Re: OT: London Cops seem to have a $54K time problem

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by Pete A, Jan 18, 2012.

  1. Pete A

    Pete A Guest

    Pete A, Jan 18, 2012
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. Pete A

    Pete A Guest

    On 2012-01-19 00:41:58 +0000, Savageduck said:

    > On 2012-01-18 14:58:07 -0800, Pete A <> said:
    >
    >> On 2012-01-18 21:34:52 +0000, Savageduck said:
    >>
    >>> You would think that it would be cheaper to issue each cop a Timex.
    >>> <
    >>> http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/01/18/london-metropolitan-police-clock_n_1213897.html
    >>>

    >
    > The
    >>>

    >> speaking clock has traceability to national and international time
    >> standards, a Timex does not.

    >
    > ...and why pray tell would traceability to national and international
    > time standards be vital to a beat cop?
    > A timex, Casio or almost any other inexpensive watch would provide
    > sufficient degree of accuracy for any police officer. A cop needing to
    > use the "speaking clock" seems pretty clueless to me.
    > I have yet to see a police crime scene, or incident report where the
    > exact time was given. The report would usually read, "At approximately
    > xx:xx hours I......".
    > Usually the only time an exact time is given, is when it is reported on
    > a speeding ticket/citation and an electronic speed measuring device
    > such as RADAR or LADAR is used. Then the device is going to show the
    > time the measurement was made on its display and that is recorded on
    > the citation. The cop doesn't even have to look at his watch. Also if
    > the protocol requires a vehicle registration check either by radio, or
    > patrol car computer, the time that query is made is recorded at both
    > ends of the communication without the cop needing to do anything.
    >
    > Having a watch reading the correct time, within a minute or two on my
    > wrist worked for me for 25 years. Not once have I had to dial a service
    > to have the time whispered in my ear.
    > In a worst case scenario where the cop's watch has stopped running, or
    > is obviously showing a questionable time, a radio check to a dispatcher
    > should suffice. Then with today's ubiquitous cell phone, and I am sure
    > 99.9% of London Metropolitan police carry one, a glance at the display
    > will give them a report of the correct time without having to dial the
    > "speaking clock" service.
    >
    > ...or perhaps these cops are so retarded they like hearing the computer
    > generated voice. I am guessing it is a pleasant, come-hither female
    > voice saying, "When you hear the tone it will be 12:46".


    I've mentioned the traceability issue before. A vital piece of evidence
    for the prosecution was the time of a call to the emergency services,
    which as we all know is electronically recorded and time-stamped to the
    second. The defence asked for proof that the time-stamp was accurate;
    insufficient proof could be given so the evidence was dismissed and the
    prosecution failed.

    It didn't matter that it was obvious the time-stamp was accurate enough
    for the purpose, obvious does not equal proof.

    As to the time on cell-phones, most are highly inaccurate - the syncing
    to network time doesn't work on two of the major networks that I know
    of. My last phone drifted by about 5 minutes per month.

    The call cost of 31 pence is totally insignificant compared to the cost
    of the task requiring the call. Had the $54K been expressed as
    percentage of total operating cost, you would've realized this point.
    As usual, the media cherry picks data for the purpose of shit-stirring
    rather than providing meaningful information.

    If you spent some time working with London's Met. Police, you would
    find them to be quite the opposite of "retarded".
     
    Pete A, Jan 19, 2012
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. Pete A

    tony cooper Guest

    On Wed, 18 Jan 2012 16:41:58 -0800, Savageduck
    <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote:

    >On 2012-01-18 14:58:07 -0800, Pete A <> said:
    >
    >> On 2012-01-18 21:34:52 +0000, Savageduck said:
    >>
    >>> You would think that it would be cheaper to issue each cop a Timex.
    >>> <
    >>> http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/01/18/london-metropolitan-police-clock_n_1213897.html

    >
    >The
    >>>

    >> speaking clock has traceability to national and international time
    >> standards, a Timex does not.

    >
    >...and why pray tell would traceability to national and international
    >time standards be vital to a beat cop?


    What surprised me was the calls to the Speaking Clock cost 31 pence
    each. There is no charge for land-line calls to "Time" where I live.
    There is no charge for cell phone calls, but the call uses minutes.

    Assuming that the London Met force has some requirements based on
    British laws that we don't know about, I'm willing to accept the
    statement that there are "evidential and operational reasons" for
    officers and staff to need to know the exact time when the report is
    written.


    --
    Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida
     
    tony cooper, Jan 19, 2012
    #3
  4. Pete A

    Bruce Guest

    Savageduck <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote:
    >
    >A timex, Casio or almost any other inexpensive watch would provide
    >sufficient degree of accuracy for any police officer. A cop needing to
    >use the "speaking clock" seems pretty clueless to me.



    Clueless cops? If police recruitment continues to accept so many of
    below average intellect, clueless cops are going to be a problem.

    Last year I attended a police training school and was chatting to one
    of the senior training officers over lunch. He said he had found our
    course one of the most stimulating he had ever run because we learnt
    far more quickly than the officers he normally dealt with. Each day,
    we completed before lunch what officers often failed to learn in a
    day, so he took the course much further than it usually went.

    I asked what the force required of recruits in the way of educational
    attainment. He just laughed, and said that he hoped that, one day in
    the future, the recruits might have an average IQ of 90. I asked what
    it was now and he just shrugged, and smiled. Everyone attending that
    course had a university degree, which probably explains why we made
    comparatively rapid progress.

    I realise that there has to be a range of available employment for
    people of below average intellect, but I would have thought that
    average intelligence should be a minimum requirement for police work.

    As for the Speaking Clock, when the telephone service was publicly
    owned, the Speaking Clock was a free call. Many people seem not to
    have gotten around to the idea that, with all telephone providers now
    in private hands, the service now carries a charge.

