is ANPR "Stalking"?
Discussion
I just wondered, as "Stalking" in Law according to the protection from harassment act 1997 sec 2, is defined as "any unwanted attention or tracking that makes you feel threatened" (even with no threat of violence), well yes being monitored every time I drive DOES make me feel Harassed, threatened and frightened, can I use said act aginst the people responsible for ANPR, CCTV cameras etc then? as it carries a maximum sentence of 6 Months!
^Slider^ said:
Why would someone feel harassed by ANPR cameras if there was nothing to be afraid of?
Oh perleeeeease!
DVLA said:
almost a third of car registration documents are incorrect
And even then, there's no such thing as a miscarriage of justice? Nobody is wrongfully suspected / identified / arrested / loss of good name / subjected to family breakdown / loss of livelihood? Ever?
That line of "what have you got to be afraid of if you've got nothing to hide" is about as inaccurate (and pointless) as "we must make sure this kind of thing never happens again". Or was it just a <^Sly-der^> wind up aided and abetted by some sherry trifle
^Slider^ said:
With regards to the HRA police can breach certain sections if it is for the prevention and detection of crime.
Shirley there has to be some 'reasonable grounds' qualification (thinking back all those years to when I studied this stuff for my degree I seem to remember there being something along those lines), otherwise the entire Act could be circumvented and everyone in the UK ocked up on the grounds that if they're in prison, they can't commit crimes on the outside.
Don't forget that the spirit of the ECHR is intended to stop governments and governmental agencies infringing the individual's human rights, which is why the ECourtHR sits above national legislatures/judiciaries (in theory)...
Nuggs said:
With regards to the HRA police can breach certain sections if it is for the prevention and detection of crime.
Shirley there has to be some 'reasonable grounds' qualification (thinking back all those years to when I studied this stuff for my degree I seem to remember there being something along those lines), otherwise the entire Act could be circumvented and everyone in the UK ocked up on the grounds that if they're in prison, they can't commit crimes on the outside.
Don't forget that the spirit of the ECHR is intended to stop governments and governmental agencies infringing the individual's human rights, which is why the ECourtHR sits above national legislatures/judiciaries (in theory)...
Not as far as i am aware, all the exemption says i think is for the prevention and detection of crime there is nothing that states any suspicion is required to use certain methods, because they are not intrusive methods ie ANPR. If we were to set up an ANPR camera in your garage then that is a whole different matter as suspicion is required as well as RIPA autherisabtions etc.
As for the circumvention you mention, only certain parts of the act can be breached for the prevention and detection of crime. Locking people up in prison comes under a different set of rules, and IIRC our laws only have to be compatable with the ECHR laws and it can be deamed that our own law can supercede ECHR laws.
turbobloke said:
Why would someone feel harassed by ANPR cameras if there was nothing to be afraid of?
Oh perleeeeease!DVLA said:
almost a third of car registration documents are incorrect
And even then, there's no such thing as a miscarriage of justice? Nobody is wrongfully suspected / identified / arrested / loss of good name / subjected to family breakdown / loss of livelihood? Ever?
That line of "what have you got to be afraid of if you've got nothing to hide" is about as inaccurate (and pointless) as "we must make sure this kind of thing never happens again". Or was it just a <^Sly-der^> wind up aided and abetted by some sherry trifle
Hey not a wind up in all honesty i was just curious, Just because there is an ANPR hit doesnt mean automatic arrest, officers should check the data before making arrests. Its not a cart blanche to arrest. We have had ANPR hits for stolen vehicles and the driver was not arrested because of a reasonable explanation and out of date / incorrect data.
A bit of common sense in policeing is whats needed and remembering ANPR is a tool to aide the decision process for officers and remember that if it gets and ANPR hit the same data is returned if a car is PNC checked randomly by officers.
Im not saying its infalable. im just saying its a tool to help us and not the be all and end all of crime!
Oh and i dont like sherry
^Slider^ said:
With regards to the HRA police can breach certain sections if it is for the prevention and detection of crime.
Same as harassment legislation im afraid.
Why would someone feel harassed by ANPR cameras if there was nothing to be afraid of?
Err, cos I've got no tax
Ok, so it's my fourth vehicle, the other three are taxed, but I'll be damned if I'm paying a full month for a few days when I've already paid enough tax to make my wallet bleed. Thank god I know where they do all the ANPR stings round here
It's just the battenbergs that make me nervous. She'll be taxed in the new year, don't fret
Good point, and on an aside, why should a household pay four lots of car tax if there's four cars but only one person can drive, and even then only one car at one time? Let's put that tax (and insurance) both on a person basis not a vehicle basis. The benefits of ANPR would then be...
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff