Video re photographs non-disclosure

[Caroline]

    It seems more reasonable to infer that PC Bird and the two unnamed officers were all "specialist photographers" and had obviously had training as police photographers. Whether you agree with the term "professional" or not is beside the point when using it as an excuse for poor exposure rate.
     Think it through and it is absurd to believe that lots of pictures at a crime scene were "unusable" because the police sent some random officer with no training or experience.
     It is also fairly obvious, when you consider it for more than a minute, that police photographers were not dashing to and from crime scenes all day. One of those roles where one is required on duty but often not called upon to do your "specialist" role. In fact it states this in the snippets that you posted.
    The main role that they performed was obviously not the role they were employed to do and this is explicitly clear. They were photographers. They earned their living as photographers for the police. Sounds like a professional photographer to me.
     

He was  police officer who was given the a role to take pictures but he clearly states that he was on a rota with other officers and they only took pictures as and when. He used the term 'luck of the draw' and 'a spare pair of hands if they need it'. It is the questioning officer who uses the term specialist and Bird seems confused.

I used to work in IT support, we were responsible for all of the DWP's desktop, software delivery and network systems. However, they had onsite CSO's (computer support officer) - the CSO's did NOT have to have experience of IT, usually they just volunteered or were coerced. Most had very limited knowledge.

Bird was no highly skilled photographer - that is clear from his COLP statement.

[gringo]

He was  police officer who was given the a role to take pictures but he clearly states that he was on a rota with other officers and they only took pictures as and when. He used the term 'luck of the draw' and 'a spare pair of hands if they need it'. It is the questioning officer who uses the term specialist and Bird seems confused.

I used to work in IT support, we were responsible for all of the DWP's desktop, software delivery and network systems. However, they had onsite CSO's (computer support officer) - the CSO's did NOT have to have experience of IT, usually they just volunteered or were coerced. Most had very limited knowledge.

Bird was no highly skilled photographer - that is clear from his COLP statement.

   Which of these scenarios do you consider the most likely?
      1) EP put three random untrained officers on the rota for the duty of crime scene photographers, a rarely used but hugely important role, who were untrained in crime scene photography (an obviously specialist role) and that this lack of foresight, and self evidently hindsight too, led to an otherwise inexplicably large amount of "unusable" crime scene photographs;       

     or

      2) EP had three trained specialist photographers who were on a rota, probably so that there was always a specialist photographer on duty 24/7, and whilst not performing their specialist role they performed mainly other duties. The missing negatives and full strips becoming cut up strips have more plausible and believable explanations than an incompetent untrained crime scene photographer.

    It's 2, if you need assistance.

    Read in full the snippets that you posted and it is crystal clear.
    You highlight this: " But my main job is to produce the photographic album". You then use this out of context quote to support your theory that he wasn't a professional. Here is the part of the transcript in full that you use one out of context quote from in an attempt to bolster your weak argument:

    PC Bird:             Yeah, my job is to take the photographs, as i say a spare pair of hands if they need
                             it. But my main job is to produce the photographic album.
    Supt. McKay:      Ok, you then go to the mortuary on the same day, obviously to do your specialist
                             job again, take the photographs, yeah.

    This is basic comprehension. The fact that he also prepared crime scene photographic albums as well as being a crime scene photographer suggests that he was something of a photography expert. The rest of the parts that you posted also support the opposite of what you are attempting to show.

[Caroline]

   Which of these scenarios do you consider the most likely?
      1) EP put three random untrained officers on the rota for the duty of crime scene photographers, a rarely used but hugely important role, who were untrained in crime scene photography (an obviously specialist role) and that this lack of foresight, and self evidently hindsight too, led to an otherwise inexplicably large amount of "unusable" crime scene photographs;       

     or

      2) EP had three trained specialist photographers who were on a rota, probably so that there was always a specialist photographer on duty 24/7, and whilst not performing their specialist role they performed mainly other duties. The missing negatives and full strips becoming cut up strips have more plausible and believable explanations than an incompetent untrained crime scene photographer.

    It's 2, if you need assistance.

