[wtjs]

Somebody admiringly cited statistics related to OpSnap Lancs, gleaned from WhatDoTheyKnow, showing what would indeed be an admirable response rate for submissions. LC claims in its FoI response that 2674 submissions were received at OpSnap between 25.10.21 to 30.11.22, and that 1550 of those had resulted in action being taken against the driver. Cor! 58% of submissions, many of which (but none of mine!) would have been crap, resulting in ‘action against the driver’.The War Against the Driver in action in Lancashire!

People should have smelled a rat at an action rate much better than Judge Dredd’s and I knew immediately it was wrong. My first submission to OSL was APL101900 on 22.12.21- my last in the period described by LC was  APL109592 on 29.11.22. I made about 400 submissions over the period- since mid May 2022 the great majority were reporting vehicles on the road without MOT. The number of submissions over the period was therefore considerably greater than 7692, which is about 3 times as many as claimed by LC- those claiming that the submissions are not numbered strictly consecutively, or that there are gaps in the allocated numbers are wrong.

I made submission APL107489 on 23.8.22 just before an absence and restarted with APL108065 on 18.9.22- an absence from the area of 25 days. Without my assistance the population of Lancashire made about 575 submissions- so it’s about 750 a month when I’m around, which is compatible with the 8000-odd I claim above, and not the 250 submissions a month LC claims

LC is undoubtedly lying, in the usual sense that they know that the information provided by the un-named person in response to the FoI request is untrue- they will have some dodge that there was a misunderstanding, the person providing the response did not know anything about OSL etc etc. So you can be pretty sure that LC is lying about the rest of the figures provided in the FoI response. I have shown that the evasive language used in the ‘action letter’ (which they have refused to change) allows them to decide, in the end after consideration etc. etc., to do nothing at all- yet that will still be counted as ‘action being taken’. LC is unlikely to be the only police force trying tricks like this- we recently saw that Sussex had copied Lancashire’s abuse and mis-statement of GDPR regulations to force applicants to agree that they were ‘displaying notification on the mode of transport’, presumably including legs, that they were filming. Watch out for similar deceptions from your own local force!

Topic

[wtjs]

This case against LancsFilth

This case against LancsFilth is EA/2023/0271, which is listed here, although it’s just a pending case with no hearing date set. Strictly speaking, of course, the case is an appeal against the Information Commissioner’s Decision to support the police in not telling cyclists what the police (didn’t do!) did about offences against them. There’s now a letter from the Information Tribunal asking the Chief Constable whether he wishes LC to ‘join the appeal’, and it’s likely he would rather see LC conduct a Sheffield NW-style Close Pass Operation- which LC has never done, and has no intention of doing, ever!

The CC would like the Commissioner to do his defending for him, which suits me as I will make strenuous efforts to be allowed to introduce evidence that LC routinely ignores all evidence from cyclists and does nothing at all even when it claims to be taking action. Then, if all goes according to plan, the IC will say ‘but LC is not here to defend these actions!’ and I will say that the Chief Constable should therefore be forced to join the appeal- that’s my present aim. They’re talking about a video hearing between 30th October and 27th November- it seems unlikely that these hearings are ‘broadcast’ to outsiders, but we’ll see. LC is continuing its evil ways, and didn’t respond to this at all- it’s almost 3 weeks since the incident. Blackburn Council claimed to be ‘investigating’ but looks like it’s also trying to forget about it and has said nothing about it since claiming that the taxi driver was licensed at the time even though he’s still not included on the Blackburn taxi driver registration list(link is external). This is looking rather suspicious!

[HoarseMann]

wtjs wrote:

wtjs wrote:

My guess is that the Commissioner will argue that police forces can hand out information if they choose to, but can equally claim exemption from disclosure if they don’t choose to.

