Jump to content
Account Notice
  • To post a recruitment query in the "Recruitment Areas" or in the "Force Specific Areas" you will require a Recruitment Pass or a Membership Package. Click HERE to read more.
  • Your Account Is Currently Limited
EMarsh

RSS acting illegally?

Recommended Posts

EMarsh

As I understand it, this site does not discuss live cases which have yet to get to court - yet it appears that evidence in the form of photographs which had yet to see court were used to advertise the services of RSS Limited!

Sorry the link is to the Mail on Sunday but you take what you can get!

http://www.mailonsunday.co.uk/news/article-1309145/Jermain-Defoe-fury-police-cash-car-phone-picture.html

Police evidence photographs of England footballer Jermain Defoe driving while talking on his mobile phone are at the centre of a legal row after being used to publicise a commercial offshoot of Britain’s most powerful policing body' date=' the Association of Chief Police Officers (ACPO).

The firm, Road Safety Support (RSS), which earns millions providing expert witnesses and advice to help prosecute drivers, has been using the photographs of the footballer at the wheel of his £90,000 Range Rover and other alleged celebrity offenders to drum up business.

RSS began using the pictures at events in January, even though magistrates only heard the case against Defoe at the end of last month.[/quote']

One senior QC said: ‘With regards to Jermain Defoe’s case' date=' there are potential data protection issues that arise from the use of photographs, potential issues under the Public Records Acts and a potential non-compliance with the CPS’s own Retention Policy, which limits how data and material is to be used.’

RSS used the images as part of a computerised slide show during speeches explaining its work and to encourage people to pay to use its expertise. They were apparently used for the first time at a Police Federation conference in January.[/quote']

The presentation Who Are Road Safety Support And What Can They Do For You? was written by CPS lawyer Andrew Perry' date=' who is on full-time secondment to RSS. He explained that RSS is ‘supported by and affiliated to ACPO’ and every slide, including those showing the evidence photos, is headed with the logos of ACPO, the CPS and RSS.

‘Not for profit’ firm RSS is headed by South Yorkshire Police Chief Constable Meredydd Hughes. He was formerly the chairman of ACPO’s roads policing group but stood down following a driving ban after being caught speeding at 90mph.

The same presentation featured a quote from Mr Hughes saying: ‘We are going to demonstrate that spurious cases get a slap. This team will defend the integrity of enforcement equipment and help us win high-profile cases.[/quote']

However, it seems that ACPO are wary of showing any support for this questionable tack...

Last night' date=' ACPO was apparently trying to distance itself from RSS – which uses an ACPO email address when dealing with customers and often is described as ‘ACPO Road Safety Support’ – claiming RSS was an ‘independent company’.

An ACPO spokesman said: ‘The presentation referred to is an RSS presentation. ACPO is not aware of the use of their logo in connection with these pictures and will be looking into the use.

'RSS are an independent company, providing services to ACPO, the CPS, and other organisations. Any enquiries about how they are funded and operate should be directed to them.’

RSS refused to discuss the allegations against it. In a message from her ACPO email account, RSS spokeswoman Rebecca Hampson said: ‘I’m afraid I’m unable to comment on this particular query.’[/quote']

RSS employee, Steve Callaghan endorses REDSPEED cameras on their website - and REDSPEED were found to be using a ISO 9001 quality assurance logo on their calibration certificates, against the rule explicitly forbidding such use!

I am a Town Councillor - and when it comes to standards, we are expected to display a far greater degree of impartiality than so called "exper" witnesses.

e.g. When the local Rotary Club applies for a grant, any councillors whose families are Rotary members are excluded from voting - yet RSS use "experts" in court who openly endorse the companies who profit from producing evidence on behalf of the CPS!

Seems like those who move in the same circles are prepared to ride roughshod over rules and regulations and so far have been able to do so with impunity! Is this the future of the judicial system in Britain??

