By punter99 - 5 May 23 11:58 AM
A new report has just been published about the management of SO. I've not read all of it yet, but this first paragraph struck me as revealing straight away.
"My background and career history are in policing, and I am the first to recognise that there are some very dangerous, evil, and manipulative people living freely in communities across England and Wales. These include those convicted for a wide range of criminal behaviour, and those who offend but for a variety of reasons escape justice.....Some of these people are amongst the most dangerous and their offending revolts, corrupts, and often ruins lives and families. We should not hide from this reality."
Nice to see he is coming it at with an open mind!! Why not focus on all the low risk offenders, trying to rebuild their shattered lives and being prevented from doing so, by heavy handed policing, instead?
Its not truly independent. It is the police investigating themselves.
|
By AB2014 - 7 Jun 23 2:53 PM
+x+xThanks for that. I feel that's more targeted when police are called out, rather than the unique situation of regular visits. Regardless, I note: if it becomes clear that the incident is not a police matter (e.g. not an allegation of a suspected or potential offence) and as such would not have been the subject of an entry in an officer’s pocket notebook, then the officer should cease recording.
...
Footage taken in private dwellings should be deleted as soon as practicable if it is not relevant to any criminal investigation or prosecution.
We're not under investigation, so I'd still argue it's not necessary. I don't disagree, and it also states quite importantly (re GDPR) that the operator of the bodycam should give a general warning that he/she has one and is going to record. In my case, he didn't share that important detail until I said I was recording the visit. How convenient....or do I mean deceitful ??
Even then, they could dress it up as a reminder.... I'm sure they're trained in all this, one way or another.
|
|