About a month ago I mentioned on someone else's thread that I too got an in car video recorder that records everything. I also mentioned that I witnessed a hit & run where the car in front of me side swiped a parked car causing bodywork damage to the wings & then simply just kept going.
Anyway, at the time I turned back and found the owner of the parked car, proudly pointing out that I had caught the incident on video. He was so pleased. He reported it to thepolice and the driver was contacted. On discovering there was video evidence, her insurance company immediately paid out plus a courtesy car. However, the police decided not to pursue the driver for failing to stop!
The victim (owner of the parked car) was shocked and has had to make a lot of noise about it and only now have the police, somewhat reluctantly it appears, decided to ask me for a copy of the video so they can see it!
The video clearly shows both cars ricochet off each other plus the registration of the offending car. I just surprised that with such a clear cut case they're not interested yet in the same town they are happy to stand around all day pointing radar guns at everyone.
|
too much hard work for little gain as it would cut into doughnut eating time !
It's easier to point a radar gun at passing motorists and nick them that way.
What ever happened to the good old days of the bobby on the beat doing his job ?
|
The police have never liked others investigating crime and they detest being urged to do something.
What's needed is a bit of reverse psychology.
Tell the copper you caught the incident on video, but you are going to wipe the tape because in your view it's not worth pursuing.
He will say: "You can't do that, that's destroying evidence, and we will decide whether to nick this person, not you."
Last edited by: Iffy on Thu 3 May 12 at 15:42
|
They already knew of the video evidence but never asked to see it. Maybe if she'd hit a child they might have shown a little more interest.
I think she was texting or something because she was swerving up the High St and nearly swiped a Jag before eventually hitting the Zafira.
|
It's the same in our shop. We have CCTV footage of a shoplifter, we even discover his name and address. We hand it to the police - nothing happens.
CCTV is not proof of identity - it could be anyone looking vaguely similar.
|
...CCTV is not proof of identity - it could be anyone looking vaguely similar...
Not as true as it once was.
I did a case last week in which good quality CCTV from inside a pub was used to nick people involved in a mass punch-up.
Some couldn't be identified, but 13 were, and in a rare moment of judicial clarity, every one of them was locked up:
www.thenorthernecho.co.uk/news/local/durham/9674079.Thirteen_jailed_for_mass_brawl_in_Durham_pub/
|
>> It's easier to point a radar gun at passing motorists and nick them that way.
>>
That's sooooo 20 years ago and way too much like hard work these days.
Now the preference is to stick a camera on a pole and let that point a radar gun at passing motorists for them.
The high-effort approach is to sit in a camera equipped van with a supply of sandwiches and a thermos of tea.
|
The aggrieved party has had the losses reimbursed. And there the action, and their interest in the matter stops
Its got nothing to do with them (or you for that matter) what the police then decide to do, or not do. Why should they "make a lot of noise" unless it just for vigilante satisfaction?
|
>> Why should they "make a lot of noise" unless it just for vigilante satisfaction?
It's got nothing to do with "vigilante satisfaction". That's just in your imagination.
The careless driver who caused all the mess obviously needs to change their driving habits. After all, you could be the next one to suffer from such a moron.
There don't have to be any charges/fines/points involved. It could be something like a driver awareness course.
|
You can be rest assured the lot of noise is for points/fines/charges.
Spite and revenge - nothing more nothing less.
Last edited by: Zero on Thu 3 May 12 at 16:39
|
>>
>> Spite and revenge - nothing more nothing less.
>>
Rubbish. If I accidently did the same to your car or anyone's I'd stop as I'm sure many decent human beings would. She created all the hard work by not stopping and trying to get away with it at the cost and inconvenience of others. A very selfish attitude and one I for one would be happy to make her think again if she did it again.
|
>>
>> >>
>> >> Spite and revenge - nothing more nothing less.
>> >>
>>
>> Rubbish. If I accidently did the same to your car or anyone's I'd stop as
>> I'm sure many decent human beings would. She created all the hard work by not
>> stopping and trying to get away with it at the cost and inconvenience of others.
>> A very selfish attitude and one I for one would be happy to make her
>> think again if she did it again.
Ah, I was right - Revenge!
|
>>
>> Ah, I was right - Revenge!
>>
I guess you're correct, but not from me - didn't cost me anything. However, I must be old skool because I want shop lifters prosecuted, I want bad people to made an example of to others and I want people who knowingly damage other peoples property to fess up rather than scarper. In my book the more people get away with it the more others will duplicate leading to bigger problems in the future.
This country has an increasing bunch of selfish wasters who cause grief to so many others. Happy to assist redress the balance.
|
However, I
>> must be old skool because I want shop lifters prosecuted, I want bad people to
>> made an example of to others and I want people who knowingly damage other peoples
>> property to fess up rather than scarper. In my book the more people get away
>> with it the more others will duplicate leading to bigger problems in the future.
>>
>> This country has an increasing bunch of selfish wasters who cause grief to so many
>> others. Happy to assist redress the balance.
>>
+1
|
>> Ah, I was right - Revenge!
When does "punishment" end, and "revenge" begin?
|
>> >> Ah, I was right - Revenge!
>>
>> When does "punishment" end, and "revenge" begin?
Punishment is sought and prosecuted by the state
Revenge is demanded and squealed for by the victim, even tho they may have had sufficient reparations.
|
|
She left the scene of an accident.
|
>> She left the scene of an accident.
Its up to the police and the CPS to decide what crimes have been committed, not members of the public.
|
"Its up to the police and the CPS to decide what crimes have been committed, not members of the public."
It's not actually
No, its up to the CPS to decide whether they want to bring a prosecution on behalf of the Crown.
It is the absolute right of anybody to bring about private criminal prosecution. It's part to the common law of this country. The CPS may take over a prosecution and proceed with it or more likely abandon it if for example they think it is vexatious but nevertheless that right to bring a prosecution by a member of the public exists and is a necessary safeguard protecting us from a failure to act by the police and the CPS.
Last edited by: CGNorwich on Mon 7 May 12 at 14:01
|
>> exists and is a necessary safeguard protecting us from a failure to act by the
>> police and the CPS.]
Crap.
Didn't work for the family of Steven Lawrence did it.
Double crap because you have to pay the legal costs, you won't get legal aid, so it is in effect revenge for the wealthy.
And who decides what crime has been committed, is leaving the scene of a damage only accident a crime? The OP and how cohorts certainly don't know.
|
Failing to stop at the scene of a collision, injury or non injury, is a Recordable Offence. That means DNA, photograph and fingerprints. So someone has decided its somewhat serious.
Personally I think its a (swear filter warming up) trick. Its alright to say its low priority which is the current response due to resource issues but it can leave the victim with a large hole in the pocket, aggrevation and a hit to the NCB.
Whenever I got the opportunity and evidence they were done.
Last edited by: Fullchat on Mon 7 May 12 at 14:58
|
>> Failing to stop at the scene of a collision, injury or non injury, is a
>> Recordable Offence. That means DNA, photograph and fingerprints. So someone has decided its somewhat serious.
>> Personally I think its a (swear filter warming up) trick. Its alright to say its
>> low priority which is the current response due to resource issues but it can leave
>> the victim with a large hole in the pocket, aggrevation and a hit to the
>> NCB.
>> Whenever I got the opportunity and evidence they were done.
Thats fine, you are just doing your job. IN this case the evidence was supplied, and led to the victim being recompensed. To then make a song and dance demanding that the perpetrator be prosecuted, serves no purpose for the victim other than spite and vengeance.
If the prosecution is key to losses being recovered, fine, if it s not its just vigilante justice.
|
>>Thats fine, you are just doing your job. IN this case the evidence was supplied, and led to the victim being recompensed. To then make a song and dance demanding that the perpetrator be prosecuted, serves no purpose for the victim other than spite and vengeance.
OK, so by that logic, if I was to daub a 12 foot phallic symbol on the gable end of your house with some excrement, as long as the rain washed it all away then it's all good?
Super.
|
>> Super.
Quite an interesting difference here between moralist and pragmatist lines.
The moralist line is that public punishment is needed as well as wallet punishment at full main dealer prices, and being rumbled in an embarrassing way by the fuzz with help from our camera-toting member. Nothing less than a court case will satisfy them. The pragmatist case is the victim was compensated, what's the complaint now?
It's the underlying psychologies that are interesting. Pragmatists are all too aware that they themselves have often got away with things in the past. Moralists are not aware of this, or behave as if they weren't.
Amazing.
|
>>Amazing.
Aw here comes Mr Maturity to spoil the fun :-)
I think if someone hit my car and I had video showing they were obviously aware they had done so, but sped off and didn't report it then hell mend them: they'll do it again, so they get reported.
If someone didn't seem to realise they'd hit the car I'd be happy with simple recompense.
There's a difference between criminal conduct and being liable for damages.
A big one.
|
>
>> There's a difference between criminal conduct and being liable for damages.
>>
>> A big one.
Indeed, thats why we pay for the police force and the judiciary. Its their job to decide.
|
>>Indeed, thats why we pay for the police force and the judiciary. Its their job to decide
And their job to filter good quality evidence from vexatious bile.
It's everyone's job to provide evidence as they see fit - the threshold for this varies massively between people as we all know from numerous threads about "should I report XXXX" over the years.
|
>> >>Indeed, thats why we pay for the police force and the judiciary. Its their job
>> to decide
>>
>>
>> And their job to filter good quality evidence from vexatious bile.
Exactly
>> It's everyone's job to provide evidence as they see fit -
Agreed. I have no complaint with any of that. However when it then turns in to righteous moral outrage because no further action is taken, I take objection to justice revenge going to those who whine the loudest.
Last edited by: Zero on Mon 7 May 12 at 19:51
|
>> There's a difference between criminal conduct and being liable for damages.
>> A big one.
Forceful arguments here from the moralist side. Indeed I feel a fit of morality coming on at the memory of some of the things that have been done to me and others. Come to think of it I wouldn't put such vengeful fury completely beyond the front-running pragmatist candidate, in real life sort of thing...
|
>> a fit of morality
>> vengeful fury
Nevertheless the money is by far the most important thing. When you don't get it it rankles. When you do, you start to forget the whole disagreeable business pretty quickly.
|
Just because you chose to call the law crap doesn't change the fact that your statement.
"Its up to the police and the CPS to decide what crimes have been committed, not members of the public."
Is incorrect.
|
|
I didn't say the law was crap, just your statement,
|
>> The aggrieved party has had the losses reimbursed. And there the action, and their interest
>> in the matter stops
>>
>> Its got nothing to do with them (or you for that matter) what the police
>> then decide to do, or not do. Why should they "make a lot of noise"
>> unless it just for vigilante satisfaction?
If they can do people for drinking water at traffic lights and taking a bite out of a sandwich, they should certainly oss themselves to do somebody who has actually hit something.
I suspect the reason for the torpidity is that it means filling in too many forms and not making much impact on the targets. Maybe one of our resident coppers can enlighten us.
|
>> The aggrieved party has had the losses reimbursed. And there the action, and their interest
>> in the matter stops
>>
>>
In some cultures that applies to all crimes. Just pay the blood price and then the family of the murdered person is satisfied.
But here I think there is a common good which should be pursued as well as righting individual wrongs.
|
You need to get your head around what modern policing is all about...and it isn't minor traffic accidents where both parties are insured... or a minor theft from your garden shed....or some graffiti...or a building society fraud.......etc.
If you'd like it to be.......as it used to be in the dim and distant past......then get your writing pen out and contact your MP, because parliament will need to sanction extra expenditure to put the numbers significantly up.
Unlikely IMO, as the numbers are currently going down.
That's the way it is.
|
>> You need to get your head around what modern policing is all about...and it isn't
>> minor traffic accidents where both parties are insured... or a minor theft from your garden
>> shed....or some graffiti...or a building society fraud.......etc.
I reckon that's true, apart from the building society fraud bit.
It seems to me that the police but an undue amount of emphasis on protecting commercial rights.
Defrauding individuals out of a couple of hundred quid might not be high on the list of priorities, nor theft from garden sheds, but when was the last time that the police declined to turn up at Tesco when they'd caught a 15 year old nicking a lipstick?
|
>> I reckon that's true, apart from the building society fraud bit.
>>
On the contrary. Banks and building society's are virtually on their own when it comes down to fraud.
'Priorities' don't stretch that far...and they have their own fraud depts.
The rot set in many tears ago. I can remember a conversation with a detective in the early 90's. He had a number of crimes in his 'in tray' including these two:
1, A hoover stolen from a locked cupboard on a walkway in some council flats.
2, multi thousand pound fraud at a local building society.
The hoover was the 'priority crime' because it was technically a domestic burglary, as the cupboard belonged to the occs of a flat right next to it.
The fraud was left to the building society fraud dept to get on with it.
....and that's how it has remained ever since.
There's no point blaming the people at the sharp end for their: laziness, incompetence, doughnut eating abilities....send your ire to the right place/people.
|
>> There's no point blaming the people at the sharp end for their: laziness, incompetence, doughnut
>> eating abilities....send your ire to the right place/people.
Oh yes I completely agree. It's not clear to me, how exactly the priorities are set, but it's the people setting them that should be under scrutiny.
For example, I read recently that the police raid 21 cannabis farms a day. God only knows how many man hours that takes up, the raid itself and the identification of the farm in the first place, and then the work afterwards.
I'd be interested to know exactly how a priority such as that comes about, and how much of it is the police service and how much politicians.
|
|
Arguably cultivating cannabis is only the tip of the crime iceberg - Organised crime, people trafficking, cartels, local cultivators making vast amounts of money and re-investing in harder drugs, tooling themselves to protect themselves from other dealers - far easier to legalize cannabis I reckon.
|
>> Arguably cultivating cannabis is only the tip of the crime iceberg - Organised crime, people
>> trafficking, cartels, local cultivators making vast amounts of money and re-investing in harder drugs, tooling
>> themselves to protect themselves from other dealers - far easier to legalize cannabis I reckon.
Yes, quite possibly.
I do use it as a genuine example of a priority, though, and wonder how it would be set.
Does it come down from the Home Office, or some other department, and then leave the police to decide how to tackle that priority? In London, does the Mayor get involved in setting priorities? And how much flexibility do the police have with regards to these priorities? Can they modify them, or do they just get to decide on implementation?
|
|
Drug test anyone claiming benefits. Positive = nil dough. For weed it's a lock of hair test.
|
>> You need to get your head around what modern policing is all about...and it isn't
>> minor traffic accidents where both parties are insured... or a minor theft from your garden
>> shed....or some graffiti...or a building society fraud.......etc.
But the police are more than happy to book you for parking on a double yellow, doing a U turn where it is not allowed, or breaking the speed limit, even when any of these infractions caused no harm or inconvenience. So when a car is severely damaged, that rates lower? Or is it that you can get crime statistics improved by booking someone for parking on a double yellow, and it takes very little time to process the 'crime'? I could understand if the police focussed resources on GBH, violent robbery etc.
|
Fascinating.
There's an ongoing case here, where a bloke arrived at a pub as drunk as a skunk, and became very beliggerent when he was refused service. Patrons were worried as he had driven there, and went back and was sitting in his car in the carpark after being refused more drink, so called Plod. Plod said they'd send somebody - they didn't. Half an hour later, the drunkard drives off. On his way to wherever he was heading, he caused a major smash - allegedly by driving through a red traffic light. Thankfully nobody was hurt, but two 'innocent' cars were write offs.
Now the questions are being asked - why didn't plod react? Plod is saying 'why didn't you patrons do anything about it?' - to which patrons reply - 'We did! we asked you to come and do your job!'
Last edited by: VxFan on Sat 5 May 12 at 00:00
|
>>>> Now the questions are being asked - why didn't plod react?
Can't answer for Cape Town....but can answer for London....because there is frequently/mostly/usually no one to send, the cupboard is bare.
You can't send what you haven't got.
All calls are prioritised. 'I' calls (Immediate) are the most serious and you'd be expected to get there in 12 minutes. 'S' calls (Soon) and you have an hour.
The worst I ever had, one night shift, was six 'I' calls stacked up, with no one available to go. I'd lost track of the 'S' calls. The early shift then spend all their time trying to pay catch up. My Borough wasn't a spectacularly busy one, some London Boroughs were far worse than mine...and struggled even more to achieve their calls.
Imagine dialling '999' for something urgent....and there's no one available. Sound wrong? Well it happens constantly, day in day out.
|
>> Imagine dialling '999' for something urgent....and there's no one available. Sound wrong?
>> Well it happens constantly, day in day out.
And it's been that way for a while, looking at Gadget and 200's blogs.
I live on a small council estate. I know which families any trouble's likely to come from so I take care not to bring myself to their attention. I also keep the doors and the car locked, make the house look occupied when it's not, all the sensible stuff. Works for me.
Last edited by: Dave_TDCi on Thu 3 May 12 at 17:31
|
|
What's the police like in South Afrika.?Must be hunky dory now after apartheid.
|
>> What's the police like in South Afrika.?Must be hunky dory now after apartheid.
>>
Nope. Abolute rubbish. A 'last chance saloon' for those who can't find employment elsewhere.
For example, recent questions in parliament showed that 27 000 serving coppers are not qualified to use firearms. Yet carry firearms on the beat.
Salaries are very poor, corruption is rife - our previous commisioner is serving 15 years for corruption, and our current chap is 'suspended' whilst being investigated for a corrupt relationship which saw him allegedly take backhanders from property developers for signing up said properties as police headquarters.
The fish starts rotting from the head.
|
|
I used to be an "angry young man", forever wanting to get involved in seeing that miscreants got their just deserts, but gradually I calmed down and realised that it wasn't up to me to try to solve all the world's problems. On the occasions that my car was damaged I accepted that all I really wanted was to get my car repaired. Once I'd achieved that I was happy to just move on.
|
|
Just say you believe it was a hate crime as defined by the Runnymede Trust and they will be out in force and making a press conference.
|
>> Just say you believe it was a hate crime as defined by the Runnymede Trust
>> and they will be out in force and making a press conference.
Hate crimes are investogated but don't necessarily get any action.
|
|
Friend's wheelie bin disappeared. She and asked Epsom Council for replacement. You have to report "crime" first, they advised. She rang police, was given crime number, went back to Council and received replacement bin .. followed up by phone call from police offering "crime victim" counselling! "We have to do this," explained caller - both women ended up in tears of laughter.
|
>> Friend's wheelie bin disappeared. She and asked Epsom Council for replacement. You have to report
>> "crime" first, they advised. She rang police, was given crime number, went back to Council
>> and received replacement bin .. followed up by phone call from police offering "crime victim"
>> counselling! "We have to do this," explained caller - both women ended up in tears
>> of laughter.
Very funny! :)
|
|
Just make sure the tears go in the correct bin...........
|
Police just can't be bothered. - diddy1234
