Worrying letter from the Police!
Discussion
Graveworm said:
Derek Smith said:
The letter should not be worrying. I assume that was a bit of hyperbole.
Is it the police or a SCP?
If it's the police, then the that they've kept your data is probably covered by various permisssions. However, using it for direct mail is not, I would suggest, completely in conformity to the regulations.
How could writing to someone who has previously broken the law, asking them not to break the law again be anything other than the purpose of preventing..... criminal offences. Is it the police or a SCP?
If it's the police, then the that they've kept your data is probably covered by various permisssions. However, using it for direct mail is not, I would suggest, completely in conformity to the regulations.
The ends do not justify the means. It is an unsolicited communication. There are laws about such things. The police is not exempt from such laws.
I doubt such letters have any effect. The only circumstance that puts people off committing any offence is the likelihood of being caught. Nothing else comes close. If the chances of being caught decrease, offences mount. Next comes a change of attitude, e.g. as we have seen with drink driving.
Below that, it is not worth effort.
Derek Smith said:
Graveworm said:
Derek Smith said:
The letter should not be worrying. I assume that was a bit of hyperbole.
Is it the police or a SCP?
If it's the police, then the that they've kept your data is probably covered by various permisssions. However, using it for direct mail is not, I would suggest, completely in conformity to the regulations.
How could writing to someone who has previously broken the law, asking them not to break the law again be anything other than the purpose of preventing..... criminal offences. Is it the police or a SCP?
If it's the police, then the that they've kept your data is probably covered by various permisssions. However, using it for direct mail is not, I would suggest, completely in conformity to the regulations.
The ends do not justify the means. It is an unsolicited communication. There are laws about such things. The police is not exempt from such laws.
I doubt such letters have any effect. The only circumstance that puts people off committing any offence is the likelihood of being caught. Nothing else comes close. If the chances of being caught decrease, offences mount. Next comes a change of attitude, e.g. as we have seen with drink driving.
Below that, it is not worth effort.
When local authorities were given the power to deal with certain Road traffic matters.(not speeding) It was called "Decriminalisation" Speeding is covered by the rehabilitation of offenders act.
I was never arguing that it was a good idea or that it works. I was pointing out that the intent of the data usage is within the law. You claimed it wasn't.
There is AFAIK no protection against unsolicited letters which are not for marketing purposes.
Edited by Graveworm on Tuesday 22 January 08:38
Graveworm said:
It's a breach of law, which creates offences for which you can be arrested, brought before a magistrates court, convicted and sentenced in an identical way to other offence. Its criminal and the legislation reads like nearly all other legislation. It's not recorded on the police national computer, nor are many minor offences, many of which have nothing to do with road traffic.
When local authorities were given the power to deal with certain Road traffic matters.(not speeding) It was called "Decriminalisation". The wording of the act reads like any other act. Speeding is covered by the rehabilitation of offenders act.
Good lecture - I am sure Derek was entirely unaware of the process. Thanks for enlightening him.When local authorities were given the power to deal with certain Road traffic matters.(not speeding) It was called "Decriminalisation". The wording of the act reads like any other act. Speeding is covered by the rehabilitation of offenders act.
Obviously you are still wrong of course. It's not criminal.
Edited by walm on Tuesday 22 January 11:39
walm]raveworm said:
It's a breach of law, which creates offences for which you can be arrested, brought before a magistrates court, convicted and sentenced in an identical way to other offence. Its criminal and the legislation reads like nearly all other legislation. It's not recorded on the police national computer, nor are many minor offences, many of which have nothing to do with road traffic.
When local authorities were given the power to deal with certain Road traffic matters.(not speeding) It was called "Decriminalisation". The wording of the act reads like any other act. Speeding is covered by the rehabilitation of offenders act.
/quote]
Good lecture - I am sure Derek was entirely unaware of the process. Thanks for enlightening him.
Obviously you are still wrong of course. It's not criminal.
What is the distinction?When local authorities were given the power to deal with certain Road traffic matters.(not speeding) It was called "Decriminalisation". The wording of the act reads like any other act. Speeding is covered by the rehabilitation of offenders act.
/quote]
Good lecture - I am sure Derek was entirely unaware of the process. Thanks for enlightening him.
Obviously you are still wrong of course. It's not criminal.
walm said:
Off the top of my head in this case, no criminal conviction and no criminal record. Things employers tend to care about.
Under the second part of your definition then it would not be. I am sure most employers may not care some do. It, like 45% of criminal convictions, is not recordable so is not recorded by ACRO. If you get convicted of speeding (As opposed to FPN etc) then it's a criminal conviction like all other non recordable offences. It's still a crime it's under criminal statutes just a minor one that can't be punished by imprisonment.
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2000/1139/made
danspec said:
mattyprice4004 said:
Whichever drugs you’re on clearly don’t agree with you, put the crack pipe down and go for an angry fap.
Is that how you deal with life - that would make you a w
ker. All the pisstake bravado “does bother me etc” “why are you bothered” is rubbish if it dropped on your mat you’d be posting on here.
Why are you even posting if it doesn’t bother you.........
you think your quips are funny crack on. I’m old enough to realise that some people just idiots without a clue and in real life nobody bothers with so they make “funny” statements.