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites


Dave King1546620674

Shame you don't check your facts. Like the mail you seem incapable of looking dates up on the net. Both JD and JC were convicted of the offences in those photos before they were used.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

tom_major

Ernest might have made a mistake (believing The Mail :-)) in respect to it being an ongoing case, but are those con artists at RSS allowed to use those photos in an advertisment? Would rather not be seen to be defending a footballer but isn't there "image rights" or something, or the Data Protection Act. In their [RSS] privileged position I guess RSS are like some footballers and believe they can do whatever they like because they are part of ACPO and are run by cops and the CPS. They use the ACPO email addresses and their emails come from the same IP address as ACPO and looking up who owns the domain associated with those IP addresses and it's the UK Police Service. There's not many limited companies that can share that privilege. Actually, I don't know why anyone uses those charlatans at RSS, I have one of their so-called reports that they rape the taxpayer with and it is embarrassing. At first read you might be forgiven for thinking it was just totally inept, but then when you learn of the sinister hypocrites involved you just know they are lying and for some reason are allowed to get away with it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Dave King1546620674

I am sure our engraving friend would admit to his bias due to his precons. How about you?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites


tom_major

Sure we all acquire bias along the way, but "expert witness" reports are supposed to be unbiased and independent, to serve to assist the court, not submitted under the pretence they are unbiased expert witness reports, prepared by the (ex)police and CPS, to be then used by the CPS as though it's gospel, or the view of someone independent and unbiased. To then knowingly lie on top you would have thought was an offence but for some reason they get away with it and get paid for doing it. One rule for them...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

EMarsh

Shame you don't check your facts. Like the mail you seem incapable of looking dates up on the net. Both JD and JC were convicted of the offences in those photos before they were used.

As I understand it the Mail did not qualify its story - Defoe's case went to appeal - which was not heard until after the pictures were used.

However, the use of the pictures is contrary to previous ACPO policies, AND ACPO appear to want to distance themselves from the RSS actions - thus maintaining plausible deniability?

An ACPO spokesman said: ‘The presentation referred to is an RSS presentation. ACPO is not aware of the use of their logo in connection with these pictures and will be looking into the use.

'RSS are an independent company, providing services to ACPO, the CPS, and other organisations. Any enquiries about how they are funded and operate should be directed to them.’

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites


EMarsh

Sure we all acquire bias along the way, but "expert witness" reports are supposed to be unbiased and independent, to serve to assist the court, not submitted under the pretence they are unbiased expert witness reports, prepared by the (ex)police and CPS, to be then used by the CPS as though it's gospel, or the view of someone independent and unbiased. To then knowingly lie on top you would have thought was an offence but for some reason they get away with it and get paid for doing it. One rule for them...

You seem to forget Tom, that when WE post, we are biased because we hold a certain view, while others such as "Dave King" who promote a different view are impartial! :doh:

Frank Garrett was ruled to be too involved with the product that he was supposedly an expert in, so now the CPS can call on a new "expert" from RSS Ltd, whose opinion is now the word of God... well in his own opinion of course! :shhh:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

tom_major

'RSS are an independent company, providing services to ACPO, the CPS, and other organisations. Any enquiries about how they are funded and operate should be directed to them.’

But they're not. If you get an email from RSS and check the message source you'll see it comes from APCO's mailservers.

In respect to Perry, what does "permanent secondment from CPS" actually mean. Is he paid and employed by the CPS or by RSS or both? If he's on "permanent secondment" then that implies he spends all his time working for RSS and therefore shouldn't be paid by the CPS, in which case why not just be employed by RSS. It sounds like some dodgy legal technicality to spin and lend weight to another RSS scam by declaring he's not employed by RSS but by the CPS, is therefore doing something "right" for The Crown, even though he's actually working for these cheats. Perhaps they should "get a slap" for being so underhand?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites


Emmerdale

Hang on girls!

What's underhanded?

Mr. Perry and CPS have openly explained exactly what he is doing and on what basis it is being done.

Are you a little sore at being robustly prosecuted thus rendering your flimsy defence ineffectual?

What was the nature of your defence..."I didn't do it"?

Did you get sucked in by the profiteering numpties who are masquerading as experts and specialist motoring lawyers? Did you not realise that they are claiming cash from the court central funds win-or-lose? No? Do you feel a little foolish now?

Oh Dear! Scammed from the front!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

EMarsh

Blackberry Tom! Almost indistinguishable from the real thing! :clapping:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites


Soren

Are you a little sore at being robustly prosecuted thus rendering your flimsy defence ineffectual?

What was the nature of your defence..."I didn't do it"?

Did you get sucked in by the profiteering numpties who are masquerading as experts and specialist motoring lawyers? Did you not realise that they are claiming cash from the court central funds win-or-lose? No? Do you feel a little foolish now?

Oh Dear! Scammed from the front!

