www.boxertrix.com

Posted: **Thu Mar 02, 2006 8:12 am**

For those who thought my rant a while ago was a bit OTT, I offer a few quotes from my local paper about a single incident.

A police mistake led to an innocent driver being arrested and locked up in a cell.

Three-and-a-half hours later, the police admitted there had been a mistake and Ms....................., was released without charge.

Thames Valley Police said the error was made after information about the Vauxhall Astra was incorrectly added to the Police National Computer by Durham Constabulary.

.....upset at being stripped of her belongings and locked up in a cell.

.........particularly not being allowed out of the cell to go to the toilet,................

What was missing from the report was any suggestion of 'heads rolling' or 'jobs lost' or even the modern mantra about retraining.

What was also missing was whether or not the victim during that time had to undergo fingerprinting, dna testing and drug/alcohol testing. And also if she did what will happen to these records.

Both forces did apologise but apparently said absolutely nothing about any measures being put into place to try and ensure that the same thing does not happen again.

Now you don't even need to have your vehicle cloned (see recent MCN's)!!!!!

sandbar

Posted: **Thu Mar 02, 2006 12:27 pm**

ANPR is a very useful tool in the fight against crime, not only vehicle crime but any crime where the offender(s) have access to and use vehicles in the commissioning of the crime. Unfortunately like any computerised system, it is only going to be as good as the information put on it and in this case the weak link is human. Such a mistake will always make banner headlines as it is a system that is in the public eye due to what it is. However, if someone is stopped in a vehicle that has had an ANPR 'hit' then until the matter can be resolved ie mistaken identity or incorrect information, it is quite likely that the person with the vehicle would end up in custody. If you put the boot on the other foot, how pleased would we be if a stolen motorcycle was stopped with the theif on board follwoing an ANPR 'hit'?

Posted: **Thu Mar 02, 2006 12:56 pm**

All aspects of what you say are understandable.

The problems are that the system appears to be set up by people who are not very bright. There appear to be no checks and balances. And of course nobody is punished for elementary errors that, in this case, affects peoples freedom.

It is not beyond the wit of man to make sure that any such system cannot make errors like these. A vehicle was apparently stolen 6 months previously and the wrong details put onto the police computer. Over all that time that computer's database quite obviously did not cross check with the other databases that we know the police use regularly. This poor lady's details must have been on the DVLA database.

I would guess that until she ended up in gaol, nobody bothered to check. It was probably as simple as that.

I was always brought up under the impression that our law based itself on a number of basic principles. One of them was that it was better for the guilty to go free than for the innocent to be imprisoned. One of the other ones was that you are innocent until proved guilty.

I do not remember any voting to change either of these tenets.

So when the system goes wrong, as it has in this case, it should make headline news. Not only local news, it should make national news and everybody should be outraged. Those responsible should be forced to explain to the public (us!!!) exactly how it happened, and what urgent steps are being taken to make sure that it does not happen again. Until it is mistake proof, the system should be shut down.

Incidentally, one of the other principles, was that if the majority of people break a law, then that law is, by definition, a bad law!!! Speeding anyone???

sandbar

Posted: **Thu Mar 02, 2006 2:53 pm**

sandbar wrote: It is not beyond the wit of man to make sure that any such system cannot make errors like these. A vehicle was apparently stolen 6 months previously and the wrong details put onto the police computer. Over all that time that computer's database quite obviously did not cross check with the other databases that we know the police use regularly. This poor lady's details must have been on the DVLA database.
sandbar

And so? Which is right and which is wrong when a confilct like this shows up? Do you err on the side of caution or not? Or do you report stolen cars to DVLA? (I dunno - I've never had one stolen thank God) Or do the insurance companies report the theft - but then maybe it wasn't insured, so who would tell the DVLA. It's all very easy to rant and rave about things that must be 'obviously possible' until you actually have to implement it, with all the possible degrees of freedom in all the possible intermediate systems and all the permutations of possible actions involved in all the processes and all the allowable time delays etc. It's not simple and I very much doubt you could come up with a foolproof 100 watertight solution. What about freedom of information and all that too? You mention about what information was taken from the woman, fingerprints etc, but it seems you quite happliy have all your personal car/bike related information easily accessible and handed out by all these systems in order to cross check everything. You can't have your cake and eat it mate

Are you a member of Liberty? I personally would not mind going through a bit of inconvenience for the benifit of everyone else most of the time. As for national headline news - you must live in a village where a "FLEA FOUND ON DOG" is headline of the week or summit

So a mistake was made - you never made one? Let he who is without sin throw the first stone and all that bollocks.

