check out the telegraph today for yet another police driver in court for killing someone
page 5 ish i think
let off with 500 quid fine
no endorsements
no ban
this is not justice at all
|
Were you in the court? Are you aware of the full circumstances? Are you a judge?
How many members of the public were in court today for killing somebody?
At least police drivers are highly trained and are doing a job to protect us from the idiots and losers in society.
Maybe you are trying to protect your own!
|
there has only ever been one police driver locked up for killing someone on the road...
and that took around a year of fighting by the vicitims family to get it to court, and fighting past the guys collegues who were with-holding evidence
it is common to see outrageous driving by so called "highly trained" police drivers, i think in fact you will see that even the police federation accepts that the training standards have fell way too low
i myself was recently nearly killed by a police motorcyle that
i) was breaking the rules (i know cos i know some cops)
ii) wasnt on an emergency shout and didnt need to take any risks
i'd just like to see a little humilty from them, i'd like them to suffer similar consequences as the rest of us, and i dont want that guy out on the streets lecturing me about minor speed infringements
|
> there has only ever been one police driver locked up for
> killing someone on the road...
you're guessing.
> it is common to see outrageous driving by so called "highly
> trained" police drivers,
Not as common as to see outrageous driving by the general public.
>and i
> dont want that guy out on the streets lecturing me about
> minor speed infringements
Why not ? If you break the law, minor or not, you have broken the law. Live with the consequences or don't do it.
If you don't like the law, try to change it.
|
"Why not ? If you break the law, minor or not, you have broken the law. Live with the consequences or don't do it."
Is this to the policeman, or the previous poster?
"If you don't like the law, try to change it."
Ditto.
Or do you mean like the police do?
Are you advocating that the man in the street should swing the odds in his favour by destroying speed cameras, perhaps?
In summary, as so many on this forum seem to believe:
If the police set up speed traps on stretches of safe road with inappropriately and specially lowered hidden, or even missing speed limit signs and you get caught out once too often driving safely but breaking the law on a minor technicality: you have broken the law, live with the loss of licence, job, income, etc.
But:
If the bad apples in the police force get caught (because they killed someone) driving exceptionally dangerously for no reason whatsoever, they should be protected from the law because they are protecting us! Should keep their jobs, their income, and maybe even get promoted.
While I will defend any traffic cop who accidentally kills a person who has thrown themselves under his wheels, that doesn't alter the fact that we SHOULD expect a higher level of skill, and a higher level of responsibility, from them, than from the man in the street.
And we SHOULDN'T expect the police to hound (I won't say us) motorists for technical and safe breaches of inappropriate laws.
In case you hadn't noticed: notLabour have effectively decriminalised pot because they supposedly don't believe in the police wasting their time harassing the "public" for such minor infringrements of the law.
Despite the fact it intoxicates drivers, can't be tested, and the effects linger far longer than alchohol.
So much for concern about road safety.
But then again someone who is driving a safe, powerfull car at a safe speed on a motorway probably isn't going to vote notlabour. And if they stick a silly speed limit on it they are guaranteed payment of the fine, however hefty.
But then again then again, the addict joyriding a stolen car would never pay the fine, but might vote notLabour now, if he ever registered on the electoral roll.
|
|
|
|
Why don't you try the law enforcement else where. Afganistan for instance.
|
|
Not even I would claim that the British have less respect fo the rule of law than the Afghans.
|
|
|
|
Re
"
you're guessing.
"
No I'm not!
|
|
|
|
|
I can see both sides of the story here. But no offence Alastair, I remember a situation when staying at a friend's in Essex. We could see a hot air balloon coming down and it looked like whoever was piloting it was having trouble. We started to cross some fields to go and investigate/see if we could help. We could see a couple of small children (about 6-8ish years old) playing on the (small and very windy+lots of trees so no visibility on corners) track that led towards the field that looked like it belonged to a farm. About 60 seconds after these kids had run back into the farm, a Police Omega came down the track at what looked like about 60 or so mph. Bear in mind this was an extremely narrow and woody (and private!) track. Turns out there was suspicion that the balloon owners were trying to land drugs into the country and that was the need for all the "urgency".
Had those kids still have been playing on that track 60 seconds later there is no way in this lifetime that driver could have stopped, however "trained" he was. True, Police might not do many of the stupid things a lot of other drivers do, but that doesn't a) prevent them from being affected by the laws of physics and mental response times and b) shouldn't put them above the law. I wonder if had a member of the public done a similar thing they would have got off so lightly...
ad seen a hot air balloon come down in some woods not far from where we were so went to investigate. As we got about a 1/3 of a mile from been walking across some fields and could see a couple of young children playing on a track in the distance.
|
|
Damn, where is that edit button!!!! Last paragraph should not have been there :o)
|
|
|
I take no offence as yes, there are always exceptions (the rotten apple in the barrel).
It just appears that 'me' has a strange attitude towards the police. In an earlier thread, he said 'If you get stopped for drunk driving, make sure you get a blood test' - Something to do with radio interference.
