Pepipoo and interesting ACPO letter on scameras
Discussion
Have a look at this folks
>
>http://pepipoo.com/Case_Files/documents/CF11_ACPO_LTi_letter.JPG
On mobile traffic scameras and videos:
A letter has been sent from ACPO which states:
"It should be noted the recording is not evidence and is just the officers "automated" notebook."
So is this why they need a signature of confession to obtain a guilty verdict? Any BiB's care to comment?
Gracias
>
>http://pepipoo.com/Case_Files/documents/CF11_ACPO_LTi_letter.JPG
On mobile traffic scameras and videos:
A letter has been sent from ACPO which states:
"It should be noted the recording is not evidence and is just the officers "automated" notebook."
So is this why they need a signature of confession to obtain a guilty verdict? Any BiB's care to comment?
Gracias
Tafia said:
Have a look at this folks
>
>http://pepipoo.com/Case_Files/documents/CF11_ACPO_LTi_letter.JPG
On mobile traffic scameras and videos:
A letter has been sent from ACPO which states:
"It should be noted the recording is not evidence and is just the officers "automated" notebook."
So is this why they need a signature of confession to obtain a guilty verdict? Any BiB's care to comment?
Gracias
What is the nature of the enquiry that was submitted to the ACPO which initiated the response?
Tafia said:
Have a look at this folks
http://pepipoo.com/Case_Files/documents/CF11_ACPO_LTi_letter.JPG
On mobile traffic scameras and videos:
A letter has been sent from ACPO which states:
"It should be noted the recording is not evidence and is just the officers "automated" notebook."
So is this why they need a signature of confession to obtain a guilty verdict? Any BiB's care to comment?
No, they're trying to manufacture a 'reason' that they don't need to give you your traffic video. They have always been very reluctant to give them out.
One can only speculate as to why they don't want to give them out, however the obvious ones are:
1) They don't show what the police claim they show.
2) In some cases you can get a very good idea of the speed that you were actually doing.
3) They show the police driving like raving lunatics to catch the motorist who is driving perfectly safely, albeit slightly over the limit.
4) They don't want you to see that the evidence has been tampered with.
5) They don't want you to hear the sound track.
jeffreyarcher said:
Have a look at this folks
<a href="http://pepipoo.com/Case_Files/documents/CF11_ACPO_LTi_letter.JPG">http://pepipoo.com/Case_Files/documents/CF11_ACPO_LTi_letter.JPG</a>
On mobile traffic scameras and videos:
A letter has been sent from ACPO which states:
"It should be noted the recording is not evidence and is just the officers "automated" notebook."
So is this why they need a signature of confession to obtain a guilty verdict? Any BiB's care to comment?
No, they're trying to manufacture a 'reason' that they don't need to give you your traffic video. They have always been very reluctant to give them out.
One can only speculate as to why they don't want to give them out, however the obvious ones are:
1) They don't show what the police claim they show.
2) In some cases you can get a very good idea of the speed that you were actually doing.
3) They show the police driving like raving lunatics to catch the motorist who is driving perfectly safely, albeit slightly over the limit.
4) They don't want you to see that the evidence has been tampered with.
5) They don't want you to hear the sound track.
G'day,
I assumed from the wording of the whole letter that it was not a pursuit video but referred to a roadside scamera van. Any further thoughts?
Cheers
[/quote]
On mobile traffic scameras and videos:
A letter has been sent from ACPO which states:
"It should be noted the recording is not evidence and is just the officers "automated" notebook."
So is this why they need a signature of confession to obtain a guilty verdict? Any BiB's care to comment?
[/quote]
No, they're trying to manufacture a 'reason' that they don't need to give you your traffic video. They have always been very reluctant to give them out.
One can only speculate as to why they don't want to give them out, however the obvious ones are:
1) They don't show what the police claim they show.
2) In some cases you can get a very good idea of the speed that you were actually doing.
3) They show the police driving like raving lunatics to catch the motorist who is driving perfectly safely, albeit slightly over the limit.
4) They don't want you to see that the evidence has been tampered with.
5) They don't want you to hear the sound track.[/quote]
G'day,
I assumed from the wording of the whole letter that it was not a pursuit video but referred to a roadside scamera van. Any further thoughts?
Cheers[/quote]
If its an automated notebook note then it could be eveidence couldnt it as notes from an officers notebook can be submitted in eveidence cant they? although if its a scamera van operative he's not an officer of the law so perhaps that wouldnt apply to the scamvan mans notes?
On mobile traffic scameras and videos:
A letter has been sent from ACPO which states:
"It should be noted the recording is not evidence and is just the officers "automated" notebook."
So is this why they need a signature of confession to obtain a guilty verdict? Any BiB's care to comment?
[/quote]
No, they're trying to manufacture a 'reason' that they don't need to give you your traffic video. They have always been very reluctant to give them out.
One can only speculate as to why they don't want to give them out, however the obvious ones are:
1) They don't show what the police claim they show.
2) In some cases you can get a very good idea of the speed that you were actually doing.
3) They show the police driving like raving lunatics to catch the motorist who is driving perfectly safely, albeit slightly over the limit.
4) They don't want you to see that the evidence has been tampered with.
5) They don't want you to hear the sound track.[/quote]
G'day,
I assumed from the wording of the whole letter that it was not a pursuit video but referred to a roadside scamera van. Any further thoughts?
Cheers[/quote]
If its an automated notebook note then it could be eveidence couldnt it as notes from an officers notebook can be submitted in eveidence cant they? although if its a scamera van operative he's not an officer of the law so perhaps that wouldnt apply to the scamvan mans notes?
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff