Safe Speed Forums

The campaign for genuine road safety
It is currently Wed Oct 24, 2018 02:31

All times are UTC [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 55 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3
Author Message
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun Oct 14, 2007 10:49 
Offline
User

Joined: Fri Sep 08, 2006 20:56
Posts: 57
Even if the PC did recognise the security pass then why would this have made a difference to the way you were dealt?

Im pretty sure the pass doesn't say on it "Allowed to drive at ridiculous speed on A Roads" so why should this pass in itself let you off?

Its up to the courts to decide whether the speeding was justified or whether it gets the punishment it deserves.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun Oct 14, 2007 11:39 
Offline
User

Joined: Sun Oct 07, 2007 19:58
Posts: 730
mrstinchcombe wrote:
Even if the PC did recognise the security pass then why would this have made a difference to the way you were dealt?

Im pretty sure the pass doesn't say on it "Allowed to drive at ridiculous speed on A Roads" so why should this pass in itself let you off?

Its up to the courts to decide whether the speeding was justified or whether it gets the punishment it deserves.


I think you are wrong.

I can think of several instances where, on being show a pass or given an explanation, a police officer will NOT inform the CPS. Here are three of them:

1) A Royal Marine who was a member of the SBS who has been ordered to return to base ASAP because he is required for an urgent anti-terrorist operation.

2) A husband driving his wife who is in labour to hospital when the ambulance broke down outside their house and no other ambulance was immediately available. In this case the police officers gave them a blues and twos escort to the hospital.

3) A Biker who is ferrying several pints of rare blood at speed for an emergency operation.

By applying YOUR standard the Royal Marine, the husband and wife and the biker would have been detained at the roadside whilst details were carefully taken, paperwork completed, etc.

Of course, the anti-terrorist operation would have failed at possible great loss of life, and the baby would have died at the roadside, the patient undergoing the operation would have died. But hey! So long as

mrstinchcombe wrote:
Its up to the courts to decide whether the speeding was justified or whether it gets the punishment it deserves.
what would THAT matter? :roll:

Police officers need to be allowed to do what they did years ago. Exercise discretion and common-sense and police the roads, not act like puppets on the strings of pointless targets issued by people who never really served as police officers.

_________________
www.thatsnews.org.uk / www.thatsnews.blogspot.com / http://thatsmotoring.blogspot.com/


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun Oct 14, 2007 12:28 
Offline
User

Joined: Fri Sep 08, 2006 20:56
Posts: 57
All three of those scenarios are valid and if there was such a valid reason for the speeding then it would have been a good idea to perhaps tell the PC! :roll:

Instead the OP seems to think he can flash his ID in a "look at me, Im more important than you, I can speed" way which would seldom work.

I agree, discretion is very important, if he was perhaps going less than 10mph above the limit then discretion perhaps may have been used. But 103mph is taking the mick and stretching discretion quite far!

Common sense prevailed in this case, buts of course its all about opinion.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun Oct 14, 2007 22:48 
Offline
User

Joined: Sun Oct 07, 2007 19:58
Posts: 730
mrstinchcombe wrote:
All three of those scenarios are valid and if there was such a valid reason for the speeding then it would have been a good idea to perhaps tell the PC! :roll:

Instead the OP seems to think he can flash his ID in a "look at me, Im more important than you, I can speed" way which would seldom work.

I agree, discretion is very important, if he was perhaps going less than 10mph above the limit then discretion perhaps may have been used. But 103mph is taking the mick and stretching discretion quite far!

Common sense prevailed in this case, buts of course its all about opinion.


From what I can gather he tried to explain the circumstances to the officer, but the officer did the "I am Robocop. I am not programmed to respond to your data input" act and declined to listen to what he had to say. :roll:

_________________
www.thatsnews.org.uk / www.thatsnews.blogspot.com / http://thatsmotoring.blogspot.com/


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun Oct 14, 2007 23:04 
Offline
Police Officer
Police Officer

Joined: Sat Sep 03, 2005 22:37
Posts: 279
Location: Warrington
Thatsnews= perhaps your argument would fit other circumstances of mitigation but I have read the OP again and it would seem that this offence did not warrant discretion, as he himself is only an analyst for data and if that data has to be somewhere so urgently then the forces have there own police who are probably better transporting it there in there liveried police vehicle's or perhaps ask the local constabulary to assist in getting it there.

During certain heightened security alerts certain army officers have been called out to attend scenes and i have been tasked to escort / pilot these officers in for this very reason rather than leave them to drive about the country at warp factor one allowing themselves to wander into harms way and also it is common sense so, that they don't get into conflict with other innocent members of public either directly or indirectly.

So, I dont think that there is any argument in this one a security pass is not a monopoly ticket to get you out of jail when you feel like usuing it, the scenarios you use only two and three are capable of believing at the time as you can see the story they tell ie pregnant and blood and number one is the procedure I have just explained.