    It isn't only the police - the government Meteorological Office got a
    bill for GBP 35,000 - about US $53k.
     
    Bruce, Jan 19, 2012
    #4
  5. Pete A

    Pete A Guest

    On 2012-01-19 03:08:00 +0000, Savageduck said:

    > On 2012-01-18 17:55:34 -0800, Pete A said:
    >
    >> On 2012-01-19 00:41:58 +0000, Savageduck said:
    >> [...]
    >> I've mentioned the traceability issue before. A vital piece of evidence
    >> for the prosecution was the time of a call to the emergency services,
    >> which as we all know is electronically recorded and time-stamped to the
    >> second. The defence asked for proof that the time-stamp was accurate;
    >> insufficient proof could be given so the evidence was dismissed and the
    >> prosecution failed.

    >
    > ...and why wouldn't the emergency services communications center, or
    > dispatch computers not be synced with a reliable time server?


    The case I was speaking of was before fully auditable time services
    were installed.

    > For the UK they might consider;
    > < http://www.pool.ntp.org/zone/uk >
    > or
    > < http://www.timetools.co.uk/ntp-servers/ref/ntp-server-uk.htm >


    You are kidding, aren't you? These servers are free for use by the
    public, their guarantee of service matches their price.


    > While defense attorneys in the UK are probably as diligent and
    > aggressive as the variety found in California, a call to emergency
    > services, 911 here or 999 for you is going to have an admissible
    > timeline established by the time server calibrated computers in the
    > communications center, which does not have to be verified by a call to
    > the "speaking clock".


    Correct.


    > The issue seems to be officers making these calls not communications
    > center dispatchers.


    Yes.


    > If you know of a case which was dismissed, resulting in a failed
    > prosecution due to a failure to make that call to the "Speaking clock"
    > please cite it in some way. Otherwise it seems like speculation on your
    > part.


    No, I said there was insufficient proof that the timestamp was
    accurate. This case was a wake-up call (literally!) to install
    _auditable_ time services not only in communications centres, but also
    in commerce.

    There's a huge difference between syncing a device to a known reference
    source of time and being able to prove, beyond reasonable doubt, that
    the device was accurate at the moment of time in dispute.

    To illustrate the point: a hand-held GPS receiver is synced to the most
    accurate source of time and position we have, yet we all know how
    dishonest they can be. Much cause for reasonable doubt.


    > A reporting police officer is not going to be required to cite time
    > exact to the second, not even the picky London Metropolitan Police.


    You are confusing accuracy with auditablity.


    >> It didn't matter that it was obvious the time-stamp was accurate enough
    >> for the purpose, obvious does not equal proof.

    >
    > see above.
    >
    >> As to the time on cell-phones, most are highly inaccurate - the syncing
    >> to network time doesn't work on two of the major networks that I know
    >> of. My last phone drifted by about 5 minutes per month.

    >
    > Then you you must have a weird bunch of network carriers.


    Yep.

    > with the various cell phones I have used over the last 20 odd years I
    > have not experienced the sort of discrepancy you describe. Right now my
    > cell phone, an iPhone with service from Verizon has a time which seems
    > to be accurately synced with my wireless atomic wall clock which gets a
    > signal from Golden Colorado, and the Mac I am typing this on, which
    > gets its signal from Apple's Cupertino time server, that is 19:04 PST,
    > and I haven't had to adjust any of them.
    >
    > My analog wrist watch does lose about 45 seconds a week an I make an
    > adjustment every 10-14days.


    Ever tried using your wristwatch assertion as evidence that is beyond
    reasonable doubt? It wouldn't work here.


    >> The call cost of 31 pence is totally insignificant compared to the cost
    >> of the task requiring the call. Had the $54K been expressed as
    >> percentage of total operating cost, you would've realized this point.
    >> As usual, the media cherry picks data for the purpose of shit-stirring
    >> rather than providing meaningful information.

    >
    > That low cost of the individual call is just a factor in the
    > rationalization that the cost is negligible, which as the accumulated
    > figure demonstrates it isn't.


    The accumulated cost of, say, officers stopping to wipe their nose
    during cold weather could equally make headline news. As could the cost
    of pencils and notebooks.


    >> If you spent some time working with London's Met. Police, you would
    >> find them to be quite the opposite of "retarded".

    >
    > Hyperbole on my part. However I would imagine that the London
    > Metropolitan Police cover the same range of intellect and mental acuity
    > to be found in any para-military law enforcement organization. I have
    > had some extraordinarily bright individuals work for me, and they
    > offset the unbelievable idiocy of others who for some inexplicable
    > reason made it through the various law enforcement academies.


    Fortunately, my experience is very different from yours.
     
    Pete A, Jan 19, 2012
    #5
  6. "Alan Browne" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    []
    > The UK police would do well to explore how GPS receivers that they
    > already own could save them money on time stamping - as would most
    > networked PC's that they already have if properly set to sync the time.
    > For Windows, OS X and Linux this is usually a default.


    ... but aren't some phones (possibly Android) 15 seconds out because they
    are on GPS time, and not UTC?

    David
     
    David J Taylor, Jan 19, 2012
    #6
  7. Pete A

    Whisky-dave Guest

    On Jan 19, 12:41 am, Savageduck <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com>
    wrote:
    > On 2012-01-18 14:58:07 -0800, Pete A <> said:
    >
    > > On 2012-01-18 21:34:52 +0000, Savageduck said:

    >
    > >> You would think that it would be cheaper to issue each cop a Timex.
    > >> <
    > >>http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/01/18/london-metropolitan-police-c....

    >
    > The
    >
    >
    >
    > > speaking clock has traceability to national and international time
    > > standards, a Timex does not.

