Support road.cc

Like this site? Help us to make it better.

Lies, Damn' lies and Lancashire Constabulary statistics

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!

If you're new please join in and if you have questions pop them below and the forum regulars will answer as best we can.

Add new comment

38 comments

Avatar
HoldingOn replied to wtjs | 9 months ago
2 likes

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.

Avatar
JustTryingToGet... replied to wtjs | 12 months ago
3 likes
wtjs wrote:

So I'm still working on this. Simultaneously I sent in a FoI request about the actual outcome of this offence of 21.2.22

https://upride.cc/incident/4148vz_travellerschoicecoach_closepass/

This was before Lancashire Constabulary ceased responding to any submissions to OpSnap Lancs- they sent the standard 'we're going to do something but we won't tell you what it is' reply. LC failed to comply with the FOIA in the specified time, but today I received the reply from LC's Data Protection Office:

Lancashire Constabulary can neither confirm nor deny that it holds any information relevant to this request as the duty in Section1(1)(a) of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 does not apply, by virtue of the following exemption:
 Section 40(5) Personal Information
To confirm or deny whether we hold any information would in itself reveal the personal data of the subject(s). It is important to note that disclosures under the FOIA are considered as disclosures “to the world” and as such, to confirm or deny whether or not any information is held would be unfair on the data subject(s).

This is nonsense, of course. I have the advantage that I already know how inept and idle LC is, so I am not impressed by this pseudo-legalistic twaddle. I have embarked on the long 'internal review' followed by a complaint to the Information Commissioner procedure which LC is relying upon to deter people who want to know what happened to drivers who offended against them. I already know what happened: nothing.

This should serve as an example to those of you have received 'action letters'- they are often not what they seem.

I really think this should go to the police commissioner or equivalent for where you are and the information commissioner. There does appear to be something rotten in the state of lancs police.

Edit: and your MP. Any decent constituency office will in the first instance send a letter saying I've received this, what say you.

Now, they may double down but but sending clap trap about the law to a politician when you're already under political heat is a bold move.

Avatar
wtjs replied to JustTryingToGetFromAtoB | 11 months ago
4 likes

All this has already been done, to no avail so far! This latest FoI will end up with ICO, but the police know that it all takes months and years!

Avatar
wtjs | 1 year ago
2 likes

I couldn't let LC get away with that! So I have now sent in a FoI request about the LC response to the FoI request pointing out that they had issued an untrue response and that they had rejected over 6500 submissions to OpSnap Lancs, while admitting to only 2674. I have asked for the first and last APL reference (see above) of the cases which led to this response, and a breakdown of the submissions rejected with the numbers in each category. You have to be careful with such a request as it gives them the opportunity to claim that it would cost too much, but it should come straight off a database or spreadsheet.

Avatar
Awavey | 1 year ago
3 likes

You're welcome, I thought it would pique your interest enlightened

But you have to remember with the numbers, its not just cyclist submissions there, theyre just dashcams, actually I always wonder why the FOIs dont ask for that breakdown as well, but you could be looking at all the NIPS involve car/lorry dashcams and no cyclists at all.

Avatar
mattw | 1 year ago
1 like

To explore this a little, LCC say on their Op Snap FAQ that they accept certain offences via Op Snap, and out of MOT date is not on that list.

Can you comment further what happens? Are there cases where these have been followed through, or are they being ignored in some kind of front-gate filter and filed in the round fling cabinet? Thanks

What offences are included in Op Snap?

Op Snap will investigate offences of Dangerous Driving, Driving without Due Care and Attention, Careless Driving, using a mobile phone, not wearing a seat belt, contravening a red traffic light, contravening solid white lines, and other offences where the driver is clearly not in proper control of the vehicle.
https://www.lancashire.police.uk/op-snap-public-submission-of-dashcam-fo...

 

Avatar
wtjs replied to mattw | 1 year ago
2 likes

Lancashire Constabulary says lots of things about traffic offence enforcement- most of them are lies, as I have just demonstrated. They're not going to sue me for libel. You quote 'contravening a red traffic light'- no response, no action to Porsche Cayenne DS 6972 going through this red light, reported as APL108813. Mobile phone use? APL110481 was about phone use at exactly 10:05:25 by the driver of TN07 CHM, seen and filmed by me- the vehicle has also been without VED for over 31 months. Nothing whatsoever will be done about either offence. As for reporting 'No MOT' to OpSnap- there's nowhere else to do it, and on OSL you have a consecutively numbered reference. 

Avatar
mattw replied to wtjs | 1 year ago
2 likes

Thanks for the further comment.

Pages

Latest Comments