elrond

The Danger Of Parking Innocently In A Red Light District

30 posts in this topic

This women parked in a red light district of Bradford, later her company was sent a letter warning them the consequences of kerb crawling.

She said: "My concern is with innocent people who, like me, drive company cars, a letter will go to their employers. Being a woman, it removes 90 percent of the doubt that I was actually kerb crawling but if I were a man I could protest my innocence until I was blue in the face and people wouldn't believe me.

The police are very unapolegetic.

Supt Angela Williams, of Bradford South Police, said: "We make no apology for the robust way in that we tackle the issue of kerb crawling in Bradford.

The women who now has to ask for her details to be removed also commented.

"It is lazy policing. If they had even bothered to ask me what I was doing they would have realised it made sense. What makes it even more ridiculous is that a year ago another person from the company got a warning for the same thing.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/howaboutthat/8244093/Actress-accused-of-kerb-crawling-after-parking-outside-theatre.html

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The police are very unapologetic.

And that is the sort of quality policing that we pay Council Tax/Rates for?

I suppose someone was able to tick a box for fulfilling his quota target of VRN logged?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It'll probably boost their stats. Pity they can't be tracking serious criminals instead.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This women parked in a red light district of Bradford, later her company was sent a letter warning them the consequences of kerb crawling.

The police are very unapolegetic.

The women who now has to ask for her details to be removed also commented.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/howaboutthat/8244093/Actress-accused-of-kerb-crawling-after-parking-outside-theatre.html

What's her problem? did her boss do anything but laugh when he saw the letter? I'd dine out on this for years.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What's her problem? did her boss do anything but laugh when he saw the letter? I'd dine out on this for years.

Her problem, from reading the article, is one of principle. She was innocent and since she's female there's little doubt of this. So yes, she and her boss (her brother) probably had a good laugh. However, had she been male it could have caused serious problems - no-one's going to completely believe you even if you do work round the corner...everyone will say to themselves "well the police must have seen something to make them send this letter". This letter isn't being sent to the driver it's being sent to the registered keeper which in this case was the company she worked for; in other cases it may be someone's wife or girlfriend. This could easily cause the break up of a marriage or cause you grief with your employer etc.

Wouldn't you say that's something to worry about?

Edited by punter992005

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Maybe red light districts should be marked on Garmin. Tom Tom, Google maps and Multimaps. Or perhaps the Ordnance Survey should be tasked with highlighting them.

I have to say that I cannot claim to know where the RDL of any big city actually is and so cannot even begin to avoid.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's lazy policing with potentially unfair consequences.

Information like this gets put on the police computers and may be revealed on Enhanced CRB checks under the category "locally held police force information considered relevant to the job role, by Chief Police Officer(s)".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Maybe red light districts should be marked on Garmin. Tom Tom, Google maps and Multimaps. Or perhaps the Ordnance Survey should be tasked with highlighting them.

I have to say that I cannot claim to know where the RDL of any big city actually is and so cannot even begin to avoid.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Maybe the AA could list them on their route maps, the same way as they do with speed cameras?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Maybe red light districts should be marked on Garmin. Tom Tom, Google maps and Multimaps. Or perhaps the Ordnance Survey should be tasked with highlighting them.

I have to say that I cannot claim to know where the RDL of any big city actually is and so cannot even begin to avoid.

Stapleton Road in Bristol is pretty bad. Often called the most dangerous road in the UK - although I think that's a little over the top.

http://www.people.co.uk/news/news/tm_objectid=16254597%26method=full%26siteid=93463-name_page.html

Occasionally I have to drive through it but always make sure that I flick the central locking to lock the doors and keep a good distance away from the car in front when stopped at lights.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It doesn't matter if the driver was female or not, if they only sent letters to male drivers then that would be sexual discrimination.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It doesn't matter if the driver was female or not, if they only sent letters to male drivers then that would be sexual discrimination.

