,
22 tweets,
8 min read
Read on Twitter
THREAD 2/3 - it’s finally here! *The Anatomy of a Close Pass - reporting and response*
We learned in the last thread ( close passes aren’t funny. Now we’re going to explore what happens if you have filmed, and try and find some redress. First things first.
We learned in the last thread ( close passes aren’t funny. Now we’re going to explore what happens if you have filmed, and try and find some redress. First things first.
In this case, the local force was Devon & Cornwall. Not unreasonable therefore to tweet them and ask if we can send them our footage. This is the point where you discover that lots of policemen do what would get most of us sacked - using their employed status to tweet personally. 
So off you go to deal with that, knowing that if you’d tweeted the clip, it’d already be round the world. This process is designed to be as attritional as possible. Let’s be clear about this - the first thing we did, the day after the incident, was offer to upload the footage.
D&C didn’t respond to our tweet (again, unlike a business!) and we continued to get close-passed needlessly. So I tweeted for the Chief Constable’s attention, asking for his reassurance. When you do something like this, local media start to take an interest. I got some DMs!
Amongst these were local cyclists bemoaning how poor D&C are for looking after cyclists and accepting evidence from them, offering names of policemen who cycle, who might help. I also heard from ITV, amongst others. Who didn’t I hear from? The Police.
The long and short of it is that D&C Police won’t let you send them a video clip of your near death experience, but ITV certainly will. At every stage of this process, we tried to talk to the police before the media, even making the latter wait, to keep that order of call.
We spent the rest of the day trying to make some progress on the matter, whilst of course still trying to get to John o’Groats. Typically, minutes after I posted this video, I finally got to speak to a police call handler...
By this time we were at Quintrell Downs, well into a long day with lots of climbing. One of our toughest. We offered to go to Exeter that night, if we had to, to give a statement and show our footage. Nothing we proposed was acceptable. In the end an appointment was made...
...the following morning, having delayed our departure for for them, they stood us up. Luckily @itvBob is much more reliable. Having seen our film, he came out at a time and place that suited us, in the middle of nowhere, and did some filming of his own. Other media joined in!
A more ‘focused’ response emerged now the Chief Constable was involved - thanks not to our direct plea but to the media. Quality local journalism is so important to hold people with power, to account.
However by the time Adrian Leisk, Head of Roads Policing for Dorset, Devon and Cornwall, spoke to us on the phone, we were onto the levels and out of his force’s area.
I invited him to come and find us on the road, or get someone at Bristol to take a statement. He said one would not be necessary as the footage spoke for itself and showed everything necessary to follow through and issue a NIP - a ‘Notice if Intended Prosecution’.
We were advised however that D&C only pursue vehicles with no tax, if their officers see it for themselves with their own eyes, in the flesh. Note: you CANNOT report it yourself if you don’t know where the vehicle is usually parked, but nobody will tell you the registered keeper.
If you don’t get a NIP issued in the ordained timescale, your case will not proceed. I knew this and when a call handler had tried to fob me off, knowing simply what a NIP was, had them asking me suspiciously if I was a policeman myself! We took Chief Inspector Leisk at his word.
Between then, in Mid August, to now, in mid-January, the following edited highlights occurred. A case handler, PC Saundercock, was set on the case, and decided he must have a statement from Katie. The one we had tried to give, but were told we definitely didn’t need to give.
Statements absolutely have to be taken and written for you by a PC, even when the interviewee is a lawyer and is merely writing what the film shows. Except when that’s not the case, and they can send you a form to fill in. Just depends who you ask. Left hand, meet right hand!
Notice how he also just expected us to have other camera angles available! Lesson here for all road users - without a camera, nobody believes you any more. Where did he or anyone else think the Yellow Fiat was, a second or so before it appeared on the video?
Moreover, there is a clear implication that they need to see either side of the offence on film, because they’re hoping to find a victim-blaming explanation as mitigation for the offender. Unlike victims of other crimes, we have film. But unlike other victims, still not believed!
Then there’s the spec of the footage and how you send it. I asked to upload it, the day after the event. But no! Despite @itvBob showing the whole of South West England the clip at that stage, we were eventually forced to post a memory stick with it on, which they never returned.
This is an entirely attritional process. They delay. They mess you about. They make stuff up and then contradict it later. It’s all about obfuscation. You’re expected to carry enough film kit to broadcast the Tour de France, and then give up hours of your time, to get anywhere.
We were even asked to prove the time and date of the footage - which because of our record attempt, we could, easily - because the registered keeper had claimed they ‘didn’t think it was them’. This is a representative email...
Finally, it goes off for a charging decision. @KatieJones74 has said she wants a prosecution. The lack of tax and denial aggravated things. PC Saundercock sends off his evidence, and we wait... *To be continued*