    >
    > ...and why pray tell would traceability to national and international
    > time standards be vital to a beat cop?
    > A timex, Casio or almost any other inexpensive watch would provide
    > sufficient degree of accuracy for any police officer. A cop needing to
    > use the "speaking clock" seems pretty clueless to me.


    Unless it's to cover themselves.
    In court a policeman might be asked at what time did you see the
    accused
    do x y z, and how do you know what time it was.
    "I looked at my phone2 is all very well but when at the time or the
    incident
    or after, dialing the 123 (if that;s still the code) can be very
    useful to anyone
    not just because of the time but they fact you have a record of what
    you did at that time.
    My friend HTC android 2.3 is always about 5 mins fast.
    And using GPS someone might even be able to fuind oput where you
    actually were at that toime rather than
    were yuo say you were.
    Of course what should really happen is that a number should be used
    that can tell you then time and record
    where you are as far as useful to the police, they should have their
    own number for such things.



    > I have yet to see a police crime scene, or incident report where the
    > exact time was given. The report would usually read, "At approximately
    > xx:xx hours I......".


    And I wonder how many times those given times have been wrong.
    You only have to be out by a few miniutes to miss a flight or train.

    > Usually the only time an exact time is given, is when it is reported on
    > a speeding ticket/citation and an electronic speed measuring device
    > such as RADAR or LADAR is used. Then the device is going to show the
    > time the measurement was made on its display and that is recorded on
    > the citation. The cop doesn't even have to look at his watch.


    Which is good isn't it. I'd like to be able to trust all cops, but if
    5 or 10mins
    can make the differnce between being at the scene of a crime and not
    being their
    then the report that the4 police use could be very important.
    But I am suspicious/curious as to why it wass used as often as it
    was.



    > Also if
    > the protocol requires a vehicle registration check either by radio, or
    > patrol car computer, the time that query is made is recorded at both
    > ends of the communication without the cop needing to do anything.


    exacly anothyer device has recorded the time other than the 'brain' of
    the cop.

    >
    > Having a watch reading the correct time, within a minute or two on my
    > wrist worked for me for 25 years. Not once have I had to dial a service
    > to have the time whispered in my ear.


    So you've never been accused of lying about the time an incident took
    place.

    > In a worst case scenario where the cop's watch has stopped running, or
    > is obviously showing a questionable time, a radio check to a dispatcher
    > should suffice. Then with today's ubiquitous cell phone, and I am sure
    > 99.9% of London Metropolitan police carry one, a glance at the display
    > will give them a report of the correct time without having to dial the
    > "speaking clock" service.


    I;d agree but what of proof....

    >
    > ...or perhaps these cops are so retarded they like hearing the computer
    > generated voice. I am guessing it is a pleasant, come-hither female
    > voice saying, "When you hear the tone it will be 12:46".


    But the cops off on an extended lunch break and didnt; get to the
    scene of teh crime
    until 13:00, but he said he was there at 12:46 as he phjimed TIM.
    which was dialed
    at 13:00 not 12:46.



    >
    > --
    > Regards,
    >
    > Savageduck
     
    Whisky-dave, Jan 19, 2012
    #7
  8. "Savageduck" <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote in message
    news:2012011908251899097-savageduck1@REMOVESPAMmecom...
    > On 2012-01-19 06:08:10 -0800, "David J Taylor"
    > <> said:
    >
    >> "Alan Browne" <> wrote in message
    >> news:...
    >> []
    >>> The UK police would do well to explore how GPS receivers that they
    >>> already own could save them money on time stamping - as would most
    >>> networked PC's that they already have if properly set to sync the
    >>> time. For Windows, OS X and Linux this is usually a default.

    >>
    >> .. but aren't some phones (possibly Android) 15 seconds out because
    >> they are on GPS time, and not UTC?
    >>
    >> David

    >
    > For the most part 15 seconds is not going to win or lose any criminal,
    > or civil court case.
    >
    > --
    > Regards,
    >
    > Savageduck


    True!

    David
     
    David J Taylor, Jan 19, 2012
    #8
  9. Pete A

    tony cooper Guest

    On Thu, 19 Jan 2012 10:09:36 -0800, Savageduck
    <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote:

    >On 2012-01-19 09:10:25 -0800, Whisky-dave <> said:
    >
    >> On Jan 19, 12:41 am, Savageduck <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com>
    >> wrote:
    >>> On 2012-01-18 14:58:07 -0800, Pete A <>

    >> said:
    >>>
    >>>> On 2012-01-18 21:34:52 +0000, Savageduck said:
    >>>
    >>>>> You would think that it would be cheaper to issue each cop a Timex.
    >>>>> <
    >>>>> http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/01/18/london-metropolitan-police-c..

    >> .
    >>> ...and why pray tell would traceability to national and international
    >>> time standards be vital to a beat cop?


    The whole concept of the need for to-the-minute-time on a police
    report is ridiculous to me. What time is recorded? The time the unit
    arrives at the location? The time the patrol officers made to the
    door and knocked? The time they gained entrance to the part of the
    scene where the incident was taking place or had taken place?

    That's a span of several minutes. "We arrived on the scene at about
    4:20 PM" would be realistically acceptable. The problem is, lawyers
    don't accept "realistically acceptable". They would use discrepancies
    of minutes to challenge the veracity of the reporting officer.

    What if there's a chase...a suspect runs away from the location? What
    is the accurate time involved? When the officer saw the guy? When
    the officer took him down? When the officer got him back to the unit
    and in the back seat and cuffed? Again, several minutes can elapse.

    Changing subjects slightly...."beat cop"? How many cities still have
    "beat cops"? I think the only beat cops left are those taking on the
    role of "Officer Krupke" in staged musicals.



