Staff wearing body cameras

[Gems]

Ah, the good old body camera. I used to wear one but now don't.

35%, 50%, 70% All these outlandish claims that they defuse situations by these amounts, and yet there is scant evidence they actually do. If the claims were correct then there would be less assaults on the police, unfortunately crime statistics don't bear this out.

I'll give you my take on body cameras. To those who think a camera defuses conflict I say this. A good conversing attitude, not talking down to somebody, showing a level of humility, and treating people with respect will defuse a situation ten times better. You see you will always meet the person who doesn't give a hoot if there is a camera in their face or not, and if this wasn't the case then places teaming with cameras would never have any crime. But they do, and that is because all forms of CCTV is retrospective to a certain type of person with a certain mindset. In fact I will go further, to some people a camera will be a red rag to a bull, and they can actually inflame the situation. The worst thing you can do is turn a camera on in front of such a specimen.
Train crews might have cameras. But they don't have CS spray, bobby knockers, handcuffs and tasers to back them up do they. Be careful if you think that camera will protect you. It might be your undoing also.

 

[warwickshire]

Even security guards sometimes and enforcement officers do abuse them also by not telling and filming enthusiasts for being totally innocent and just doing their hobbies on the platform in total safety out off harms way. And also come across threatening to them in a aggressive manner and asking them to leave saying photos etc isn't permitted.
Fair play to toc staff they are generally on the whole very professional and are a credit to all around and their employer etc.

 

[43066]

I'll give you my take on body cameras. To those who think a camera defuses conflict I say this. A good conversing attitude, not talking down to somebody, showing a level of humility, and treating people with respect will defuse a situation ten times better.

I think this hits the nail on the head. It’s interesting to note that trouble has a habit of finding certain members of staff who lack the ability to take the approach you describe (or choose not to). Obviously there are some complete psychos out there who cannot be reasoned with, but they are relatively few and far between.

 

[Gems]

Even security guards sometimes and enforcement officers do abuse them also by not telling and filming enthusiasts for being totally innocent and just doing their hobbies on the platform in total safety out off harms way. And also come across threatening to them in a aggressive manner and asking them to leave saying photos etc isn't permitted.
Fair play to toc staff they are generally on the whole very professional and are a credit to all around and their employer etc.

If somebody filmed me, I would give them the third act from 'Singing in the rain' give them something to watch back with pride. Seriously, I think some people need to understand a few points of law. If footage from a body camera is to be used in court, then the person whom the footage is being used against has the legal right to a copy of that footage prior to any court case. This should have to be explained by any person who uses a camera to any person being filmed. You can't just roll up in court with a USB stick full of footage having denied the person accused access. It will be dismissed as inadmissible.
But when it comes to public facing employees using such devices they need to be aware that anything they say that is recorded can be used against them. "Choose your words carefully" has never had a more important meaning. Magistrates often take the view that if the revenue officer in their capacity can get it innocently wrong, so can the defendant. Case dismissed.

 

[warwickshire]

Fully agree. Sometimes security staff and law enforcement officers can go over the top at times and can abuse the body cams. On easy targets mainly solo ie some what might appear very easy to bully. Not what body cams are meant for. And actually ignore situations when they MIGHT actually be needed.

 

[SCDR_WMR]

The feedback on this thread strongly suggests that any TOC which doesn't offer bodycams to the appropriate staff should reconsider their position, and the unions should encourage their members to use them.

My TOC only has them for RPMs currently though I believe talks have started about tran crew using them. There is certainly conversations being had to ensure they are only used when activated by the staff member however, as the company has been known to use very underhand techniques before.

Personally, I've always been able to diffuse situations, but I guess it's a good back up should any situation deteriorate

 

[ess]

There’s also a discreet psychological effect on regular passengers. Do I want to have people filming me with a body cam which assumes I’m fare dodging, or shall I take my car? Maybe I don’t think about it specifically but it’s ‘nicer’ to go in the car

 

[GB]

To those that wear body cameras...are the videos only used in the case of an incident/allegation or are they also used as part of on going assessments/training?

 

[jonnyfan]

To those that wear body cameras...are the videos only used in the case of an incident/allegation or are they also used as part of on going assessments/training?