The point is they're sending letters to people without any evidence of criminality. Kerb crawling is "attempting to solicit the affections of a prostitute" (or words to that effect). Clearly they had no evidence of this and they appear to be just sending letters to anyone seen driving in the area.

They're sending letters to innocent people. I believe that they also take great delight in sending them if it's a company car or appears to be registered to someone other than the driver. I know the Middlesbrough force were very clear about this when they piloted the scheme. Letters will go to whoever owns the car. It's out of order, when you've been convicted of nothing and they haven't even stopped you to speak to you and the consequences can be devastating if they're wrong....or even if they're right, to be honest. You still haven't been convicted of anything.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's lazy policing with potentially unfair consequences.

Information like this gets put on the police computers and may be revealed on Enhanced CRB checks under the category "locally held police force information considered relevant to the job role, by Chief Police Officer(s)".

No, it wouldn't end up on a CRB check - all they know is who owns the car and who they've sent the letter to. Not who was driving it. Also even if they know for certain who was driving it, since you haven't been spoken to much less arrested or convicted, it would be a non-starter to mention it.

"Relevant information" came about through Ian Huntley who had been repeatedly accused of messing with underage girls. He'd never been convicted but it was felt that being invesigated/arrested several times should be mentioned if you're applying to be a caretaker in a school. That's the sort of thing they're talking about with regard to "relevant information". Not something like this.

Obviously if you're already in the job and it's your company car then that IS what they're effectively doing though. Spreading rumours which could harm a person's career and personal life.

Edited by punter992005

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I was stopped once not far from home, because I had made an illegal u turn. I was with a lady I had met on the night in a bar and yes we were going for some fun and frolics and were looking for a spot to have some fun. She was not a WG or anything like that. Got subjected to all the usual questions, have you been drinking, name whose car is it, once they saw my licenses then it was all niceties and of you go sir blah blah blah.

At the time I thought nothing of it. However about 18 months later I got stopped again, this time in more dubious circumstances admittedly. The coppers who had me this time were without doubt the worst I have ever come across. This male copper who could not read a British driving license was hell bent on finding something on me. He put my details through the PNC and that came up with nothing. Then he said to the controller that put his name through the something database, see if he has any links to prostitution.

This then brought up that I had been stopped and they suspected I was with a WG on that night some 18 months earlier. Of course they loved that and what followed amongst abuse, was that I was severed with a stop and search even though he never came within 5 feet of me. Never searched me but he made out a ticket and made me sign it.

Up till this day I have been trying very hard to find out what that database was and how to get to see what it holds, the police force however are not very cooperative in coming forth with information. I guess I could ask for an enhanced CRB check and see what it shows.

So for all of those who think they are not recording every thing you do think again. Every time they put your car through the check, irrespective of if they stop you or not, they will note it down. With the advent of ANPR cameras it’s just made their job a lot easier.

As the site says “and any locally held police force” I think they call it gathering intelligence but there is nothing local about it they all share it.

Later they called my employers up and wanted to know who was driving my company car. They told them I had been reported by some girl as suspected in following her. They would call me employers every week asking for the same information. Even though all my home details were handed over they never called or came to see me. They would leave sarcastic messages on my voice mail. Then call up me on my direct dial and ask to be put through to HR. This went on for 4 months then my solicitor rang them and left them a message and it stopped, however I did lose my job over it. I was advised to peruse it as a breach of privacy.

“Enhanced checks contain the same information as Standard checks but with the addition of a check of the new barred lists if requested and any locally held police force information considered relevant to the job role, by Chief Police Officer(s).”

http://www.west-midlands.police.uk/latest-news/press-release.asp?id=1939

http://www.west-midlands.police.uk/latest-news/press-release.asp?id=1933

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No, it wouldn't end up on a CRB check - all they know is who owns the car and who they've sent the letter to. Not who was driving it. Also even if they know for certain who was driving it, since you haven't been spoken to much less arrested or convicted, it would be a non-starter to mention it.