    >>> A timex, Casio or almost any other inexpensive watch would provide
    >>> sufficient degree of accuracy for any police officer. A cop needing to
    >>> use the "speaking clock" seems pretty clueless to me.

    >>
    >> Unless it's to cover themselves.

    >
    >All they have to do to cover themselves is their job.
    >
    >> In court a policeman might be asked at what time did you see the
    >> accused
    >> do x y z, and how do you know what time it was.
    >> "I looked at my phone2 is all very well but when at the time or the
    >> incident
    >> or after, dialing the 123 (if that;s still the code) can be very
    >> useful to anyone
    >> not just because of the time but they fact you have a record of what
    >> you did at that time.
    >> My friend HTC android 2.3 is always about 5 mins fast.
    >> And using GPS someone might even be able to fuind oput where you
    >> actually were at that toime rather than
    >> were yuo say you were.

    >
    >All irrelevant once the incident is fully investigated and reports are
    >written. Context is everything.
    >
    >> Of course what should really happen is that a number should be used
    >> that can tell you then time and record
    >> where you are as far as useful to the police, they should have their
    >> own number for such things.

    >
    >...and in my experience they do.
    >
    >>
    >>
    >>
    >>> I have yet to see a police crime scene, or incident report where the
    >>> exact time was given. The report would usually read, "At approximately
    >>> xx:xx hours I......".

    >>
    >> And I wonder how many times those given times have been wrong.
    >> You only have to be out by a few miniutes to miss a flight or train.

    >
    >...but that is a flight or train, and if you are going to cut things
    >that close you have other issues to deal with.
    >
    >>
    >>> Usually the only time an exact time is given, is when it is reported on
    >>> a speeding ticket/citation and an electronic speed measuring device
    >>> such as RADAR or LADAR is used. Then the device is going to show the
    >>> time the measurement was made on its display and that is recorded on
    >>> the citation. The cop doesn't even have to look at his watch.

    >>
    >> Which is good isn't it. I'd like to be able to trust all cops, but if
    >> 5 or 10mins
    >> can make the differnce between being at the scene of a crime and not
    >> being their
    >> then the report that the4 police use could be very important.

    >
    >There are less expensive methods of policing the police.
    >
    >> But I am suspicious/curious as to why it wass used as often as it
    >> was.

    >
    >That was my issue.
    >
    >>
    >>
    >>
    >>> Also if
    >>> the protocol requires a vehicle registration check either by radio, or
    >>> patrol car computer, the time that query is made is recorded at both
    >>> ends of the communication without the cop needing to do anything.

    >>
    >> exacly anothyer device has recorded the time other than the 'brain' of
    >> the cop.

    >
    >Yup.
    >>
    >>>
    >>> Having a watch reading the correct time, within a minute or two on my
    >>> wrist worked for me for 25 years. Not once have I had to dial a service
    >>> to have the time whispered in my ear.

    >>
    >> So you've never been accused of lying about the time an incident took
    >> place.

    >
    >You might say I have been an expert witness, and while I have been
    >subject to cross examination many times, keeping thing simple and
    >factual is the best method of dealing with accusatory innuendo.
    >
    >>
    >>> In a worst case scenario where the cop's watch has stopped running, or
    >>> is obviously showing a questionable time, a radio check to a dispatcher
    >>> should suffice. Then with today's ubiquitous cell phone, and I am sure
    >>> 99.9% of London Metropolitan police carry one, a glance at the display
    >>> will give them a report of the correct time without having to dial the
    >>> "speaking clock" service.

    >>
    >> I;d agree but what of proof....

    >
    >See below.
    >>
    >>>
    >>> ...or perhaps these cops are so retarded they like hearing the computer
    >>> generated voice. I am guessing it is a pleasant, come-hither female
    >>> voice saying, "When you hear the tone it will be 12:46".

    >>
    >> But the cops off on an extended lunch break and didnt; get to the
    >> scene of teh crime
    >> until 13:00, but he said he was there at 12:46 as he phjimed TIM.
    >> which was dialed
    >> at 13:00 not 12:46.

    >
    >Witnesses, even cops can be shaky on exact time, and that is why few
    >first responders in my experience, are going to report anything other
    >than approximate times.
    >In the scenario you have proposed stating that he/she arrived at the
    >scene at approximately 12:46 or 13:00, or even 13:05 would both suffice
    >for an initial report. The chronology of events on scene can be pinned
    >down later by referring to communications center logs, which would be
    >time stamped.
    >So there is nothing wrong with initially using approximately 12:46 as
    >an arrival time. once he/she have advised the communications
    >center/dispatcher that they are on scene, that communication would
    >establish the official time on scene which can be added to a later
    >supplemental report. (more on this below)
    >Testimony could well go go something along these lines, "I arrived on
    >scene at approximately 12:46 hours. Once the scene was secured dispatch
    >informed me that my exact time on scene was 13:00 hours."
    >
    >In the USA we have this thing called the "Ten-Code" which is employed
    >by 99.99% of law enforcement agencies, together with "plain talk" radio
    >communication for those not familiar with the full "Ten-Code".
    >Calling with his/her call sign, for the last 6 years of by career mine
    >was "Charlie 2 Alpha" and saying as it would have been in my case,
    >"Charlie 2 Alpha, 10-97". This would have advised dispatch and any
    >other responders that I was on scene and would have effectively time
    >stamped that arrival without me even having to look at my watch.
    >
    >All the time befuddled officer would have to do to get a time check is
    >to call "10-35", this is the "Ten-Code" for a "time check", on his
    >radio and there will be a response, usually from dispatch, but
    >sometimes with an element of "raised eyebrow" kidding from peers.


