• This is a stand-to for an incoming competition, one of our most expensive yet.
    Later this week we're going to be offering the opportunity to Win £270 Rab Neutrino Pro military down jacket
    Visit the thread at that link above and Watch it to be notified as soon as the competition goes live

90mph police chiefs driving ban

#41
The_Seagull said:
flamingo said:
The_Seagull said:
flamingo said:
DemsMaShoes said:
jagman said:
muhandis89 said:
This,from the BBC:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7130028.stm

IMHO he got off lightly by going at 50% above the limit.I'm sure someone would have ''had a word'' with the magistrates.
Lovely, on my NIP I am informed I will face 6 point and a £1000 fine if I fail to incriminate myself.
Now that is extroadinary double standards
Double standards!
I saw on teletext this am that a number of cars from his force have been reported for speeding. There will be no charges as the officers "responsible" cannot remember who was driving.
The story you want is this

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7130028.stm

Speeding police 'not prosecuted'
By Martin Shankleman
BBC News

Roadside camera photographs of South Yorkshire Police officers caught speeding, but who later had their cases dropped, have been obtained by the BBC.

The pictures were released after South Yorkshire's chief constable, Meredydd Hughes, was banned from driving for speeding at 90mph in a 60mph zone.

Those in cars caught on camera were all on duty but none was prosecuted after refusing to say who was at the wheel.

The force said cases were not pursued due to drivers not being identified.

Public interest

The pictures, obtained by BBC Newsnight under the Freedom of Information Act, all showed officers speeding - mostly in the Rotherham and Doncaster areas.

They were released following the intervention of the Information Commissioner, who rejected the force's reason for non-release.

The force had claimed that releasing the images was not in the public interest.

In one case it claimed that if the occupants of a speeding police van were identified because of publication, there was a "risk that those individuals will be vilified and as a consequence their mental or physical health will suffer".

But the commissioner rejected that argument, saying the information had been "inappropriately withheld" and that it was in the public interest for the material to be disclosed.

Overall, the BBC investigation uncovered 26 cases between 2003 and 2006, where South Yorkshire police officers caught speeding on duty failed to admit they were driving and cases were dropped.

'Due diligence'

A spokesman for South Yorkshire police said the cases could not go ahead because they had used "due diligence" in trying to identify the drivers and, because they could not be identified, a prosecution would fail.

He added that procedures had now been reformed and earlier this year the chief constable had taken himself to court for failing to identify the driver of a speeding police car.

Mr Hughes, 49, a former chair of roads policing at the Association of Chief Police Officers (Acpo), apologised after being caught on camera doing 90mph in a 60mph zone on the A5 at Chirk near Wrexham in May.

He stood down from his role at Acpo after he was summonsed for the offence, which happened when he was on holiday.

He was disqualified for 42 days and fined £350 by Wrexham magistrates.
Go on, defend that then...
Who (on this post) is trying to defend it?

Not me, and i'm in the job.

I think you need to start googling something other than "naughty policemen" mate as you appear to pop up in most plod type topics with your cut and paste at the ready but not add anything constructive.
OK then

The reason I posted this was to further expand a story from a few comments up. Is it the inclusion of references to back up an argument that you object to, rather than the mate of a mate type story that you can ignore as you can then say "oh thats a one off" and pretend that everyone but you is out of step.

The reason this annoys me is it illustrates that there is at the least a policy of turning a blind eye when it is the police involved in illegal activity.
This p1sses me off as I am naive enough to think that those who are paid to uphold the law should try to maintain the same standards that they impose on others.

Whenever anything gets posted on here that does suggest that the same standards should apply to the police as the rest of society, there are a certain number of members on site who whinge off about "we're up to our necks, thin blue line, don't you know how hard we really work, you don't know what it's like out there", and seem to consider that nobody else should have an opinion on the effectiveness of the job that society expect the police to do.

My personal opinion is that there are probably effective hard-working coppers out there, it's a pity a large number I come across professionally seem to be only interested in a quiet life and if not studiously ignoring something that might require their intervention, are by and large only interested in getting the problem off their patch. If you wish to prove otherwise I would be delighted (apart from everything else, it would make my job a hell of a lot easier if I though that the scrote that takes a swing at me will be afraid of some consequences to his actions).