I believe the central thrust of tom-major's disgruntlement stems from this page of a statement from Ian Duncan of RSS where he would appear to have been either knowingly or incompetently factually incorrect about the presence of a TRO in a recent speeding case.

The relevance is that it would appear that this factual error was necessary in order to prosecute the defendant (presumably tom major) or to dismiss the appeal, because the original summons issued was incorrect for the specific speeding offence for which he was to stand trial. The defendant discovered this lie/mistake and the trial was discontinued (or appeal upheld - I can't recall which). The allegation, or certainly the suggestion by TM has been that the RSS expert committed the offence of perjury by knowingly lying in court.

Like you I don't mind robust prosecution in court. If that robustness depends for its success on lies or factual errors, then count me out.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Dave King1546620674

Firstly the photos in the mail were only used after the appeal had been lost. There are no legal issues in using the presentation they were in to a closed conference.

Secondly I find it inconceivable that any crown witness, let alone an expert witness would knowing lie in court. To do so is not only putting ones liberty at risk, but also ones job.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites


tom_major

Hang on girls!

What's underhanded?

Mr. Perry and CPS have openly explained exactly what he is doing and on what basis it is being done.

Are you a little sore at being robustly prosecuted thus rendering your flimsy defence ineffectual?

What was the nature of your defence..."I didn't do it"?

Did you get sucked in by the profiteering numpties who are masquerading as experts and specialist motoring lawyers? Did you not realise that they are claiming cash from the court central funds win-or-lose? No? Do you feel a little foolish now?

Oh Dear! Scammed from the front!

I didn't use an expert, I just emailed the local authority and had a reply in 24 hours. After which I repeatedly tried to tell RSS but they chose to ignore and still went ahead anyway. But then they would know to contact the LA also right? The case was unable to continue because the charge was incorrect, without any evidence being heard from either side. That was 3 hearings, plus the CPS time, plus the fee for the dumb ass report and dumb ass witnesses.

So who was wasting the funds?

Oh dear! The scam failed and who looks a tit now?

Edited by tom_major

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Dave King1546620674

What makes you think there is a charge for a report?

Seems you accept you were speeding and knew it. Just wriggles and squirmed through a loophole!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites


EMarsh

What makes you think there is a charge for a report?

Seems you accept you were speeding and knew it. Just wriggles and squirmed through a loophole!

So if a motorist does not obey the letter of the law, he has committed an offence, but if a local authority has not conformed to every letter of the law, the motorist is suddenly accused of using a loophole? :wacko:

Who left the loophole? Which "EXPERT" failed to notice said loophole? :sorry:

Similarly in Colin Montgomery's case, who failed to notice that the operator of the speed gun was not conforming to guidelines and left the judge critical of the systems???? :doh:

Oh I forgot... I'm biased!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
There are 174 hidden replies in this thread that you do not currently have access to as a Guest User of our forum. To unlock the forum register for an account for FREE today by clicking HERE

About us

Police Community was originally founded in 2014 by two serving Police Officers.

In 2016 it was incorporated as a limited company called RAW Digital Media Limited and then purchased 3 other forums; Police Specials, UK Police Online and Police UK to form the largest policing discussion forum network in the UK.

Get in touch

  • 20-22 Wenlock Road, London N1 7GU
  • contact@rawdigitalmedia.co.uk
  • 0844 357 0111
  • Forums In Our Group - Police.Community - UKPoliceOnline.CO.UK - PoliceSpecials.COM - PoliceUK.COM

Twitter

Facebook

    Meet The Team

  • Chief Bakes
    Chief Bakes Management
  • Chief Rat
    Chief Rat Management
  • Chief Cheetah
    Chief Cheetah Management
  • Rocket
    Rocket Global Moderators
  • David
    David Global Moderators
  • Fedster
    Fedster Global Moderators
  • Devil
    Devil Global Moderators
  • MindTheGap
    MindTheGap Global Moderators
  • blakey
    blakey Global Moderators
  • Techie1
    Techie1 Global Moderators
  • Sir Penguin
    Sir Penguin Global Moderators
  • PCW
    PCW Global Moderators
  • Hoofing
    Hoofing Global Moderators
  • XA84
    XA84 Global Moderators
  • Remmy
    Remmy Global Moderators
  • job_done
    job_done Global Moderators
  • Sapor62
    Sapor62 Global Moderators
×
×
  • Create New...