    Read in full the snippets that you posted and it is crystal clear.
    You highlight this: " But my main job is to produce the photographic album". You then use this out of context quote to support your theory that he wasn't a professional. Here is the part of the transcript in full that you use one out of context quote from in an attempt to bolster your weak argument:

    PC Bird:             Yeah, my job is to take the photographs, as i say a spare pair of hands if they need
                             it. But my main job is to produce the photographic album.
    Supt. McKay:      Ok, you then go to the mortuary on the same day, obviously to do your specialist
                             job again, take the photographs, yeah.

    This is basic comprehension. The fact that he also prepared crime scene photographic albums as well as being a crime scene photographer suggests that he was something of a photography expert. The rest of the parts that you posted also support the opposite of what you are attempting to show.

I think like the video, you are over playing his skills. And I don't need help - thanks!

[gringo]

I think like the video, you are over playing his skills. And I don't need help - thanks!

    Either your comprehension skills really are that poor or you are deliberately misinterpreting plain English. Crime scene photography is a highly specialised role performed by professionals in the field.
     Your highlighting of out of context quotes to bolster your argument actually highlights your own poor and biased comprehension.
     It should be obvious to anyone that when Bird refers to a "spare pair of hands if they need it", he is simply pointing out that he helps with other tasks at the scene. Your contention that being on a rota with two others and the use of terms like "luck of the draw" somehow support your argument is poor.
     Obviously EP had three crime scene photographers who were on a rota. I have already pointed out as do the notes that you yourself posted that Bird was a photographer and so were the other two. Bird refers to the rota saying,
      "...as and when a major incident come up that they required a photographer we was on a rota basis the three of us and it was just the luck of the draw which one you get"
     How do you manage to interpret that as meaning three random untrained officers are on the rota?
     Bird, again refers to himself as a photographer along with the other two photographers. "Luck of the draw" does not mean that they were not professional, as you seem to infer, but simply refers to the fact that if three people are on a rota then it is clearly down to the "luck of the draw" whether you are selected or not. This is basic comprehension and inferring a lack of professionalism or expertise from these statements is not supported in any way. You are simply wrong with your interpretation. 
     
     Comparing DWP IT workers with crime scene photography is bizarre. Are DWP IT workers having to present their work to courts as evidence in trials? Is the work of a DWP IT worker likely to be examined and cross examined by legal professionals in a court of law?
     The three officers on the rota would all be specialists/professionals and it would obviously be the "luck of the draw", as to which one was called. You do yourself no favours with dubious interpretations like the one offered here.
     

[lookout]

I thought it was down to the forensics to do the photographing at a crime scene ?

[gringo]

I thought it was down to the forensics to do the photographing at a crime scene ?

   Everyone realises that Bird is clearly a professional crime scene photographer, Lookout.
     The idea that an exceptional amount of crime scene photos were unusable because of Birds incompetence and lack of professionalism is ridiculous. Are we to believe that three amateurs with a seeming tendency to produce unusable crime scene photographs were the go to guys for taking and compiling the photographs to be used in court and subject to examination and cross examination and nobody ever thought to get some actual professionals in for this vital role.
     The interview notes that have been posted make quite clear that PC Bird is employed as a photographer. It is also clear that the role that he was employed to do, crime scene photography( for the hard of comprehension), was something that was rarely required. In fact in Bird's own words,
    "...as and when a major incident come up that they require a photographer we was on a rota basis the three of us..."


     What leaps out here is that he only performed his role as a photographer if there was "a major incident" and they "require a photographer".
      To believe that EP would delegate to three random officers duties of such importance flies in the face of reason. The fact that they were  required for "major incidents" offers something of a clue. How regularly would  "major incidents" occur? The fact that it was major incidents emphasises the importance and specialist nature of the task.To believe that a role that was required only when "major incidents" occurred and a photographic record was required to be examined and cross examined in a court of law was given to three random guys in chemical fingerprinting is ludicrous and everyone with basic comprehension skills can infer this. For those that are hard of learning, PC Bird helpfully refers to himself as a photographer, three times, in the excerpts shown. His interviewer also refers both times in the two questions put to PC Bird to his specialist role of photographer.
      It is not really open to any other interpretation.

     

[lookout]

Thankyou for the explanation gringo. Much appreciated.

[gringo]

Thankyou for the explanation gringo. Much appreciated.

   You're welcome, Lookout. The explanation will be less appreciated by those who actually need it.

[Jane]

   Everyone realises that Bird is clearly a professional crime scene photographer, Lookout.
     The idea that an exceptional amount of crime scene photos were unusable because of Birds incompetence and lack of professionalism is ridiculous. Are we to believe that three amateurs with a seeming tendency to produce unusable crime scene photographs were the go to guys for taking and compiling the photographs to be used in court and subject to examination and cross examination and nobody ever thought to get some actual professionals in for this vital role.
     The interview notes that have been posted make quite clear that PC Bird is employed as a photographer. It is also clear that the role that he was employed to do, crime scene photography( for the hard of comprehension), was something that was rarely required. In fact in Bird's own words,
    "...as and when a major incident come up that they require a photographer we was on a rota basis the three of us..."


     What leaps out here is that he only performed his role as a photographer if there was "a major incident" and they "require a photographer".
      To believe that EP would delegate to three random officers duties of such importance flies in the face of reason. The fact that they were  required for "major incidents" offers something of a clue. How regularly would  "major incidents" occur? The fact that it was major incidents emphasises the importance and specialist nature of the task.To believe that a role that was required only when "major incidents" occurred and a photographic record was required to be examined and cross examined in a court of law was given to three random guys in chemical fingerprinting is ludicrous and everyone with basic comprehension skills can infer this. For those that are hard of learning, PC Bird helpfully refers to himself as a photographer, three times, in the excerpts shown. His interviewer also refers both times in the two questions put to PC Bird to his specialist role of photographer.
      It is not really open to any other interpretation.

     

So who/what exactly is Bird? If he's a "professional photographer" employed as such, we can assume he has a degree in photography, or did the police, having spent time and money on training him as a police person, then recognize where his real talents lay and pay for his degree? I would have to ask the same of the other two "on the rota". Did EP employ THREE "professional photographers" all with degrees in order to make a random pick from the rota "as and when a major incident come up and they require a photographer"? That's a lot of salary to pay on the presumption that "a major incident come up" don't you think?

[Caroline]

    Either your comprehension skills really are that poor or you are deliberately misinterpreting plain English. Crime scene photography is a highly specialised role performed by professionals in the field.
     Your highlighting of out of context quotes to bolster your argument actually highlights your own poor and biased comprehension.
     It should be obvious to anyone that when Bird refers to a "spare pair of hands if they need it", he is simply pointing out that he helps with other tasks at the scene. Your contention that being on a rota with two others and the use of terms like "luck of the draw" somehow support your argument is poor.
     Obviously EP had three crime scene photographers who were on a rota. I have already pointed out as do the notes that you yourself posted that Bird was a photographer and so were the other two. Bird refers to the rota saying,
      "...as and when a major incident come up that they required a photographer we was on a rota basis the three of us and it was just the luck of the draw which one you get"
     How do you manage to interpret that as meaning three random untrained officers are on the rota?
     Bird, again refers to himself as a photographer along with the other two photographers. "Luck of the draw" does not mean that they were not professional, as you seem to infer, but simply refers to the fact that if three people are on a rota then it is clearly down to the "luck of the draw" whether you are selected or not. This is basic comprehension and inferring a lack of professionalism or expertise from these statements is not supported in any way. You are simply wrong with your interpretation. 
     
     Comparing DWP IT workers with crime scene photography is bizarre. Are DWP IT workers having to present their work to courts as evidence in trials? Is the work of a DWP IT worker likely to be examined and cross examined by legal professionals in a court of law?
     The three officers on the rota would all be specialists/professionals and it would obviously be the "luck of the draw", as to which one was called. You do yourself no favours with dubious interpretations like the one offered here.
   

Nothing wrong with my comprehension but YOU, like the video are exaggerating the guys qualifications. The man was a POLICE OFFICER NOT A PHOTOGRAPHER and PHOTOGRAPHY WAS NOT HIS MAIN JOB. Unless you are blind, unable to read or making an attempt to deliberately have people believe he was a professional photographer - he states this in his interview! You're the one misinterpreting NO WHERE does it state that he is a specialist or a professional photographer. 

You clearly know nothing about the history of the Scenes of Crime Division. Police officers moved in and out of the SOCO department before it became a civilian role (and they were given proper training). Up until that time, SOCO's had limited experience!

History
SOCOs were first introduced into the Metropolitan Police in 1968, replacing the CID officers who had previously carried out these functions. Some other forces had introduced them before that time, however.

Other police forces around the United Kingdom continued this trend of replacing the CID officers with civilians. This allowed the creation of dedicated departments within the police forces. Police officers often moved post after only a few years; the introduction of civilian Scenes of Crime Officers allowed departments to build a resource based on experience

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scenes_of_crime_officer

[gringo]

So who/what exactly is Bird? If he's a "professional photographer" employed as such, we can assume he has a degree in photography, or did the police, having spent time and money on training him as a police person, then recognize where his real talents lay and pay for his degree? I would have to ask the same of the other two "on the rota". Did EP employ THREE "professional photographers" all with degrees in order to make a random pick from the rota "as and when a major incident come up and they require a photographer"? That's a lot of salary to pay on the presumption that "a major incident come up" don't you think?

   Your questions are easily dealt with and I am surprised that you felt the need to ask them. But here we go anyway:

     1) Who/what exactly is Bird?
      Let's read the excerpts and see if this question is dealt with. It appears, using the simple tools of reading and comprehending simultaneously that this is explicitly dealt with.
     "Yeah, my job is to take the photographs..."
     "You then go on to the mortuary...to do your specialist job again, take the photographs, yeah."
     "... when a major incident come up that they required a photographer..."
     "And with the greatest respect to you you were there as a photographer."
     "... there's nobody lower than me, the van driver and the photographer."

     Five references in seven sentences makes it pretty clear to me and surely everybody who/what Bird is. For those who are unclear, the answer is; Bird is a crime scene photographer and employed as one.

      2) Your second and third rather meandering and loaded questions basically deal with the same point whilst attempting to appear to use sound reasoning to back up your straw man assertions.

       We do not need to assume either that Bird had "a degree in photography" or that EP funded a degree on his behalf. That is something that you just made up to bolster your weak argument which is coincidentally, exactly the same as Caroline's.
      Had you done a quick search on photography qualifications/courses then you would have discovered that professional photographers do not all have "degrees in photography". But why use facts when your preferred form of debate is instinctive knee jerk bias.
      Using reason and basic comprehension, again, to address your questions. Yes EP did employ three photographers. They would do this because of the importance of the role. The rarity of its requirement only goes to emphasise the importance of having experts/professionals on hand 24/7, hence a rota. That other duties were performed whilst on shift is hardly surprising really. Your use of unnecessary and incorrect adjectives to describe the rota betrays your knee jerk reasoning.
      The whole concept of a rota means that you don't need to make a "random pick". You look at who is on the rota at that time. If the concept of how rotas work is too difficult for you then you are way out of your depth.
      Your final point/question is no better informed than your previous ones and again betrays your poor reasoning. Of course the police work on the presumption that a major incident will come up. They're the police, it's one of their main roles, dealing with major incidents. It would be more concerning, much more concerning, to find out that the police worked on the presumption that no major incident would come up only to be left floundering when one did occur and having no specialist staff available. They are the police after all. I'm assuming that they have this covered.
       As for believing that it is a lot of salary based "on the presumption that a major incident come up".
Has it really not occurred to you that the reason Bird and the two other photographers performed other duties was so that they were usefully employed and always on hand for their "specialist" role.
      As a tip, you ought to skim read less and perhaps read slower in order to understand the words you are reading. Then have a little think before you hammer away at the keyboard. It should lead to less comprehension errors.

     

[Jane]

   Your questions are easily dealt with and I am surprised that you felt the need to ask them. But here we go anyway:

     1) Who/what exactly is Bird?
      Let's read the excerpts and see if this question is dealt with. It appears, using the simple tools of reading and comprehending simultaneously that this is explicitly dealt with.
     "Yeah, my job is to take the photographs..."
     "You then go on to the mortuary...to do your specialist job again, take the photographs, yeah."
     "... when a major incident come up that they required a photographer..."
     "And with the greatest respect to you you were there as a photographer."
     "... there's nobody lower than me, the van driver and the photographer."

     Five references in seven sentences makes it pretty clear to me and surely everybody who/what Bird is. For those who are unclear, the answer is; Bird is a crime scene photographer and employed as one.

      2) Your second and third rather meandering and loaded questions basically deal with the same point whilst attempting to appear to use sound reasoning to back up your straw man assertions.

       We do not need to assume either that Bird had "a degree in photography" or that EP funded a degree on his behalf. That is something that you just made up to bolster your weak argument which is coincidentally, exactly the same as Caroline's.
      Had you done a quick search on photography qualifications/courses then you would have discovered that professional photographers do not all have "degrees in photography". But why use facts when your preferred form of debate is instinctive knee jerk bias.
      Using reason and basic comprehension, again, to address your questions. Yes EP did employ three photographers. They would do this because of the importance of the role. The rarity of its requirement only goes to emphasise the importance of having experts/professionals on hand 24/7, hence a rota. That other duties were performed whilst on shift is hardly surprising really. Your use of unnecessary and incorrect adjectives to describe the rota betrays your knee jerk reasoning.
      The whole concept of a rota means that you don't need to make a "random pick". You look at who is on the rota at that time. If the concept of how rotas work is too difficult for you then you are way out of your depth.
      Your final point/question is no better informed than your previous ones and again betrays your poor reasoning. Of course the police work on the presumption that a major incident will come up. They're the police, it's one of their main roles, dealing with major incidents. It would be more concerning, much more concerning, to find out that the police worked on the presumption that no major incident would come up only to be left floundering when one did occur and having no specialist staff available. They are the police after all. I'm assuming that they have this covered.
       As for believing that it is a lot of salary based "on the presumption that a major incident come up".
Has it really not occurred to you that the reason Bird and the two other photographers performed other duties was so that they were usefully employed and always on hand for their "specialist" role.
      As a tip, you ought to skim read less and perhaps read slower in order to understand the words you are reading. Then have a little think before you hammer away at the keyboard. It should lead to less comprehension errors.

     

Okay, so despite "your" Bird having no academic qualifications in photography, he a professional photographer?  The rota? It may not be random choice, but all you get is whoever is on duty a la the rota. I think I read you rather well. I'm not entirely certain that you're worth reading any slower, because it reads very much to me as if you're colouring this the way you want it to be seen.

[lookout]

   Your questions are easily dealt with and I am surprised that you felt the need to ask them. But here we go anyway:

     1) Who/what exactly is Bird?
      Let's read the excerpts and see if this question is dealt with. It appears, using the simple tools of reading and comprehending simultaneously that this is explicitly dealt with.
     "Yeah, my job is to take the photographs..."
     "You then go on to the mortuary...to do your specialist job again, take the photographs, yeah."
     "... when a major incident come up that they required a photographer..."
     "And with the greatest respect to you you were there as a photographer."
     "... there's nobody lower than me, the van driver and the photographer."

     Five references in seven sentences makes it pretty clear to me and surely everybody who/what Bird is. For those who are unclear, the answer is; Bird is a crime scene photographer and employed as one.

      2) Your second and third rather meandering and loaded questions basically deal with the same point whilst attempting to appear to use sound reasoning to back up your straw man assertions.

       We do not need to assume either that Bird had "a degree in photography" or that EP funded a degree on his behalf. That is something that you just made up to bolster your weak argument which is coincidentally, exactly the same as Caroline's.
      Had you done a quick search on photography qualifications/courses then you would have discovered that professional photographers do not all have "degrees in photography". But why use facts when your preferred form of debate is instinctive knee jerk bias.
      Using reason and basic comprehension, again, to address your questions. Yes EP did employ three photographers. They would do this because of the importance of the role. The rarity of its requirement only goes to emphasise the importance of having experts/professionals on hand 24/7, hence a rota. That other duties were performed whilst on shift is hardly surprising really. Your use of unnecessary and incorrect adjectives to describe the rota betrays your knee jerk reasoning.
      The whole concept of a rota means that you don't need to make a "random pick". You look at who is on the rota at that time. If the concept of how rotas work is too difficult for you then you are way out of your depth.
      Your final point/question is no better informed than your previous ones and again betrays your poor reasoning. Of course the police work on the presumption that a major incident will come up. They're the police, it's one of their main roles, dealing with major incidents. It would be more concerning, much more concerning, to find out that the police worked on the presumption that no major incident would come up only to be left floundering when one did occur and having no specialist staff available. They are the police after all. I'm assuming that they have this covered.
       As for believing that it is a lot of salary based "on the presumption that a major incident come up".
Has it really not occurred to you that the reason Bird and the two other photographers performed other duties was so that they were usefully employed and always on hand for their "specialist" role.
      As a tip, you ought to skim read less and perhaps read slower in order to understand the words you are reading. Then have a little think before you hammer away at the keyboard. It should lead to less comprehension errors.