I know with our ones, they are only used with the direct permission of the user for an incident, otherwise there is no access permitted to any footage that may have been recorded. So it's very controlled.

 

[Gems]

There’s also a discreet psychological effect on regular passengers. Do I want to have people filming me with a body cam which assumes I’m fare dodging, or shall I take my car? Maybe I don’t think about it specifically but it’s ‘nicer’ to go in the car

Very good point. This is something I picked up on also. Even though the camera isn't actually recording anything unless the record button is pressed, I have often felt that many passengers, especially the law abiding ones wonder why you are wearing it. You can sometimes feel the apprehension.

 

[mpthomson]

If somebody filmed me, I would give them the third act from 'Singing in the rain' give them something to watch back with pride. Seriously, I think some people need to understand a few points of law. If footage from a body camera is to be used in court, then the person whom the footage is being used against has the legal right to a copy of that footage prior to any court case. This should have to be explained by any person who uses a camera to any person being filmed. You can't just roll up in court with a USB stick full of footage having denied the person accused access. It will be dismissed as inadmissible.
But when it comes to public facing employees using such devices they need to be aware that anything they say that is recorded can be used against them. "Choose your words carefully" has never had a more important meaning. Magistrates often take the view that if the revenue officer in their capacity can get it innocently wrong, so can the defendant. Case dismissed.

Why is supplying the defendant with the appropriate evidence an issue? If you're doing something illegal then under law you have less of a right of privacy if you are filmed, it's not necessary to explain that they are being filmed.

I'd love to see evidence of your claim re magistrates. That sounds suspiciously barrack room lawyer to me.

 

[Gems]

To those that wear body cameras...are the videos only used in the case of an incident/allegation or are they also used as part of on going assessments/training?

This is a grey area for me. The truth is I have no idea what they do with any footage. The only time I ever recorded footage that could have been used in a court of law, the footage mysteriously went missing.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 29 Dec 2021 ==

Why is supplying the defendant with the appropriate evidence an issue? If you're doing something illegal then under law you have less of a right of privacy if you are filmed, it's not necessary to explain that they are being filmed.

I'd love to see evidence of your claim re magistrates. That sounds suspiciously barrack room lawyer to me.

They have a right to know that any footage recorded can be requested by themselves. The paperwork you sign before you accept being on a body camera trial specifically states this.
I have seen with my own eyes at Dewsbury magistrates court that any mistake made by the prosecuting team regarding procedure will err in the favour of the defendant. It is called justice. Before when paper statements were the normal these mistakes could be ghosted away. You cant ghost away film footage.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 29 Dec 2021 ==

Let me just explain to the doubters. It is like a dashcam. You have the option with a dashcam to use sound recording or just visual recording. If you are involved in a collision and the sound recording picks up you swearing and getting angry in a fit of road rage prior, you are risking being partially to blame. "Choose your words carefully" or better still, visual only and make sure you behave in a impeccable manner. Unfortunately when it comes to body cameras we see the wearer not behaving impeccably. In some cases the camera sends them on a power trip as some posters have pointed out.

A camera is like fire. It can be your friend, or your terrible enemy.

 

[jon0844]

The use of the camera is surely optional? I would imagine that most staff will not activate their camera until they feel it is essential to do so, and will have tried the standard conflict avoidance methods first.

They know once it has been turned on, they themselves have no way to play it back and it is downloaded to be stored 'in the cloud' for any potential request for access later on. They cannot delete the footage either, although I expect it's automatically deleted after a set period of time?

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 29 Dec 2021 ==

The use of the camera is surely optional? I would imagine that most staff will not activate their camera until they feel it is essential to do so, and will have tried the standard conflict avoidance methods first.

They know once it has been turned on, they themselves have no way to play it back and it is downloaded to be stored 'in the cloud' for any potential request for access later on. They cannot delete the footage either, although I expect it's automatically deleted after a set period of time?

 

[43066]

The use of the camera is surely optional? I would imagine that most staff will not activate their camera until they feel it is essential to do so, and will have tried the standard conflict avoidance methods first.