She was inconvenienced, she's not dead, she wasn't tourtured, she'll get over it, you should too mate

As for speeding.... can you imagine having no speeding laws? OK - so obviously not... so please define exactly in a waterproof, no loophole type law speak exactly how you would define new speed laws - go on - I'm genuinely interested

Jason

Posted: **Thu Mar 02, 2006 3:02 pm**

Oops... double post

Posted: **Thu Mar 02, 2006 3:02 pm**

To put things into perspective it was only 3.5 hours loss of freedom, hardly the end of the world or worth sacking someone over. Personally I would find a sensible amount of financial compensation, say a days pay, and an apology would be more than adequate.

People are quick to shout when it goes wrong but where's the praise for all the times they've caught real life criminals amongst all the uninsured / untaxed vehicles?

Adam

Posted: **Thu Mar 02, 2006 4:42 pm**

The thing with this system is that it relies on us law abiding motorist to comply, ANPR will only flag up known criminals number plates ( and his or her known associates ) and cars without current road tax and soon to include insurance, all a villain has to do to avoid detection is clone a legitimate plate, and presto, he's free to move around willy nilly. What it is good at, is catching normally law abiding motorists who have "lapsed" for what ever reason. So I'm not against this technology in principle, but the idea that it rids our roads of career criminals is way wide of the mark.

just my 2p's worth.

Steve

Posted: **Thu Mar 02, 2006 5:14 pm**

Jason M wrote:Which is right and which is wrong when a confilct like this shows up? Do you err on the side of caution or not?

Absolutely - YES!!!

Jason M wrote: It's all very easy to rant and rave about things that must be 'obviously possible' until you actually have to implement it. It's not simple and I very much doubt you could come up with a foolproof 100 watertight solution.

I do not think that this is an understandable error. 6 months ago a car was stolen in the Durham area. Somebody put the incorrect details into the Police National Computer. The chances that the car was the same make, model and colour as the car belonging to the woman is absolutely infinitesimal. All those databases should be being cross checked (or cross checking themselves) to bring out the inconsistency that a Vauxhall Astra is not the same thing as a Kia Pride - or whatever!!!

The result is that six months later a totally innocent and absolutely unconnected woman on her way to work in Oxfordshire gets hauled off the road and put into prison.

But remember this also means that for the last six months the police have been looking for the wrong car!!!!

Jason M wrote:What about freedom of information and all that too? it seems you quite happliy have all your personal car/bike related information easily accessible and handed out by all these systems in order to cross check everything. You can't have your cake and eat it mate

Who said I quite happily give all this information. I can assure you that I am anything but happy about it.

Jason M wrote:Are you a member of Liberty?

NO!!!

Jason M wrote:So a mistake was made - you never made one?
She was inconvenienced, she's not dead, she wasn't tourtured, she'll get over it, you should too mate

What has that got to do with anything. I am not a policeman or part of the regulatory authorities. If I make a mistake, people don't get put into prison. With authority comes responsibility!!

Jason M wrote:As for speeding.... can you imagine having no speeding laws? OK - so obviously not... so please define exactly in a waterproof, no loophole type law speak exactly how you would define new speed laws - go on - I'm genuinely interested

This one is easy peasy. Firstly if you want to pay me 150K a year then I would guarantee not to make as big a mess as it is at the moment. If the speeding rules were sensible then the vast majority of people would obey them. To use the very clicheed example. 30 mph past a school at going home time is probably too fast, but for 20 hours out of each term time day it is an unrealistic limit. As for 6.00 am on a fine Sunday summer morning during the school holidays it is frankly taking the p*ss!!!

adamski49 wrote:........where's the praise for all the times they've caught real life criminals

All the times?? Just remind me - are the clear up rates above or below 50%??

boxered wrote: What it is good at, is catching normally law abiding motorists who have "lapsed" for what ever reason. So I'm not against this technology in principle, but the idea that it rids our roads of career criminals is way wide of the mark.

Correct - plus innocents as in this case and drivers of cloned vehicles as in MCN

sandbar

Posted: **Thu Mar 02, 2006 6:35 pm**

sandbar wrote:
adamski49 wrote:........where's the praise for all the times they've caught real life criminals
All the times?? Just remind me - are the clear up rates above or below 50%??
sandbar

I haven't got a clue because the media seem to be very good at publishing bad news but not so quick at publishing the positive side of anything - One of the reasons I gave up reading the papers years ago.