    --
    Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida
     
    tony cooper, Jan 19, 2012
    #9
  10. Pete A

    NM5K Guest

    On 1/19/2012 12:09 PM, Savageduck wrote:

    >
    > In the USA we have this thing called the "Ten-Code" which is employed by
    > 99.99% of law enforcement agencies, together with "plain talk" radio
    > communication for those not familiar with the full "Ten-Code".


    I guess Houston is the .01 percent.. :| The city police here do
    not use ten codes at all.. It's pretty much all plain speech here,
    and has been that way for years. Also, they now use the computer
    for quite a few things, "box" in HPD language, to reduce radio traffic.
    I can't remember if Harris County uses ten codes or not.. Maybe..
    But I hardly listen to them any more as they have gone to trunked
    systems, and I don't use a trunk tracking radio.
    HPD is still on regular ole 460 mhz. Which I can receive on most
    all of my UHF capable ham radios, which have wide band receivers.
    Here, if an officer were say on a holdup alarm, and arrived on the
    scene, they would just say, "15E20 arrived." as an example.
    Which like you say, is automatically time stamped by the recording.
    I suspect any chatter on the computer to the dispatcher is time stamped
    also.
     
    NM5K, Jan 19, 2012
    #10
  11. Pete A

    NM5K Guest

    On 1/19/2012 2:35 PM, Savageduck wrote:

    >
    > So "beats" are still there.
    >
    >


    Yep, same here.. In fact, the 15E20 example I used before
    is the beat for this neighborhood. Which if they are not in
    a hurry and want to get fancy, they would say 15 Edward 20.. :/
    But just because this is 15E20's beat does not automatically
    mean that if I called the police, 15E20 would be the one that
    showed up. It could well end up being any "20's beat" car, 15E21,
    15E22, 15E24, etc..
    Maybe all of them if it's a slow Wednesday.. :/
    Just depends who's close and handy.
    I'm in the Southwest patrol division, district 15, 20's beat.
    http://houstoncrimemaps.com/beat/
    http://www.houstontx.gov/police/pdfs/hpd_beat_map.pdf
     
    NM5K, Jan 19, 2012
    #11
  12. Savageduck <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> writes:

    > On 2012-01-19 13:14:20 -0800, Eric Stevens <> said:
    >
    >> On Thu, 19 Jan 2012 15:04:22 -0500, tony cooper
    >> <> wrote:
    >>
    >>> On Thu, 19 Jan 2012 10:09:36 -0800, Savageduck
    >>> <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote:
    >>>
    >>>> On 2012-01-19 09:10:25 -0800, Whisky-dave <> said:
    >>>>
    >>>>> On Jan 19, 12:41 am, Savageduck <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com>
    >>>>> wrote:
    >>>>>> On 2012-01-18 14:58:07 -0800, Pete A <>
    >>>>> said:
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>>> On 2012-01-18 21:34:52 +0000, Savageduck said:
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>>>> You would think that it would be cheaper to issue each cop a Timex.
    >>>>>>>> <
    >>>>>>>> http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/01/18/london-metropolitan-police-c..
    >>>>> .
    >>>>>> ...and why pray tell would traceability to national and international
    >>>>>> time standards be vital to a beat cop?
    >>>
    >>> The whole concept of the need for to-the-minute-time on a police
    >>> report is ridiculous to me. What time is recorded? The time the unit
    >>> arrives at the location? The time the patrol officers made to the
    >>> door and knocked? The time they gained entrance to the part of the
    >>> scene where the incident was taking place or had taken place?
    >>>
    >>> That's a span of several minutes. "We arrived on the scene at about
    >>> 4:20 PM" would be realistically acceptable. The problem is, lawyers
    >>> don't accept "realistically acceptable". They would use discrepancies
    >>> of minutes to challenge the veracity of the reporting officer.

    >>
    >> In one famous murder case in NZ the alibi of the accused hung (in
    >> part) on a three minute difference in the time he was reported as
    >> being in two different places. The two times were measured by two
    >> different watches. Discrepancies of minutes were certainly used to
    >> challenge the evidence.

    >
    > ...but that was the accused and his alibi, not times related to police
    > response and reports.


    The police report often establishes the base of the timeline that
    everything else goes on, though. Although with estimates of time of
    death, we're not going to be finding a minute or two significant.
    --
    David Dyer-Bennet, ; http://dd-b.net/
    Snapshots: http://dd-b.net/dd-b/SnapshotAlbum/data/
    Photos: http://dd-b.net/photography/gallery/
    Dragaera: http://dragaera.info
     
    David Dyer-Bennet, Jan 19, 2012
    #12
  13. Pete A

    tony cooper Guest

    On Thu, 19 Jan 2012 12:35:19 -0800, Savageduck
    <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote:

    >>
    >> Changing subjects slightly...."beat cop"? How many cities still have
    >> "beat cops"? I think the only beat cops left are those taking on the
    >> role of "Officer Krupke" in staged musicals.

    >
    >Yup, "Beat cop" conjures up an image of the baton in hand stroller
    >talking to shop keepers and kids, but times have changed and terms live
    >on.
    >
    >Today in California designated patrol routes are termed "Beats". CHP
    >officers can be, and are assigned specific "beats". All with
    >significant overlap.
    >For example for the CHP, the Hwy101 corridor between Templeton
    >California and Salinas is divided into three major "beats" with four
    >additional patrol routes assigned to CHP Templeton & CHP King City.