If you haven't been drinking and driving, there will be nothing to worry about anyway. I would rather be on the road with a police driver than a drunk driver.
|
hey
again im just reflecting genuine concern that the new police radios being dished out break every radio interference rule in the book and according to this months police fed magazine they even set off door bells
in terms of having them next to electric kit used to determine your guilt or innocence i am concerned, i would be worried about the hassle of being arrested for a positive road side test caused by radio interference to the breath machine - even if i later got off cos obviously i dont drink and drive and a blood test would prove this (as long as they dont use the alcohol based wipes on your arm first which they got in trouble for)
i am very very concerned that the standards of traffic policing in this country have got to improve
i am not "anti police" and have lots of sympathy for the genuine bobby doing his best when faced with pretty poor leadership quite often
for instance i dont blame the constables out there for their lack of training, and poor levels of training, and poor quality training - thats poor management
|
|
|
How about drunk police drivers?
Good card players, but I wouldn't give them the time of day.
|
|
|
|
|
|
this is not justice at all
How do you know ?
|
|
|
Me and All of you just remember :
There but for the grace of good of God go I.
There is no such thing as a perfect driver irrespective of training and I should know.
|
I disagree.
I am a perfect driver and have never had an accident.
I've seen thousands though ............
|
|
friends misappropriated your PC again, James ?
|
|
Well spotted Mark.
|
|
I see, Bob, if others state what concerns them is "tosh", if it does not worry you.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Surly shome mishtake ther:
According to all the "pro police", pro speed camera brigade: it's incredibly easy to always be aware of arbitrary speed limits and to keep within those speed limits (even if hidden) without ever taking your eyes off the road.
Can't get much more perfect than that.
Then again, according to the government's own research, the people who "support" speed cameras and "the law" (see relevant thread) are the same people who avoid them by rat-running at speed, or who slam on their brakes from a dangerous speed approaching the cameras, then roar away once past.
Makes you wonder why any forum would give them the time of day, never mind an allegedly motoring site giving them airtime, and without the law abiding motorists having a right of reply.
But then, it's always been a funny old world.
And I suppose it matters which "laws" you abide by.
Bit like those dead baby scandals.
The self-opinionated, self-centred, self righteous, cliquey "professional" doctors who killed them never took a step out of turn, followed the "rules", knew how to behave "properly", didn't rock the boat, paid lip service to the law, and were protected by their peers despite being totally in the wrong.
The safe, steady, upstart who rudely disturbed the status quo by exposing the emperors' lack of clothing was ostracised and thrown out.
I'd hear a rumour that this site censored (on the above basis).
It will be interesting to see how long this post lasts.
|
|
|
|
|
If a policeman ends up in court it could affect his employment as well as the fine. At least they have had some advanced car skills training. How many drivers even look at the Highway code after they passed the test?
|
|
|
Its so easy to criticise the Police who after all are public servants and should set the highest standards which is what we have come to expect. But at the end of the day they are human and make mistakes as we all have done in our jobs but without the attendant publicity which they receive.
Ambulance drivers also have had their unfortunate accidents but we expect them to go over the limits in the course of their duty.
I'm sure that if "me" had a member of his family in an ambulance being rushed to a Hospital he wouldn't take kindly to the driver meandering along at 30mph in a restricted area. My wife suffered a serious injury in the home a few weeks ago at midnight. The paramedics were brilliant and the driver also in getting her to the hospital. By the same token you would expect similar from the Police in criminal incidents. But of course accidents are bound to happen by the law of averages.
Alvin
|
Well said Alvin,
I guess that if either "me" or Independant Observer's (hello Bogush ;-) houses were on fire they would have something to say about the fire appliance making its steady way there at 20 mph so they could stop in case some granny stepped out.
Having read the Telegraph article, it seemed to me that the driver was found not guilty in a court (presumably with jury??) of dangerous driving and guilty of careless driving hence the £500 fine. That surely will affect his career and for sure the rest of his life. But the key point he was put on trial for those offences and presumably had a fair trial. Or are the police not entitled even to that.
Any boys in blue reading this carry on chaps, get the bad guys if you can. Just be careful about the red mist effect, is my final word.
Stuart
|
|
|
|
|
normal tosh from bogush and the "i hate the police" brigade. plenty of common sense from the others though.
|
|
Returning from Plymouth on the A38 with a friend, we were passed by one of those Police Vauxhall Omega 3 litre V6 patrol cars. All we saw of it was some lights in the rear view mirror and then his tail lights as he went past at at least 130mph without his sirens or flashing lights on. Maybe he was late for his dinner!
|
|
|
|
Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm
"While I will defend any traffic cop who accidentally kills a person who has thrown themselves under his wheels, that doesn't alter the fact that we SHOULD expect a higher level of skill, and a higher level of responsibility, from them, than from the man in the street."
Equates to:
"fire appliance making its steady way there at 20 mph so they could stop in case some granny stepped out."
Equates to:
"normal tosh from bogush and the "i hate the police" brigade. plenty of common sense from the others though"
So where is the common sense from the others?
Where are the common sense replies to ANY of the points in my post?