This is probably the state of things. However, if the close pass has caused you harm, then according to the victims code, you are a victim and have a right to be informed of the outcome:

“for the purpose of this Code, the definition of a ‘victim’ is: a person who has suffered harm, including physical, mental or emotional harm or economic loss which was directly caused by a criminal offence”

If you want some evidence of a police force that is willing to share submission outcomes, have a look at Northamptonshire. I can confirm that the reference number I received for a close pass submission in April, is listed in the published spreadsheet and I can see they are recommending the driver receives points.

https://www.northantspas.com/PAWeb/Public/Content/23

[wtjs]

My guess is that the

My guess is that the Commissioner will argue that police forces can hand out information if they choose to, but can equally claim exemption from disclosure if they don’t choose to. This power to ignore things or enforce them at will is a way for the police to deploy patronage and let people off who pay the unofficial private fine, and to stuff people they don’t like: such as those who annoy them by reporting offences with immaculate evidence.

 I will read up about it when the Commissioner’s reply arrives (there’s a huge backlog of appeals to the Information Tribunal because the IC has learned from the police that you can get away with not doing things the law dictates by simply saying you’re busy. So the IC applied to the IT for all appeals to be paused because they didn’t have time to respond by the IT deadline.

[HoldingOn]

Fair play to you. I hope that

Fair play to you. I hope that in the future utopia where cyclist and drivers mingle together safely and happily, you (and others) will be seen as the pioneers of the harmony.
It is depressing that you have to fight against the establishment that is meant to protect.

I certainly appreciate your (and others) hard work.

[hawkinspeter]

I reckon the MET will just

I reckon the MET will just state that there’s a clear exception in GDPR for law enforcement purposes and Lancs will continue to lie and not do their job.

It’s a great idea, though.

[wtjs]

are you not worried about

are you not worried about some form of petty retaliation from the [Lancashire] police?

I have considered this for about 4 years, since I was hit by a vehicle coming down the wrong side of the Sainsbury’s access road and became alarmed at the police willingness to find any excuse for driving offences: in that case it was ‘only a momentary loss of concentration’. I bought the headcam and it has been downhill since then- they have, at least, supplied me with plenty of ammo. I know they would really stuff me for any driving offence which they would generally ignore. 

[wtjs]

There’s no sign that LC are

There’s no sign that LC are perturbed by my baiting as yet- the policy of ignoring pretty much every moving traffic offence persists. They don’t seem to be worried about any form of regulation. PJ07 NFP is often seen around Garstang, and is here 20 yards from the police station- almost a year since I first reported it. He’s going for 3 1/2 years without insurance, MOT or VED and is clearly not worried that LC will suddenly wake up.

[HoldingOn]

Genuinely – are you not

Genuinely – are you not worried about some form of petty retaliation from the police? I know they shouldn’t, but the news would have us believe they do lots of things they shouldn’t.

I guess its not like they could ignore your submissions more….

[hawkinspeter]

Did you just throw stones at

Did you just throw stones at the police bears?

[wtjs]

This is copied over from

This is copied over from another topic, for reference

As an aside, I have just used information from CyclingMikey’s YouTube channel (including a page dated only yesterday) in my appeal of the Information Commissioner’s Decision Notice which not only allows, but mandates, police forces to refuse to tell you what they did about the offences you report to them. The Information Commissioner states that it is an offence against GDPR/ FOIA for the police to even tell you that they hold information about what they did. This is quite important because it could be used by all forces as a precedent. So, the appeal is now at the Information Tribunal, with numerous files of evidence: I have several emails from Lancashire Constabulary in which they tell me what happened (generally nothing because ‘case not processed in time’) to the driver of vehicles identified only by the registration number. I even have an email from LC telling me that I must make an FoI request if I wish to know what happened over a particular offence! I generally don’t have close up video of the driver himself, for obvious reasons if they’re close-passing me to within an inch of my life, or crashing through a red light at 50 mph.

