Plain lazy, incompetent or corrupt?

Virtually every day ilovemacc receives media releases from Cheshire Police.

Most of them seek to bring our attention to the latest ‘initiative’ – like the one in the image above,.

Sadly these days, few of their initiatives involve the sort of crime-fighting most of us would like to see police reverting to.

Some relate to law-breaking including traffic incidents – but all media releases contain an appeal for the public to provide cctv or dash cam footage – to assist police with their enquiries.

We’ve recently received some dash-cam footage from a disgruntled ilovemacc subscriber and suggest you decide whether Cheshire Police responded correctly.

You’ll have seen the vehicle (carrying the dash-cam) following motoring regulations – if you encounter an amber traffic light (and it’s safe to do so) stop.

You’ll then see the traffic lights turn red – which again means stop.

But this time, no ifs, no buts, STOP.

Following the lights turning red a car overtakes (at speed) and crosses the junction.

Another vehicle crossing from left to right at that moment would have collided – and someone could have been seriously hurt.

A cyclist or motorcyclist would have been badly injured – possibly even killed.

Taking on board the police’s continual requests for assistance from the public, the driver did what he thought was the right thing and submitted the video file to Cheshire Police – along with a statement covering the events – and even offering to attend court should it be deemed necessary.

Now you would imagine that the video contains incontrovertible evidence of a serious traffic offence – and the driver would at the very least be interviewed, possibly cautioned – or even prosecuted for dangerous driving.

But no, this is the response received from Cheshire Constabulary:

“Thank you for your submission to the Traffic Incident reporting process.

“On this occasion we will not be proceeding with a formal prosecution against any parties involved.

“This is because the incident in the footage you’ve supplied doesn’t demonstrate the minimum threshold of what we would be looking for in order to pursue any offences so on this occasion no action can be taken against another party but thanks for letting us know, I’ve logged the details in case it comes to our attention again.

“Please bear in mind that your footage is the only independent evidence I have to review and I can only go from the perspective that gives which isn’t always a true reflection on what occurred. Obviously you were there at the time and experienced the incident and may feel it occurred differently but I have to be able to evidence using your footage that any offences can be clearly seen to any other party to have been fully made out beyond any reasonable doubt.

“I appreciate that this may be frustrating but I have to presume potentially it could end up in court for whatever reason and therefore the independent evidence I have to produce must show beyond any reasonable doubt that in order to pursue this particular offence the offence has been fully made out.

“In this case the vehicle involved had enough time to stop as the traffic lights change to red, that it was safe to do so (that there wasn’t other vehicles behind them which could have collided if they had stopped) and more relevant to this case that the stop line can be clearly seen and where the vehicle was at the point the lights become red which unfortunately I’m unable to clearly do.”

Having watched the (original) footage several times, it’s clear to everyone that no other vehicle was following the one running the red light.

So there was no potential for anyone running into the back of the miscreant.

The driver who contacted Cheshire Police advises us he actually has a rearward camera fitted to his car – and if Cheshire Police had taken the time to contact him – this could have been provided.

The miscreant clearly came up from the rear of the complainants car, which stopped. So to say a vehicle following didn’t have time to stop is ludicrous.

And what, in the name of all that’s holy, does “I’ve logged the details in case it comes to our attention again” mean?

Finally, if the worst had happened and there had been a collision, possibly even a fatality – would the dash-cam footage be deemed ‘inconclusive’ as to who was to blame?

And, trust us, the YouTube image isn’t very sharp – the original (sent to the police) is crystal clear.

So yet again, we’re left asking the question why?

Are Cheshire Police officers lazy . . . or, judging by their comments, incompetent . . . or maybe the driver was an off-duty copper, or a friend?

We asked our subscriber if he would consider submitting any dash-cam or cctv footage to police again.

“I very, very much doubt it!” he said.

So there you have it – again.

Mind how you go!