Woman stripped and left topless in a cell!

[Dovetail40]

This is disturbing to read. I hope a proper investigation is carried and the missing time videos are found so she knows exactly what happened to her.

Sky news Greater Manchester Police

AnSolas

Sorry - we got derailed

In answer to your question, the only one that fits is:
1.1

Who ever designs the software will have had the instruction built into that software. So Microsoft etc. will have 'entered' the instruction.

How is the certain length of time established? - Data Protection Laws define the time contraints.

The legal team which operates the data storage processes will have a system in place which auto-deletes footage giving a third party in a foreign country control over access to the data

So you think the police have an ongoing data control breach.
(hint the police are in breach of the Data Protection Laws if they allowed the US entity free control)

The software will have had the instruction built into that software.

The set up is by the legal team which operates the data storage processes at that particular police station or police force. The legal team have to pick between 2 systems. The first holds footage for 29 days the second holds footage for 31 days
The legal team want to buy a data storage processes with 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 picks the lenght of time
1.2 The legal team picks the lenght of time by buying one system and not buying the other

@Catchasingmewithspiders
@TokyoStories
@WILTYjim
@Exdonkeylover
@DeeCeeCherry
And others

Apologies for my pedantic method of establishing a base line understanding of the data protection training @Felix125 's employer has provided.

It is clear that there are some training gaps and @Felix125 should highlight these to the Continued Professional Development team.

Actually appreciate the pedantic posts @AnSolas I wouldn't have had the patience to type out like you
Sometimes you really really need to break it down to get a straight answer

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

But the fun thing is we dont. No matter how many times and in how many ways you tell us we have to do it the way you want, we dont.

I can start a thread claiming the sky is green and people can ask for proof but i dont need to provide it. Thats not a social media forum post law.

We dont have to do anything you demand because you are not in charge here, in control here or even relevant here. Which if you are the type of police officer you portray yourself as on here is probably a little uncomfortable for you.

I liked it @AnSolas - you cut through the waffle to the point well, I admire your dedication

Catchasingmewithspiders
But the fun thing is we don't.............

OK then, based on that I think your presence here is a little insincere - because in other threads you have claimed that Zayna has made the whole thing up and is doing this for her own personal financial gain.

AnSolas
How is it a Data breach if they are allowing a data company to use software to comply with UK Data Protection Laws?

The nearest answer will be 1.2

The legal team will forward the legal requirements to the software company who designs the system. That software company will design the software to be compliant with UK Data Protection Laws (storage, deletions, copies, duplications etc)

What training gaps?

twoandcooplease
Sometimes you really really need to break it down to get a straight answer

Its sometimes better just to ask a straight question however.

Do you believe the GMP have reviewed the footage, caught a definite offence of sexual assault/rape take place on Zayna by a police officer whilst in custody. The senior management (as a collective) have then thought 'we better cover everything up for the officer' and delete the footage straightaway as opposed to arresting the rapist officer?

Or is it possible that the sexual assault/rape offence happened prior to any police contact. ie at her home address by a person currently unknown?

Or it could have happened in custody. Or it could have happened in the police van on the way to the police station. Or it could have happened in the holding dock. Or it could have happened the previous night.

Its a horrible situation for Zayna to be in and a horrible experience for her to have gone through. But what ever conclusion is found, it has to be the right one for her and it has to be accurate and truthfull.

I don't know why you are asking this:

Do you believe the GMP have reviewed the footage, caught a definite offence of sexual assault/rape take place on Zayna by a police officer whilst in custody. The senior management (as a collective) have then thought 'we better cover everything up for the officer' and delete the footage straightaway as opposed to arresting the rapist officer?

Lots of people on these threads have said yes this is what they believe, but you then tell them they need to have proof to back this up.

Thats why you aren't asking a straight question. Because if you dont like the answer you will argue we shouldnt say it.

Catchasingmewithspiders
Not really - just putting your own argument back to you.

Lots of people on these threads have said yes this is what they believe.
I am just curious to know why they have ruled out any other possibility?

And why is it the MET police officer, who was arrested by the police and received a suspended sentence for filming a women getting changed in Primark - why wasn't that footage destroyed and he protected by the police?

And why is it the MET police officer, who was arrested by the police and received a suspended sentence for filming a women getting changed in Primark - why wasn't that footage destroyed and he protected by the police?

So your argument is that because one officer in the Met was arrested in a different situation that means that this woman couldnt have been raped by an officer?

Because the Met isnt the best example if you want to use them to prove that the police never cover up rape offences for each other...

Catchasingmewithspiders
That's a post-hoc argument if ever there was one!

I am saying if the police freely destroy incriminating footage of their officers committing sexual/violent offences - why didn't they do it for this officer in the MET?

Why didn't they destroy the footage implicating Couzens when he was seen with Sarah?

Just curious - if they destroy footage at the drop of a hat and they always protect their own and they are all corrupt - why didn't they do it there?

Besides - you doubt what Zayna is saying in the first place.

