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 · 06/08/2023 13:10

Felix125 · 06/08/2023 13:03

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

Ok
They then distroyed the original data

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

Where is the original data now?

Felix125 · 06/08/2023 13:32

I don't know as I don't work there.

However I suspect the original data will have been overwritten. Under Data Protection Laws, data can only be kept for a certain period of time, unless its marked evidential.

Which is why I was asking when did she report the sexual assault/rape offence to the police?

But if your saying that they have deliberately destroyed it to cover their tracks, you need to show some sort of evidence to show that, otherwise its just an assumption.

AnSolas · 06/08/2023 13:37

Felix125 · 06/08/2023 13:32

I don't know as I don't work there.

However I suspect the original data will have been overwritten. Under Data Protection Laws, data can only be kept for a certain period of time, unless its marked evidential.

Which is why I was asking when did she report the sexual assault/rape offence to the police?

But if your saying that they have deliberately destroyed it to cover their tracks, you need to show some sort of evidence to show that, otherwise its just an assumption.

Is the aim of the process "original data will have been overwritten"
1.1 to keep the data or
1.2 to distroy the data

Catchasingmewithspiders · 06/08/2023 13:49

Felix125 · 06/08/2023 13:32

I don't know as I don't work there.

However I suspect the original data will have been overwritten. Under Data Protection Laws, data can only be kept for a certain period of time, unless its marked evidential.

Which is why I was asking when did she report the sexual assault/rape offence to the police?

But if your saying that they have deliberately destroyed it to cover their tracks, you need to show some sort of evidence to show that, otherwise its just an assumption.

If the issue is that she requested the data too late, and it has by that time been overwritten, then surely it would have been overwritten sequentially e.g. have been overwritten at the start.

If parts of the data have been corrupted by being copied that is a different matter.

You seem to be claiming that the data will have been overwritten due to data retention policies, which is actually different to what the GMP are stating.

You are always claiming others need to provide proof to back up their assertions but this is a massive assertion which is at odds with what the force themself have said. Where is your proof for this?

Felix125 · 07/08/2023 09:40

AnSolas
The aim of the process is to keep the data for a period of time to comply with Data Protection Laws. Once it goes over that period of time it is overwritten unless its already copied as evidential.

Catchasingmewithspiders
I think what might have happened is that she has requested the data, which has been copied onto a disc. The original footage then gets overwritten when it goes past the retention period of time.

However, some of the recorded footage which went onto the disc has been corrupted (corrupted disc maybe) which was unknown at the time and was only revealed when it was watched.

It could be that they have an archive where longer term 'original' footage is stored - but that will still have to comply with Data Protection Laws - otherwise Zayna can complain against GMP for having footage of her which has been kept for too long.

But - if posters are suggesting that is a 100% certainty that GMP has destroyed the footage deliberately to hide the offence, then its quite a serious allegation which they need to support in some way.

AnSolas · 07/08/2023 10:12

Felix125 · 07/08/2023 09:40

AnSolas
The aim of the process is to keep the data for a period of time to comply with Data Protection Laws. Once it goes over that period of time it is overwritten unless its already copied as evidential.

Catchasingmewithspiders
I think what might have happened is that she has requested the data, which has been copied onto a disc. The original footage then gets overwritten when it goes past the retention period of time.

However, some of the recorded footage which went onto the disc has been corrupted (corrupted disc maybe) which was unknown at the time and was only revealed when it was watched.

It could be that they have an archive where longer term 'original' footage is stored - but that will still have to comply with Data Protection Laws - otherwise Zayna can complain against GMP for having footage of her which has been kept for too long.

But - if posters are suggesting that is a 100% certainty that GMP has destroyed the footage deliberately to hide the offence, then its quite a serious allegation which they need to support in some way.

You are not answering the question which was asked

Is the aim of the process "original data will have been overwritten"
1.1 to keep the data or
1.2 to distroy the data

Can you provide an answer?
There is no need to type anything beyond supplying one of the numbered options

Felix125 · 07/08/2023 10:18

AnSolas
1.1 - but only if it complies with Data protection Rules

AnSolas · 07/08/2023 10:46

Felix125 · 07/08/2023 10:18

AnSolas
1.1 - but only if it complies with Data protection Rules

This was the question

ls the aim of the process "original data will have been overwritten"
1.1 to keep the data or
1.2 to distroy the data

Your answer is :
ls the aim of the process "original data will have been overwritten" is to keep the data.

Is the text below correct

ls the aim of the process "original data will have been overwritten" is to keep the data.

1.a this is my answer to the question
1.b I made a mistake it should be answer 1.2

Can you provide an answer?
There is no need to type anything beyond either 1.a or 1.b

Felix125 · 07/08/2023 11:01

1a

AnSolas · 07/08/2023 11:27

Felix125 · 07/08/2023 11:01

1a

Is the text below correct

ls the aim of the process "original data will have been overwritten" is to keep the data.

1.a this is my answer to the question
1.b I made a mistake it should be answer 1.2

Can you provide an answer?

If the aim of the process "original data will have been overwritten" is to keep the data why do the police not have the original data now?

Felix125 · 07/08/2023 12:07

Due to Data Protection Laws - they can only keep data for a limited period of time.

Felix125 · 07/08/2023 12:08

Unless its part of an investigation - in which a copy of this original data will be made

AnSolas · 07/08/2023 12:32

Felix125 · 07/08/2023 12:07

Due to Data Protection Laws - they can only keep data for a limited period of time.

