Furious with the useless police, who do I complain to?

[streaky]

Lucas Ayde said:

streaky said:

Remember, the offender has 'uman rites ... and sometimes it appears that they transcend those of the victim.

The victim quickly gets over the assault (or whatever), the offender is filled with remorse and this can blight their lives evermore. Dropping the charge helps them come to terms with their momentary loss of control. State-funded counselling assists them too, as do a range of other handouts.

Blame B'Liar.

Streaky

Cynic? Moi? Mais non, mon amis.

Given the facts related by the OP the case was dropped because of crap service from the police, not because of those pesky human rights that get blamed for everything.

Your insight is obviously greater than mine. Nowhere in the OP did I see that given as the absolute reason.

However, it is not uncommon for a defence brief to plead, after a long delay, that his client's rights are being infringed by not proceeding with the trial. Indeed, the OP states (2nd sentence, 4th paragraph) that the defence solicitor was making such claims part way through the process.

Streaky

PS - in a timely manner, Lord Carlisle - the independent reviewer of anti-terror laws - has stated in his latest report that rulings by the ECHR have undermined efforts to deport dangerous individuals from the UK, and has stated as an indisputable fact that the rights of terrorists and suspected terrorists have now overtaken those of the general public. Thus, because even the risk of an affront to their 'human rights' must be considered foremost, it has become effectively impossible to deport any terrorist anywhere, making Britain a kind of permanent active al-Qaeda retirement base. Something the Americans have also recently commented disdainfully upon - Streaky

[Lucas Ayde]

streaky said:

your insight is obviously greater than mine. Nowhere in the OP did I see that given as the absolute reason.

Yes Sherlock, that's why I said: "Given the facts related by the OP the case was dropped because of crap service from the police, not because of those pesky human rights that get blamed for everything." as you apparently asserted as the 'absolute reason'.

The original post being:

"The cctv was clear as could be and I personally burnt it off an annotated the whole thing with timings etc etc.

Skip forward and the case eventually came to court about 6 months ago. It was adjourned as the police technical support unit had somehow been playing with their dicks for 6 months and not transferred the footage onto some kind of dvd that could be played in court. ( I had the whole fking thing transferred onto my phone the same day so it's not like it's fking difficult).

3 months ago I go back to court only to be told "oh sorry, we still havent got the footage yet" and it was adjourned again. Meanwhile junkie stfaces solicitor is whining that its unfair to make him wait this long but I'm assured it will go ahead anyway.

Skip forward to now and I find out through the grapevine that junkie has had the case against him dropped."

If the police service involved weren't competent enough to get their act together in time to present evidence a year later at court and then fail once again to present evidence at the next hearing another 3 months after that, then it looks very much like a failing on the part of the police rather than the existence of some pesky, interfering, pinko law designed to give the accused rights to a timely hearing, no?

Edited by Lucas Ayde on Friday 4th February 17:14

[streaky]

^^^^^

Firstly, your selective editing of the OP omits the statement:

"Meanwhile junkie stfaces solicitor is whining that its unfair to make him wait this long but I'm assured it will go ahead anyway."

Bad form on your part.

Secondly, I did not assert that the case was dropped for this reason, but merely offered a gratuitous comment.

Reading between the lines is a vital skill on SP&L.

Streaky

Edited by streaky on Saturday 5th February 05:51

[Furry Exocet]

Lucas Ayde said:

Given the facts related by the OP the case was dropped because of crap service from the civilian technical department , not because of those pesky human rights that get blamed for everything.

EFA

[marshalla]

Lucas Ayde said:

The original post being:

"The cctv was clear as could be and I personally burnt it off an annotated the whole thing with timings etc etc...."

I hate to say it - but that in itself may have been a source of a problem. There are some fairly tight rules around CCTV handling to ensure admissibility. If these weren't followed, the video could have been ruled useless.

[Lucas Ayde]

streaky said:

^^^^^

Firstly, your selective editing of the OP omits the statement:

"Meanwhile junkie stfaces solicitor is whining that its unfair to make him wait this long but I'm assured it will go ahead anyway."

Nope - perhaps if you read my post properly rather than dashing off a knee jerk reply you'd have noticed that those quotes are in there. LOL.

streaky said:

Bad form on your part.

Bad basic reading skills on your part, rather.

streaky said:

Secondly, I did not assert that the case was dropped for this reason, but merely offered a gratuitous comment.

You jumped in with a rant on human rights being to blame rather than the rather obvious failings of the police to actually present clear evidence which the OP had provided to them at the time he was assaulted at court in a timely manner (i.e. at two separate hearings 12 and 15 months later). When I pointed out the rather obvious fact that the cause was a clear failure of police performance (if the OP is to be believed) you decided that absolute proof was now needed for me to say that ... why am I not surprised at the double standards?

streaky said:

Reading between the lines is a vital skill on SP&L.