So, you have no argument to justify in this case or any similar cases as these types of scenarios dont happen and if they do then the persons involved are a lot better at not bringing attention to themselves than this person who is just an analyst (no disrespect to him ).
Stephen


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Oct 15, 2007 00:17 
Offline
User

Joined: Sun Oct 07, 2007 19:58
Posts: 730
Stephen wrote:
Thatsnews= perhaps your argument would fit other circumstances of mitigation but I have read the OP again and it would seem that this offence did not warrant discretion, as he himself is only an analyst for data and if that data has to be somewhere so urgently then the forces have there own police who are probably better transporting it there in there liveried police vehicle's or perhaps ask the local constabulary to assist in getting it there.

During certain heightened security alerts certain army officers have been called out to attend scenes and i have been tasked to escort / pilot these officers in for this very reason rather than leave them to drive about the country at warp factor one allowing themselves to wander into harms way and also it is common sense so, that they don't get into conflict with other innocent members of public either directly or indirectly.

So, I dont think that there is any argument in this one a security pass is not a monopoly ticket to get you out of jail when you feel like usuing it, the scenarios you use only two and three are capable of believing at the time as you can see the story they tell ie pregnant and blood and number one is the procedure I have just explained.

So, you have no argument to justify in this case or any similar cases as these types of scenarios dont happen and if they do then the persons involved are a lot better at not bringing attention to themselves than this person who is just an analyst (no disrespect to him ).
Stephen


Stephen, as you do not know what data he analyses, or the nature of the meeting he was on his way to attend, you cannot justify your argument.

_________________
www.thatsnews.org.uk / www.thatsnews.blogspot.com / http://thatsmotoring.blogspot.com/


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Oct 15, 2007 00:32 
Offline
Police Officer
Police Officer

Joined: Sat Sep 03, 2005 22:37
Posts: 279
Location: Warrington
I dont want to justify anything,it seems to me you are the one who is trying to justfiy the OP reasons.

I think that I will just agree to disagree with you as you know best.
Stephen


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Oct 15, 2007 01:21 
Offline
User

Joined: Wed Nov 30, 2005 15:30
Posts: 643
Quote:
I can think of several instances where, on being show a pass or given an explanation, a police officer will NOT inform the CPS. Here are three of them:

1) A Royal Marine who was a member of the SBS who has been ordered to return to base ASAP because he is required for an urgent anti-terrorist operation.

2) A husband driving his wife who is in labour to hospital when the ambulance broke down outside their house and no other ambulance was immediately available. In this case the police officers gave them a blues and twos escort to the hospital.

3) A Biker who is ferrying several pints of rare blood at speed for an emergency operation.


These senarios are easily verified:
1) A phone call to the officer in charge would confirm that the order to return was valid.

2) You don't need to be a trained medic to spot a woman in labour.

3) The package would be clearly marked 'blood' and a phone call to the blood bank that sent it or the destination hospital would confirm the urgency.

If your partner used the same arrogant tone that you have been using here it would be enough to raise the suspicions of anybody.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Oct 15, 2007 19:49 
Offline
User

Joined: Sun Oct 07, 2007 19:58
Posts: 730
Stephen wrote:
I dont want to justify anything,it seems to me you are the one who is trying to justfiy the OP reasons.

I think that I will just agree to disagree with you as you know best.
Stephen


I find it rather dispiriting that you, a police officer, and fisherman, a magistrate, seem unable to even consider that the poor chap might have had a valid reason for exceeding the speed limit.

You both seem to automatically presume that he is guilty.

My take of this situation is that he might have been guilty or he might have had a perfectly valid reason for exceeding the speed limit. But the officer clearly did not want to hear them.

And Stephen the heavy-handed attempt to try to put me down "I think that I will just agree to disagree with you as you know best" probably would not work with your colleagues in the police canteen, so don't try it on here, OK? It isn't big, nor is it especially clever. :lol:

_________________
www.thatsnews.org.uk / www.thatsnews.blogspot.com / http://thatsmotoring.blogspot.com/


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Oct 15, 2007 19:53 
Offline
User

Joined: Sun Oct 07, 2007 19:58
Posts: 730
semitone wrote:
Quote:
I can think of several instances where, on being show a pass or given an explanation, a police officer will NOT inform the CPS. Here are three of them:

1) A Royal Marine who was a member of the SBS who has been ordered to return to base ASAP because he is required for an urgent anti-terrorist operation.



2) A husband driving his wife who is in labour to hospital when the ambulance broke down outside their house and no other ambulance was immediately available. In this case the police officers gave them a blues and twos escort to the hospital.

3) A Biker who is ferrying several pints of rare blood at speed for an emergency operation.