I’ve had a quick search on the subject and found that they keep your data for 7 years.
So they are “allowed” to send you letters for quite a while still
where as if you just get points you hear nothing.
The gdpr comment may have been off the mark but I did add a “something” because Data protection isn’t something I deal with at all.
let’s see if they ramp it up to start sending pics of rta’s - saying this could be you!
Like with smoking pictures on cigarette packets.
So they are “allowed” to send you letters for quite a while still
where as if you just get points you hear nothing. The gdpr comment may have been off the mark but I did add a “something” because Data protection isn’t something I deal with at all.
let’s see if they ramp it up to start sending pics of rta’s - saying this could be you!
Like with smoking pictures on cigarette packets.
AdeTuono said:
You really do get a little wound up, don't you? Sit down and have a nice cup of tea.
You’re sooooo funny, I’m so glad you seeped out to show me your humour, you even posted a picture to emphasise your point. Well done you!
Keep up with your comments and I’ll keep replying with condescending remarks just like what happens to you in real life.
walm said:
La Liga said:
If you’re convicted of speeding in a magistrates’ court how is that not a criminal conviction?
It is. But he wasn't!How do police prevent crime (Which was the context of the conversation) if it only becomes a crime once a conviction has taken place?
Graveworm said:
So if your watch is stolen that is only a crime if someone is convicted?
How do police prevent crime (Which was the context of the conversation) if it only becomes a crime once a conviction has taken place?
Are you really comparing theft to speeding ?How do police prevent crime (Which was the context of the conversation) if it only becomes a crime once a conviction has taken place?
The main difference is that theft requires dishonesty and intent ( amongst other things) whereas speeding does not.
Sending letters to people ( I.e. generally law abiding people ) who have committed a minor road traffic infraction to remind them how naughty they have been is like kindergarten.
I would imagine it would generally serve to piss people off ( the vast majority being Joe Public rather than hardened criminals ) rather than prevent any further offences.
Red 4 said:
Are you really comparing theft to speeding ?
The main difference is that theft requires dishonesty and intent ( amongst other things) whereas speeding does not.
Sending letters to people ( I.e. generally law abiding people ) who have committed a minor road traffic infraction to remind them how naughty they have been is like kindergarten.
I would imagine it would generally serve to piss people off ( the vast majority being Joe Public rather than hardened criminals ) rather than prevent any further offences.
Why all the straw man stuff??The main difference is that theft requires dishonesty and intent ( amongst other things) whereas speeding does not.
Sending letters to people ( I.e. generally law abiding people ) who have committed a minor road traffic infraction to remind them how naughty they have been is like kindergarten.
I would imagine it would generally serve to piss people off ( the vast majority being Joe Public rather than hardened criminals ) rather than prevent any further offences.
It was claimed that the sending of these letters was an illegal use of the data.
No where have I said it was a good idea, or a productive use of resources. In fact I indicated that I didn't think it was a good idea to send them numerous times. Including when I said to you..
"I agree with everything you said. I was just dealing with the data issue."
It was then affirmed that speeding wasn't a crime, so that didn't apply.
I showed why it was a crime for those purposes but it was countered that it wasn't a crime because no one was convicted.
It is only the same as theft or any other crime in that there is no need for a conviction. It's another straw man to say that I implied there were no differences between theft and speeding.
The use of the data is lawful because the purpose, no matter how ineffective it may be, was the prevention of crime.
Edited by Graveworm on Tuesday 22 January 13:24
Graveworm said:
Why all the straw man stuff??
It was claimed that the sending of these letters was an illegal use of the data.
No where have I said it was a good idea, or a productive use of resources. In fact I indicated that I didn't think it was a good idea to send them numerous times. Including when I said to you..
"I agree with everything you said. I was just dealing with the data issue."
It was then affirmed that speeding wasn't a crime, so that didn't apply.
I showed why it was a crime for those purposes but it was countered that it wasn't a crime because no one was convicted.
It is only the same as theft or any other crime in that there is no need for a conviction. It's another straw man to say that I implied there were no differences between theft and speeding.
The use of the data is lawful because the purpose, no matter how ineffective it may be, was the prevention of crime.
What straw man stuff ?It was claimed that the sending of these letters was an illegal use of the data.
No where have I said it was a good idea, or a productive use of resources. In fact I indicated that I didn't think it was a good idea to send them numerous times. Including when I said to you..
"I agree with everything you said. I was just dealing with the data issue."
It was then affirmed that speeding wasn't a crime, so that didn't apply.
I showed why it was a crime for those purposes but it was countered that it wasn't a crime because no one was convicted.
It is only the same as theft or any other crime in that there is no need for a conviction. It's another straw man to say that I implied there were no differences between theft and speeding.
The use of the data is lawful because the purpose, no matter how ineffective it may be, was the prevention of crime.
Edited by Graveworm on Tuesday 22 January 13:24
You are the one making comparisons, not me.
As far as convictions go the people who have been sent these letters have not been convicted of anything.
They have completed SACs which is not a conviction or an admission of guilt. It is an alternative to prosecution so we will never know if these people were actually "guilty" of anything at all.
You appear to be making the argument for the letters (how else do the police prevent crime ?) and objecting to them at the same time.
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff