Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Safer cycling, we can make a difference /MPDL thread
Options
Comments
-
He's gone now. As has Hook.
Ciara Kelly and Pat Kenny are OK. They both have a tendency to veer off into uninformed bull but at least they come across as rational human beings.
Anything but Tubs.
Pat Kenny is ok?! The man has a complete and utter hatred of anyone who stood up to the water charges and doesnt even try to conceal it. I dont want to get off topic so will only say that his generalisations and demonisation of those of us who protested is nothing more than dog whistle racism at best.
And thats just one of his snobbish agendas. The man is a disgrace.0 -
Can we leave the newstalk chat elsewhere unless it's directly related to how they are discussing this.0
-
And what moves are being made to address this flaw in our system? None, because they're not interested/ it'd create too much work.
Is it flawed though? Remember the case a few years back of the Corrib rape tape. That tape had been edited when examined. Perhaps those involved may have been convicted if the tape was not examined and just accepted...
The state has to prove beyond reasonable doubt to secure a conviction. I think that needs to remain.0 -
Don't remember the case, but they were able to prove it was edited, so the system worked. However, I'd say it's a bit of false equivalence of crime and consequences, comparing rape to a close pass.Is it flawed though? Remember the case a few years back of the Corrib rape tape. That tape had been edited when examined. Perhaps those involved may have been convicted if the tape was not examined and just accepted...
The state has to prove beyond reasonable doubt to secure a conviction. I think that needs to remain.
For Road Traffic Offences video footage is supporting evidence, and would (rightly) still need a statement to go with it if it was going to full prosecution in my view. However, in most cases I would think a "talking to"/ education visit and logging on pulse* would be more appropriate than prosecution.
You can phone traffic watch, with no evidence and a verbal report, and apparently the gardai will act. But it's a constitutional issue if you could effectively do the same with an email and a video clip? I remain to be convinced it's not just a technophobe leadership in the RSA and Gardai tbh.
*for first "offence" anyway, hence the logging on pulse.0 -
Don't remember the case, but they were able to prove it was edited, so the system worked. However, I'd say it's a bit of false equivalence of crime and consequences, comparing rape to a close pass.
For Road Traffic Offences video footage is supporting evidence, and would (rightly) still need a statement to go with it if it was going to full prosecution in my view. However, in most cases I would think a "talking to"/ education visit and logging on pulse* would be more appropriate than prosecution.
You can phone traffic watch, with no evidence and a verbal report, and apparently the gardai will act. But it's a constitutional issue if you could effectively do the same with an email and a video clip? I remain to be convinced it's not just a technophobe leadership in the RSA and Gardai tbh.
*for first "offence" anyway, hence the logging on pulse.
The same burden of proof applies to any offence investigated by Gardai, from a close pass to a rape offence. The state’s case must prove it beyond a reasonable doubt.
You are correct, footage on its own would not be sufficient if a prosecution came to a hearing or trial. There is a long list of standard proofs that need to be met to enter footage as admissible in court.
I can tell you that not all Gardai will act on a traffic watch complaint without an accompanying witness statement. You can’t just submit an email as a statement as the Garda must inform a witness of the statutory declaration before they give their statement. This is to ensure the witness understands they can be prosecuted for making a false report. Essentially the statement becomes an exhibit if they lie.
Some Gardai will try to expedite a traffic watch complaint and speak to the owner/driver without a statement. This is fine when the owner/driver accepts responsibility, however if they contest any allegation, then the Garda has to take a witness statement.
I don’t think you can blame the RSA or AGS on it. It’s our justice system at work, where you’re presumed innocent until guilt is proven. I think it’s the only way to have it. The system could be improved though.0 -
Advertisement
-
Moderators, Category Moderators, Arts Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 49,558 CMod ✭✭✭✭
Join Date:Posts: 48992
i remember someone saying here that often the threat (to a driver accused of an offence) that the complainant is willing to testify in court that the offence occurred, can be enough to make a driver accept the accusation and spare the day in court.You are correct, footage on its own would not be sufficient if a prosecution came to a hearing or trial. There is a long list of standard proofs that need to be met to enter footage as admissible in court.
maybe it's the case that if the complainant (say a cyclist) had accompanying video evidence of the alleged offence, it'd kick another leg out from under the stool of the driver's defence, even if on its own it wouldn't be enough to secure a conviction?0 -
Pat Kenny is ok?! The man has a complete and utter hatred of anyone who stood up to the water charges and doesnt even try to conceal it. I dont want to get off topic so will only say that his generalisations and demonisation of those of us who protested is nothing more than dog whistle racism at best.