I had understood they were permanently recording, but staff can press an “event” button which saves the recording from a few minutes before the button is pressed and continues recording “live” until deactivated. Presumably staff who were concerned about their own conduct wouldn’t press the event button which would prevent the footage being saved.

 

[Undiscovered]

I had understood they were permanently recording, but staff can press an “event” button which saves the recording from a few minutes before the button is pressed and continues recording “live” until deactivated. Presumably staff who were concerned about their own conduct wouldn’t press the event button which would prevent the footage being saved.

As I understand it, the camera records 30s on a rolling loop, but this is not stored.
As soon as the 'event' button is pressed, the previous 30s footage is then kept, as well as the current footage.
This is, presumably, to give the full preamble to a situation, hopefully showing the wearer attempting to deescalate the situation.

When they were initially mooted, it was quite clear that any irregularities, on behalf of the user, caught on the footage would result in appropriate investigation. There was also reticence about having cameras in mess rooms etc for the same reasons. I think, given the escalation of abuse to rail staff- spitting etc- that this stance is softening somewhat.

 

[Howardh]

I understand that the personal body cams are on a loop and images deleted. What happens to station and train CCTV? I would assume that any official who does not have a bodycam could revert to those if needed, but how long is the footage stored from CCTV?

 

[Watershed]

I understand that the personal body cams are on a loop and images deleted. What happens to station and train CCTV? I would assume that any official who does not have a bodycam could revert to those if needed, but how long is the footage stored from CCTV?

It varies, but anything between 7 and 28 days normally.

 

[Undiscovered]

I understand that the personal body cams are on a loop and images deleted. What happens to station and train CCTV? I would assume that any official who does not have a bodycam could revert to those if needed, but how long is the footage stored from CCTV?

Can be up to 28days.
That's assuming that the footage is of useable/useful quality which is not always guaranteed, especially at remote stations.

 

[Ivor]

Can be up to 28days.
That's assuming that the footage is of useable/useful quality which is not always guaranteed, especially at remote stations.

Very good point, I was assaulted a few months ago (no body cam) whilst working solo & although the BTP follow up was pathetic (I won’t go into that one) my badgering of the BTP eventually resulted in them saying although the incident captured on cctv the camera wasn't close enough & the quality was too poor to be of use.

Would I have been in favour of a body cam especially for staff working on their own? the answer is 100% yes.

 

[8A Rail]

I have no issues with Railway Staff / Police Officers / Security Staff wearing body cams but they also must remember members of the public can do likewise of them too (whether via bodycam / phone) - it HAS got to be both ways.

 

[Undiscovered]

I have no issues with Railway Staff / Police Officers / Security Staff wearing body cams but they also must remember members of the public can do likewise of them too (whether via bodycam / phone) - it HAS got to be both ways.

Absolutely.

However, while railway employees are unable to access the footage they take, there's nothing to stop footage taken by members of the public being edited out of context and shared all over social media- see 'nasty train man didn't let me on train even though I was late and train was already leaving the station', et al.
A complaint to the company does not have to be forthcoming.

 

[Fokx]

I have no issues with Railway Staff / Police Officers / Security Staff wearing body cams but they also must remember members of the public can do likewise of them too (whether via bodycam / phone) - it HAS got to be both ways.

Staff bodycams are usually covered by GDPR policies.

A member of the public filming on their own device and doing what they please with the content (usually straight to the local rag or social media) is not GDPR compliant.

 

[bramling]

Absolutely.

However, while railway employees are unable to access the footage they take, there's nothing to stop footage taken by members of the public being edited out of context and shared all over social media- see 'nasty train man didn't let me on train even though I was late and train was already leaving the station', et al.
A complaint to the company does not have to be forthcoming.

This is exactly the reason why I'm intrinsically uncomfortable with bodycams, as they encourage an "I'm filming you" mentality. No matter how one looks at it, sticking a camera in someone's face is rude and unpleasant.

I'm pragmatic enough to accept that there are roles where the risk of a conflict is that much higher, anyone responsible for collecting or enforcing revenue for example, and for those roles I'm prepared to accept that bodycams are probably beneficial as a necessary evil. By the same token, there's plenty of roles where they shouldn't really be necessary, and their presence in such roles simply encourages an undesirable atmosphere.

