Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. Child-safe in minutes.

Meet the Other Phone.
Child-safe in minutes.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Talk
AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

OP posts:
Thread gallery
10
AnSolas · 03/08/2023 08:06

twoandcooplease · 03/08/2023 04:25

Thoughts on GMP piss poor statement relating to CCTV?
I'm suspicious. And I'm not holding out hope for the recovered servers being able to recover the two missing hours

I am glad they have finally announced a statement but it is unforgivable this error has happened. Poor woman does not deserve this

Why in 2023 are we still relying on evidence being put onto a hard copy disc? With high chance of the file being corrupted shouldn't everything be digital or on a cloud?
It seems fucking stupid to be living in the 90's putting evidence on 'discs'

Not necessary imo and look at what happens. This woman's life has been turned upside down for 29 months and it's far from being over

@Felix125

The police are saying they distroyed the data.

To make a copy they needed an original and the data policy allowed them to distroy that.

They had an lawful reason to retain the data so once in reciept of the original request the policy should start the data retension clock again.

As @Felix125 pointed out the police have a possible unlimited time in which to bring charges so its like a bank saying they had an original loan document but shredded it after the client asked for a copy.

Senior management know the risks of being sued so loss of reputation, loss of management time, loss of tax payer money etc and still allowed that data policy.

Felix125 · 03/08/2023 17:30

I think they are saying the copy was corrupted on the disc.
The original copy will be 'overwritten' after a period of time. Most places do this - shops, bars, pubs etc. They only hold the footage for a specific period of time - 30 days normally - I think this falls under Data Protection Laws. We can't hold data on people for an unrealistic period of time, unless its evidential.

So it depends when she made the formal complaint to the police.

Do we know when she was released from custody and when she raised the complaint to the police about what had occurred in the cell?

AnSolas · 03/08/2023 18:17

Felix125 · 03/08/2023 17:30

I think they are saying the copy was corrupted on the disc.
The original copy will be 'overwritten' after a period of time. Most places do this - shops, bars, pubs etc. They only hold the footage for a specific period of time - 30 days normally - I think this falls under Data Protection Laws. We can't hold data on people for an unrealistic period of time, unless its evidential.

So it depends when she made the formal complaint to the police.

Do we know when she was released from custody and when she raised the complaint to the police about what had occurred in the cell?

The police had the data
They copied part of the data but failed to supply the data subject with all the data.

The fact that they had the data and a request for the data is evidence that they are at risk of being sued in a civil case.
Senior management now have a lawful reason to not distroy evidence that they can show in court to prove that the police staff did the job correctly.

Choosing to have a half assed data retention policy which undermines one of the benefits of collection data ?

Insurance companies for shops, bars, pubs etc. will expect the organisation to store the data by having a condition in the policy because they dont have access to tax payer money.

Adarajames · 04/08/2023 00:03

Seems rather convenient that the missing couple of hours must contain the relevant proof or otherwise of what happened 🤔

Felix125 · 04/08/2023 09:48

If its been deliberately done - then its wrong and people should be sacked/jailed.

But I believe that there was a technical issues with the disc.

Do we know yet when she was released from custody and when she made the complaint to the police?

AnSolas · 04/08/2023 10:00

Felix125 · 04/08/2023 09:48

If its been deliberately done - then its wrong and people should be sacked/jailed.

But I believe that there was a technical issues with the disc.

Do we know yet when she was released from custody and when she made the complaint to the police?

The original file was deliberately distroyed.

In order to make a copy there must be data to copy.
The police had the data that data was subjected to a process which distroyed the data

twoandcooplease · 04/08/2023 10:33

Felix125 · 04/08/2023 09:48

If its been deliberately done - then its wrong and people should be sacked/jailed.

But I believe that there was a technical issues with the disc.

Do we know yet when she was released from custody and when she made the complaint to the police?

