The Speeding Copper is back!!!!

#2
Political pressure..... right or wrong he got off.. how many criminal cases have the CPS appealed against the alledged offender being found not guilty?
 
#4
I have real mixed feelings over this. It is clear that the bizzies need to practice their high speed driving skills and he was doing this late at night. But on the other hand, did he inform his superiors of what he was intending? If he did then he should not have been found guilty. If he didn't then that would be an entirely different matter.
 
#5
Yes, but as has been pointed out, it's not just the police who get found guilty (in this case) and don't get any real punishment. Chavs get let loose to do it all again with mind numbing regularity.

In this case the judge pointed out that although guilty he has had his face and his name dragged through the press for a couple of years. Punishment enough? Anything else would mean that he could lose his job as well which is more than would happen to a chav.... they don't have jobs!

The copper did wrong... got off.... got tried by the press... was tried again.... found guilty..... suffered enough.
 
#6
the_guru said:
I have real mixed feelings over this. It is clear that the bizzies need to practice their high speed driving skills and he was doing this late at night. But on the other hand, did he inform his superiors of what he was intending? If he did then he should not have been found guilty. If he didn't then that would be an entirely different matter.
True but it is also clear that before these cars are tested before being carted off for police use. Some worst crimes have less attention and court time; other than that, I don't have much sympathy for the man. If this was anyone else outside the blue uniform, they would have been given a verbal tornado by the police and judges alike, and fined and/or jailed for going at that speed. But this man uses the excuse of 'being in the job' and testing the car 'for the job'. Like said, if that was really the case, no report has stated that his superiors were informed beforehand and given their permission to do so, neither do they state that this was whilst he was on uinformed duty. Why not use a racetrack or off-the-road course instead if he really wanted to 'hone his skills'?
 
#8
MyssL said:
the_guru said:
I have real mixed feelings over this. It is clear that the bizzies need to practice their high speed driving skills and he was doing this late at night. But on the other hand, did he inform his superiors of what he was intending? If he did then he should not have been found guilty. If he didn't then that would be an entirely different matter.
True but it is also clear that before these cars are tested before being carted off for police use. Some worst crimes have less attention and court time; other than that, I don't have much sympathy for the man. If this was anyone else outside the blue uniform, they would have been given a verbal tornado by the police and judges alike, and fined and/or jailed for going at that speed. But this man uses the excuse of 'being in the job' and testing the car 'for the job'. Like said, if that was really the case, no report has stated that his superiors were informed beforehand and given their permission to do so, neither do they state that this was whilst he was on uinformed duty. Why not use a racetrack or off-the-road course instead if he really wanted to 'hone his skills'?
Well i'd guess his superiors would never openly condone speeding on her majestys highways, so asking is right out, even if they think nothing of it personally.

And as for using a racetrack? Yeah, you really think the local constabulary will be willing to fork out large sums of money so these chaps can drive round a track for a few hours? Or they could just tell them to do it late at night on quiet roads. Which do you think they will favor?
 
#9
Except, of course, his superiors hadn't told him to do it. He did it off his own back. If I decided that I fancied a cabby in my new car at top speeds I'd get knicked and done. He didn't.

At the moment I'm living in Shropshire and the temptation to tell anyone stopping me for speeding that I was "testing my car" is huge. But, of course, I'd be hammered by the humourless b**tards.

Igf I strolled of to the range to "test my new weapon" without any sort of clearance or organisation I'd quite rightly get hauled over the coals. The Police must be whiter than white. They must set the very highest standards. This is rank hypocrisy.

I notice that when my young soldiers, paid significantly less but having so much more asked of them, "test their fighting" the police are quick to jump on them.
 
#11
Drago_Drake said:
MyssL said:
the_guru said:
I have real mixed feelings over this. It is clear that the bizzies need to practice their high speed driving skills and he was doing this late at night. But on the other hand, did he inform his superiors of what he was intending? If he did then he should not have been found guilty. If he didn't then that would be an entirely different matter.
True but it is also clear that before these cars are tested before being carted off for police use. Some worst crimes have less attention and court time; other than that, I don't have much sympathy for the man. If this was anyone else outside the blue uniform, they would have been given a verbal tornado by the police and judges alike, and fined and/or jailed for going at that speed. But this man uses the excuse of 'being in the job' and testing the car 'for the job'. Like said, if that was really the case, no report has stated that his superiors were informed beforehand and given their permission to do so, neither do they state that this was whilst he was on uinformed duty. Why not use a racetrack or off-the-road course instead if he really wanted to 'hone his skills'?
Well i'd guess his superiors would never openly condone speeding on her majestys highways, so asking is right out, even if they think nothing of it personally.