There's people at my place who couldn't get their hands on bodycams quickly enough, in roles where if they're getting themselves into conflict situations on a regular basis then one has to ask questions as to why that's the case, especially when the whole place is already amply covered by CCTV.

 

[mpthomson]

They have a right to know that any footage recorded can be requested by themselves. The paperwork you sign before you accept being on a body camera trial specifically states this.
I have seen with my own eyes at Dewsbury magistrates court that any mistake made by the prosecuting team regarding procedure will err in the favour of the defendant. It is called justice. Before when paper statements were the normal these mistakes could be ghosted away. You cant ghost away film footage.

Again, why is the defendant having appropriate access to evidence to be used against them a problem?

If errors made by prosecutors get defendants off for technical reasons then that's an argument for prosecutors doing their jobs properly, not against the use of body cams. 'Ghosting mistakes away' is not justice.

 

[yorkie]

I have no issues with Railway Staff / Police Officers / Security Staff wearing body cams but they also must remember members of the public can do likewise of them too (whether via bodycam / phone) - it HAS got to be both ways.

Staff bodycams are usually covered by GDPR policies.

A member of the public filming on their own device and doing what they please with the content (usually straight to the local rag or social media) is not GDPR compliant.

This is true; if a member of staff chooses to start filming a customer, this may encouraging the customer to also start filming.The footage obtained by the staff member is indeed covered by GDPR policies while the footage obtained by the customer is not, and could end up being given to the media etc.

I've witnessed several disputes where the member of staff would have lost out big time if this had happened, for example claiming that valid tickets are invalid.

This is exactly the reason why I'm intrinsically uncomfortable with bodycams, as they encourage an "I'm filming you" mentality. No matter how one looks at it, sticking a camera in someone's face is rude and unpleasant.

Agreed. Any staff member who starts filming really ought to make absolutely sure they are in the right. My advice for anyone being filmed would be ultra polite, and if you know you are in the right, you may wish to obtain your own footage.

 

[ashkeba]

There’s also a discreet psychological effect on regular passengers. Do I want to have people filming me with a body cam which assumes I’m fare dodging, or shall I take my car? Maybe I don’t think about it specifically but it’s ‘nicer’ to go in the car

Nobody who objects to being filmed should use a car because of all the HD dashcams now used, plus traffic cameras and registration plate readers. At least most railway cameras are too fuzzy for facial recognition if you keep your distance from them.

 

[Meerkat]

Nobody who objects to being filmed should use a car because of all the HD dashcams now used, plus traffic cameras and registration plate readers. At least most railway cameras are too fuzzy for facial recognition if you keep your distance from them.

Don't forget your neighbours doorbell cameras monitoring all you and your visitors and your conversations.
We are sleep walking into a surveillance state....but things like railway body cameras are the least of our concerns as they have better legal controls.

 

[exbrel]

i've been watching some of these auditing photograph videos, and the police are supposed to tell you if they switch their body cams on, and you can request copies of what has been recorded... and photography in a public area is legal, because you can photograph/record anything you can see with your eye. Although police, security, and even the general public don't like it, it is legal, and some of the videos are very funny, one recently had a man with a camera outside a army base, within 5mins he had security, mp's, and soldiers all telling him to stop filming, he wouldn't so they called the police, and 2 cars came, but one of the policemen knew the law, it was legal so all the soldiers had to go back into their base shaking their heads... very entertaining.

 

[Watershed]

Nobody who objects to being filmed should use a car because of all the HD dashcams now used, plus traffic cameras and registration plate readers. At least most railway cameras are too fuzzy for facial recognition if you keep your distance from them.

But they're hardly as 'in your face' as BWV. Whilst BWV has its place, I'm not sure that giving it to all staff does the railway's public image much good.

 

[bramling]

But they're hardly as 'in your face' as BWV. Whilst BWV has its place, I'm not sure that giving it to all staff does the railway's public image much good.

Completely agree. I can see the benefit in specific job roles where there’s a higher likelihood of a conflict situation, notably anything involving revenue. That’s where it should end, as far as I’m concerned.