Police officers across the Gwent force area will begin wearing cameras following a Home Office-funded trial.
In January last year Gwent Police was one of six forces in the UK to trial the body-worn cameras.
The force has been using the technology in Newport since August, but will now roll out their use across all areas – including Caerphilly County Borough.
Cameras will be issued to police officers and community support officers.
A necessary evil these days. It gives the public reassurance of of fair play and undercuts time wasters silly stories.
It does undermine any unspoken trust that might still remain though.
Is this so Gwent Poice can record just how bad they are at doing their job and how poorly they deal with the public, and when a complaint is raised against them the footage from these cameras will be conveniently lost.
It certainly does NOT undermine trust between the public and the police.
What these cameras do is produce incontrovertible evidence and a
contemporaneous record of events which the police become involved in,
sometimes with drunken loutish scumbags when the police are undertaking
their duty to protect families and communities from this CRIMINAL
behaviour, they should also prevent a distortion of the truth being
submitted as a defence to violent incidents in which `Red Mist`
overcomes a culprit and is often used to create an Illusion of the
facts.
I am more concerned with the Caerphilly Safety
Partnership`s misuse and UNDERUSE of the Multi Million Pound Caerphilly
Boroughs Street CCTV system, used usually at the exclusion of protecting
residents property and safety and more in protecting the
disproportionate interests of Pubs and Clubs and Commercial Interests,
Whilst, the Residential Ratepayers are by far and away the people who
pay for the CCTV via local Council Tax, including, the multi million
pound Caerphilly Council Budget for operating it year on year.
The public trusts the police force to operate unarmed and in a fair, even handed manner and offers respect to the officers authority in return.
Filming their duties in order to prove their actions at a later date deteriorates the trust.
Right or wrong, good or bad, necessary or unnecessary is another matter, once the basis on which they operate is changed then it naturally becomes something else.
That’s why Robert Peel decided that the police should police by consent and not force.
You cannot seriously think the police body cameras were or are ever intended to `prove the actions of police officers`? surely?.
They are clearly used to record the actions of culprits in situations in which the police become involved, and to make an `incontrovertible evidence recording and a contemporaneous record of both the actions and sound of each incident`. And on the issue of policing by consent, any culprits will be given the opportunity to alter any intended criminal behaviour by a warning that the incident is being recorded for evidence.
I haven’t even researched it, yet I’ll bet my bottom dollar that any bumf that was ever offered as justification for these cameras included the “safety ” (an all encompassing word these days) of both officers and public alike.
They are clearly used to record all events as they cannot be edited at any time to exclude the actions of any officer. They have also been used on several occasions to prove the actions of law enforcement officers in countries where they are in use. Why wouldn’t they be?
Your last sentence doesn’t make sense, I don’t understand what an individual “culprits” actions have to do with the principle of policing by consent. The general public give consent, respect and trust to a policing body not a “culprit “. By very definition anyone who commits any sort of crime large or small has betrayed conditions of behaviour and therefore any trust between the police, the public and them as individual.
Robert Peel set out these principles many years ago along with a few others, the fact that they have in some cases been eroded is another matter.
“I don’t understand what an individual “culprits” actions have to do with the principle of policing by consent.”
I`ll explain.
Any culprit would be `warned` that thier action are being recorded or are about to be recorded, normally issued due to someones unacceptable or criminal behaviour, after which, if a culprit does not walk away, they stay and continue their behaviour and, in so doing give their `direct and unequivical `consent` to the police officers action, what more proof is needed that consent by the indivudual is given.
However, Considering the issue `in the round`, of `Policing by Consent`, which I suspect you are talking about, I would think that `the public` would readily consent to this sort of additional evidence gathering stream, particulalry in respect to incidents involving violence.
These new actions simply add to the abstract`Consent` British Policing relies on, and simply appends a new specific quality or characteristic to it.
Ok now I understand. Your first definition of consent was not what I was talking about and is another matter but the confusion is obvious now.
The second part of your post is what I was talking about.
I suspect you are right that the public would happily consent to police forces carrying such devices but they would consider it (as I mentioned in my first post) a necessary evil rather than an ideal.
Following on from this notion I would suggest that if this system would become universal then the public would come to rely on any audio/visual recordings rather than the trust placed in the honesty and competence of the officer. This would be borne out by any removal of the system which would instantly result in mistrust. For example if the officers equipment were to become broken during a physical altercation, inflated doubt would then be placed on the officers word where as previously his word would have had equal standing to the suspect.
Take another example, that of speed guns. An officer has to now prove that you exceeded the speed limit with an electronic gun rather than his word, his experience, his judgement, etc etc.
Regardless of if this is a good and fair idea or not, it still erodes the trust and respect placed in an officer of the law . It also deteriorates the consent with which the officer polices which has been the standard since the police forces inception.
Admittedly time moves on and waits for no man, advancements are made and used to good or bad effect.
But any change in a system/procedure is bound to have/cause some negative effects which may not always be apparent until they have been lost. Eg, trust.
I dont share the view that the body cameras or for that matter, Hand held speed cameras, have erroded the trust the public place in the police.
I dont think there was ever a time in which a Police
Officers opinion or judgement was left unchallenged in a Court, either by, the defendant or his lawyers. There never was complete trust in the police and it is a fact that there have been miscarriages of Justice, both ways, due to a conflict of `opinion` about how particular
incidents evolve, Speed guns, took away most ambaguity in respect to speeding cars etc, as a result incidents of fines and prosecutions for doing so have risen disproportionatly to the increase in traffic
numbers, these Cameras will do the same to assaults on the police and on other members of the public where police are present, more than simply filming the actions of a criminal it will record the demeaner, the attitude, and more importantly, the intent of the culprit in serious
incidents. All such incontivertable evidence which smart ar-s lawyers would normally question as a matter of opinion between the police officer and the culprit, but will be there for all to see. etc etc etc.
I happen to think it will actually improve the trust beteen law abiding citizens and the police services.
Just to briefly clear up the matter from my angle, I know there was never a time when an officers word was unchallenged. I’m saying without the electronic proof his word now has very little weight resulting in a reduction of trust of his word.
I agree that these tech advances now remove much ambiguity which means an over reliance on such things and less reliance on the officers abilities which results in an erosion of trust in his competence.
Lastly, it won’t improve the attitude of the public toward the police but toward the equipment.
Again, right or wrong, good or bad, better or worse there is still a change in MO which has and a reliance on things rather than people.