    I was delighted to see "Southland" return to TV this week. Whether or
    not you like cop shows, the show is well worth watching just for the
    opening credits and the vintage photographs used in the opening
    credits. The theme music is great, too.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HykxlZ6HT38

    Another show, "Making It In America" (HBO series), takes place in
    Manhattan but also has fantastic photographs in the opening credits.
    The theme music - "I Need A Dollar" - is an ear worm. For those of us
    that do and like "street", the photos resonate.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K0hor1YHXeU

    --
    Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida
     
    tony cooper, Jan 20, 2012
    #13
  14. Pete A

    Whisky-dave Guest

    On Jan 19, 6:09 pm, Savageduck <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote:
    > On 2012-01-19 09:10:25 -0800, Whisky-dave <> said:
    >
    >
    > > On Jan 19, 12:41 am, Savageduck <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com>
    > > wrote:
    > >> On 2012-01-18 14:58:07 -0800, Pete A <>

    > > said:

    >
    > >>> On 2012-01-18 21:34:52 +0000, Savageduck said:

    >
    > >>>> You would think that it would be cheaper to issue each cop a Timex.
    > >>>> <
    > >>>>http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/01/18/london-metropolitan-police-c...

    > > .

    >
    > >> The

    >
    > >>> speaking clock has traceability to national and international time
    > >>> standards, a Timex does not.

    >
    > >> ...and why pray tell would traceability to national and international
    > >> time standards be vital to a beat cop?
    > >> A timex, Casio or almost any other inexpensive watch would provide
    > >> sufficient degree of accuracy for any police officer. A cop needing to
    > >> use the "speaking clock" seems pretty clueless to me.

    >
    > > Unless it's to cover themselves.

    >
    > All they have to do to cover themselves is their job.


    Whatever that means.

    >
    > > In court a policeman might be asked at what time did you see the
    > > accused
    > > do x y z,  and how do you know what time  it was.
    > > "I looked at my phone2 is all very well but when at the time or the
    > > incident
    > > or after, dialing the 123 (if that;s still the code) can be very
    > > useful to anyone
    > > not just because of the time but they fact you have a record of what
    > > you did at that time.
    > > My friend HTC android 2.3 is always about 5 mins fast.
    > > And using GPS someone might even be able to fuind oput where you
    > > actually were at that toime rather than
    > > were yuo say you were.

    >
    > All irrelevant once the incident is fully investigated and reports are
    > written. Context is everything.


    But what time will be written on those reports.

    >
    > > Of course what should really happen is that a number should be used
    > > that can tell you then time and record
    > > where you are as far as useful to the police, they should have their
    > > own number for such things.

    >
    > ...and in my experience they do.


    My experience isn;t from within the force but from the outside.



    > >> I have yet to see a police crime scene, or incident report where the
    > >> exact time was given. The report would usually read, "At approximately
    > >> xx:xx hours I......".

    >
    > > And I wonder how many times those given times have been wrong.
    > > You only have to be out by a few miniutes to miss a flight or train.

    >
    > ...but that is a flight or train, and if you are going to cut things
    > that close you have other issues to deal with.


    If you've got police officers that can't tell the time there's a
    problem.
    When I was on juryb serice one of the cases that ws thrown out was
    partly because of the wrong
    time, no of the 5 police involved new what time they raided the falt
    of who went up the stairs first.
    The judge was most amuse when 3 of the 5 police said they were the
    first up a flight of stairs.
    If one officer says they broke the door down at 10:00am and he was the
    first in and another at 9:50
    and she was the first in who's lying about the 14 yearold dropping a
    bag of drugs down the back of the sofa.
    And why wasn;t that bag produced as evidence the judge asked,
    me parapharing obviously) it wasn;t just me that workled it out for
    myself.

    yesterday when I was answering a sort of accusation I had to inform
    that "accuser"
    that the instidetn didnt;l take place on teh 4th of Jan but on the
    5th.
    So there's a 24 hour differnce proved by a time date stamped email.
    in a few months or weeks a day here or there might not matter.




    >
    >
    >
    > >> Usually the only time an exact time is given, is when it is reported on
    > >> a speeding ticket/citation and an electronic speed measuring device
    > >> such as RADAR or LADAR is used. Then the device is going to show the
    > >> time the measurement was made on its display and that is recorded on
    > >> the citation. The cop doesn't even have to look at his watch.

    >
    > > Which is good isn't it. I'd like to be able to trust all cops, but if
    > > 5 or 10mins
    > > can make the differnce between being at the scene of a crime and not
    > > being their
    > > then the report that the4 police use could be very important.

    >
    > There are less expensive methods of policing the police.


    I would hope so. If that is the case why isn;t it used.
    We;ve had quite a trun around of high ranking police,
    maybe it;'s incompetence maybe there's soemthing more.


    >
    > >  But I am suspicious/curious as to why it wass used as often as it
    > > was.

    >
    > That was my issue.


    Yes so there should be a reason, hopefully it'll become clear.

    >
    >
    >
    > >> Also if
    > >> the protocol requires a vehicle registration check either by radio, or
    > >> patrol car computer, the time that query is made is recorded at both
    > >> ends of the communication without the cop needing to do anything.

    >
    > > exacly anothyer device has recorded the time other than the 'brain' of
    > > the cop.

    >
    > Yup.
    >
    >
    >
    > >> Having a watch reading the correct time, within a minute or two on my
    > >> wrist worked for me for 25 years. Not once have I had to dial a service
    > >> to have the time whispered in my ear.

    >
    > > So you've never been accused of lying about the time an incident took
    > > place.

    >
    > You might say I have been an expert witness, and while I have been
    > subject to cross examination many times, keeping thing simple and
    > factual is the best method of dealing with accusatory innuendo.


    I would agree if I was only so lucky ;-)


    >
    > >> In a worst case scenario where the cop's watch has stopped running, or
    > >> is obviously showing a questionable time, a radio check to a dispatcher
    > >> should suffice. Then with today's ubiquitous cell phone, and I am sure
    > >> 99.9% of London Metropolitan police carry one, a glance at the display
    > >> will give them a report of the correct time without having to dial the
    > >> "speaking clock" service.

    >
    > > I;d agree but what of proof....

    >
    > See below.
    >
    >
    >
    > >> ...or perhaps these cops are so retarded they like hearing the computer
    > >> generated voice. I am guessing it is a pleasant, come-hither female
    > >> voice saying, "When you hear the tone it will be 12:46".

    >
    > > But the cops off on an extended lunch break and didnt; get to the
    > > scene of teh crime
    > > until 13:00, but he said he was there at 12:46 as he phjimed TIM.
    > > which was dialed
    > > at 13:00 not 12:46.

    >
    > Witnesses, even cops can be shaky on exact time, and that is why few
    > first responders in my experience, are going to report anything other
    > than approximate times.
    > In the scenario you have proposed stating that he/she arrived at the
    > scene at approximately 12:46 or 13:00, or even 13:05 would both suffice
    > for an initial report.


    But who was first on teh scene that can be important.
    Luckly now we have CCTV which may be used.

    > The chronology of events on scene  can be pinned
    > down later by referring to communications center logs, which would be
    > time stamped.


    I would hope so, but hope and faith aren;t really the same.

    > So there is nothing wrong with initially using approximately 12:46 as
    > an arrival time.


    Of course not.

    > once he/she have advised the communications
    > center/dispatcher that they are on scene, that communication would
    > establish the official time on scene which can be added to a later
    > supplemental report. (more on this below)
    > Testimony could well go go something along these lines, "I arrived on
    > scene at approximately 12:46 hours. Once the scene was secured dispatch
    > informed me that my exact time on scene was 13:00 hours."


    Which would then differer from the written statement.
    Why not suply cops with watches that keep time rather than expect
    them
    to use their own.
    I have two radio controlled clocks in my lab about 130ft apart in two
    seperate labs
    this is so I can point to them and tell the studetns to pack up at
    5pm.
    So why do the clocks show a time differnce of 4 mins ?
    We're in east London pretty close to GMT and the time clock signal is
    in rugby
    but doens; tell me which clock is right.
    Condiosring it takes the student until 5:15 to pack up it's no big
    deal.



    >
    > In the USA we have this thing called the "Ten-Code" which is employed
    > by 99.99% of law enforcement agencies, together with "plain talk" radio
    > communication for those not familiar with the full "Ten-Code".


    yes even here we've heard of those.

    > Calling with his/her call sign, for the last 6 years of by career mine
    > was "Charlie 2 Alpha" and saying as it would have been in my case,
    > "Charlie 2 Alpha, 10-97". This would have advised dispatch and any
    > other responders that I was on scene and would have effectively time
    > stamped that arrival without me even having to look at my watch.


    Do you ever set your watch fast most people seem to and they don;t
    all
    set it to the same time either. It's been quite a few years since i
    Heard the
    expression if you want to know the time ask a policeman.

    >
    > All the time befuddled officer would have to do to get a time check is
    > to call "10-35", this is the "Ten-Code" for a "time check", on his
    > radio and there will be a response, usually from dispatch, but
    > sometimes with an element of "raised eyebrow" kidding from peers.


    I would expect a similar sytem here, but why have a code 10:35
    why not just asked for the time ?

    >
    > --
    > Regards,
    >
    > Savageduck
     
    Whisky-dave, Jan 20, 2012
    #14
  15. Pete A

    Whisky-dave Guest

    On Jan 19, 5:29 pm, Alan Browne <>
    wrote:
    > On 2012-01-19 12:10 , Whisky-dave wrote:
    > <>
    >
    >  > I;d agree but what of proof....
    >
    > <>
    >
    > Sworn testimony is accepted in common and civil law courts and for such
    > a thing as time, it would be generally accepted with little contest.
    >
    > If a police officer gives testimony that he recorded something at 14:32,
    > and yes, here it is jotted down in his notes, then it is usually
    > accepted as true testimony.


    Most people set their personal clocks and watches fast, mobile phones
    are crap at keeping the time unless
    they are linked to GPS time services, most aren't.

    http://www.time.com/time/business/article/0,8599,1915588,00.html



    >  If challenged by the defense he can claim
    > he called the time service that morning to set his watch, or used his
    > GPS or cell phone to ensure accuracy.


    That claim might require proof that he actually set the time, and then
    whether it was set correctly.


    >
    > No jury or judge will really challenge that as not accurate time.
    >
    > There is no need to have an audit trail of time or GPS.


    If you don;t know what time you have arrived at the scene of a crime
    it can cause problems.
    Being 5 mins out could me suspect A was 5mins away from teh scene when
    the incident happend.
    What if Suspect A says thier watch showed 10:15am and the plocemans
    says it was 1010am.
    Or have I been watching too much sherlock ;-)


    >
    > Though, I would bet that most cops will be using GPS recorders on their
    > person at some point to show where/when they were.


    I would hope so, but I don;t know they sure seem to have to carry a
    lot of kits.

    >  More reliable, less
    > fallible, recordable.  Some cops would find this inconvenient, of course.


    ;-) oh yes, I've been on jury service twice :)

    What surpried me most was I thought the speaking clock was free

    http://www.telephonesuk.co.uk/speaking_clock.htm

    Seems it's 10p per minute 15p max from a BT line, so the 31p
    refered to must be from mobiles, if the police are using police mobile
    phones
    why do the police supply officers with free mobile phone.
    If they are the officers own phones then how come the police force
    is re-embursing officers the cost of using this service, unless they
    have been told ot use it.




    >
    > (And such recorders would need to be certified against data tampering).
    >
    > --
    > "We demand rigidly defined areas of doubt and uncertainty."
    > Douglas Adams - (Could have been a GPS engineer).
     