And thats just one of his snobbish agendas. The man is a disgrace.
https://youtu.be/gu6d0ns-JJU
https://youtu.be/OiIsIE8iT28
You might enjoy these two gentlemen....0 -
Well this escalated quickly once Cllr Keith Redmond got involved needlessly and made an absolute tit of himself. I'm sure some here are in the same constituency (Howth/Malahide) as the eejit?
https://twitter.com/roakleyIRL/status/1080770398675976192?s=190 -
magicbastarder wrote: »i remember someone saying here that often the threat (to a driver accused of an offence) that the complainant is willing to testify in court that the offence occurred, can be enough to make a driver accept the accusation and spare the day in court.
maybe it's the case that if the complainant (say a cyclist) had accompanying video evidence of the alleged offence, it'd kick another leg out from under the stool of the driver's defence, even if on its own it wouldn't be enough to secure a conviction?
Your word is enough. All it takes is an accusation.
Joe Bloggs says 01D1234 was driving dangerously on Pearse Street at 12:30PM on Tuesday.
Garda takes statement
Garda approaches 01D1234 and repeats accusation, offers FCPN option if they want to accept culpability. If not it proceeds towards court.0 -
It’s not that cameras are unreliable. It’s that “proving” Cctv to allow it be admitted in evidence in a prosecution by AGS is far more complex than people think it is. Other police forces may accept email submission and be able to prosecute off that. In Ireland that’s not the case. The original must be retained by AGS. Original as in the micro SD in your dash cam or whatever device. I wonder if you make a complaint by email, and it’s a false complaint, what recourse do the UK police have? In Ireland you won’t be prosecuted for making a false complaint unless you’ve made a signed witness statement with statutory declaration. I imagine it harkens to Blackstones Ratio to let 10 guilty walk than convict one innocent person, is the grounds to that.
Must? Where's that in legislation or regulation?
Theres FSI Guidelines and best practice for computer forensics searches but I've never seen it as a mandatory requirement. In the case of say a child porn charge you'd want the original machine as the defence is likely to really go for it but video evidence as a backup to first party testimony - I'd question the need to be so robust.
Gardai have accepted video and stills from me by email. Obviously they were copies of a modification. Court was on the cards yet no mention of originals was ever made. Traffic isn't CAB.0 -
Advertisement
-
magicbastarder wrote: »i remember someone saying here that often the threat (to a driver accused of an offence) that the complainant is willing to testify in court that the offence occurred, can be enough to make a driver accept the accusation and spare the day in court.
maybe it's the case that if the complainant (say a cyclist) had accompanying video evidence of the alleged offence, it'd kick another leg out from under the stool of the driver's defence, even if on its own it wouldn't be enough to secure a conviction?
Yeah and that’s what happens a lot, however our recidivists tend to avail of free legal aid and have no issue going to court.0 -
Must? Where's that in legislation or regulation?
Theres FSI Guidelines and best practice for computer forensics searches but I've never seen it as a mandatory requirement. In the case of say a child porn charge you'd want the original machine as the defence is likely to really go for it but video evidence as a backup to first party testimony - I'd question the need to be so robust.
Gardai have accepted video and stills from me by email. Obviously they were copies of a modification. Court was on the cards yet no mention of originals was ever made. Traffic isn't CAB.
I know traffic isn’t CAB. CAB take you to court on a balance of probability, ie tip the scales of justice, AGS must prosecute to the higher degree of beyond reasonable doubt.
But surely you agree that any prosecution by the Gardai should be beyond reasonable doubt even if it’s just a minor road traffic offence? It’s a cornerstone of our justice system to protect against false convictions.
Yeah originals must be retained, the Garda makes copies of the original for investigation purposes and disclosure to defence. The original is retained for chain of custody of exhibits. There have been cases, including today in court, where matters are thrown out for this reason.0 -
I think your missing the point Robbie. While what your saying rings true, in reality is not the case. Your relying on the perpetrator pushing it all the way to court, when guilty, and for the witness/victim not to come forward. It is a traffic offence and while the punishment is annoying it is not something worth racking up thousands in legal bills unless already on the line to lose your license. Even then, as any barrister will tell you, it depends who is the judge on the day as to how it will go. your saying a guilty person facing a small fine will risk going all the way through the courts and the legal bills they may be liable for.
you should head down to the courthouse some day, I have done it once, it is entertaining in most cases but those who go in guilty for minor offences are flipping a coin where they may walk out scot free or face a far harsher penalty and often pay costs regardless.0 -
I think your missing the point Robbie. While what your saying rings true, in reality is not the case. Your relying on the perpetrator pushing it all the way to court, when guilty, and for the witness/victim not to come forward. It is a traffic offence and while the punishment is annoying it is not something worth racking up thousands in legal bills unless already on the line to lose your license. Even then, as any barrister will tell you, it depends who is the judge on the day as to how it will go. your saying a guilty person facing a small fine will risk going all the way through the courts and the legal bills they may be liable for.
you should head down to the courthouse some day, I have done it once, it is entertaining in most cases but those who go in guilty for minor offences are flipping a coin where they may walk out scot free or face a far harsher penalty and often pay costs regardless.
I was in court today and am at least every week. Your average working decent person will generally pay an FCPN. My experience though is that the average decent person will take a drunk driving matter to a hearing and hope to get off. Look at the sheer amount of case law on drunken driving. Case law arises from contested matters in court. It’s my belief all that case law comes from so called decent people trying to get away without a driving ban, hence all the case law here.
The usual offenders won’t pay an FCPN. They will hope the charge/summons will fall at any of the steps along the road to a hearing date in court. They’ll try to bunch up all their charges and/or summonses to one court date so they’re only suffering one penalty for all their offences. They’ll hope the summons isn’t served. The courts now want personal service of summonses. They’ll want to see the weight of evidence against them, that’s the disclosure of statements Cctv etc, they’ll either plead if the Garda case is strong, or if the judge is known by the solicitor/barrister for being generally soft, or they may push it to a hearing date and hope the Garda witnesses aren’t there.
I saw this in court today. A CCTV operator from a shop for a theft didn’t show. The case was struck out. It’s very common in the district court, and the usual faces know this. Also these usual faces are generally given free legal aid.0 -
Yeah, I went to district court a few years ago for a minor speeding offence where I'd forgotten to pay the FCPN on time. I discovered it a few days after the expiry date, phoned up and was told I'd have to go to court.
I spent a morning hanging around waiting for my case to come up, and then it was struck out because the garda wasn't there. Not postponed, gone. Puff.
Mad system. Seeing all the gardai lined up chatting away all day. The justice system in this country is a total joke. If you raise the question of efficiency with anyone working in it (and I'm married to one) they'll just start banging on about how due process needs to be followed. Total arsebiscuits. I got off. Where is the justice?0 -
I can blame them for not accepting video footage as a starting point, when they will with a traffic watch verbal complaint. If the person making the complaint is not willing to follow up with a statement, so be it.I don’t think you can blame the RSA or AGS on it. It’s our justice system at work, where you’re presumed innocent until guilt is proven. I think it’s the only way to have it. The system could be improved though.
I also blame the RSA and AGS for not pushing for more camera technology in general - as in official ANPR, More speed cameras, average speed cameras,Red Light Cameras, Bus Lanes, yellow boxes. Close and dangerous overtakes are just another consequence of that general car is king mentality that has developed through lack of enforcement.0 -
Moderators, Category Moderators, Arts Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 49,558 CMod ✭✭✭✭ Join Date:Posts: 48992
so how would it work if video footage was say 'made available' in court (considering that the foundation of a case in court would be that a complainant is willing to go and testify that an offence was committed, as i understand it)?
would the entry of the video footage simply not be allowed, or would the defence's legal rep challenge it based on the fact that chain of evidence is not clear?
or given the context, would the judge ask (or be entitled to ask) 'are you claiming that the video evidence has been tampered with or does not actually depict what is being claimed?'0 -
He's gone now. As has Hook.
Ciara Kelly and Pat Kenny are OK. They both have a tendency to veer off into uninformed bull but at least they come across as rational human beings.
Anything but Tubs.I was in court today and am at least every week. Your average working decent person will generally pay an FCPN. My experience though is that the average decent person will take a drunk driving matter to a hearing and hope to get off. Look at the sheer amount of case law on drunken driving. Case law arises from contested matters in court. It’s my belief all that case law comes from so called decent people trying to get away without a driving ban, hence all the case law here.
The usual offenders won’t pay an FCPN. They will hope the charge/summons will fall at any of the steps along the road to a hearing date in court. They’ll try to bunch up all their charges and/or summonses to one court date so they’re only suffering one penalty for all their offences. They’ll hope the summons isn’t served. The courts now want personal service of summonses. They’ll want to see the weight of evidence against them, that’s the disclosure of statements Cctv etc, they’ll either plead if the Garda case is strong, or if the judge is known by the solicitor/barrister for being generally soft, or they may push it to a hearing date and hope the Garda witnesses aren’t there.
I saw this in court today. A CCTV operator from a shop for a theft didn’t show. The case was struck out. It’s very common in the district court, and the usual faces know this. Also these usual faces are generally given free legal aid.Yeah, I went to district court a few years ago for a minor speeding offence where I'd forgotten to pay the FCPN on time. I discovered it a few days after the expiry date, phoned up and was told I'd have to go to court.
I spent a morning hanging around waiting for my case to come up, and then it was struck out because the garda wasn't there. Not postponed, gone. Puff.
Mad system. Seeing all the gardai lined up chatting away all day. The justice system in this country is a total joke. If you raise the question of efficiency with anyone working in it (and I'm married to one) they'll just start banging on about how due process needs to be followed. Total arsebiscuits. I got off. Where is the justice?
And that was my point in a nutshell. Most people, Lumen included apparently, will pay the FCPN. If you make it monetary with a note on Pulse rather than a penalty point issue, the chance of losing a license is gone, its is just an annoyance that you are slightly less likely to commit again or at least think twice about.
The usual suspects will always ignore to the end or go to court and take a chance it will be struck out. These are the same crowd who will probably drive home from the court house after their license is taken off them, christ, look at the garda traffic twitter feed, full of people who simply do not care. If I were driving without tax and insurance, or a few pints on board. id be doing my best to park in a normal space, drive to the limit and so on. Some of these people park across two blue badge bays with a tin of Heineken in the cup holder and no tax, insurance and the car was probably a write off 3 years previously. The legal system will never fix this crowd the way it is.
Hence why I make the proposal of not having it as a PP offence, people will fight that for fear of losing their license. Hit them in their pocket at a price less than the cost of going to court and you will hopefully notify quite a few people about what is acceptable..0 -
Of course there is the practical alternative of cyclists fitting perpendicular flags to their bicycles, perhaps with a super scratchy thing on the end.Hit them in their pocket at a price less than the cost of going to court and you will hopefully notify quite a few people about what is acceptable..
0 -
magicbastarder wrote: »so how would it work if video footage was say 'made available' in court (considering that the foundation of a case in court would be that a complainant is willing to go and testify that an offence was committed, as i understand it)?
would the entry of the video footage simply not be allowed, or would the defence's legal rep challenge it based on the fact that chain of evidence is not clear?
or given the context, would the judge ask (or be entitled to ask) 'are you claiming that the video evidence has been tampered with or does not actually depict what is being claimed?'
To admit it in evidence you need to "prove" it - call the person who made the video to say where & when they made it, otherwise it could be 20 year old footage from another country and nobody would know.0 -
Advertisement
-
There are benefits to laws which are not enforceable - when publicised they can impact behaviour because people become aware that failing to give 1.5m is criminal even if there is little real prospect of enforcement. The general public at large would probably underestimate the difficulties in enforcement anyway. Conversely I am worried that the abandoning of the law will be taken as an endorsement of close passing as being perfectly fine/legal.
I really disagree with this. Laws created without any common sense or ability to enforce only cause more confusion, outrage and risk in the roads.
Naive law abiding eejits take the "if its law it must make sense approach" and start driving ridiculously for fear of being caught. While the majority of problematic drivers see these rules for the nonsense they are and ignore them.