Surely the red mist is in front of the "pro" police anti "speeding" brigade who insist that driving faster than 20 mph is inherently dangerous.
If so then police (and "appliances") doing 30, never mind 130, are driving dangerously.
Their words, not mine.
And what is a bogush?
|
|
|
So all these folk having a go at the bobby in this thread, what have you got to say about the case reported today of the army officer who killed THREE by overtaking cross a solid white line.
Four previous offences for speeding and one previous for overtaking on the wrong side of a bend.
Convicted of dangerous driving £750 fine and two year ban.
As for who or what is a bogush, writing style gives you away IMHO. Either that or you are plagiarising the real Bogush and that is nothing to be proud of.
Quite amusing to see people come back on this site with new handles, having pleaded forgiveness, promised to be good boys, and just in time revert to type.
As for not answering your points such as they were I have no desire to get into one of your I will have the last word if it kills me debates.
|
|
|
So all these folk having a go at the bobby in this thread, what have you got to say about the case reported today of the army officer who killed THREE by overtaking cross a solid white line.
Four previous offences for speeding and one previous for overtaking on the wrong side of a bend.
Convicted of dangerous driving £750 fine and two year ban.
As for who or what is a bogush, writing style gives you away IMHO. Either that or you are plagiarising the real Bogush and that is nothing to be proud of.
Quite amusing to see people come back on this site with new handles, having pleaded forgiveness, promised to be good boys, and just in time revert to type.
As for not answering your points such as they were I have no desire to get into one of your I will have the last word if it kills me debates.
|
|
|
|
So why did it produce two posts there, I had not even clicked the post button! Sumfink odd on the site methinks.
|
|
|
|
get a life bogush
|
> So all these folk having a go at the bobby in this thread,
Glad to see that you can differentiate between folk "having a go" at THE "wrong un" cop, and having a go at at decent ones.
Between people having a go at hypocrites, and supposedly insisting that ambulances go everywhere at 20mph.
Between having a go at impractical, unneccesary and unfair laws, and supposedly campaigning for unregulated mayhem.
> As for not answering your points such as they were
> I have no desire to get into one of your
> I will have the last word if it kills me debates.
Then why have you brought up a weeks old story:
> what have you got to say about the case reported today of the
> army officer who killed THREE by overtaking cross a solid white line.
He didn't kill anyone by crossing a solid white line.
> Four previous offences for speeding
NOT dangerous driving, note.
> and one previous for overtaking on the wrong side of a bend.
Which I can't comment on as that I haven't seen before.
> Convicted of dangerous driving £750 fine and two year ban.
For failing to pull in before the start of a solid white line after overtaking a slow truck.
The deaths were caused by one of two boy racers who lost control in the vicinity, and probably because they weren't wearing seat belts.
> As for who or what is a bogush, writing style gives you away IMHO.
> Either that or you are plagiarising the real Bogush
> and that is nothing to be proud of.
Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm
Would that be because you believe that I am the person who Humms away under various names including: John Wall, Stuart B, Ian Cook, Kev, Dan, Dave, Dave W, Andy, back to Stuart B, and again, etc, etc?
Or because I have plagiarised the style of the imaginative and literary chappie who created that Ba(r)d off-topic thread for our (his?) amusement by dissecting quotes?
Apologies, but I hadn't realised that this was one of those cliquey sites full of self important people who decide between themselves not only which opinions are allowed an airing, but in what style they may air those opinions.
That is something I expect from "liberal" political forums which are anything but.
Not from a practical, down to earth motoring site.
Allegedly.
> Quite amusing to see people come back on this site with new handles,
> having pleaded forgiveness,
> promised to be good boys,
> and just in time revert to type.
Clearly you have me confused with someone else:
I don't do pleading.
I don't do promises
I don't do good boy.
I don't do diverting from type.
But perhaps you mean Bob.
I seem to recall the style: concise, but boorish.
No, or false, email address.
And has to have "the last word".
But I don't recall THAT particular handle.
|
|
|
|
|
call youself what you like, independent observer or bogush or bogbrush - you have the capacity to write more crap per column inch than anyone else. bugger off.
|
I'd also hear a rumour that people who abused other posters were named and shamed and banned by a kangaroo court.
So it must surely be goodbye to Bob.
|
But then again, I seem always to be wrong.
Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm
|
|
|
|
|
errrrrr as you know bogbrush this site cant ban anyone, it can only ban a username so you cant use bogush anymore ... ban me if you like, i'll come back as bob2 or whatever. you are a pillock bogbrush, crawl back into your lair
|
|
|
Bob, bob, bob, bob, bob.
I am not the moderator, nor do I have delusions of same. And even if I were, I would not ban you, nor your puerile invective. Something to do with a belief in freedom, justice, truth, the facts, and debate open to all (even if most seem to lack that basic capacity).
I think that you have me confused with a supporter of the notLabour party. If you mix with enough of them I suppose you forget that the whole world is not populated by bliarite clones spouting on-message party spin.
|
|
|
No further witnessess, M'lud:
I rest my case.
:-)
|
|
|
