding against my name. I would want to know on what evidence they were holding what can only be malicious inaccurate data against me. I would insist on them explaining just how they intend to use the data, on what authority they are holding a record of that data. In short I would go out of my way to make it as painful as possible for threatening me in the way they have without any real reason. The outcome of this would determine my next course of action but you can bet the PCC and CC would be involved - I would become a right lawful PITA for them.

[anonymous-user]

What threats are you referring to?

It's perfectly legitimate and lawful to record weak, unreliable and even malicious information as long as it's graded correctly.

[TooMany2cvs]

Garvin said:

and stick them with an FOI enquiry and insist on the identification of my accuser.

You already know it.

Community speedwatch group X, date, time, location, 39mph.

Garvin said:

I would also move to get them to strike it all from the record as purely malicious and vexatious.

Step away from the daytime TV courtroom dramas!

[The Mad Monk]

carinaman said:

A civilian volunteer would infer an unpaid member of the Big Society helping to make a better community.

'Civilian volunteer' isn't a sworn police officer.

I think you mean 'imply'.

The police are civilians, that is the point that I am making.

[carinaman]

The Mad Monk said:

I think you mean 'imply'.

The police are civilians, that is the point that I am making.

Thank you for the correction.

I think a police volunteer in a high vis. vest with a clipboard and hair dryer is more of a civilian than a police officer that's pledged allegiance to the monarch and their heirs as part of the Constable's Oath.

[allergictocheese]

The Mad Monk said:

I think you mean 'imply'.

The police are civilians, that is the point that I am making.

By common dictionary definition, Police officers are excluded from the definition of a civilian.

[andycaca]

allergictocheese said:

By common dictionary definition, Police officers are excluded from the definition of a civilian.

let nothing get in the way of a pedant with a point to make
WRT "vexatious and malicious" comments from Gavin, he sounds like someone who has dealt with his fair share of FOI requests! i have had to provide various bits of info and in my sphere of work its normally a salesguy wanting to know support warranty expiries and other financial info so they can come in with a bid come renewal time. i too find these vexatious!

[Garvin]

La Liga said:

What threats are you referring to?

It's perfectly legitimate and lawful to record weak, unreliable and even malicious information as long as it's graded correctly.

They can record what they like but the clear indication that such data will be used for future use is, in my book, and, I suspect, most people's, a thinly veiled attempt at intimidation or, as most would call it, a threat.

To then attempt to intimidate people with erroneous data in this way is just bang out of order. I don't give a flying fk whether it is legitimate or not. There are plenty of 'legitimate' things we can all do which most right minded people would call immoral. Might be legitimate but it doesn't make it right.

[Eclassy]

Garvin said:

Maybe not, but it wouldn't stop me asking. I would want to know what data they were holding against my name. I would want to know on what evidence they were holding what can only be malicious inaccurate data against me. I would insist on them explaining just how they intend to use the data, on what authority they are holding a record of that data. In short I would go out of my way to make it as painful as possible for threatening me in the way they have without any real reason. The outcome of this would determine my next course of action but you can bet the PCC and CC would be involved - I would become a right lawful PITA for them.

This

It is actually a subject access request. The sad thing though is the police can UNLAWFULLY choose to ignore any SAR which may show them in bad light. The ICO is also powerless and are just there for show.

The only guaranteed way to make them honour a SAR is by obtaining a court order.

[SHutchinson]

I know this is descending into tin foil hattery now, but, surely no one is holding any data about any actual person. Merely someone now has a record that a vechicle registered to OPs company was apparently recorded in excess of a speed limit.

[Garvin]

TooMany2cvs said:

Garvin said:

I would also move to get them to strike it all from the record as purely malicious and vexatious.

Step away from the daytime TV courtroom dramas!

Completely fatuous comment. You may be one of the many weak and lily livered citizens who accepts the Stasi type of approach, I am not. I have my fair share of successes in getting authorities who get too big for their boots to relent and apologise ranging from councils and corporate businesses to planning departments. All have employed bullyboy tactics and all have eventually come to grief and been forced to retreat with their tails between their legs. In the end they are also weak and take the line of least resistance, particularly when faced with embarrassing exposure due to their reliance on the lack of knowledge of the general public when they have been 'stepping out of line'.

[anonymous-user]

Well, that escalated quickly.

Why are people out for an argument? This thread should be something we can all appreciate.

Now it's the correction of fking spelling mistakes and grammar and other such bks. What a bunch of awful people.

[TooMany2cvs]

Garvin said:

TooMany2cvs said:

Garvin said:

I would also move to get them to strike it all from the record as purely malicious and vexatious.

Step away from the daytime TV courtroom dramas!

Completely fatuous comment. You may be one of the many weak and lily livered citizens who accepts the Stasi type of approach, I am not. I have my fair share of successes in getting authorities who get too big for their boots to relent and apologise ranging from councils and corporate businesses to planning departments. All have employed bullyboy tactics and all have eventually come to grief and been forced to retreat with their tails between their legs. In the end they are also weak and take the line of least resistance, particularly when faced with embarrassing exposure due to their reliance on the lack of knowledge of the general public when they have been 'stepping out of line'.

You are heading from tinfoil to FotL, rapidly.

[mph1977]

allergictocheese said:

The Mad Monk said:

I think you mean 'imply'.

The police are civilians, that is the point that I am making.

By common dictionary definition, Police officers are excluded from the definition of a civilian.

and by common or garden use the term civilian is used to refer to 'none Sworn' Police service employees i.e. those who do not hold the Office of Constable and it's respective powers and responisbilities (regardless of their rank or grade within the management structure)

Edited by mph1977 on Thursday 22 January 12:59

[blueg33]

OpulentBob said:

Well, that escalated quickly.

Why are people out for an argument? This thread should be something we can all appreciate.

Now it's the correction of fking spelling mistakes and grammar and other such bks. What a bunch of awful people.

I agree, it is detracting from the main point of the thread.

[anonymous-user]

Garvin said:

They can record what they like but the clear indication that such data will be used for future use is, in my book, and, I suspect, most people's, a thinly veiled attempt at intimidation or, as most would call it, a threat.

There's no indication it WILL be used for future use. It's simply a possibility, just as it always with with any such collected data, regardless of the quality and grading.

It's a pre-written letter to appease community groups who have been given this as a substitute for a real police officer doing the speed enforcement (on a side-note, so much for the revenue argument, eh?).

I can't think of any practical consequence with this specific speed example. It's like if someone calls Crimestoppers and says you're a drug dealer. It may be wholly inaccurate and / or malicious. It's graded and recorded appropriately, but even if of little weight it it MAY be used in the future.

Garvin said:

To then attempt to intimidate people with erroneous data in this way is just bang out of order. I don't give a flying fk whether it is legitimate or not. There are plenty of 'legitimate' things we can all do which most right minded people would call immoral. Might be legitimate but it doesn't make it right.

I think we have different definitions of a threat. You're taking the word threat and working backwards over the example to justify it. "Then to attempt to intimate people" is a little melodramatic.

People on PH don't like to acknowledge it, as they can't comprehend the views of others in the motoring context, but there are a lot of people who approach the police directly or indirectly about speed enforcement. They'll write to the CC / PCC / MP / LA / attend community meetings in volume etc. The police have to do something about it (especially as there's a statutory 'community trigger' which has been introduced).

Do you want a real officer there with the power to issue tickets and ROS, or for there the police to suggest a few people with the concerns do some measurements themselves, resulting in the RK getting a pre-written letter that means practically nothing? Something has gone wrong here, but in general circumstances the community groups are going to be accurate as the guns are really easy to use.

That's why I suggested the OP take his data to the police. At the very least they can approach the groups and make sure they're not making mistakes so people who weren't speeding don't receive letters.