Feb 2021 arrested at her home after a wellness check
Feb 2021 Zayna put in the DSAR
Oct 2021 GMP release all the documents (paperwork)
Feb 2022 GMP release the footage of 1hr clips all jumbled up, on 4 discs. Zayna puts them into chronological order herself and sees there is 3 hours missing
Feb 2022 Zayna starts asking for the missing footage
26 July 2023 Zayna goes on Channel 4 and Sky News with allegations of SA
2 Aug 2023 GMP release a statement, only via Twitter, that the footage has been corrupted and can't be recovered .... 🙄

twoandcooplease · 04/08/2023 10:42

@Felix125
She made all complaints April-June 2021

Woman stripped and left topless in a cell!
Woman stripped and left topless in a cell!
Happyfluffball · 04/08/2023 12:39

This reply has been deleted

Message deleted by MNHQ. Here's a link to our Talk Guidelines.

CherryMaDeara · 04/08/2023 12:59

@Happyfluffball are you a copper or a copper's wife?

TokyoStories · 04/08/2023 13:22

Felix125 · 04/08/2023 09:48

If its been deliberately done - then its wrong and people should be sacked/jailed.

But I believe that there was a technical issues with the disc.

Do we know yet when she was released from custody and when she made the complaint to the police?

From her Twitter, I believe she was sent straight from custody to a psychiatric hospital where healthcare staff carried out an examination straight away after she pointed to where was hurting.

Felix125 · 05/08/2023 00:11

twoandcooplease
Its not clear on the letter (its not very well focused on my computer). Do we know when she made the complaint about the rape/sexual assault to the police?
That's is to say when did she report it - and did she know at that stage when it happened - before or after the arrest?

AnSolas · 05/08/2023 06:21

Felix125 · 05/08/2023 00:11

twoandcooplease
Its not clear on the letter (its not very well focused on my computer). Do we know when she made the complaint about the rape/sexual assault to the police?
That's is to say when did she report it - and did she know at that stage when it happened - before or after the arrest?

Will that matter now?

With no footage in the cells the police can not charge anyone (who was not in the cell) with a reasonable hope of conviction

Original poster
Dovetail40 · 05/08/2023 07:23

I guess it also needs to be established if she was not assaulted prior to arrest in own her property.

The footage could have eliminated the police and they could have focused on other possibilities.

OP posts:
Felix125 · 05/08/2023 10:22

Absolutely - and its horrible and devastating if it has been a technical issue that has led to the footage being lost.

It matters in a sense of when was it reported to police. As prior to that report they will have been unaware of a sexual offence against her.

And also, could it have happened prior to the arrest?
So is her attacker the person who has drugged her at her house, raped/sexually assaulted her and then left.

If it was reported within the same week, she would still be in the 'forensic window'

AnSolas · 05/08/2023 10:56

Felix125 · 05/08/2023 10:22

Absolutely - and its horrible and devastating if it has been a technical issue that has led to the footage being lost.

It matters in a sense of when was it reported to police. As prior to that report they will have been unaware of a sexual offence against her.

And also, could it have happened prior to the arrest?
So is her attacker the person who has drugged her at her house, raped/sexually assaulted her and then left.

If it was reported within the same week, she would still be in the 'forensic window'

The footage was not lost due to any technical issue it was a choice by the police to distroy the original data.

Elemist · 05/08/2023 12:26

AnSolas · 05/08/2023 10:56

The footage was not lost due to any technical issue it was a choice by the police to distroy the original data.

Show quote history

I also think it's pretty obvious that the act of jumbling up the video clips was a deliberate one to mask the fact that footage was missing. Occam's Razor.

AnSolas · 05/08/2023 12:54

Elemist · 05/08/2023 12:26

I also think it's pretty obvious that the act of jumbling up the video clips was a deliberate one to mask the fact that footage was missing. Occam's Razor.

