soupie not logged in
Guest
|
Post by soupie not logged in on May 20, 2005 14:04:39 GMT 1
if he was in a marked police car chasing a car on the m54 it would get called off long before it reached 159mph and 130 on an A road and 80 in a built up area he should have arranged with his manager frist before nipping out to break the limit he should be sacked
|
|
|
Post by soupie on May 20, 2005 14:13:10 GMT 1
Oops - my reply got deleted This is what I am saying - there was no requirement for the officer to report his intenyions in advance to anyone at that time. Moves have already been put in place in an effort to prevent this from happening again. "Give him the sack". What for? He has been found not guilty by a properly constructed court of law of committing any offence. Lessons have been learnt from this episode.
|
|
|
Post by Pilch on May 20, 2005 14:18:11 GMT 1
so who took him to court ?
|
|
|
Post by Slackbladder on May 20, 2005 15:05:21 GMT 1
FAO Stevenelsonfanclub I was caught doing 46MPH in Sheffield on a dual carriageway that had just had the limit changed from 50MPH to 40 MPH (and was still 50MPH in the opposite direction) - my rights of appeal? - Nil!! The result?c- Fixed penalty, 3 points and £60 - I have no complaints about that, its the law!! " SNFC you did have a right to appeal. Anyone who receives a fixed penalty notice has the choice of whether to pay the £60 and accept the three points or go to court and have the case heard in front of the magistrates. If you are not happy with their decision you can then appeal. You have exactly the same rights as anyone, including the "speeding Cop"
|
|
|
Post by soupie on May 20, 2005 15:19:00 GMT 1
so who took him to court ? Can't see the relevance of that post. The police referred the case to the Crown Prosecution Service who decided that there was a reasonable chance of a conviction. However, after a fair hearing, the officer was found not guilty - therefore in the eyes of the law he has not committed any offence. Much as it may rankle with somw people, that is the justice system in this country, He has left court with an unblemished record. I can see that we are not going to agree,but it's fun having this discussion, isn't it?
|
|
|
Post by Parker on May 20, 2005 16:23:54 GMT 1
Dont think I need to respond to your post really Soupie.
It seems that the majority on here have expressed my feelings very well already! ;D
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 20, 2005 16:31:05 GMT 1
Dont think I need to respond to your post really Soupie. Why not? As for PILCH's 'Give him the sack', that is total b******s.
|
|
|
Post by Young_Shrewster on May 20, 2005 16:32:38 GMT 1
I dont agree that he should be let off, because thats just utterly stupid but i must say he only peaked at 159mph he didnt travel at that speed the whole time.
But still ...LOCK HIM UP!
|
|
|
Post by soupie on May 20, 2005 16:37:15 GMT 1
Complete Bollox!! Parker - as you are still replying to this post, perhaps you would answer my original post "Which part of my post are you referring to?" - not merely state that you don't think you need to. I haven't once said that I agree with the actions of this officer, but all of what I have said is fact (other than when I stated the correct verdict had been reached IN MY OPINION).
|
|
|
Post by Pilch on May 20, 2005 16:50:38 GMT 1
why is it b******s ?
anyone else would have been locked up for this
i think he was showing off and it backfired he got off with a well argued excuse because he was a policeman
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 20, 2005 16:57:08 GMT 1
why is it b******s ? anyone else would have been locked up for this i think he was showing off and it backfired he got off with a well argued excuse because he was a policeman Because how could he possibly be sacked? He has not broken any procedures. He has not committed any crime. Saying he got off with it because he was a policeman however is factually correct. The reason he was found not guilty was because he was an on-duty policeman and was able to show that he was using his car in a manner that befited his duties and received no guidance to say that he couldn't. Do I think that it's right? Nope. The guy is clearly a Grade A tool, and should have received exactly the same punishment as anybody else would have done. This is a case of an individual getting lucky. THE POLICE ACTUALLY TRIED TO GET THIS GUY CONVICTED!!!!
|
|
|
Post by Derek Thompson on May 20, 2005 19:36:57 GMT 1
He has not broken any procedures. He has not committed any crime. How has he not committed a crime? If he hadnt committed a crime his bosses wouldnt have prosecuted. fact of the matter is he's got away with it. Testing the capabilities of the car? bollox, if he wants to do that take it to silverstone. Is he ever going to attain those speeds in the day to day job? no - he was just out on a blast. said in the star it'd take 1/4 of a mile to stop at that speed, he was lucky he didnt hit anything.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 20, 2005 19:40:14 GMT 1
|
|
|
Post by Derek Thompson on May 20, 2005 20:38:11 GMT 1
he wasnt convicted - ie he got away with it. what would you know anyhow, you taffs are lucky to get 20mph in your tractors.
|
|
|
Post by The Shropshire Tenor on May 20, 2005 21:53:14 GMT 1
The most puzzling aspect of this case is that he was travelling towards Telford.
If he had been travelling at 159mph away from Telford we would all have understood.
|
|
|
Post by Pilch on May 21, 2005 2:18:27 GMT 1
damn clique these police officers and family i bet i'll get stopped tomorrow
|
|
|
Post by SeanBroseley on May 21, 2005 2:51:59 GMT 1
I wonder how he was found not guilty?
|
|
|
Post by rob5251 on May 21, 2005 6:47:45 GMT 1
He was found not guilty by a Judge not by a jury.
I would bet that if it was a trial by jury that this prat would be rightfully out of a job.
Anyone one who stands up for somebody doing 84mph in a 30mph zone, never mind 159mph on only a 2 lane motorway, must be stupid or a Ludlow Judge. Being trained to drive like this is NOT an excuse for putting ours lives at risk.
Just imagine if you were a shift worker walking to work early in the morning crossing a road in a built up area in a 30mph zone and you were hit by a driver doing over 80mph you would stand no chance.
Just another idiot giving the Police a bad name ( Their not all bad!)
|
|
|
Post by Stevenelsonfanclub on May 21, 2005 7:26:35 GMT 1
FAO Stevenelsonfanclub SNFC you did have a right to appeal. Anyone who receives a fixed penalty notice has the choice of whether to pay the £60 and accept the three points or go to court and have the case heard in front of the magistrates. If you are not happy with their decision you can then appeal. You have exactly the same rights as anyone, including the "speeding Cop" On the fixed penalty notice it clearly tells you: Clear visibility, Not knowing the speed you are driving Knowing the road well, little or no other traffic on the road Are not reasons for appeal against the offence. In my case, I had no right of appeal, If I had said at appeal "Actually, it was 04:28 and there was no other vehicle on the road. I know this stretch of dual carriageway well, but since I last travelled it, they have changed the speed since I was last here from 50 to 40, but the same stretch in the ooposte direction is still 50! If I had then added that I had set my cruise control to be sure that I didn't breach the 50mph limit but got done for breaching the 40 MPH new limit" All of that is true, but the bench would have said: "not aware of the speed limit young man? You must have been driving without due care and attention then! And you've troubled us when you have no grounds to do so, you were caught be a calibrated speed camera with no mitigating circumstances other than being a shaven-headed, overweight oaf driving a BMW" Better make it 6 points and £120 then!
|
|
|
Post by Parker on May 21, 2005 8:59:56 GMT 1
|
|
|
Post by Parker on May 21, 2005 9:07:51 GMT 1
He was found not guilty by a Judge not by a jury. I would bet that if it was a trial by jury that this prat would be rightfully out of a job. I wholeheartedly agree that should this have come before a jury he would at least have been found guilty of speeding if nothing else. speed 159mph, limit 70mph, end of. Senior police officer quoted this week as saying that police vehicles are subject to the same laws as Jo public unless they are on an emergency. In which case they should be using blue emergency lights.
|
|
rep
Midland League Division Two
Posts: 142
|
Post by rep on May 21, 2005 19:04:18 GMT 1
Why not? As for PILCH's 'Give him the sack', that is total b******s. Welshshrew you are either playing devil's advicote just to provoke a reaction on here or you are talking total B*****s. The most infamous video evidence in history found 4 LAPD officers innocent which didn't stop LA from being torched... If the law is to be upheld and respected it should apply to all not just the unwashed masses.. For the record the judge sitting in this case should be sacked too..
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 21, 2005 20:16:33 GMT 1
What I don't understand is how the policemans driving can be said not to be dangerous and/or stupid.
Surely driving at 159mph is dangerous independent of whether you're on a racetrack, in an open field or on the M54?
|
|
|
Post by Shrews and Royals on May 21, 2005 20:19:41 GMT 1
Just howmany time have police ever had to drive at 159mph in chase in the UK to catch someone?
That is where his arguement falls down seriously.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 21, 2005 20:22:18 GMT 1
Would the police ever be allowed to chase someone at speeds of over 150mph? If so, the law needs seriously re-writing IMO
|
|
|
Post by Pilch on May 21, 2005 22:43:26 GMT 1
fao welshshrew
you didnt have much pity on that dog when he was practicing biting the chavs ;D
|
|
|
Post by rob on May 22, 2005 9:37:11 GMT 1
Phils sort of beaten me to it.
If there hadbeen another car on the road would he have been done?
At what point does his driving become dangerous in the yes of the law?
Only after he's hit something???
I find it truely sickening.
|
|
|
Post by northwestman on May 22, 2005 9:59:49 GMT 1
A couple of pieces of information from today's papers that may be of interest:-
1. "Home Office guidelines state that police drivers should obtain prior authorisation to break the limit, or permission from a senior officer afterwards. West Mercia Constabulary has confirmed that P.C. Milton received neither."
"A Home Office document states that forces have to have in place an administrative process which requires a senior officer to certify that the use of a statutory exemption was necessary. Where that cannot be shown, the normal enforcement process will ensue." P.C. Milton had no such exemption.
2. Judge Bruce Morgan in Ludlow acquitted P.C. Milton and even criticised the bringing of a prosecution. This is the same Judge Morgan who in 2002 had no hesitation in convicting a market trader of the offence under E.U. Law of selling a "pound of bananas".
So to sell bananas by the pound is a crime, but it is fine for a policeman to exceed our highest speed limit by almost 90 miles an hour.
|
|
|
Post by PC Kinevil on May 22, 2005 10:26:46 GMT 1
Does this case mean that an Ambulance driver or fireman can practice speeding on Motorways too! The laws an arse
|
|
|
Post by Pilch on May 22, 2005 10:42:32 GMT 1
A couple of pieces of information from today's papers that may be of interest:- 1. "Home Office guidelines state that police drivers should obtain prior authorisation to break the limit, or permission from a senior officer afterwards. West Mercia Constabulary has confirmed that P.C. Milton received neither." i heard exactly the same from a serving copper the other day thats why i posted it
|
|