"Relevant information" came about through Ian Huntley who had been repeatedly accused of messing with underage girls. He'd never been convicted but it was felt that being invesigated/arrested several times should be mentioned if you're applying to be a caretaker in a school. That's the sort of thing they're talking about with regard to "relevant information". Not something like this.

Obviously if you're already in the job and it's your company car then that IS what they're effectively doing though. Spreading rumours which could harm a person's career and personal life.

I think that you're wrong on this. The police act on a simplistic basis especially when it comes to data processing and retention. I wouldn't make the mistake of crediting the police with too much intelligence.

As far as some police are concerned – “if you’re the registered keeper and the car is in the red-light district in suspicious circumstances then you’re a kerb-crawler unless you satisfy them otherwise”.

That is just the sort of information that is held as local intelligence information. See also the comments of Supt. Williams. This information was going to be held on the records of the registered keeper unless he appealed.

I’ve no doubt that if the registered keeper of the vehicle had an Enhanced CRB check to work, for example with vulnerable adults, then there is a possibility that the kerb crawling incident may be revealed. Yes, the police are supposed to exercise discretion but since Soham and the recommendations of the Bichard Report in 2004, there is often a culture of “if in doubt, then disclose it”. If you consent to the CRB check then you consent to the disclosure.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Maybe red light districts should be marked on Garmin. Tom Tom, Google maps and Multimaps. Or perhaps the Ordnance Survey should be tasked with highlighting them.

I have to say that I cannot claim to know where the RDL of any big city actually is and so cannot even begin to avoid.

There is / was a POI of all the RLD's in Europe. I had a copy, but lost it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Her problem, from reading the article, is one of principle. She was innocent and since she's female there's little doubt of this. So yes, she and her boss (her brother) probably had a good laugh. However, had she been male it could have caused serious problems - no-one's going to completely believe you even if you do work round the corner...everyone will say to themselves "well the police must have seen something to make them send this letter". This letter isn't being sent to the driver it's being sent to the registered keeper which in this case was the company she worked for; in other cases it may be someone's wife or girlfriend. This could easily cause the break up of a marriage or cause you grief with your employer etc.

Wouldn't you say that's something to worry about?

It is normally obvious, someone who cruises an RLD, and someone who makes a miss turn, or goes to the same place, like a work place each time. Although I long since stopped cruising, I was stopped numerous times in Reading, but because of my circumstances they gave up on me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I had a similar issue years ago with one of my van drivers, his van was seen at in a red light district at night & reported to me via the company.

Up until then the van drivers took their vans home at end of day & were allowed within reason to use them as they wanted.

Alas i was informed by head office that all vans were to be left at depot at night,

When i spoke to driver concerned i advised him not to use street girls & gave him numbers of 4 good quality wgs. :D

BVK

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think that you're wrong on this. The police act on a simplistic basis especially when it comes to data processing and retention. I wouldn't make the mistake of crediting the police with too much intelligence.

As far as some police are concerned – “if you’re the registered keeper and the car is in the red-light district in suspicious circumstances then you’re a kerb-crawler unless you satisfy them otherwise”.

That is just the sort of information that is held as local intelligence information. See also the comments of Supt. Williams. This information was going to be held on the records of the registered keeper unless he appealed.

I’ve no doubt that if the registered keeper of the vehicle had an Enhanced CRB check to work, for example with vulnerable adults, then there is a possibility that the kerb crawling incident may be revealed. Yes, the police are supposed to exercise discretion but since Soham and the recommendations of the Bichard Report in 2004, there is often a culture of “if in doubt, then disclose it”. If you consent to the CRB check then you consent to the disclosure.

I would doubt that the police could justify handing over details such as that for a CRB check. It's on very shaky grounds evidentially, as they didn't even have grounds to arrest you as they haven't actually seen you commit an offence. They send these letters to registered keepers of vehicles that they see driving in the area "suspiciously" i.e. where they can't see a legitimate reason.