I think the rules/laws need to be improved, just not in this way.0 -
magicbastarder wrote: »so how would it work if video footage was say 'made available' in court (considering that the foundation of a case in court would be that a complainant is willing to go and testify that an offence was committed, as i understand it)?
would the entry of the video footage simply not be allowed, or would the defence's legal rep challenge it based on the fact that chain of evidence is not clear?
or given the context, would the judge ask (or be entitled to ask) 'are you claiming that the video evidence has been tampered with or does not actually depict what is being claimed?'
In a trial there would be a Voir Dire, which is essentially a trial within the trial, to decide whether evidence can be admitted. This is the part where chain of custody, proofing the Cctv etc comes into play. This will happen with the jury not present. Either the state are successful and it’s allowed or not.
In the district court, in my opinion anyways, it’s not challenged as much, although it can be, and the same burden of proof is on the state to prove their case.
However, people were prosecuted and convicted long before CCTV became a thing. It should be viewed as an aid to the prosecution and not something that is solely relied upon. Witnesses can still give their oral testimony and people are still convicted on this alone.0 -
I can blame them for not accepting video footage as a starting point, when they will with a traffic watch verbal complaint. If the person making the complaint is not willing to follow up with a statement, so be it.
I also blame the RSA and AGS for not pushing for more camera technology in general - as in official ANPR, More speed cameras, average speed cameras,Red Light Cameras, Bus Lanes, yellow boxes. Close and dangerous overtakes are just another consequence of that general car is king mentality that has developed through lack of enforcement.
I genuinely don’t know how the UK police can accept Cctv by email. How do they authenticate it? What penalty is there for vexatious reports? How can the defence solicitor examine it?
I know that 99% if not more will be genuine reports, from genuine people, however the justice system is built to allow 100 guilty walk free than have 1 innocent convicted.
Look at all the drunk drivers who walked due to the Avadenei case, where a drunk driver, essentially put on hold over 1000 drunken driver cases as the breath test report he received was only in English and not in English and Irish. He couldn’t speak Irish but his solicitor clearly saw an avenue to exploit. This had to go to the Supreme Court, who didn’t find in his favour. However 100s of drunken drivers got off due to justice delayed being just justice denied to them.
I 100% agree on your other points. There should be more aids to detection of traffic offences. I think each ANPR device in a Garda car costs something like €7k, which is crazy money and ultimately means very few cars in the fleet have it.
I agree with Ciaràn Cuff that it takes the 3 E’s as he referred to them. Engineering out problems with our roads and infrastructure, the Education part from the RSA and the enforcement part from AGS. I don’t think many motorists really understand how dangerous and unnerving a close pass is to a cyclist, unless they’ve been a cyclist. The 1m and 1.5m rule would’ve been very difficult to prove though they make sense in the real world and is something I would’ve welcomed as a cyclist myself, and for my kids cycling to school during that crazy rush hour.
Our legislators love to set a specified ceiling number whether that’s for speeding, blood alcohol content for drunken driving, minimum tread depth, light transmission though a window tint, dB level from a noisy exhaust. However these all require calibrated devices to measure.0 -
I genuinely don’t know how the UK police can accept Cctv by email. How do they authenticate it? What penalty is there for vexatious reports? How can the defence solicitor examine it?
The Digital Imaging procedure is here:
https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/378451/DIP_2.1_16-Apr-08_v2.3__Web_2835.pdf
It covers third party origination. As I read it, the controls start from the point that the police receive it. So that answers the question about "How can the defence solicitor examine it?".
As for the rest...
https://www.scarletfire.co.uk/safety-cameras-cyclists-cycling-head-cams/
"Some points to bear in mind regarding video submissions: Videos should be submitted within 48 hours of the event. Footage should be of high quality and include at least two minutes before and two minutes after any incident. For prosecution purposes, video evidence can only act as corroboration. This means that you will need to attend a police station and give a written statement and must be prepared to attend court to give evidence in person."0 -
The Digital Imaging procedure is here:
https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/378451/DIP_2.1_16-Apr-08_v2.3__Web_2835.pdf
It covers third party origination. As I read it, the controls start from the point that the police receive it. So that answers the question about "How can the defence solicitor examine it?".