     

I'm jealous.

[Caroline]

   Your questions are easily dealt with and I am surprised that you felt the need to ask them. But here we go anyway:

     1) Who/what exactly is Bird?
      Let's read the excerpts and see if this question is dealt with. It appears, using the simple tools of reading and comprehending simultaneously that this is explicitly dealt with.
     "Yeah, my job is to take the photographs..."
     "You then go on to the mortuary...to do your specialist job again, take the photographs, yeah."
     "... when a major incident come up that they required a photographer..."
     "And with the greatest respect to you you were there as a photographer."
     "... there's nobody lower than me, the van driver and the photographer."

     Five references in seven sentences makes it pretty clear to me and surely everybody who/what Bird is. For those who are unclear, the answer is; Bird is a crime scene photographer and employed as one.

      2) Your second and third rather meandering and loaded questions basically deal with the same point whilst attempting to appear to use sound reasoning to back up your straw man assertions.

       We do not need to assume either that Bird had "a degree in photography" or that EP funded a degree on his behalf. That is something that you just made up to bolster your weak argument which is coincidentally, exactly the same as Caroline's.
      Had you done a quick search on photography qualifications/courses then you would have discovered that professional photographers do not all have "degrees in photography". But why use facts when your preferred form of debate is instinctive knee jerk bias.
      Using reason and basic comprehension, again, to address your questions. Yes EP did employ three photographers. They would do this because of the importance of the role. The rarity of its requirement only goes to emphasise the importance of having experts/professionals on hand 24/7, hence a rota. That other duties were performed whilst on shift is hardly surprising really. Your use of unnecessary and incorrect adjectives to describe the rota betrays your knee jerk reasoning.
      The whole concept of a rota means that you don't need to make a "random pick". You look at who is on the rota at that time. If the concept of how rotas work is too difficult for you then you are way out of your depth.
      Your final point/question is no better informed than your previous ones and again betrays your poor reasoning. Of course the police work on the presumption that a major incident will come up. They're the police, it's one of their main roles, dealing with major incidents. It would be more concerning, much more concerning, to find out that the police worked on the presumption that no major incident would come up only to be left floundering when one did occur and having no specialist staff available. They are the police after all. I'm assuming that they have this covered.
       As for believing that it is a lot of salary based "on the presumption that a major incident come up".
Has it really not occurred to you that the reason Bird and the two other photographers performed other duties was so that they were usefully employed and always on hand for their "specialist" role.
      As a tip, you ought to skim read less and perhaps read slower in order to understand the words you are reading. Then have a little think before you hammer away at the keyboard. It should lead to less comprehension errors.

     

You know what, I'm not arguing with you you're a silly, angry fool who can't bear to be challenged and you';; just harp on and on with your long winded BS that just repeats the same crap. I know what the statement says and I know that a SOCO didn't have to be qualified until the role was civilianised. They first ran the course from Harperley Hall - which is about a mile or so from where I live. 

You're doing what you usually do - you try to brow beat but you'll have no luck with me. It's taken you quite some time to reply, because you've let it fester and you needed to think up some insults to add to your repetitive dialogue. I'm answering you off the cuff and don't really care if there are comprehension errors. I'm not applying for a job and I'm not concerned about the person it's aimed at. I type fast and don't generally bother to read it back if I'm not concerned about the content or the person who reads it.

Just keep making it up as you go along and popping up when the CT releases their latest  Amen and hallelujah praise be to Bamber! 

[Caroline]

I'm jealous.

Because you don't know any better!