The offence, as you say, is kerb crawling which is "attempting to solicit the affections of a prostitute". But they have no evidence that you've committed this offence. Just that you were seen driving around and around for reasons unknown. Obviously they may stop you in those circumstances, and can order you to bugger off in a reasonable time-frame, but they haven't actually got any evidence of wrong doing. If they'd seen you stop and speak to a girl they'd have probably nicked you there and then.

In this case you haven't even been stopped and spoken to. You've just been logged driving in the area and that's that. So they send a warning letter hoping that will scare you off.

I can't see how they could disclose that on a CRB check. The letters are actually written (as far as I'm aware) fairly diplomatically. They don't say "You were spotted kerb crawling", they just say that you were seen in an area frequented by prostitutes and they were concerned as to what you were there for. They're just scare tactics and whilst I'm sure there will be a record somewhere that they might dig up it's got no relevance whatsoever to a CRB check.

Edited by punter992005

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

All it needs to say is words along the lines of:

" On 11 January 2011 Avon & Somerset Police wrote to the Applicant informing him that a vehicle of which he was at the time the registered keeper was seen in an area where there is a kerb-crawling problem. No further action was taken."

That is factually correct in the hypothetical situation. More importantly from the police's point of view it protects them if the Applicant later commits a sexual offence against a child or vulnerable adult.

I'll readily admit that I haven't come across such an example but I have come across similar statements in Enhanced CRB checks that are just as "shaky" as my made up example.

At the end of the day it's just as much about protecting the police as it is about protecting children/the vulnerable etc.

I don't believe that it would be common practice, but different police authorities will exercise their discretion in different ways.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

All it needs to say is words along the lines of:

" On 11 January 2011 Avon & Somerset Police wrote to the Applicant informing him that a vehicle of which he was at the time the registered keeper was seen in an area where there is a kerb-crawling problem. No further action was taken."

That is factually correct in the hypothetical situation. More importantly from the police's point of view it protects them if the Applicant later commits a sexual offence against a child or vulnerable adult.

I'll readily admit that I haven't come across such an example but I have come across similar statements in Enhanced CRB checks that are just as "shaky" as my made up example.

At the end of the day it's just as much about protecting the police as it is about protecting children/the vulnerable etc.

I don't believe that it would be common practice, but different police authorities will exercise their discretion in different ways.

I believe that enhanced CRB checks include any details/info/intelligence held on you by the police. This could include any suspicions they have about you.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Here is an excerpt from the homeoffice, CRB website;

and any locally held police force information considered relevant to the job role, by Chief Police Officer(s).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

For the legal minds: are there any grounds for suing the police for libel if they disclose under CRB or indeed send an unsolicited letter to company car owner their suspicions? Or does 'fair comment' give them benefit of the doubt? Surely a letter as per the posts above is not covered under rules of evidence?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So for all of those who think they are not recording every thing you do think again. Every time they put your car through the check, irrespective of if they stop you or not, they will note it down. With the advent of ANPR cameras it’s just made their job a lot easier.

As the site says “and any locally held police force” I think they call it gathering intelligence but there is nothing local about it they all share it.

Later they called my employers up and wanted to know who was driving my company car. They told them I had been reported by some girl as suspected in following her. They would call me employers every week asking for the same information. Even though all my home details were handed over they never called or came to see me. They would leave sarcastic messages on my voice mail. Then call up me on my direct dial and ask to be put through to HR. This went on for 4 months then my solicitor rang them and left them a message and it stopped, however I did lose my job over it. I was advised to peruse it as a breach of privacy.

“Enhanced checks contain the same information as Standard checks but with the addition of a check of the new barred lists if requested and any locally held police force information considered relevant to the job role, by Chief Police Officer(s).”

That's despicable. So did you pursue it?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now