As for the rest...
https://www.scarletfire.co.uk/safety-cameras-cyclists-cycling-head-cams/
"Some points to bear in mind regarding video submissions: Videos should be submitted within 48 hours of the event. Footage should be of high quality and include at least two minutes before and two minutes after any incident. For prosecution purposes, video evidence can only act as corroboration. This means that you will need to attend a police station and give a written statement and must be prepared to attend court to give evidence in person."
Thanks for the link. I had a quick scan only. I understand that the document says the controls start from when the police receive it, and that’s only right, the police have obligations to safely retain and store evidence. It still doesn’t escape the fact that the original recording can be requested by the defence to examine it.
A case here in Ireland- Dpp v Ludlow.
It concerns the duty of Gardai to preserve and retain evidence in a criminal prosecution.
https://www.google.ie/amp/s/www.irishtimes.com/news/crime-and-law/garda-duty-bound-to-preserve-and-disclose-evidence-1.904506%3fmode=amp0 -
Thanks for the link. I had a quick scan only. I understand that the document says the controls start from when the police receive it, and that’s only right, the police have obligations to safely retain and store evidence. It still doesn’t escape the fact that the original recording can be requested by the defence to examine it.
A case here in Ireland- Dpp v Ludlow.
It concerns the duty of Gardai to preserve and retain evidence in a criminal prosecution.
https://www.google.ie/amp/s/www.irishtimes.com/news/crime-and-law/garda-duty-bound-to-preserve-and-disclose-evidence-1.904506%3fmode=amp
I'm not sure what you mean by "original". I would argue that identical representations of a digital file are the same thing, regardless of what media they are stored on.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Identity_of_indiscernibles0 -
I'm not sure what you mean by "original". I would argue that identical representations of a digital file are the same thing, regardless of what media they are stored on.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Identity_of_indiscernibles
But that would be the doubt that a defence solicitor or barrister would argue. That they hadn’t the ability to examine the original Cctv. And the maxim of if in doubt, throw it out, could/would apply.
That link above is sort of what I’m taking about. The driver was acquitted on the basis that the Gardai hadn’t retained the tyres for the defence to examine. Most of the rules on evidence used by Gardai come from case law such as that.0 -
But that would be the doubt that a defence solicitor or barrister would argue. That they hadn’t the ability to examine the original Cctv. And the maxim of if in doubt, throw it out, could/would apply.
That link above is sort of what I’m taking about. The driver was acquitted on the basis that the Gardai hadn’t retained the tyres for the defence to examine. Most of the rules on evidence used by Gardai come from case law such as that.
I don't see how this is troubling.
Defence counsel routines examines copies of evidence, e.g. video tapes of garda interviews (until quite recently I had to maintain a VHS player for this purpose). And those are imperfect analogue copies.
Surely it would come up as an objection before trial?
What is the doubt? That the witness interfered with the recording? They could do that easily on the original device.0 -
I don't see how this is troubling.
Defence counsel routines examines copies of evidence, e.g. video tapes of garda interviews (until quite recently I had to maintain a VHS player for this purpose). And those are imperfect analogue copies.
Surely it would come up as an objection before trial?
What is the doubt? That the witness interfered with the recording? They could do that easily on the original device.
There is a Statutory Instrument to cover electronic recording of interviews in Garda station. SI 74/1997 that details the storage, sealing and retainion of an original copy of the interview. The machine recorded 3 copies. The interviewee choose one as a master copy and he/she along with interviewing Gardai signed a seal which was wrappped around the tape. This still applies to the DVDs used in interviews now.
Yeah an original can be tampered with alright. I imagine this is why the Corrib rape tape incident never went to court. The tape had been edited before it was handed to GSOC. If the tape had just been accepted as a true unedited one, then perhaps innocent Gardai would’ve been prosecuted and convicted on flawed evidence.0 -
Advertisement
-
You regularly hear appeals from Gardai on the news for dashcam footage. How is that handled if used in a prosecution? Just sounds a bit like they pick and choose when they are happy to take it or not.
To me it sounds like a case of them needing updated guidelines and technology in this area, the later is true of so many aspects of their day to to day job.0
![[Deleted User]](/applications/dashboard/design/images/defaulticon.png)
Advertisement