Show quote history

i hope no cover up happened because that would be a large number of staff involved

If I were doing a data audit i would be looking at how the copying process works as multiple small blocks leads to basic error and each disk held 9-10 hrs of data (40h÷4disk)
Again this goes back to senior management and how they manage the legal obligations under data management.

twoandcooplease · 05/08/2023 16:19

We were in lockdown at the time. She had been at home alone

Felix125 · 06/08/2023 03:01

AnSolas
How do you know the police have deliberately destroyed the data?

twoandcooplease
If she was targeted by a person who was going to attend her home address, drug and then rape her - I don't think he would be too bothered about having to adhere to the lock down rules.

twoandcooplease · 06/08/2023 05:40

Is this how 'reasonable doubt' is thought through?

The one time in recent history when everybody is inside, off the streets. In this instance the only people in contact with this woman is the police. So when a she reports sexual assault and being drugged it can't possibly be someone in uniform she's seen with. It suddenly must've been a faceless man (who nobody saw/heard/reported) creeping around (sometime) prior to her arrest and raped her.
Even though her story has not changed, her memory is different, the evidence disputes this theory and there has been a deliberate act of destroying data by the people she says know more.

But no, she couldn't possibly be telling the truth. Because the police's story is the only one that matters?

Shame for any victim of crime by the police. They don't stand a fucking change if this is the thought process

AnSolas · 06/08/2023 06:36

Felix125 · 06/08/2023 03:01

AnSolas
How do you know the police have deliberately destroyed the data?

twoandcooplease
If she was targeted by a person who was going to attend her home address, drug and then rape her - I don't think he would be too bothered about having to adhere to the lock down rules.

they said they did.

Logic:
In order to produce a copy of data they had to be in possession of the original data.
They did not hand over the original Data
They then distroyed the original data
If they had not distroyed the original data they could make another copy.

Felix125 · 06/08/2023 11:48

twoandcooplease
I'm not saying that I doubt what she has said - and I am not saying that it could have been a police officer who has done it.

I am suggesting that the attack could have happened prior to police attending.
Why was she drugged and had 'serious concerns' to the extent that a neighbour had to phone the police in the first place? If its not normal, why was she in this state in her home?

How can we rule out that it hasn't occurred at her house by some unknown attacker or someone who she knew and invited into her house - most rapes & sexual assaults are by people known to the victim/survivor?

For an open investigation, you need to examine all the possible line of enquiry.

AnSolas
Where have the police said "We have deliberately destroyed this footage"

You can't hand over the original data - that's why you make a copy of it.
Its this copy that has been affected.

AnSolas · 06/08/2023 12:54

Felix125 · 06/08/2023 11:48

twoandcooplease
I'm not saying that I doubt what she has said - and I am not saying that it could have been a police officer who has done it.

I am suggesting that the attack could have happened prior to police attending.
Why was she drugged and had 'serious concerns' to the extent that a neighbour had to phone the police in the first place? If its not normal, why was she in this state in her home?

How can we rule out that it hasn't occurred at her house by some unknown attacker or someone who she knew and invited into her house - most rapes & sexual assaults are by people known to the victim/survivor?

For an open investigation, you need to examine all the possible line of enquiry.

AnSolas
Where have the police said "We have deliberately destroyed this footage"

You can't hand over the original data - that's why you make a copy of it.
Its this copy that has been affected.

Can you please limit your reply to one of two options ( .1 agree or .2 disagree )

In order to produce a copy of data they had to be in possession of the original data.

1 Do you agree or disagree this is a factual statement.
1.1 agree
or
1.2 disagree

They did not hand over the original Data

2 Do you agree or disagree this is a factual statement.
2.1 agree
or
2.2 disagree
.

They then distroyed the original data

3 Do you agree or disagree this is a factual statement.
3.1 agree
or
3.2 disagree

There is no need to type anything beyond supplying one of the numbered options

Felix125 · 06/08/2023 13:03

1 - agree
2 - agree, they are not allowed to under Data Protection Rules
3 - disagree