Shouldn’t it be law at this stage that cameras that are switched off should be put down as guilty?
this post was submitted on 28 Sep 2023
11 points (82.4% liked)
United Kingdom
4041 readers
243 users here now
General community for news/discussion in the UK.
Less serious posts should go in [email protected] or [email protected]
More serious politics should go in [email protected].
Try not to spam the same link to multiple feddit.uk communities.
Pick the most appropriate, and put it there.
Posts should be related to UK-centric news, and should be either a link to a reputable source, or a text post on this community.
Opinion pieces are also allowed, provided they are not misleading/misrepresented/drivel, and have proper sources.
If you think "reputable news source" needs some definition, by all means start a meta thread.
Posts should be manually submitted, not by bot. Link titles should not be editorialised.
Disappointing comments will generally be left to fester in ratio, outright horrible comments will be removed.
Message the mods if you feel something really should be removed, or if a user seems to have a pattern of awful comments.
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
Depends how reliable the cameras are. This would open up guilty verdicts for simply having bad equipment. You also know for a fact that some are going to break through other means also. You still stuck trying to sort the wheat from the chaff.
This is the best summary I could come up with:
The roll-out of body-worn cameras, costing at least £90m over the past decade, was intended to benefit both victims and the police - protecting officers against malicious complaints and improving the quality of evidence collected.
The BBC was only able to obtain footage of an assault by an officer in Wolverhampton, for which he was given a custodial sentence, after attending his criminal trial, where it was shared under legal obligations to disclose evidence.
Forces tend to release footage to accompany news stories which show the results of successful operations or following prosecutions in major cases.
But in the UK, Merseyside Police has repeatedly refused to provide videos of two officers switching off their cameras during an incident where a man was punched five times - a decision supported by the Information Commissioner.
Separately, the tribunal also ruled against releasing videos showing a British Transport Police officer turning off his colleague's camera on two occasions - one during a shift where he intentionally damaged a detained person's phone, and another when a search for drugs was being carried out on a young man.
She said many senior police officers believe body-worn video exists almost to cover their backs: "The sooner they get their heads around the fact that it's a tool that would help them build trust they'd be on to something - instead of hiding it."
The original article contains 1,479 words, the summary contains 227 words. Saved 85%. I'm a bot and I'm open source!