Give it a rest mate. You’re really scraping the barrel. Maybe do some yoga or get some fresh air. You do nothing for the reputation of the police in any of your contributions on here.

WILTYjim
Ah! You think I should just agree that it must be a police officer who has done this in custody and their management team has deliberately destroyed the footage to cover their tracks. As normally all CCTV & BWV footage is kept for ever and ever in this mystical infinite space of data storage with is absolutely free and isn't subject to any Data Protection rules.

There can not be any other possible alternative.

Zayna is wanting answers to what has happened to her. And those answers need to be found and it needs to be investigated properly with all the facts established. Not just jumping to conclusions.

I prefer to have an open mind rather than a closed one.

So your entire argument is person X in an entirely different location didn't commit a crime so person Y over here couldnt have done

As a representative of the police force this is an expert example of why so many of us no longer trust the police

Catchasingmewithspiders
No - My argument is - if people are saying that the senior management within a police force are content to delete CCTV footage of their officers committing serious crimes, why didn't they do this for these other offences?

My argument is also - if police officers have committed such offences, then they should be jailed. But if you are going to accuse them of such offences, then you need something to support that accusation.

So, is it possible that the sexual assault/rape offence happened prior to any police contact. ie at her home address by a person currently unknown?

Or should I not have an open mind on this or entertain any other possibilities?

@Felix125

AnSolas
How is it a Data breach if they are allowing a data company to use software to comply with UK Data Protection Laws?

Is it a Data breach if the police are allowing a data company third party to use software to take control of the police data?

What training gaps?

Lack of training around why the statement below is factual

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

The nearest answer will be 1.2

The legal team will forward the legal requirements to the software company who designs the system. That software company will design the software to be compliant with UK Data Protection Laws (storage, deletions, copies, duplications etc)

Which party has a legal obligation to create the list of legal requirements when limits are not prescribed by law but fall with in the principle of "best match for all the factors" (eg drive with due care and attention )

1.1 The party being paid to carry out the instructions in the contract.
1.2 The legal team issuing a contract for bespoke software

AnSolas
Is it a Data breach if the police are allowing a data company third party to use software to take control of the police data?
No

The footage was not lost due to any technical issue it was a choice by the police to distroy the original data.
It wasn't a choice to destroy it if it had to be done under Data Protection Rules

1.1
Data Protection is a legal requirement by law. If the third party have not complied with their contract and have deliberately flouted the law, it will be there responsibility.

Is it a Data breach if the police are allowing a data company third party to use software to take control of the police data?
No

If a third party have control of the police data do the police have control of the police data?

If the third party have not complied with their contract and have deliberately flouted the law, it will be there responsibility.

So you are doing "speed gun duty" outside a school in a 20mph zone. You stop a car going 129mph. John is driving and Jim is in the front passanger seat. John agrees that he was driving and his speed was 129mph. He said you need to charge Jim for the offence as he has a contract which said that Jim is the one who decides how fast the car is driven.

Who gets charged for driving 129mph in a 20mph zone?
1.1 Jim
1.2 John

AnSolas
If a third party have control of the police data do the police have control of the police data?
No- its controlled by the software.

1.2 - John

However if it can be shown that Jim has culpability by aiding, abetting, counselling or procuring, or inciting the commission of the offence - such as if Jim is a driving instructor and instructs John to travel at that speed - then Jim may also be culpable.

1.2 - John

But John has a contract.

Explain your reason(s) for not accepting the contract and charging John

AnSolas
Because it the Road Traffic Act and different to the Data Protection Act. John is in control of the propulsion of the car.

However - if it can be shown that the car has software built into the ECU which accelerated the car to 129mph and there was nothing John could do to control this software, then the car company will be liable and John would possibly be free. Although if John could have still stopped the car despite the accelerating software, then he would still be in control.

If it can be shown that Jim has culpability by aiding, abetting, counselling or procuring, or inciting the commission of the offence - such as if Jim is a driving instructor and instructs John to travel at that speed - then Jim may also be culpable.

Mitigating factors can also be brought into this - if Jim had threatened John - or if John & Jim were escaping some life threatening incident. Then there would be an argument to not prosecute either.

However, If I am a contract killer and I am given a contract by Jim to kill Fred.
If I kill Fred and I'm caught by the police - I will still be liable for the murder.
Jim will also commit offences - but it will be me who is guilty of murder - contract or not.

Because it the Road Traffic Act and different to the Data Protection Act. John is in control of the propulsion of the car.

So your reason is the deciding factor is who has control or should have had control at the time the unlawful act was committed.

You are once again doing "speed gun duty" outside a school in a 20mph zone. You stop a car going 129mph. John is in the "driving seat" of a top of the line Tesla and Jim is in the front passanger seat. John said he was not driving that he was playing chess with Jim. Jim confirms that they were playing chess. John said you need to charge the Tesla for the offence as the AI software is the one who decides how fast the car is driven.

Who gets charged for driving 129mph in a 20mph zone?
1.1 The Tesla
1.2 Elon Musk
1.3 John

1.3 - John. But this under the RTA no the DPA

Mitigating factors could also be brought into this though.