And as for using a racetrack? Yeah, you really think the local constabulary will be willing to fork out large sums of money so these chaps can drive round a track for a few hours? Or they could just tell them to do it late at night on quiet roads. Which do you think they will favor?
'They' would favour the least risk to the public or nobody possibly getting hurt in any process of testing a car. You might think a road is quiet late at night but what if someone just happens to come along? It is a public road after all. The only way this could happen is if public roads were closed for that purpose.
The answer is 'they' would probably favour neither option due to disruption and risk, which is why they should not be performed especially without the permission of superiors. Like said, the only possible excuse he could use was if he had been given the go-ahead to do so, not that it was a legit option. IMO, they would favour the 'honing of personal skills' be left til when it is called for in pursuit, and leaving the testing of the mechanics of the vehicle to those who do so anyway before the vehicle is given the respective police force.
As well as that, he is not the only expert advanced driver in the police force, had they all have to risk possible speeding prosecution as well or have they all got on well with the job without having to do so?
 
#12
I was listening to the legal argument advanced by his solicitor which is essentially this.

This officer has been trained at public expense to drive at high speed. Such training, unavailable to the general public is given to allow the Police to more effectively interdict speeding motorists.

If a policeman is given a vehicle with which he is unfamiliar and carries out the normal and accepted police practice of maintaining these skills by driving on a quiet motorway in the early hours of the morning at high speed in order to maintain those skills, then why, for the purposes of the Road Traffic Act are they to be judged by the objective tests of the ordinary careful driver since the ordinary careful driver is not trained at public expense to drive at such speeds.

Why is it that one Government department trains their officers using public money to drive at such speeds while another government department decides to prosecute them if they do so if issuing them with another vehicle requires them to ensure their skills are maintained?

Unless those skills are maintained then a Police Driver who uses his training in an unfamiliar vehicle in a live chase on a crowded motorway or in a busy street poses a far greater threat to public safety than one who maintains his skills on a quiet motorway in the early hours of the morning.

It appears that the court have no power to take such special training into account and had no option but to find the officer guilty of the offence for which he was charged.

The officer, despite his suspended sentence now has a criminal record.

Regards and best wishes
Iolis
 
#13
I really can't see what all the fuss is about.
The police are above the law and always have been.
The drunkest man I have ever seen drive a car was a police sergeant who had to be carried to the car by four constables because he couldn't walk there (and that was when I was a mere sprog thirty odd years ago).
Last month in my local paper, a policeman who attacked a 12 year old with a golf club got off with a caution.
Nothing has changed and nothing will.
Get used to it.
Scratch
 

Auld-Yin

ADC
Kit Reviewer
Book Reviewer
Reviews Editor
#14
Iolis said:
I was listening to the legal argument advanced by his solicitor which is essentially this.

This officer has been trained at public expense to drive at high speed. Such training, unavailable to the general public is given to allow the Police to more effectively interdict speeding motorists.

If a policeman is given a vehicle with which he is unfamiliar and carries out the normal and accepted police practice of maintaining these skills by driving on a quiet motorway in the early hours of the morning at high speed in order to maintain those skills, then why, for the purposes of the Road Traffic Act are they to be judged by the objective tests of the ordinary careful driver since the ordinary careful driver is not trained at public expense to drive at such speeds.

Why is it that one Government department trains their officers using public money to drive at such speeds while another government department decides to prosecute them if they do so if issuing them with another vehicle requires them to ensure their skills are maintained?

Unless those skills are maintained then a Police Driver who uses his training in an unfamiliar vehicle in a live chase on a crowded motorway or in a busy street poses a far greater threat to public safety than one who maintains his skills on a quiet motorway in the early hours of the morning.

It appears that the court have no power to take such special training into account and had no option but to find the officer guilty of the offence for which he was charged.

The officer, despite his suspended sentence now has a criminal record.

Regards and best wishes
Iolis
I am not clear what your point is Iolis. If this PC was given permission to drive the car at these, IMHO, excessive speeds then why did the local plod not have cars/bikes out on the road, well ahead of him to warn him of oncoming traffic or hazards? After all, the tests alledgedly were to test the new car, not the reactions and skills of the driver, who we have been told is an exceptionally good and highly trained driver.

I just wonder what those who support said plod would have said if he had wrapped up some poor sod on his way home from a back shift or such like.