These senarios are easily verified:
1) A phone call to the officer in charge would confirm that the order to return was valid.

2) You don't need to be a trained medic to spot a woman in labour.

3) The package would be clearly marked 'blood' and a phone call to the blood bank that sent it or the destination hospital would confirm the urgency.

If your partner used the same arrogant tone that you have been using here it would be enough to raise the suspicions of anybody.


Really? You think that the security services would bother confirming anything with a PC who has stuff-all security clearance? :roll:

And What partner? I think you are confused. :?

_________________
www.thatsnews.org.uk / www.thatsnews.blogspot.com / http://thatsmotoring.blogspot.com/


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Oct 15, 2007 20:44 
Offline
Magistrate
Magistrate

Joined: Sun Apr 10, 2005 13:58
Posts: 1155
Thatsnews wrote:
I find it rather dispiriting that you, a police officer, and fisherman, a magistrate, seem unable to even consider that the poor chap might have had a valid reason for exceeding the speed limit.

You both seem to automatically presume that he is guilty.

There is nothing in any of my posts which pre-supposes he is either guilty or not guilty. As usual I have taken a neutral stance and merely answered the questions or expanded on replies given by others where I felt I could add useful information.




Thatsnews wrote:
And Stephen the heavy-handed attempt to try to put me down "I think that I will just agree to disagree with you as you know best" probably would not work with your colleagues in the police canteen, so don't try it on here, OK? It isn't big, nor is it especially clever. :lol:

In view of the fact that you posted this
Thatsnews wrote:
So you are still misguided and ill-informed. (Horse + water) Like far too many lay magistrates I have observed during the course of my work...

Any motorists would stand little chance in your court. Why? Because you already know everything before the case comes to court.

You already know they are guilty. Well, after all, those laser operators, camera operators, police officers, and the CPS would not bother prosecuting innocent people, would they?
I don't think you have any grounds to complain about Stephen's comment.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Oct 15, 2007 21:31 
Offline
User

Joined: Sun Oct 07, 2007 19:58
Posts: 730
fisherman wrote:
Thatsnews wrote:
I find it rather dispiriting that you, a police officer, and fisherman, a magistrate, seem unable to even consider that the poor chap might have had a valid reason for exceeding the speed limit.

You both seem to automatically presume that he is guilty.

There is nothing in any of my posts which pre-supposes he is either guilty or not guilty. As usual I have taken a neutral stance and merely answered the questions or expanded on replies given by others where I felt I could add useful information.




Thatsnews wrote:
And Stephen the heavy-handed attempt to try to put me down "I think that I will just agree to disagree with you as you know best" probably would not work with your colleagues in the police canteen, so don't try it on here, OK? It isn't big, nor is it especially clever. :lol:

In view of the fact that you posted this
Thatsnews wrote:
So you are still misguided and ill-informed. (Horse + water) Like far too many lay magistrates I have observed during the course of my work...

Any motorists would stand little chance in your court. Why? Because you already know everything before the case comes to court.

You already know they are guilty. Well, after all, those laser operators, camera operators, police officers, and the CPS would not bother prosecuting innocent people, would they?
I don't think you have any grounds to complain about Stephen's comment.


Thank you for your remarks and your comment. I do not agree with you, but there you have it. It would be a strange world if everyone agreed with each other. :)

_________________
www.thatsnews.org.uk / www.thatsnews.blogspot.com / http://thatsmotoring.blogspot.com/


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Lucky Boy!
PostPosted: Wed Oct 17, 2007 19:57 
Offline
User

Joined: Tue Oct 09, 2007 13:46
Posts: 11
Following an oscar winnning performance in court, he got 6 points and £300 fine! Hurrah! No ban, and we can afford to go skiing this year!!


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Lucky Boy!
PostPosted: Thu Oct 18, 2007 19:22 
Offline
User

Joined: Sun Oct 07, 2007 19:58
Posts: 730
laskhudd wrote:
Following an oscar winnning performance in court, he got 6 points and £300 fine! Hurrah! No ban, and we can afford to go skiing this year!!


Hope he is more careful in the future.

By the way, did he have a valid work-related reason for driving at speed? Like when the Chief Constable got his driver to floor it? Don't recall him getting done though...

_________________
www.thatsnews.org.uk / www.thatsnews.blogspot.com / http://thatsmotoring.blogspot.com/


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Oct 30, 2007 22:28 
Offline
New User
New User

Joined: Tue Oct 30, 2007 22:25
Posts: 6
Hi laskhudd. Just joined this forum and I am in a similar situation to your partner.

Thanks for your post and replies, most informative.


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 55 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3

All times are UTC [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Exabot [Bot] and 1 guest


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
cron
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group
[ Time : 0.431s | 12 Queries | GZIP : Off ]