tresspassers cameras. Should they be evidence?

I found it quite irrational that footage of attrocities captured on cameras that have been planted is not allowed to be evidence.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AGpJzBE28sI
I have seen worse from Animal Aid - as in worse slaughter house hidden camerawork. Seems only footage from legaly placed cameras can be used in prosecuting crime. Is it just me, or is that wrong. If you film something on your mobile, say an offence with an obvious victim and an obvious perpetrator - would you not be hoping to do some good by providing usable evidence? If someone filmed your property being damaged, wouldnt you think it would count for something as it would be evidence?

 

If an industry sells goods to the public, the public has an absolute right to know how these goods are made/treated, from the materials ( including food animals) used to how the human beings doing the work are treated. The laws in my universe would allow, or require, cameras in every business that sells to the public, and totally open books. How else can you make a good decision about the products you use, and the actions you would support?

Private businesses that sell to private customers can make their own contracts up... ( there are very few of these, and they are mostly criminal, a stat I just pulled out of me arse, heh )

 

I think the issue is one of unintended consequences. If the camera footage is not allowed as evidence, there is less incentive for people to set up cameras and violate others' privacy, including the privacy of those who don't abuse animal and are targeted simply because they might do so.

 

One angle of this is that if material obtained in this manner would generally be allowed to be used as evidence then it would be possible for police to do so without an warrant claiming that the source was "unknown" as long as they weren't cough in the act.

 

I think the reasoning behind causing the footage to be inadmissible, there is no way to actually PROVE that particular footage hadn't been altered. I think it has something to do with a trusted chain of custody...

 

Lady who helped me once had her arm broken in two places by one of the Hunt, clear as day. Police held the tape for two years considering action, then told her they lost it. Police 999 tapes are not considered evidence - there is always the possibility its one person throwning their voice - or running from inside to outside smashing things up and pretending to be a victim. 999 tape is only of use if accompanied by a clear video tape. Hampshire Constabulary. Bestest most consciencious force in the whole wide world dont you think?
--- merged: Oct 29, 2011 6:50 AM ---
zweiblumen - police already do secretly infiltrate and film and even encourage civil unrest. Recently an undercover copper felt he had no option other than to speak out for the enviromentalists he had infiltrated and tried to manipulate on behalf of his bosses. Load of trumped up stuff came to light, lots of severe naughtiness from the boys in blue.

 

And while there may be a purpose and reason to camera evidence, the fact is where would it end? That becomes a Big Brother vs privacy question. If 99.99% of the time nothing "bad" happens and that.001% happens, how can you justify using that small amount compared to a large amount? And how can you sensibly say that small amount would have to be interpreted in a bad abusive way? Take someone that treats their pet lovingly and would never raise a hand to their pet but at the wrong time accidently steps on the pet's paw or goes to sit down and the pet dashes and is sat upon. Do we crucify those people as abusers because the film shows they were careless and hurt an animal? When all other footage shows they never once raised a hand or foot to their pet? When it was totally 100% pure accident? On the other hand if someone is a known abuser and has pets should they be filmed? Same with sex abusers, should a known sex offender have their computer and home rigged to see what they are doing, i.e. porn websites/magazines, who they bring home and how they treat that person, etc.? If so where is the line drawn?

The problem is once you GIVE government the right to take away rights and claim it is in the "best" interest of society, you open the door to the government taking the right away permanently and wholly.

 

When the authorities fail, ordinary people try to do something. Was it wrong to trespass and film poor Boris? Would it have been better to continue to call 'the authorities'. Should it be public? Of course, because one of the 'authorities' involved is RSPCA who get lots of donations to stamp out animal cruelty - its only right that people know where their donations go, surely?
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=2411726521434713773#
Example of some right Nobs
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=meXZAotDfMA&feature=related

Lucky they have backup - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RRm4fkxLJdE&feature=related