So, unless you have something useful to contribute, f*ck off and catch up on your paperwork.
Oh dear, I think we're going to need a bigger boat. :nemo:

If you have a look at my posts on this subject, far from objecting to the argument, you will find that I believe that he should also be punished by the job for his offence. this could take the form of a fine, reprimand, or the ultimate sanction of being required to resign. I have given up on apologising for the Police Services failings a long time ago.

So you can fcuk off and continue with your cut and pasting fella, again don't talk about something you probably know little about other than what you can find by Google. Or perhaps try Googling "cops do a good job" for a change, you might be suprised to find there's some good headlines there.

How would you change things? I am interested in your opinion on this as it could be constructive, but I doubt it, and no Googling and cut and pasting anyone elses ideas ok?
I personally don't give a sh1t what has happened to the Chief Constable that has been caught, and have not entered into that debate. I'm more concerned about the attitude that allows so many of his (and I presume your) colleagues break the law with impunity. How I would change things is arrest and charge the individuals responsible, and demote / reeducuate / fire the officers of whatever rank who are involved in any cover-ups that are going on.

I don't know where you have the idea that I have either the time or inclination to sit and google anything to do with the police - the sad fact is that one does not have to search for these stories, they are there most days, staring one in the face. I mean, the BBC website is not exactly a hidden corner of t'internet, is it.

Given the contempt that is displayed in large part to ordinary members of the public by the average police officer (including token "community policing" meetings that may or may not result in two more PCSO's walking a street at 2pm, when the complaints are about problems at closing time), I don't think my opinion is worth a pitcher full of warm p1ss to the powers that be.

I would be more interested in what you think is the solution - or are you part of the problem?
 
#42
[quote

I thought anything over a certain limit was an instant revocation?[/quote]

I ALWAYS BELIEVED THAT ANYTHING OVER 70 MPH ON A PUBLIC ROAD WAS AN AUTOMATIC BAN..

IN FACT I REMEMBER BEING CAUGHT A NUMBER OF YEARS AGO DOING 60 ON THE DOCK ROAD AND THE COPPER TOLD ME THAT..

I HELD MY HANDS UP TO HIM AND TOLD HIM I WAS A SECURITY7 RESPONCE DRIVER HEADING TO AN INCIDENT ON THE BROCKLEBANK DOCK..

LUCKILY SO WAS HE..

I RECEIVED A VERBAL BOLLICKING IN TRUE RSM STYLE AND WAS LET OFF WITH IT..
 
#43
[quote="flamingo]
I personally don't give a sh1t what has happened to the Chief Constable that has been caught, and have not entered into that debate. I'm more concerned about the attitude that allows so many of his (and I presume your) colleagues break the law with impunity. How I would change things is arrest and charge the individuals responsible, and demote / reeducuate / fire the officers of whatever rank who are involved in any cover-ups that are going on.

I don't know where you have the idea that I have either the time or inclination to sit and google anything to do with the police - the sad fact is that one does not have to search for these stories, they are there most days, staring one in the face. I mean, the BBC website is not exactly a hidden corner of t'internet, is it.

Given the contempt that is displayed in large part to ordinary members of the public by the average police officer (including token "community policing" meetings that may or may not result in two more PCSO's walking a street at 2pm, when the complaints are about problems at closing time), I don't think my opinion is worth a pitcher full of warm p1ss to the powers that be.

I would be more interested in what you think is the solution - or are you part of the problem?[/quote]

I asked first so you answer first. If you do I'll tell you what I think needs to happen, in a reasonable and constructive manner too. Also I would much prefer to be a part of the solution as i'm sick to the back teeth with what the Police Service is now.

Though if i was (depressingly) honest with you fella. I think that my opinion is worth even less than your to the powers that be.
 
#44
I PERSONALLY THINK THAT AS A TAXI DRIVER I SHOULD HAVE BEEN BANNED SEVERAL TIMES FOR THE AMOUNT OF BLUE LIGHTS TRYING TO CATCH UP TO ME.

BUT I SEEM TO HAVE A GUARDIAN ANGEL LOOKING OVER ME..

FAIR PLAY TO THE GUY,,MAYBE HE HAS THE SAME ANGEL..
 

Latest Threads

Top