This, to me, seems like the the ultimate deterrent to that most heinous of British crimes, public photography. Catch a few candid snaps of the candid snappers in the act then bundle them into the back of the divvy van and whisk them off to rough justice. And as you are collaring the errant box brownie bandit, you can nab the informer, Nokia-handed.

There are laws against that sort of thing, you know.

Anyone who's wise will send their footage to i-witness video or a similar organisation that can be trusted to not edit out the middle bit between "walking down the street being black" and "lying in a pool of blood having fallen up some stairs".

Hell, judging from that cop who attacked the cyclist in New York, even *YouTube* would be a better place to put your video evidence.

They nicked this idea from GTA4....

IANAL:

But surely, the information sent in will not be enough to convict somebody of any crime without any other evidence, as it can be tainted. With other evidence it is corroborating information that strengthens the Police's argument.

Any decent lawyer will be able to determine if the case is based entirely upon the photo/video evidence, and can debunk it as potentially "shopped". If enough evidence exists to prove the guilt of an individual, then even if a piece of evidence is tainted, it can be dismissed, and the remaining evidence stands on it's own merit. If you have enough evidence to prove someone's guilt, then the District Attorney would be foolish to bring up" taintable" evidence in court.

In short, Photo's and Videos from unknown sources are useful in the investigative stage of the process. That is all.

$250,000? Bargain - would have cost taxpayers more like $250,000,000 in the UK.