Just being able to read what people wrote properly before you make accusations of 'selective editing' would be a pretty good start for you when you're on a forum...

Edited by Lucas Ayde on Friday 4th February 18:30

[Lucas Ayde]

marshalla said:

I hate to say it - but that in itself may have been a source of a problem. There are some fairly tight rules around CCTV handling to ensure admissibility. If these weren't followed, the video could have been ruled useless.

Well first, it would be up to the police to determine that at the time. Nothing the OP has said indicates that the evidence was inadmissible, rather than the police simply failed to produce it on a DVD on both court appearances.

Second, even without admissible CCTV footage there is still an eyewitness - the OP.

Based on the OPs post, a total fustercluck by the police.

[marshalla]

Lucas Ayde said:

Well first, it would be up to the police to determine that at the time. Nothing the OP has said indicates that the evidence was inadmissible, rather than the police simply failed to produce it on a DVD on both court appearances.

Second, even without admissible CCTV footage there is still an eyewitness - the OP.

Based on the OPs post, a total fustercluck by the police.

In Scotland, the police operate under the direction of the Procurator Fiscal rather than working alone to prepare a file for CPS (PF fulfils the role of CPS as well as coroner and something between a French-style examining magistrate and American-style DA). The police don't determine admissibility - the courts do and in Scots law the disclosure procedure requires the prosecution to make a lot more available to the defence than English procedures do. Pre-trial discussions tend to get evidence agreed for inclusion or exclusion to avoid wasting the courts time with arguments.

If the OP volunteered the annotated CCTV without supplying the original, it may well have just been accepted and filed until there was an "Oh F***" moment when its nature/status was found. Typically there would then be a scrabble to either find someone who could produce an expert opinion that it should be admissible (expensive) or, more likely, a sequence of panicky activities until the realisation that it wasn't going to be useful dawned. Scenario 2 sounds more likely, based on what the OP has said. If it had been disclosed to the defence, the immediate reaction would have been, IMO, to suggest tampering because of annotations added and hence have it kicked out.

(Note - I do give expert opinion on stuff like this for both sides and, unfortunately, can see ways of presenting the OP's material as both admissible and inadmissible - admissible is a lot trickier to justify though.)

[Fubles]

I'm assuming that the procedure is different in Scotland then. South of the border the police have no say in what happens at court, whether a case is dropped or whatever(this is handled by the CPS) and CCTV is handled by civilian specialists in every force I know about.

So really this thread should be tittled, "Useless civilians can't copy CCTV onto a DVD" or "Useless prosecuter has given up on my case"

Before you go jumping to conclusions, speak to the force, give them your details and find out your crime reference number. then ask for their witness care unit, if they haven't been disbanded due to budget cuts, and then find out what exactly has happened to your case. If it has been dropped ask to speak to the prosecuter in charge and find out why. If you're not happy with their response, then perhaps start by looking here http://www.copfs.gov.uk/Contacts/Complaint

Best of luck

[cotney]

deevlash said:

I've no idea who the officer is, it was ages ago and I havent met him or had any correspondence from him/her or the prosecution in any way shape or form aside from getting summons to appear as a witness since the incident.

The justice system in this country is a joke. I bet of I was doing 101 fking mph I'd be hauled over the coals and they'd have no bother providing the pissing video evidence for that.

I know exactly what you mean fella, a mate of mine was burgled a few weeks ago (for the second time in 6 months... probably the same s)

However, this time, a building company are doing a big renovation on an estate literally across the road from my mates house. This building site is protected by CCTV.

My mate suggested to the police, when they came to take statements, that they may want to speak to the building site manager to see whether the CCTV covers across the road an therefore may be able to see them fekkers jumping over his garden fence.

"Yes good idea, we'll get straight on it" was the response.

Meanwhile, me and my mate decided to pop across ourselves to ask the site manager. Not only did the CCTV look straight across the road at my mates house, you could select the date and time you wanted and it would show it you on this little screen they had. We actually saw the CCTV shot of my mates house.

"Great fella, the police should be in contact and they'll tell you the dates/time to check"

Then we thought nothing more about it until my mate received a phone call from the police. When he asked if they had had chance to check the CCTV from the building site yet, the officer replied: "Unfortunely we've checked and the CCTV doesn't show across the road" ... which obviously riled my mate as they obviously hadn't bothered to check the CCTV themselves, and tried to fob him off with the st line that it wasnt covered!

How they can lie just because they couldn't be bothered to check it beggars belief, do they actually want to catch robbers or what?

[deevlash]

streaky said:

I can remember significant events in my lifetime ... this was obviously more commonplace for you to have forgotten the date.

Streaky

yep, I have been to court about 30 times in the past 2 years as a witness to give evidence against scum.