However, CM often does show close up video of the phone offending driver stationary in a queue, and also plasters the vehicle registration all over the page. Yet the Met. frequently tells CM (unless CM is lying, which seems highly improbable) what happened to this very identifiable driver- driving course, warning letter, points, court etc. (obviously, nothing or warning letter are the only options ever considered by LC!). According to the Information Commissioner, the Met. is committing an offence, so I’m looking forward to the Commissioner prosecuting the Met! I have asked for a court hearing at the Information Tribunal, rather than a decision based on reading the papers alone, because it’s a potentially important decision.

[HoldingOn]

Not sure if Blackbelt

Not sure if Blackbelt Barrister would be interested in the details of what you’ve received Blackbelt Barrister

He has done some previous work around GDPR and CCTV/cycling cameras and the police. He might do a video on it and give some guidance.

[chrisonabike]

Wow, that’s some catch,  that

Wow, that’s some catch,  that catch-22!

If that holds generally then good luck finding anything about pretty much any crime ever again.  “Did you catch my assailant?” “I’m afraid we’re not allowed to disclose that”.

I’m amazed the we’re not reviewing the right of the meeja to report on convictions now.  Even if they didn’t say the name they might have provided enough information for you to work it out.

[wtjs]

So this is the Decision

So this is the Decision Notice from the Information Commissioner which supports police forces refusing to tell you what action they took after they claimed to you that they had taken action over a traffic offence report. It’s worth reading, because they’ll all be using such dodges if it’s supported at the Information Tribunal. If it is, when the Met. or another force tells people that the offender received a warning letter, or a course etc. they have committed an offence

[wtjs]

I have not been able to find

I have not been able to find any reference to having to display signage

It’s still there on OpSnap Lancs! You still have to accept this, and when I’m filming people hurtling through a red traffic light, my transport is legs. The fact that most forces don’t deploy this dodge indicates that it has no legal foundation:

I confirm that I understand that dashcam footage falls under the Category of CCTV and as the footage is taken in the public domain, the Domestic Purposes Exemption under the Data Protection Act/UKGDPR does not apply and therefore all users are Data Controllers in their own right. As such you should be informing the public that they are being filmed and should have some form of notification on your mode of transport as you have responsibilities under the Data Protection Act /UKGDPR

 I have only just noticed the “1 minute before and after” clause- around 2019, Lancashire used to demand either 2 minutes or 5 minutes (I’ve forgotten) before and after at a time when you were limited to a 60 MB file! They don’t have that ‘rule’ (read ‘dodge, to discourage submissions) here any more

hopes that drivers might see a cyclists side of the interaction

Sadly, this hope is almost always forlorn- especially with readers of the hyper-junk press. I had it in my mind, from something on here I think, that Sussex was using the same GDPR stuff as Lancashire, but I thought I ought to check. I could only get part way through the process before having to give in my details, so I don’t know much about Sussex police except that they’re going with the one minute before and after rubbish, which they claim is essential for video to be accepted in court. This is obviously just a Trump type made-up ‘fact’- this one is 14 seconds long and would be excellent evidence in court. It obviously didn’t get there because this is Lancashire, and RLJs are legal here!

 

[HoldingOn]

After reading this, I have

After reading this, I have gone through the submission portal I use – it is an “OpSnap” portal that West Yorkshire policing use.
I have not been able to find any reference to having to display signage – hopefully they have removed it. I have only just noticed the “1 minute before and after” clause – I have made 9 submissions, all of which have been shorter than 30 seconds. 7 resulted in the police taking “action” against the driver (they never clarify what action)
I questioned the 2 and they did respond with their reasoning.
Never any mention of GDPR.

The ever useful BlackBelt Barrister has made this video recently:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QM2heUKjvak
which is a bit long, but relevant.
It has made me question whether I should be uploading some of the questionable incidents to YouTube, but I believe he would argue it is for educational purposes – I make no money from them, I am putting them up in the hopes that drivers might see a cyclists side of the interaction/ new cyclists can see what they might be faced with.

[Author]

Replies