From Ananova today.
A policeman has been booked for parking illegally as he sat in a van trying to catch speeding motorists. The Pc from Gwent Police was on duty in Cwm, Ebbw Vale, south Wales, when a member of his own force issued him with a £30 fine for parking on a single yellow line.
He had been sitting in a detection vehicle, which is operated by both South Wales Police and Gwent Police.
Assistant Chief Constable Bill Horne, of Gwent Police Force, said: "It is not our policy to comment on the detail of any matter that could be the subject of court action.
We can confirm that the driver of a Mid and South Wales Area Safety Camera Partnership vehicle was recently issued with a fixed penalty notice."
can't help but :-)) Phil I
|
Phil, thanks for this snippet. I know rivalry between forces is very strong, with many kudos for nicking a neighbour. But your own force? It just brings a smile to my face. There is even strong rivalry between emergency services in the same county. A policeman friend who drove the response car said that when you see them driving to a serious incident, all lights and sirens, it is mainly to ensure they get there before the 'Trumptons', as whoever gets to the scene first takes control. The last thing plod wants is to get there second and take orders from the fire service. The incident itself is a firm second place.
regards
Mike
|
|
|
...... and a small kiddy-winkle playing football on the pavement gets mown down by the panda-car purely so they don't have to answer to the arguably more professional and more respected fire service.
One word for it - pathetic.
|
yea, and re plod parking on yellow lines/footpaths etc in order to do people for minor speed infringement...
if they ARNT going to be brought to book, then we should take some photos and bring some private prosecutions
ill chip in, pug want to be lead prosecutor ?
|
|
|
|
Ahh, a policeman?s lot is not a happy one, for some anyway. I had to laugh at this one though.
I know we go on about the bizzies in a fairly derogatory manner, but most are ordinary guys doing a job, it?s just that donkeys lead many of them.
Bill
|
|
|
Speaking as one with 27 years of first hand knowledge, I must correct this one. If the Fire Service and Police attend an incident - be it fire or RTA or whatever, there is absolutely no circumstance where it's a case of 'whoever gets there first has control'. Absolutely, positively none. Each service has it's role and each knows where lines of resonsibility are drawn and if an incident progresses from minor to major, the responsibility passes up through the ranks and there is a formal 'handing over' of responsibility - even to the point of radio messages being sent in order to inform the parent control room of such changes. If you want me to go in to further detail I will, but given the example quoted, someone is mistaken.
KB.
|
|
|
We have discussed this before.
There is absolutely no question of one service racing to beat another to take control. Each service has its own priorities and tasks to fulfill, but the main one of each is the protection of life and looking after the injured. An observer may form the impression that it is absolute chaos but underneath there is a professional partnership between the three services that is well drilled in its responsibilities.
Another bar room myth!!!!!!!
Andrew.
|
|
|
I hope Andrew has cleared any uncertainty in the minds of those who appeared to cast doubt on the integrity of those dealing with the sort of incidents in question. The Anti Police (for example), lobby exercises it's right to say what it thinks (be it right or wrong), and I am keen to exercise my right to maintain an element of balance (be I right or wrong). It's the easiest thing in the world to make throwaway asides of a less than complimentary nature about groups or organizations which you percieve as not meeting your own high standards, but the example given in this thread shows to me that mis-information is readily promulgated and equally easily accepted by others who regard it as 'gospel' without *actually* knowing the facts.
Regulars do not need reminding that I do not in fact work for the Police, but get slightly irritated by those who seem to have a need to knock them at every opportunity irrespective of the merits of the case in question. Justifiable criticism, of which there is of course grounds for on some occasions, is one thing. Repetetive, unpleasant and groundless negative, cheap comment based on nothing but prejudice, is another and I feel that Bill Doodson on this occasion, sums it up nicely in his earlier thread.
KB.
|
|
|
Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm
Didn't all this start over:
> A *policeman* friend who drove the response car said that when you see them driving to a serious incident, all lights and sirens, it is mainly to ensure they get there before the 'Trumptons', as whoever gets to the scene first takes control.
Perhaps he was just trying to wind up a member of the public.
Nah, that's not possible!
