FireNet Community
FIRE SERVICE AND GENERAL FIRE SAFETY TOPICS => Fire Safety => Topic started by: Eli on November 16, 2011, 12:47:04 PM
-
Did anyone watch the ‘Hotel Inspector’ this week?
It was set in a Blackpool hotel and within the first minute or two I noticed several fire safety issues. Obstructed final exit, wedged open fire door, a curtain that was all over a plug socket and water dripping through an electric light fitting.
Simple question!
Under legislation could the FRS enforce on this TV evidence if they wanted to?
-
Did anyone watch the ‘Hotel Inspector’ this week?
It was set in a Blackpool hotel and within the first minute or two I noticed several fire safety issues. Obstructed final exit, wedged open fire door, a curtain that was all over a plug socket and water dripping through an electric light fitting.
Simple question!
Under legislation could the FRS enforce on this TV evidence if they wanted to?
Don't see why not. Good video evidence.
Haven't the police successfully prosecuted motor bike riders who have videoed their own speeding exploits posted on youtube?
-
I noticed a wedged open fire door to a bedroom but was this because a camera crew had walked backward into the room. Would you not see this in most large hotels when housekeeping are cleaning rooms everyday. In the event of a fire they push the trolley into the room and leave the building.
What I have real issues with is how do hotels receive a star rating on whether there is an ironing board or trouser press but do not have fire alarms or fire resistance?
-
Enforce or prosecute?
-
Under legislation could the FRS enforce on this TV evidence if they wanted to?
Short answer is probably, if you mean in terms of informal enforcement, but to take forward a prosecution based on TV footage alone would be a different matter altogether.
-
It would/should if brought to their attention trigger an audit of the premises from which they could happily defect/enforce/prohibit/prosecute as they see fit based on the findings - I can't see them not visiting and taking purely remote action.
-
I agree with Anthony. I dont believe the matters broadcast could be used as evidence as there can be no continuity of evidence in accordance with PACE. Similarly for enforcement action the film may be historic and the matters may already have been rectified.
-
Me thinks your watching the hotel inspector for all the wrong reasons Eli :o
-
I agree with Anthony. I dont believe the matters broadcast could be used as evidence as there can be no continuity of evidence in accordance with PACE.
As mentioned earlier, the police have used Youtube clips as evidence before in successful prosecutions.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/7254599.stm
In the hotel case mentioned here, I think that the difficulty would lie in proving persons were actually put at risk. The footage would prove that a door was blocked, it doesn't prove that people were put at risk.
-
I agree with Anthony. I dont believe the matters broadcast could be used as evidence as there can be no continuity of evidence in accordance with PACE.
As mentioned earlier, the police have used Youtube clips as evidence before in successful prosecutions.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/7254599.stm
In the hotel case mentioned here, I think that the difficulty would lie in proving persons were actually put at risk. The footage would prove that a door was blocked, it doesn't prove that people were put at risk.
Was it not blocked for the Inspector and anyone who would have been behind the camera.
-
Me thinks your watching the hotel inspector for all the wrong reasons Eli :o
Does someone like Alex Polizzi?
-
Me thinks your watching the hotel inspector for all the wrong reasons Eli :o
Does someone like Alex Polizzi?
Not really she spends far too much time lying naked in the jacuzzi for me
-
Must have missed that episode.
John
-
I agree with Anthony. I dont believe the matters broadcast could be used as evidence as there can be no continuity of evidence in accordance with PACE. Similarly for enforcement action the film may be historic and the matters may already have been rectified.
Maybe but its not to say that the evidence can't be used for informal enforcement
You couldn't use it for prosecution purposes however
-
I agree with Anthony. I dont believe the matters broadcast could be used as evidence as there can be no continuity of evidence in accordance with PACE. Similarly for enforcement action the film may be historic and the matters may already have been rectified.
Maybe but its not to say that the evidence can't be used for informal enforcement
You couldn't use it for prosecution purposes however
Why not? Why do you need to prove continuity of evidence from something whereby the original would be easy to source to ensure that it hasn't been tampered with? Haven't the papers issued pictures of rioters/hooligans etc in order to trace them and assist the police in prosecutions? If it hasn't been done in accordance with PACE then it may be harder as the validity is easier to question, but that does not negate the possiblity of proving the validity.
-
I would hazard a guess that the video evidence of the riots is effectively the complaint, that it provokes an investigation, that further evidence is obtained by interview or search of the defendents home or witness statements and that a case can be made that holds together. I cannot see that if the only evidence is something that happens to be shown on tv that a case can hold together.
-
What about the people who got done for violent disorder? Where is the evidence?
-
I would expect they were arrested, interviewed and witness statements obtained to corroborate the video evidence.
-
The footage taken of the recent riots is a different argument, as the police would not just rely upon that footage, they would have cross referenced it with other sources (such as CCTV to track movements of a suspect and prove the identity of those persons / or gather witness statements etc).
In terms of the footage from the Hotel Inspector continuity of evidence would not be an issue as you say but it would have more chance of being discredited by the defence (in my opinion) as there may not have been any other credible sources to corroborate the footage, or the footage may not be comprehensive enough to secure a conviction.
-
If it was a letter of complaint the FRS would have to investigate but surely if an FRS officer watched the show they should have a duty of care to investigate too. The video evidence would then be material evidence. What if it had been a padlocked fire door or a covered detector head?
The show can still be viewed at http://www.channel5.com/shows/the-hotel-inspector/episodes/episode-7-241
It may be that there is no case to answer!
-
Hi Eli
You are correct the local fire safety dept should investigate fire safety failing following release of the footage. We were debating whether the footage alone could secure a prosecution, which it probably couldnt (imho).
-
If he was shown the footage, then asked for a statement and he said ‘yep fair cop’
Would that be enough?
How would mobile phone footage stack up as evidence and could the FRS start a new scheme:-
‘Cash for fire safety breach info’
Any video footage that leads to conviction and fine; then the person who reports it can have 1% of the fine total.
How is that for targeting resources!
Keep your inspection officers at their desk reviewing video evidence; send advisory notes out to those who may only be minor breaches but start investigating those that have a potential for prosecution.
-
If he was shown the footage, then asked for a statement and he said ‘yep fair cop’
Would that be enough?
I think you've stumbled into the realms of fantasy there Eli :D
But the idea of inspecting officers analysing footage is inspired, and the 1% reward for whistle blowers is genius. ;)
Joking aside it depends on whether the confession is admitted whilst the suspect is under caution or not.