Safe Speed Forums

The campaign for genuine road safety
It is currently Sat May 02, 2026 02:29

All times are UTC [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 10 posts ] 
Author Message
PostPosted: Wed Aug 15, 2007 07:52 
Offline
Life Member
Life Member
User avatar

Joined: Sat Apr 30, 2005 22:02
Posts: 3266
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/a ... ge_id=1770
Quote:
Two policemen are facing disciplinary action after being caught on their in-car traffic camera making abusive comments about members of the public.


The insulting outbursts by PCs Robert Topliss and Adrian Wootton were recorded as they cruised through a village in Lincolnshire in an unmarked police car, while on the lookout for speeding motorists Without realising they were taping themselves, the traffic officers chatted about wanting to have sex with a girl they had just passed, accused their bosses of being "lazy" and discussed how they themselves should be promoted.

A formal inquiry has now been launched into their behaviour after the tape containing their comments was played in court.

The embarrassing tape only came to light when motorist James Chinn, 28, appealed against losing his licence for driving without due care and attention.

He had been caught speeding on the same in-car camera as he overtook the officers in the village of Gosberton, interrupting their discussion.
When Mr Chinn's appeal against his sentence reached court, the barrister for the Crown Prosecution Service had her request rejected that the video be played without sound.

Laura Pitman told Recorder Paul Mann QC: "Your Honour, in respect of the video recording, I was proposing to play it with the sound turned down - the reason being that the language used by the officers is inappropriate.

"I'm giving the court forewarning that some of the content of the tape is not very palatable."

The video was then played, including the foul-mouthed exchange between Topliss and Wootton.
Mr Chinn, whose appeal was successful, said: "I couldn't believe what I heard when they played it in court. They were out of order. They were swearing a lot and being abusive."

On the tape, the two officers are heard commenting on a woman who walks alongside their car, and discussing a sexual act they would like her to perform for them.

At one point Topliss and Wootton suddenly realise that their conversation could land them in trouble, and they can be heard asking each other: "Is the tape running?'

Deputy Chief Constable of Lincolnshire Police Richard Crompton said: "The conduct of the two officers fell well below the standard we expect and demand, and is being dealt with."

A police spokeswoman added: "The CPS made us aware of the inappropriate content of part of the video tape.

"The two officers were immediately seen by a senior officer about the comments and the unprofessional conduct. The matter is still being considered in the context of professional standards."


_________________
Speed limit sign radio interview. TV Snap Unhappy
“It has never been the rule in this country – I hope it never will be - that suspected criminal offences must automatically be the subject of prosecution” He added that there should be a prosecution: “wherever it appears that the offence or the circumstances of its commission is or are of such a character that a prosecution in respect thereof is required in the public interest”
This approach has been endorsed by Attorney General ever since 1951. CPS Code


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Aug 15, 2007 09:34 
Offline
Life Member
Life Member
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jun 22, 2006 13:54
Posts: 1711
Location: NW Kent
Given that

Daily Mail wrote:
He had been caught speeding on the same in-car camera


what relevance does the PCs non-PC language have on the data captured by the camera? Genuinely curious about the legal process BTW.

Does this harm the SS campaign in that if the inference is that traffic police cannot be trusted to handle inappropriate driving behaviour then scameras are strengthened?

_________________
Driving fast is for a particular time and place, I can do it I just only do it occasionally because I am a gentleman.
- James May


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Aug 15, 2007 10:13 
Offline
Life Member
Life Member
User avatar

Joined: Sat Apr 30, 2005 22:02
Posts: 3266
I think there is more to be read between the lines. Possibly that their prior judgement was not to be trusted. Or they were so hell bent on finding speeders that they saw a criminal in every person that they saw.

The article also shows the shenanigans that go on in a court room.
I know of a camera van tape that shows the operator tracking young mums and focusing on a bedroom window. How can the same people prosecute a harrasement at work or out side the local shops case?

Quote:
linkTheir actions came to light after speeding motorist James Chinn (28) was caught on the camera overtaking the police car in Gosberton. He was banned for driving without due care and attention. The subsequent successful appeal against his ban led to the video being played in court.
due care and attention is a subjecttive thing, they were "cruising" if thier attention was on other matters they may not have been in a position to make a judgemet on his driving.

_________________
Speed limit sign radio interview. TV Snap Unhappy
“It has never been the rule in this country – I hope it never will be - that suspected criminal offences must automatically be the subject of prosecution” He added that there should be a prosecution: “wherever it appears that the offence or the circumstances of its commission is or are of such a character that a prosecution in respect thereof is required in the public interest”
This approach has been endorsed by Attorney General ever since 1951. CPS Code


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Aug 15, 2007 10:33 
Offline
Life Member
Life Member
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jun 22, 2006 13:54
Posts: 1711
Location: NW Kent
anton wrote:
I think there is more to be read between the lines. Possibly that their prior judgement was not to be trusted. Or they were so hell bent on finding speeders that they saw a criminal in every person that they saw.