[14-7]

I have typed numerous rants at the stupidity of posts on this thread and deleted them all because what it boils down to is - is it more annoying for someone to start a thread where their grievance is

deevlash said:

I find out through the grapevine

or the idiotic responses?

It just goes to show post count really doesn't mean you are listening to a sound and reasonable person.

[deevlash]

Actually, I am an officially approved nice, sensible person as I have a personal licence to sell booze.

Anyway, I heard yesterday that this guy had been let off, how else would I have found out? The police and courts certainly havent bothered to tell me.

Thanks to this thread I now know who to write to for a proper explanation.

As for your contribution to this thread I respectfully suggest you toddle off back under your bridge and don't bother posting again unless you have something constructive to add. A picture of a digger doesn't count.

[M5Dave]

deevlash said:

yep, I have been to court about 30 times in the past 2 years as a witness to give evidence against scum.

Was it the same useless police who gathered the evidence to put these people before the court.

[streaky]

Lucas Ayde said:

streaky said:

^^^^^

Firstly, your selective editing of the OP omits the statement:

"Meanwhile junkie stfaces solicitor is whining that its unfair to make him wait this long but I'm assured it will go ahead anyway."

Nope - perhaps if you read my post properly rather than dashing off a knee jerk reply you'd have noticed that those quotes are in there. LOL.

streaky said:

Bad form on your part.

Bad basic reading skills on your part, rather.

A problem of reading on a mobile device. My apologies. I have appropriately amended my post.

Streaky

[Lucas Ayde]

streaky said:

A problem of reading on a mobile device. My apologies. I have appropriately amended my post.

Streaky

Fair enough.


I hope the OP gets an explanation of what happened.

[tenohfive]

deevlash said:

Actually, I am an officially approved nice, sensible person as I have a personal licence to sell booze.

Anyway, I heard yesterday that this guy had been let off, how else would I have found out? The police and courts certainly havent bothered to tell me.

Thanks to this thread I now know who to write to for a proper explanation.

As for your contribution to this thread I respectfully suggest you toddle off back under your bridge and don't bother posting again unless you have something constructive to add. A picture of a digger doesn't count.

I suspect the point 14-7 was making (and one I and others have made earlier in this thread) is that rather than accepting the grapevine as gospel you should confirm it. The grapevine is often wrong. And the reason "the police and courts certainly haven't bothered to tell me" might be that what you've heard is utter tosh.

There's a simple solution to this that does not require the efforts of PH's finest. Pick up the phone. Ring the OIC. Ring the court. Confirm what is happening. If the case has been dropped, find out why.

Then your rant will have a little more direction, and be based on something more tangible than "the grapevine."

[deevlash]

M5Dave said:

deevlash said:

yep, I have been to court about 30 times in the past 2 years as a witness to give evidence against scum.

Was it the same useless police who gathered the evidence to put these people before the court.

I caught the shoplifters, I detained them, often with them fighting tooth and nail, I provided the cctv and witness statement as did my staff and I made myself available to go to court.

All the police do is turn up, tell them off and then let them go outside the shop after taking some statements. Eventually I get a summons telling me to go to court to give evidence against them.

In 10 years of doing this and having been summonsed around 80 times I have never once actually got to stand up and give evidence against anyone in court. The whole system is a massive waste of everyones time that costs the tax payer a fortune.

[Blackpig2]

deevlash said:

I caught the shoplifters, I detained them, often with them fighting tooth and nail, I provided the cctv and witness statement as did my staff and I made myself available to go to court.

All the police do is turn up, tell them off and then let them go outside the shop after taking some statements. Eventually I get a summons telling me to go to court to give evidence against them.

In 10 years of doing this and having been summonsed around 80 times I have never once actually got to stand up and give evidence against anyone in court. The whole system is a massive waste of everyones time that costs the tax payer a fortune.

So why bother us then?.
Appears that all you are doing is doing wasting our time.

[Cat]

deevlash said:

All the police do is turn up, tell them off and then let them go outside the shop after taking some statements.

I don't believe the police are regularly letting people away to be reported, unless your shop is continually being targeted by first time offenders who only steal a couple of quids worth of stuff.

deevlash said:

Eventually I get a summons telling me to go to court to give evidence against them.

So the police who attended did their job, reported the circumstances to the PF, who then decided to proceed to trial?

deevlash said:

In 10 years of doing this and having been summonsed around 80 times I have never once actually got to stand up and give evidence against anyone in court. The whole system is a massive waste of everyones time that costs the tax payer a fortune.

Couldn't agree more that the court system is a huge waste of time and money but what has been the reason for you not having to give evidence in these cases? From experience I would suggest it is due to the accused pleading guilty at the last minute (possibly due to the fact that you and the other witnesses have turned up). If that's the case it is hardly the fault of the police or PF.

Cat