Acts Of Animal Cruelty Caught On CCTV Then Published
Discussion
Happens from time to time and according to those interviewed thereafter when the CCTV is shown to BiBs they often say there is very little they can do.
Strange thing is once the footage is published on social media, goes viral and the nasty bugger who has been caught red handed doing some poor pet a nasty has several thousand death threats every officer in town is put on the case and the BiBs can suddenly find them within hours.
The pets owners often complain when interviewed by the press that they are put under a lot of pressure not to publish and that plod get quite shirty when they do.
If it gets results and deters others what's the problem?
Strange thing is once the footage is published on social media, goes viral and the nasty bugger who has been caught red handed doing some poor pet a nasty has several thousand death threats every officer in town is put on the case and the BiBs can suddenly find them within hours.
The pets owners often complain when interviewed by the press that they are put under a lot of pressure not to publish and that plod get quite shirty when they do.
If it gets results and deters others what's the problem?
The problem is the threat of physical violence against a member of the public. The police like to deal with their matters without having to come up with excuses for not incarcerating someone.
I have no problem with the videos being published though and the perpetrator certainly gets rough justice which is often deserved IMO.
I have no problem with the videos being published though and the perpetrator certainly gets rough justice which is often deserved IMO.
Bigends said:
Problem is in the case of many of these viseos its not always clear where the cruelty has occured unless a face or place is identified. We have 43 forces -who deals if they dont know where its happened?
I'm talking about cases where someone has made a complaint to the Police, the Police have stated they don't think they will be able to find the perpitrator then the complainant publishes the CCTV footage on social media. Oddly enough the police seem more upset with the owner of the pet than they do at the person who kicks the dog or throws a cat in a bin.Tannedbaldhead said:
Bigends said:
Problem is in the case of many of these viseos its not always clear where the cruelty has occured unless a face or place is identified. We have 43 forces -who deals if they dont know where its happened?
I'm talking about cases where someone has made a complaint to the Police, the Police have stated they don't think they will be able to find the perpitrator then the complainant publishes the CCTV footage on social media. Oddly enough the police seem more upset with the owner of the pet than they do at the person who kicks the dog or throws a cat in a bin.the thing going viral changes the game
in most cases, they would have no chance of finding them
however, if thosands of local people have viewed the video, the identity comes to the surface very easily, but they can't make a nation wide appeal for every video of an offense they ever get shown
in most cases, they would have no chance of finding them
however, if thosands of local people have viewed the video, the identity comes to the surface very easily, but they can't make a nation wide appeal for every video of an offense they ever get shown
imagine for instance making a derogatory joke about muslims (for instance) among your friends. Likely they will see you as a idiot. Now make the same joke in a room full of religious muslim zelots.
Thats pretty much the difference between telling the police and posting online.
Now replace the muslims in this story with football jokes and football hooligans, telling scottish jokes in a glasgow pub, or a whole host of other scenarios when the herd instinct is likely to become more powerful that the individuals grasp on moral responsibiliy.
Thats pretty much the difference between telling the police and posting online.
Now replace the muslims in this story with football jokes and football hooligans, telling scottish jokes in a glasgow pub, or a whole host of other scenarios when the herd instinct is likely to become more powerful that the individuals grasp on moral responsibiliy.
One problem is that a video gives no identification evidence.
There was a case that I was involved in where a bus was blocked from driving through a council estate. A well-known thug came out of his house, got onto the buse, hit the driver a number of times and then returned to his house. The bus had video in it and the bloke's face was quite clear. Every officer at the division knew who it was immediately. The bus company followed all the protocols and the video was proveable.
The police turned up within a few minutes (those were the days, when we had officers on patrol) and broke into the house, only to find the offender gone. The occupants said no one had come in.
Put the chap on an ID parade and the driver, who had not viewed the video post incident, was unable to pick the bloke out because, as he said, he was unaware at the time that the bloke was going to assault him. His regular brief, who earned a nice living out of him, said that the CCTV could have been 'anyone'.
Papers passed to CPS and binned. No chance of a conviction.
So the police, in saying there's nothing they can do with CCTV footage, are probably quite correct.
There was a case that I was involved in where a bus was blocked from driving through a council estate. A well-known thug came out of his house, got onto the buse, hit the driver a number of times and then returned to his house. The bus had video in it and the bloke's face was quite clear. Every officer at the division knew who it was immediately. The bus company followed all the protocols and the video was proveable.
The police turned up within a few minutes (those were the days, when we had officers on patrol) and broke into the house, only to find the offender gone. The occupants said no one had come in.
Put the chap on an ID parade and the driver, who had not viewed the video post incident, was unable to pick the bloke out because, as he said, he was unaware at the time that the bloke was going to assault him. His regular brief, who earned a nice living out of him, said that the CCTV could have been 'anyone'.
Papers passed to CPS and binned. No chance of a conviction.
So the police, in saying there's nothing they can do with CCTV footage, are probably quite correct.
Derek Smith said:
One problem is that a video gives no identification evidence.
There was a case that I was involved in where a bus was blocked from driving through a council estate. A well-known thug came out of his house, got onto the buse, hit the driver a number of times and then returned to his house. The bus had video in it and the bloke's face was quite clear. Every officer at the division knew who it was immediately. The bus company followed all the protocols and the video was proveable.
The police turned up within a few minutes (those were the days, when we had officers on patrol) and broke into the house, only to find the offender gone. The occupants said no one had come in.
Put the chap on an ID parade and the driver, who had not viewed the video post incident, was unable to pick the bloke out because, as he said, he was unaware at the time that the bloke was going to assault him. His regular brief, who earned a nice living out of him, said that the CCTV could have been 'anyone'.
Papers passed to CPS and binned. No chance of a conviction.
So the police, in saying there's nothing they can do with CCTV footage, are probably quite correct.
Another anecdote about a case from the 1970s involving some law repealed in the 1980s? There was a case that I was involved in where a bus was blocked from driving through a council estate. A well-known thug came out of his house, got onto the buse, hit the driver a number of times and then returned to his house. The bus had video in it and the bloke's face was quite clear. Every officer at the division knew who it was immediately. The bus company followed all the protocols and the video was proveable.
The police turned up within a few minutes (those were the days, when we had officers on patrol) and broke into the house, only to find the offender gone. The occupants said no one had come in.
Put the chap on an ID parade and the driver, who had not viewed the video post incident, was unable to pick the bloke out because, as he said, he was unaware at the time that the bloke was going to assault him. His regular brief, who earned a nice living out of him, said that the CCTV could have been 'anyone'.
Papers passed to CPS and binned. No chance of a conviction.
So the police, in saying there's nothing they can do with CCTV footage, are probably quite correct.
See R v Smith and others [2009] 1 Cr App R 36 for something that happened this century.
agtlaw said:
Another anecdote about a case from the 1970s involving some law repealed in the 1980s?
See R v Smith and others [2009] 1 Cr App R 36 for something that happened this century.
Anecdote = experience.See R v Smith and others [2009] 1 Cr App R 36 for something that happened this century.
I could point out how the decision you quote supports what I said, but in short I will ask if you have ever seen the quality of video on the system favoured by bus operators?
Whilst we all recognised him, we also could write what the chap's brief would say if the video was entered in evidence, as, no doubt, can you, possibly have you.
In any case, if you can't get it past CPS, you can't prosecute.
For the OP:
The problem is that if there is not a (reasonable in the old days) significant chance of a successful prosecution, any time spent on the job will be wasted. When, as now, there are swingeing cuts, something has to give. Decisions have to be made on costs. If there is likely to be a challenge in court that would cost a lot of money, then one has to ask if it is money well spent.
CPS, as much as, possibly more than, the police have only a limited amount of money to spend and it is not enough.
Binning such a job is not an easy decision, but it is an honest one.
Derek Smith said:
agtlaw said:
Another anecdote about a case from the 1970s involving some law repealed in the 1980s?
See R v Smith and others [2009] 1 Cr App R 36 for something that happened this century.
Anecdote = experience.See R v Smith and others [2009] 1 Cr App R 36 for something that happened this century.
I could point out how the decision you quote supports what I said, but in short I will ask if you have ever seen the quality of video on the system favoured by bus operators?
We still burnt the DVD for them, but standing watching it with 2 BiB you could just about make out they had arms and legs let alone what they looked like.
The organisation never updated the CCTV as even after another break in, the kit taken was cheaper to replace than buy better cameras.
I imagine that most household systems would be a higher spec than business ones as they are charged an arm and a leg for them. they roll the dice on that one.
If there's a good chance someone can be recognised from CCTV and there's solid evidence of a crime being committed, there's no reason for the police to not do a press release. Both of those things have to be present rather than what satisfies Facebook, hearsay mob-rule IDs.
Responding to 999s and dealing with prisoners are the core fundamentals of policing, and what we're pretty much stripping down to in the current environment and some ancillary support from the likes of centralised CID units when someone more serious occurs.
Re: CCTV. Most of it is crap. Only active CCTV tends to be good i.e. that controlled by an operator who can zoom and focus etc.
PAULJ5555 said:
A lot of stories I read just seem to be that the police are stretched and dont have time for the small stuff so they make something up to get them out of following it up.
Well tough it's not our problem, we pay our tax and expect a good reliable service.
Taxes or no taxes, a 'good service' is contextual. The police have to look at the global picture of risk and demand. If something's more important and more risky (at that moment in time, or for a sustained period) then that takes priority. Well tough it's not our problem, we pay our tax and expect a good reliable service.
Responding to 999s and dealing with prisoners are the core fundamentals of policing, and what we're pretty much stripping down to in the current environment and some ancillary support from the likes of centralised CID units when someone more serious occurs.
Derek Smith said:
The problem is that if there is not a (reasonable in the old days) significant chance of a successful prosecution, any time spent on the job will be wasted. When, as now, there are swingeing cuts, something has to give. Decisions have to be made on costs. If there is likely to be a challenge in court that would cost a lot of money, then one has to ask if it is money well spent.
Quite. Cutting losers ASAP is essential now. It's still going to take some time for some to 'learn' to act with such conviction rather than rely on the cushion of supervision / the CPS to make the decision, but everyone needs to be on board with it or there's a risk of sinking. Re: CCTV. Most of it is crap. Only active CCTV tends to be good i.e. that controlled by an operator who can zoom and focus etc.
And, of course, identifying the offender is only part of case prep. I was in one major incident when the offender was caught on inspired thinking and the SIO, coming into the briefing room to applause, said:
"Save it. This is where the real work starts."
He then reeled off a number of actions that had the team groaning.
The idea that once the offender is nicked and has made a statement, the incident room all goes home and the chief inspector cracks open a bottle of single malt is a nice thought but hardly reality.
"Save it. This is where the real work starts."
He then reeled off a number of actions that had the team groaning.
The idea that once the offender is nicked and has made a statement, the incident room all goes home and the chief inspector cracks open a bottle of single malt is a nice thought but hardly reality.
A recent case - which sets out the position in 2015.
http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Crim/2015/478....
http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Crim/2015/478....
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff