Chesterfield Online Forum
General Category => Chesterfield Discussion => Topic started by: hifimad on December 07, 2017, 04:38:57 PM
-
Nobody visiting the Pavements Shopping Centre could fail to notice CCTV cameras everywhere, which in usual circumstances is of help to the police which is no bad thing, however whose job is it to interpret the information collected by these CCTV cameras, the answer is Chesterfield Borough Council.
From my personal experience Chesterfield Borough Council is not a fit and proper organisation to be in charge of such an important task, evidence exists that when members of the council sees a crime committed by people connected to the Council they interpret the evidence of what would be clear to you or me as a crime as being completely lawful, however should you or I act in a similar manner then they would call the police in to deal with it. Also you are able to demand of the Council that they provide you copies of CCTV footage they have of you, the Council has an obligation to blank out the faces of other people but also to give you unedited shots they have taken of you. Again there is clear evidence of the Council removing sections they see as embarrassing and generally blocking out anything they do not want you to see. To take this a step further you may need the footage to use as evidence of a crime committed against yourself this being the case if the Council has edited the footage supplied this evidence would become invalid, this could be seen as tampering with evidence and a possible attempt to pervert the course of justice. So how can we be confident that any footage taken will be dealt with in a fair and proper manner, in short as long as we rely on Chesterfield Borough Council we can’t. ::)
-
I know very little about CCTV rules TBH.
Wouldn't police know when viewing it if it had been edited?
-
here is a hypthothetical senario lets a person has been forcibly taken into a shop against his will and the police had been called by whoever had done the taking, and lets say the detained person was shown by the police to have done nothing wrong, at this point the police have a duty to let the detained person leave. now lets say that the person who datained the detainee requested that the police were to detain that person for a further 5 mins and the police did so, then in this senario the police would be guilty of unlawful detention, now to prove police wrongdoing the detained person requests the CCTV footage of himself being detained, however when he receives the footage from the Council not only has the time stamp been removed but also the section of footage showing him being held ulawfully. for CCTV footage to be allowed as evidence in court there needs to be a means of showing the time andd date, the Council also wrongly and purposely interprets the images to cover up the fact that a crime against the detainee had ever ocurred, thus i would contend that in such a senario the Counciil would be tampering with evidence and i suggest be open to a charge of attempting to pervert the course of justice
-
I really have no idea about what could be done in this instance.
Sometimes when a person feels an injustice has been done to them and there is seemingly no way to get this justice - maybe it is better for ones own sanity to put it behind us.
Otherwise the injustice carries on affecting us and interfering with our lives. - If that makes sense :)
-
i agree with you upto a point howeverif the hypothetical situation did ocurr there would not just be injustice there would be criminal activity perpetrated against the individual concerned should we turn a bllind eye to that i think not i think that Edmund burke put it best when he said "The Only Thing Necessary for the Triumph of Evil is that Good Men Do Nothing".
-
It is the 'what can we do about it' that is the sticking point.
So - what actipn could a person take?
-
in the hypothetical senario what we can do about it is to complain to the council and hope that they deal with you in a fair and lawful manner by giving a fair and balanced view of any evidence, also i would consider it encumbant on the council to provide you with the footage that you requested and discontinue with the culture of denial. however i think that what might happen is they would hypotheticly put someone up, i will just pull a random name out here lets say James Drury Executive Director to purposely misinterpret the true actions of members of the council to claim that the evidence tampering was accidental and to do everything in his power to cover up any wrongdoing, hypothetically speaking, then if this were a real senario i might consider aproaching the Daily Mail news paper so that they could use it to show people what life under a labour administration would truly look like, again hypothetcally speaking.
-
oh i forgot to tell you another avenue of complaint you could hypothecally approach the stitting mayor lets for argument sake use Councillor Diouf as an example and lets say that on recieving your complaint he is very keen to look into the lies and injustces perpertrated against an individual, he could hypothetically aproach somebody in the Council and they could warn him off as they were in the process of covering it all up, and he may even send you a letter stating that he was sorry he was unable to look into the matter further and say he hoped that at some point in the future you would get the answers you were seeking, all hypothetical of course
-
I don't know if it makes a difference, but as far as i'm aware, the CCTV cameras in chesterfield are still monitered by a private company for CBC
-
you mean Kier who are in "partnership" with the council and manage the Pavements Security for the Council, as i understand it kier is a management company employed by the council, hence if you have any complaints regarding security staff in the Pavements these have to be addressed by the council. and be prepared to be sworn at by Kiers represetitive as has happened to myself.
-
Ombudsman ?
-
Anyone who owns, operates, or is effectively in charge, of a CCTV system that covers an area that is accessible to the public, is required by law to be trained and qualified to SIA standards.
This means that they have to be aware of, and abide by, the letter of the law regarding your rights to access any recordings that you may be involved in, as well as your rights under the Data Protection Act.
Breaches of these rules are a criminal matter, and if you believe they have occurred then talk to a solicitor.
Tampering with video evidence always leaves a digital imprint on the records, and a court can require any licenced operator to provide the records as evidence in a hearing.
If you are serious about these allegations then you need to get advice from a legal professional, and not, with all due respect, the unqualified members of this forum.
-
This link 'should' work. It's from 6 years ago.
https://www.chesterfieldforum.net/threads/is-shopwatch-being-used-to-prevent-justice.2496/
-
an excellent post though i say so myself in absolutely no modesty whatsoever :). hypotheticaly the council may drag its feet dealing with a complaint for four years in the knowledge that the ombudsman only responds to complaints upto a year old, during which time he or she expects the council to have dealt with all three stages of any complaint within a reasonable time frame as required by law, you may also aproach the information commissioner who would inform you that he would not take action and you would have to take the matter to court yourself, the only real option now would be to use the right wing press to point out to people the behavior of and to discredit a labour administration nationaly the other option would be to seek a judicial review at a minimum cost of £30000 of course this is all hypothetical.
-
Anyone who owns, operates, or is effectively in charge, of a CCTV system that covers an area that is accessible to the public, is required by law to be trained and qualified to SIA standards.
This means that they have to be aware of, and abide by, the letter of the law regarding your rights to access any recordings that you may be involved in, as well as your rights under the Data Protection Act.
Breaches of these rules are a criminal matter, and if you believe they have occurred then talk to a solicitor.
Tampering with video evidence always leaves a digital imprint on the records, and a court can require any licenced operator to provide the records as evidence in a hearing.
Yes - correct. Well said !
If you are serious about these allegations then you need to get advice from a legal professional, and not, with all due respect, the unqualified members of this forum.
-
Nowl lets suppose all the above hypothetical incidents had been real rather than imaginary, it may be that at some point a person might find themselves in conference about complaints he may or may not had made, lets just say that he was talking to however unlikely the executive director James Drury would it not be instructive if that person had on him at the time of the conference an olympus digital recorder (i only mention a olympus recorder as i hapen to have one) and lets just say a perrson where to have a recording of James Drury saying that at the time of a supposed incident the people involved were not as had previously been claimed Sia registered, such a recording if it did indeed exist lets say saved on a lenovo t410 laptop coincidentally exactly the same as the one i am using now, then this non existant recording would be not only be instructive it may also be evidence of a crime having been comitted as to claim you are SIA registered when you are not is a criminal offence, it may also suggest that the council have little or no concern about the law as it pertains to thier own actions all, also if such recordings did exist i suspect someone might make sure that copies had been made and kept in a secure location and not just on his imaginery laptop, all hypothetical of course
-
I believe this is why especially in the U.S.A. the first thing people do when confronted by anyone in authority is get out their phones and start recording the incident, and from what I've seen on you tube in most cases that's maybe not a bad idea.
Unfortunately in times of emergencies when quick action is needed passers by would sooner record what's happening than help, well over 90% of what is viewed on you tube comes from peoples camera phones.
Having said that my wife bought me a dash cam for my last birthday and the car never moves off the drive without it switched on.
-
I think the problem is that quite often these people have no authority they simply go around imposing their will on everyone, and when someone fights back by attempting to assert their legal rights, these authoritarian nobodys reaction is to resort to violence and other abuses, the funny thing is that when cctv cameras first came along they were very expensive so ordinary people could not afford to buy them, so when people complained about their seemingly blanket deployment they were confronted with statements from the police and others with "what have you got to hide" or "if you have done nothing wrong you have nothing to worry about", what a turn around go onto youtube and look at police reactions to being filmed, i am waiting for someone to say to them if you have done nothing wrong you have nothing to worry about and to see their reaction. though i doubt they have the sese or the humour to see the irony in their inconsequential rants.
-
If you have a CCTV camera on public premises you 'should' be registered and footage only viewed if necessary.
CCTV use on your own property can only view your property - not beyond.