So how do the police "not" keep the data

1.1 Magic data fairy exist
1.2 They distroy it

Felix125 · 07/08/2023 13:30

1.1 - automatically gets overwritten

AnSolas · 07/08/2023 13:44

Felix125 · 07/08/2023 13:30

1.1 - automatically gets overwritten

So you think the police have an ongoing data breach.
(hint the police are in breach of the Data Protection Laws if they allowed a Magic data fairy to acces the data.)

The aim of the process "original data will have been overwritten" .
AI is not in control of the process or the system.
So who can sets up the "automatically" option and still be in compliance with Data Protection ?

Felix125 · 07/08/2023 17:02

Its not a magic fairy - but those are the only two options you gave me.

The set up is by the legal team which operates the data storage processes at that particular police station or police force. May be a independent company that stores the data. They will have a system in place which auto-deletes footage after a certain length of time if its not marked as evidential at the time.

Shops, Pubs, council CCTV do the same.

Catchasingmewithspiders · 07/08/2023 17:10

But - if posters are suggesting that is a 100% certainty that GMP has destroyed the footage deliberately to hide the offence, then its quite a serious allegation which they need to support in some way.

Heres the thing @Felix125 and I have said it to you before.

This is a chat forum, not a police interview. No matter how many times you stamp your feet and demand we HAVE to do things a certain way and we have to do what you say, we dont actually have to do anything you demand at all just because you demand it.

We can just chat about stuff including our assumptions if we want. You seem to want to shut down any kind of casual chat about misbehaviour by the police by repeatedly that we have to prove it in order to discuss it. We don't. Women and people of colour should not have their conversations shut down around their treatment by the police because you dont like the way they are discussed.

The only thing you have convinced me of over the years is that if you are a typical officer who seems to think hes "one of the good ones" then the police are stubborn, willing to minimise poor behaviour to stand on a point of principle and have no respect for women.

It makes me wonder if you are actually a police officer as you are not doing a good job rehabilitating their reputation!

Raquelos · 07/08/2023 17:15

Catchasingmewithspiders · 07/08/2023 17:10

But - if posters are suggesting that is a 100% certainty that GMP has destroyed the footage deliberately to hide the offence, then its quite a serious allegation which they need to support in some way.

Heres the thing @Felix125 and I have said it to you before.

This is a chat forum, not a police interview. No matter how many times you stamp your feet and demand we HAVE to do things a certain way and we have to do what you say, we dont actually have to do anything you demand at all just because you demand it.

We can just chat about stuff including our assumptions if we want. You seem to want to shut down any kind of casual chat about misbehaviour by the police by repeatedly that we have to prove it in order to discuss it. We don't. Women and people of colour should not have their conversations shut down around their treatment by the police because you dont like the way they are discussed.

The only thing you have convinced me of over the years is that if you are a typical officer who seems to think hes "one of the good ones" then the police are stubborn, willing to minimise poor behaviour to stand on a point of principle and have no respect for women.

It makes me wonder if you are actually a police officer as you are not doing a good job rehabilitating their reputation!

Oh well said.

This guy is one of the most tedious posters on here. His obvious derailing agenda is so tiresome.

Personally I have concluded that the best way to deal with him is to simply not engage.

AnSolas · 07/08/2023 17:56

Felix125 · 07/08/2023 17:02

Its not a magic fairy - but those are the only two options you gave me.

The set up is by the legal team which operates the data storage processes at that particular police station or police force. May be a independent company that stores the data. They will have a system in place which auto-deletes footage after a certain length of time if its not marked as evidential at the time.

Shops, Pubs, council CCTV do the same.

Progress 👍

So the legal team which operates the data storage processes will have a system in place which auto-deletes footage after a certain length of time.

How is the certain length of time established?

1.1 Magic data fairy enters an instruction
1.2 The legal team enters an instruction

TokyoStories · 07/08/2023 17:57

It really is so very tedious. I opened up another thread on the same article in FWR and lo and behold, he has been shitting up that thread too.

WILTYjim · 07/08/2023 18:28

@Catchasingmewithspiders hear hear. Very well said.

Exdonkeylover · 07/08/2023 18:39

God that last page is a hard read. To the point I've got a headache.

CCTV systems usually hold information written on there for 28 days. Then the system overwrites it (day at a time). I read some news article that thr CCTV was burnt off over 4 discs, but one disc was current when they went to play it. By the time they'd requested / burnt it off / played it and discovered this, the period of time had passed where the original CCTV had been overwritten. IOPC said the disc is currently with some IT team to see if they can do something that IT do with it.
I've seen on cop shows them forcibly removing clothes when individuals are awkward and refused to be searched / aggressive and end up straight in a cell. As they don't know if they have anything on them they shouldn't. Tend to throw those padded clothes in there with them.

Think currently most people make their minds up on initial information and previous experience and anything that comes out after that they don't trust regardless.

DeeCeeCherry · 07/08/2023 22:34

This reply has been deleted

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

Catchasingmewithspiders · 07/08/2023 23:07

This reply has been deleted

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

Felix125 · 08/08/2023 08:47

Catchasingmewithspiders
I'm not shutting anyone down and you're free to post on here - its a public forum at the end of the day.

But if you are making specific allegations, you need to back it up with something.

Its like me suggesting that "Zayna has made it all up and has definitely corrupted the discs herself"

The past few posts I was answering AnSolas, who has asked me questions. I think its rude not to answer someone who is asking me questions. If you don't want to add to this conversation, then you don't have to.

DeeCeeCherry
We work shifts, so I get time off between them.
And this is not a 'women's forum' - it 'by parents for parents'