Adam (with a glass half full

)

Posted: **Thu Mar 02, 2006 7:31 pm**

All those databases should be being cross checked (or cross checking themselves) to bring out the inconsistency that a Vauxhall Astra is not the same thing as a Kia Pride - or whatever!!!

My mate was stopped a few years ago by plod who said he was driving a stolen car. He was pretty sure it wasn't 'cos he picked it up brand new earlier that year - Anyway they took it away and left him without the car for a fortnight while they sussed out that a Volvo coupe isn't the same as a Ford Escort, and that it was a Ford Escort that had been stolen.

He even had to go to the police compound to get it back and that was miles away.

I work with databases and they are a sod of a thing to get right, but that's no excuse for locking anyone in a cell for any amount of time, or treating anyone as guilty when they patently aren't

Cheers, Dave

Posted: **Thu Mar 02, 2006 7:35 pm**

Two questions ;

A. Do you believe anything you read in tomorrows chip wrappers ?
B. Was it your wife they arrested? You seem to have taken the matter to heart

Posted: **Thu Mar 02, 2006 11:12 pm**

related thought and quite possibly already mentioned on this site.

A couple of years ago I was pootling home from a meeting on my trusty old vespa and happened upon a chap with a similar vintage steed and identical plates

At a traffic light I tapped him on his shoulder and pointed this out, he just smiled and shrugged, said he had purchased his bike from the same place that I had - a large london vintage vespa emporium who import italian bikes and then get them reregistered.

A simple mistake I thought and contacted the shop who said they would look into it (they didn't) and then contacted the DVLA who decided that although I had the V5 and was the registered keeper of the vehicle, they now didn't believe me so I had to get it inspected..

two weeks later, bike is inspected and deemed to be my bike and all is well. I ask what about the chap running around with my plate and racking up god knows how many speeding fines (on a Vespa this is possible with a tail wind) and parking infringements not to mention holding up money depots etc. etc.

The DVLA reply that they can do nothing about it until said chap breaks the law and is caught by the police. Great...

18months later I get two bobbies knocking on the door asking do I own a Vespa registration xxx xxxT - I get a bit worried as my wife was out on it at the time and I thought this was one of those dreaded visits.....

Turned out that mr happy traffic light had reported his vespa stolen and the police had tracked the bike to me.... I then have to prove again the bike is mine etc. etc.....

Then his insurance loss adjuster turns up and demands a meeting and a look at our documents - the woman was pleasant enough although she seemed to be constantly trying to catch us out as if we were in on some big insurance scam (the thing is worth all of £500 on a wet day)

Anyway, not sure what the moral of the story is, at least I wasn't banged up and to the best of my knowledge there could be someone still riding a bike round which is not only registered to me but also officially stolen - hate to think what the insurance data base would make of it if I had to claim for my bike.

Ade B (we have looked into your details, and as you are not on the electoral roll, you officially don't exist).

next.

Posted: **Fri Mar 03, 2006 12:05 am**

Ade B wrote: Then his insurance loss adjuster turns up and demands a meeting and a look at our documents

I think that would have firstly elicited a "Go f*ck yourself, who the f*ck do you think you're talking to ?" followed by "Come back when you're ready to act reasonabley, have learned some manners and are prepared to ask me nicely" and then finished with "Incidentaly it's going to to cost you £150 to cover my expenses"

Then I always have been quite forthright !

Toodle Pip

Posted: **Fri Mar 03, 2006 8:24 am**

sandbar wrote:
Jason M wrote:Which is right and which is wrong when a confilct like this shows up? Do you err on the side of caution or not?
Absolutely - YES!!!

Jason M wrote: It's all very easy to rant and rave about things that must be 'obviously possible' until you actually have to implement it. It's not simple and I very much doubt you could come up with a foolproof 100 watertight solution.