    Whisky-dave, Jan 20, 2012
    #15
  16. Pete A

    Ray Fischer Guest

    Mxsmanic <> wrote:
    >Just give policemen watches that synchronize with atomic clocks. They are
    >inexpensive and accurate to within one second in thirty million years. An
    >example of these watches would be the Casio Waveceptor series.


    Would that be cheaper? The Metropolitan Police Service employs about
    32 thousand sworn officers. If a watch like that costs $30 then
    you're going to spend a million dollars just outfitting every officer.
    And you still have to spend more every year to replace lost, missing,
    and worn-out watches.

    --
    Ray Fischer | None are more hopelessly enslaved than those who falsely believe they are free.
    | Goethe
     
    Ray Fischer, Jan 22, 2012
    #16
  17. Pete A

    tony cooper Guest

    On Sun, 22 Jan 2012 21:46:09 +0100, Mxsmanic <>
    wrote:

    >Just give policemen watches that synchronize with atomic clocks. They are
    >inexpensive and accurate to within one second in thirty million years. An
    >example of these watches would be the Casio Waveceptor series.
    >
    >In fact, you can sync all sorts of things to atomic clocks. All of my watches
    >and clocks are synchronized in this way, and the computers are synced by NTP,
    >which is at least equally accurate. It's easy to get the correct time if you
    >really want the correct time.


    The thinking here continues to puzzle me. As I understand it, what
    the officers were verifying was the correct time to use in a written
    report.

    I don't care if they call the Speaking Clock, use an atomic clock, or
    have a direct connection to the Royal Observatory in Greenwich. There
    is nothing about *knowing* the correct time that proves that the
    correct time is recorded on the report. Even if the call is recorded
    or logged, that only records or logs the time the call is made. The
    incident that is the subject of the report could have occurred at a
    much earlier time.

    The officers may have been making an effort to be accurate, but the
    accuracy would not be proof of anything.


    --
    Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida
     
    tony cooper, Jan 22, 2012
    #17
  18. Pete A

    Ray Fischer Guest

    Mxsmanic <> wrote:
    >Just give policemen watches that synchronize with atomic clocks. They are
    >inexpensive and accurate to within one second in thirty million years. An
    >example of these watches would be the Casio Waveceptor series.
    >
    >In fact, you can sync all sorts of things to atomic clocks. All of my watches
    >and clocks are synchronized in this way, and the computers are synced by NTP,
    >which is at least equally accurate. It's easy to get the correct time if you
    >really want the correct time.


    One detail: So-called "atomic watches" synchronize to a radio signal
    broadcast by WWV in Ft. Collins Colorado. Expecting the London police
    force to synchronize their clock to a radio station in the US might be
    a bit unreasonable.

    --
    Ray Fischer | None are more hopelessly enslaved than those who falsely believe they are free.
    | Goethe
     
    Ray Fischer, Jan 22, 2012
    #18
  19. > One detail: So-called "atomic watches" synchronize to a radio signal
    > broadcast by WWV in Ft. Collins Colorado. Expecting the London police
    > force to synchronize their clock to a radio station in the US might be
    > a bit unreasonable.
    >
    > --
    > Ray Fischer


    In Europe and Japan there are similar services, for example MSF covers the
    UK:

    http://www.npl.co.uk/science-techno...e/products-and-services/msf-radio-time-signal

    David
     
    David J Taylor, Jan 23, 2012
    #19
  20. Pete A

    Ray Fischer Guest

    Savageduck <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote:
    > (Ray Fischer) said:
    >> Mxsmanic <> wrote:
    >>> Just give policemen watches that synchronize with atomic clocks. They are
    >>> inexpensive and accurate to within one second in thirty million years. An
    >>> example of these watches would be the Casio Waveceptor series.
    >>>
    >>> In fact, you can sync all sorts of things to atomic clocks. All of my watches
    >>> and clocks are synchronized in this way, and the computers are synced by NTP,
    >>> which is at least equally accurate. It's easy to get the correct time if you
    >>> really want the correct time.

    >>
    >> One detail: So-called "atomic watches" synchronize to a radio signal
    >> broadcast by WWV in Ft. Collins Colorado. Expecting the London police
    >> force to synchronize their clock to a radio station in the US might be
    >> a bit unreasonable.

    >
    >This is a practical US, or even UK solution, you will note the UTC time
    >in the upper right.
    ><
    >http://www.usno.navy.mil/USNO/time/master-clock/precise-time-and-the-usno-master-clock


    That's not the issue.

    The issue is whether a radio signal from a station in Colorado can be
    received by a tiny wristwatch radio in London, some 4,700 miles distant.

    And, of course, whether the police in London want to be dependent on
    the whims of a US Congress.

    --
    Ray Fischer | None are more hopelessly enslaved than those who falsely believe they are free.
    | Goethe
     
    Ray Fischer, Jan 23, 2012
    #20
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. =?Utf-8?B?bW9tbXlraXNzZXM=?=

    I have two situations I cant seem to fix on my own!

    =?Utf-8?B?bW9tbXlraXNzZXM=?=, May 29, 2004, in forum: Microsoft Certification
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    509
    =?Utf-8?B?bW9tbXlraXNzZXM=?=
    May 29, 2004
  2. DVD Verdict
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    686
    DVD Verdict
    Apr 15, 2004
  3. Pete A
    Replies:
    2
    Views:
    201
    Pete A
    Jan 22, 2012
  4. Pete A
    Replies:
    26
    Views:
    514
    Richard
    Jan 28, 2012
  5. Bruce
    Replies:
    4
    Views:
    288
    Chris Malcolm
    Feb 1, 2012
Loading...

Share This Page