So...............?
|
|
|
KB you are damning with faint praise!
That's far from a ringing endorsement of the way we are policed.
|
|
|
Dave, If that's the way it comes over then I obviously haven't written it well enough. Everyone knows and understands that no-one's perfect and mistakes, errors of judgement and worse are made by......well, everyone. I have in the past worked, how can I say?....for the Police, but that was a long time ago. My recent experience has been with other emergency services, but I have gained some understanding of what goes on and I'm hardly likely to say...the Police are 100% perfect. No-one will, but if my post made it sound as you suggest, then I genuinely regret that. It wasn't meant to sound that way and on re-reading it actually don't think I was 'damning with faint praise'.
I've banned myself from replying to Bogush, so he/she can respond in what ever manner he/she wishes, and in keeping with my word I choose not to become involved in further exchanges with him/her.
KB.
|
|
|
Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmm
I was just about to post that KB was right (for once!;-) because....
I took the liberty of posting the two (three) diverging opinions on a police related forum for comment and got replies along the following lines:
> Bar room myth is polite, the first account is complete boll***s!
> Each have different roles. Each service needs to get there quickly. Fire
service don't order us about. Patient care will always be the priority,
followed by safety to self and others. Retired ambulance man is spot on ...
If it becomes a fatal accident then the police will take control of the scene
and may dish out orders to fire officers etc, but only if they start trying to
hose away the evidence and move vehicles etc....it happens...
But I don't think I'll bother now.
(PS Well, they would say that, wouldn't they!;-)
|
|
|
KB - What I meant by faint praise was that you're not really defending anything the police do. Simply saying at it's ok to be flawed.
The anti police lobby would offer numerous problems they see with the way we're policed. By their own admission the police allow drug taking on our streets, fail to catch 85 per cent of offenders in property crime cases and are racist.
Anything the'pro' police lobby [1] say that can't make a case for the rozzers being warm nice people around these facts is probably a lot more 'anti police' than they're admitting!
[1] Which seems to be limited to white burgulars who like smoking dope in the fresh air & travel by train.
|
|
|
I didn't really mean, when sending in my initial response, to open a can of worms regarding the fundamentals of Police policies and practices and in all honesty, Andrew and/or one or two other serving Police Officers who contribute here are better able to offer qualified insights, particularly as, from what I see, they speak with a balanced view and are honest enough to say what they genuinely think. My main reason was to correct the point being made by Mike, and followed up by Guy and crazed's input. Primarily, I was unhappy about the tale told of Officers racing to a scene in order to avoid being ordered about by the Fire Service and the suggestion that a Police Officer would mow down a child to save being answerable to said Fire Service. That remains the case. Regulars here must have gathered that I do support the Police on the whole and that I have a certain empathy and dare I say sympathy with the bods on the ground who do the job that most others don't want to do. We would all like to do whatever we chose and whilst nobody likes being given parking tickets or paying tax or not being allowed to do just as we choose, surely we must all agree that if there was no authority then we would all, by now, have sunk into a bottomless pit, and shot, murdered, raped, stolen.........ourselves in to oblivion. The obvious argument is that of the sort of authority that we have to govern us. Whether the Police are or are not doing a good job is, I feel to a large extent a matter of interpretation and is relative to whatever you judge it against and is coloured by who, what and where you are. All far too complicated for a mere mortal such as I. but I know full well we'd be in trouble without them, and I'm grateful to live in a society in which I have the freedom to come to a website like this and say what I think without getting a knock on the door and being silenced.
Thank you for your interest Dave and am I saying 'it's OK to be flawed'? well in view of the fact that we all suffer from that all too coomon failing of 'being human' ......show me someone who isn't flawed. Given that, I reckon we don't do too bad and would sooner live here than in a good many other countries.
Most unusual of me to write so much and must go and lie down now.
KB.
|
i didnt say that ?
i support good coppers trying to do their genuine best
but id like to see improvements
|
|
|
|
Cracking post KB and a rare rational law enforcement post!
You've earned a lie down!
|
|
|
"Cracking post KB".........now I'm both sleepy AND embarrassed, but ta anyway.
KB.
|
|
|