sandbar wrote:I do not think that this is an understandable error. 6 months ago a car was stolen in the Durham area. Somebody put the incorrect details into the Police National Computer. The chances that the car was the same make, model and colour as the car belonging to the woman is absolutely infinitesimal. All those databases should be being cross checked (or cross checking themselves) to bring out the inconsistency that a Vauxhall Astra is not the same thing as a Kia Pride - or whatever!!!
Here we go again, no specifics as usual. It's clearly infintesimal that if she was driving a blue Ford Mondeo that there would be another on the road, and it's obviously true that number plates only fit exactly on the vehicle to which they were registered - I tried fitting a plate from my Vauxhall onto my Golf and they were clearly individually designed. The fact that the police see a car carrying a stolen plate they just go "oh that's a vauxhall mate, not a Ford, we'll just leave it eh, even though it could be a stolen/made up plate or an unisnured chav in a stolen replated vehicle - best err on the side of caution eh" Grow up and smell the coffee - there are a million combinations of fraudsters and scroats out there and all the cross checking in the world isn't going to stop problems like this happening. So it was six months later - so what? What exactly do you want in order to err on the side of caution. You say these people are not very bright, and that it is not beyond the wit of man, so go on, please tell me exactly what cross checked information you would require in order to safely pull the driver over? DVLA records? Insurance records? What if they haven't claimed cos the car isn't worth enough, or they've gone into hospital, on holiday, or died, or the car has been reported stolen by a neighbour, son, daughter whatever... Computers are even more stupid than most people and they only do what they are told, so please do give the rules to apply- it's not beyond the wit of man after all.

sandbar wrote:The result is that six months later a totally innocent and absolutely unconnected woman on her way to work in Oxfordshire gets hauled off the road and put into prison.
You should be a journalist - this is quite an emotive headline - "hauled off the road" Was she? Was she grabed by the scruff of the neck and hauled kicking and screaming into a piss soaked police van? "Put into prison" - was she? I though she was held in a cell, but hey, prison sounds so much better doens't it.

sandbar wrote:But remember this also means that for the last six months the police have been looking for the wrong car!!!!
No s*it, but then they've probably been looking for 10000 correctly reported cars at the same time. This all goes back to 'how are you going to confirm that the right car has been reported stolen?" Don't start looking until you've been round and contacted the owner in person to confim the theft - give the scroats a good head start eh?

Jason M wrote:What about freedom of information and all that too? it seems you quite happliy have all your personal car/bike related information easily accessible and handed out by all these systems in order to cross check everything. You can't have your cake and eat it mate

sandbar wrote:Who said I quite happily give all this information. I can assure you that I am anything but happy about it.
.

Blimey mate - you don't seem to have a grasp on the 'have cake and eat it' situation. You don't want anyone to pass your information around freely, but you want all your information cross referenced from everywhere so as you don't get accidentally stopped "hauled off the road by the fuzz and thrown into prison"

Jason M wrote:Are you a member of Liberty?

NO!!!
Jason M wrote:So a mistake was made - you never made one?
She was inconvenienced, she's not dead, she wasn't tourtured, she'll get over it, you should too mate

sandbar wrote:What has that got to do with anything. I am not a policeman or part of the regulatory authorities. If I make a mistake, people don't get put into prison. With authority comes responsibility!!
The person that input this information was probably just a low level, possibly civilian operator that maybe would take 2-3 weeks to ear enough to buy one of your belly pans - that's my point - if you want someone to be sacked for a small (but admitedly significant) error then I just want to know if you've ever made one? My guess is that we all have at some time. You want this person sacked? Maybe dragged down by their pants to a cell and beaten mercilessly?

Jason M wrote:As for speeding.... can you imagine having no speeding laws? OK - so obviously not... so please define exactly in a waterproof, no loophole type law speak exactly how you would define new speed laws - go on - I'm genuinely interested

sandbar wrote:This one is easy peasy. Firstly if you want to pay me 150K a year then I would guarantee not to make as big a mess as it is at the moment. If the speeding rules were sensible then the vast majority of people would obey them. To use the very clicheed example. 30 mph past a school at going home time is probably too fast, but for 20 hours out of each term time day it is an unrealistic limit. As for 6.00 am on a fine Sunday summer morning during the school holidays it is frankly taking the p*ss!!!

Oh yea, easy peasy.... I'll just put that onto the statute books as the law shall I? Words like "probably" and "unrealistic" and "Fine Sunday Morning" litter the statute books don't they? I can see a judge accepting "well I thought it would 'probably' be allright, it was a 'reasonably fine' Wednesday morning" Ahh ha - got you there, you're only allowed to speed on fine SUNDAY mornings - down you go son. You're having a laugh. I want an exact specification of what you can and can't do as regards speeding and I don't think you'd be able to do it if I paid you a million pound a year - but please fee free to prove me wrong

Bottom line - shit happens. We can all quote examples of things that go wrong, I can do it myself, and luckily I haven't been mistakenly involved in any of it, but sometime things go wrong. They allways have. They allways will.

Get over it

Jason

Posted: **Fri Mar 03, 2006 10:31 am**

fight - fight - fight

where's winger when you need him

www.boxertrix.com

A.N.P.R.

A.N.P.R.

ANPR