My reading of the story is that this guy fancied a bit of high speed driving just for kicks and was caught out. It was only found out because his in-car camera was accidently switched on after going over a speed bump in the police garage. I wonder \t what speed he hit that bump - after all, it is not his car and he does not have to pay or worry about any damage caused.

As you point out Iolis he now has a criminal conviction and to my mind it is a well justified one and he got off extremely lightly.
 
#15
I wonder if such a fuss would have been made if it was a Paramedic.

There is alot of hostility towards the police because of the over use of speed cameras.
 
#16
Hi Auld-Yin,

I merely articulate that which his lawyer advanced on his behalf and related to John Humphries on Radio 4.

It is an interesting argument which, it would appear, failed to result in a not-guilty verdict.

The judge could well have taken the same view that it would not be in the public interest for Policemen to go off on 'frolics' of their own in high performance motor cars and that a finding of guilty, for a uniformed officer has potentially disasterous career consquences which would leave a civilian relatively unscathed by an identical verdict.

The judge may well have been mindful too, of the casualties among innocent civilians which occur every year caused by speeding police vehicles.

In any event, unless this issue raises some new point of law, or it is appealed as such, it is unlikely that the case will appear in the law reports allowing us to determine what factors the court took into account.

Regards and best wishes to you
Iolis
 
#17
I think a lot depends on "authorisation" being given.

A paramedic on a call is "authorised" and can offer duty logs etc to the court as evidence.

This bloke had none despite there being a Home Office procedure in place.

Speed is an emotive subject and the excuses being put forward by this officer come across as just that. Excuses.

I well remember an officer- sgt IIRC- in court for speeding saying he was "driving to make progress"- I can almost see the smirk on his face when he answered the magistrate.

Yes here in Kent we do regularly see plain white cars, 4 up, driving at speed. (And there as been 1 fatal RTA - only officers involved- in the past)
They are in uniform and honing their speed driving as part of an AUTHORISED training session.

And that's my point.
This bloke was on duty and decided he was beyond the rules put in place by his employer.
Independant thinking balances on a knife edge.

I have acted- as I'm sure many others have- in good faith but been taken to task for ignoring the rules.

Perhaps it was "a nod's as good as a wink"
"Skip, I'm taking Alpha 25 out for a test run. OK?"
And it was logged out to him with no other thought than
"Oh Jacks just driving the local roads for a while- no probs"

Ultimately he was responsible for his actions- as any other motorist is- and he broke the rules.

The discharge should have been conditional and he should have his ticket pulled pending retraining.
 
#18
eveyuk said:
There is alot of hostility towards the police because of the over use of speed cameras.
You might be interested in these downloadable signs with a link to a site where you can purchase the sticky variety to place in your car window.

In one force area, the Police have taken to illegally confiscating them from drivers!

If you are stopped and the sign is illegally confiscated, make sure you obtain the officer's Collar Badge number and demand a receipt for your property and then let your solicior know!

http://www.abd.org.uk/speed_camera_signs.htm

I admit to having one on the rear windscreen of my car!

Regards and best wishes
Iolis
 
#19
MyssL said:
Why not use a racetrack or off-the-road course instead if he really wanted to 'hone his skills'?
What exact 'skills' do you think police drivers have to hone? Call me stupid but I would have thought it might be the skill of driving on a public highway at high speed whilst dodging members of the motoring public who are unaware of his presence. How the f*ck is he going to practice that on a racetrack which is a totally artificial environment?

You might think a road is quiet late at night but what if someone just happens to come along? It is a public road after all. The only way this could happen is if public roads were closed for that purpose.
Who the f*ck do you think is going to be on the roads when some chav scum nicks a car and goes for a spin? Joe Public that's who!

'sorry guv, I couldn't chase the suspect. There were all these other cars, see and I've only ever driven on a race track.'

D*ckhead!

Auld-Yin said:
If this PC was given permission to drive the car at these, IMHO, excessive speeds then why did the local plod not have cars/bikes out on the road, well ahead of him to warn him of oncoming traffic or hazards? After all, the tests alledgedly were to test the new car, not the reactions and skills of the driver, who we have been told is an exceptionally good and highly trained driver.
Again, what f*cking planet are you people on? In a real life situation the copper may not have the luxury of a helicopter overhead warning him of hazards! That's the whole point of being an advanced driver. He reacts to what he sees at the time off his own back

Sorry I am not as articulate as Iolis! No diplomacy!

I have calmed down now.
 
#20
You do need practice at response driving, it is a physical skill. I wonder how Police officers get enough practice at it, the higher number of Police accidents to Ambulance accidents seems to support this.
 

Similar threads


Latest Threads

Top