The article does say that he was banned for DWDCA rather than the speeding picked up by the camera. I take it that DWDCA is a value judgement by the officers backed up by camera evidence so the officers professionalism would be important.

I need to do more reading of the lines than between them. :)

_________________
Driving fast is for a particular time and place, I can do it I just only do it occasionally because I am a gentleman.
- James May


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Aug 15, 2007 13:21 
Offline
User
User avatar

Joined: Thu Apr 28, 2005 00:01
Posts: 2258
Location: South Wales
From the sounds of the article, the conversation is no different to what goes on in pretty much every office I've worked in. I'm sure most people have gotten off the phone at some point only to complain about what an utter wanker that customer was. To say that to the customer's face would get you in trouble but it's perfectly normal behind that customer's back. Likewise with complaining about management. We all do it.

I don't see why we should expect any different from a pair of police officers, especially when they were in a private situation.

Leaving the mic on was pretty dumb though ;)


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
PostPosted: Wed Aug 15, 2007 21:17 
Offline
User

Joined: Thu Aug 02, 2007 14:06
Posts: 48
How can we truly trust people like this. Dont they realise police have to be professional and above doubt!! cleaner than clean at all times.

This sort of behaviour cannot be tolerated - from people who may have to protect that same women they commented on - in the event of an accident/assault or worse crime against this woman. How can they be trusted if they want to commit lude and indecent acts with your wife/girlfriend/daughter/mother one minute - and then on the next breath are handing out pathetic traffic tickets or having to provide first aid to same people in an incident - are they looking at the injured womans breast or doing their job? who can truly say.

If anyone thinks otherwise they are surely delusional - and do not truly understand what it is to be a policeman - and to see how this further reduces people respect to the police force in general.

I'm saddened as there are truly great police men and woman out there - but unfortunately the more caught speeding - or acting in a lewd manner to our woman folk - the more people believe we "used" to have the best police in the world - and now have something thats no longer there to protect us anymore.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Aug 15, 2007 23:17 
Offline
Gold Member
Gold Member

Joined: Fri Sep 24, 2004 23:26
Posts: 9268
Location: Treacletown ( just north of M6 J3),A MILE OR TWO PAST BEDROCK
Lum wrote:
From the sounds of the article, the conversation is no different to what goes on in pretty much every office I've worked in. I'm sure most people have gotten off the phone at some point only to complain about what an utter wanker that customer was. To say that to the customer's face would get you in trouble but it's perfectly normal behind that customer's back. Likewise with complaining about management. We all do it.

I don't see why we should expect any different from a pair of police officers, especially when they were in a private situation.

Leaving the mic on was pretty dumb though ;)


Agree with you there - seems to be very British - to find fault with employer or customers- possibly helps us to put up with difficult situations. Sort of like a boss telling a customer (that he don't quite agree with ,but needs to show some sort of PR to ) that he will chew the b**** of you, when all that's said is "be carefull what you say to that one "

_________________
lets bring sanity back to speed limits.
Drivers are like donkeys -they respond best to a carrot, not a stick .Road safety experts are like Asses - best kept covered up ,or sat on


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Aug 16, 2007 19:52 
Offline
Gold Member
Gold Member

Joined: Thu Nov 09, 2006 14:06
Posts: 3654
Location: Oxfordshire
I'm quite concerned at the attempt by the CPS to manipulate the evidence through ommission. Perhaps they need to be reminded that their role is to prosecute fairly for the common good, not convict at all costs using tactics more familiar in seedy american courtroom dramas!


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Aug 16, 2007 20:12 
Offline
Member
Member

Joined: Fri Apr 22, 2005 10:30
Posts: 2053
Location: South Wales (Roving all UK)
I have no issue, in fact it is refreshing that the officers are 'human'

ut they represent the ever increasingly PC state, if i made comments like those and there was a complaint it is concieveable that they would investigate me.

I'm with Robin about the worrying attempt to bury the evidence.

I also happen to agree that their unprofessional conduct undermines their evidence.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun Aug 19, 2007 14:30 
Offline
User
User avatar

Joined: Fri Dec 16, 2005 23:56
Posts: 252
Location: Manchester
Well well, police officers are human. It must have been a slow news day to report on this.

What a waste of time and money to be offended at innocuous comments not intended for a public audience.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 10 posts ] 

All times are UTC [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 106 guests


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 can post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group
[ Time : 0.117s | 12 Queries | GZIP : Off ]