|
Post by northwestman on May 22, 2005 10:50:27 GMT 1
Why the Crown Prosecution Service did not bring this information to the attention of the judge at the time the case was being heard is a complete mystery to me!
|
|
|
Post by Young_Shrewster on May 22, 2005 11:06:44 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 I dont think so, im sure the chase would be abandoned by police cars in pursuit but a helicopter would follow?
|
|
|
Post by harmerhillshrew on May 22, 2005 11:07:10 GMT 1
Why the Crown Prosecution Service did not bring this information to the attention of the judge at the time the case was being heard is a complete mystery to me! Funny handshake job
|
|
|
Post by Link51 on May 22, 2005 12:52:59 GMT 1
Heard on the news this evening that a policeman driving a new police car at speeds of up to 159mph in Shropshire, has been found not guilty of driving without due care and attention, and of speeding. The cars own video camera filmed the whole thing for Christs sake. What more evidence do they need. One rule for them and one for the rest of us. Does my head in this sort of stuff does. They have no more right to brake the limit than we do unless they have blues and two's going! Utterley rediculous ruling Of course, if he was filmed on someone's mobile phone commiting the serious crime of saying 'Arab' whilst down the pub with his mates, he'd of been sacked.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 22, 2005 13:37:31 GMT 1
Welshshrew you are either playing devil's advicote just to provoke a reaction on here or you are talking total B*****s. No I was looking at it legally. The policeman was found not guilty. He had not committed any form of misconduct. So how could he be sacked? As for Link51, the most disturbing thing about his post is his poor grammar. The lack of logic or reason to it was utterly predictable.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 22, 2005 13:39:57 GMT 1
Out of interest who polices the judges?
|
|
|
Post by Pilch on May 22, 2005 13:41:30 GMT 1
i see where i went wrong now
when i said he should be sacked
what i meant was he should have been found guilty and sacked obviously i know he can't be sacked now
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 22, 2005 13:43:04 GMT 1
i see where i went wrong now when i said he should be sacked what i meant was he should have been found guilty and sacked obviously i know he can't be sacked now In which case PILCH, I agree 100%. And if he had been found guilty, I'm pretty sure he would have been.
|
|
|
Post by harmerhillshrew on May 22, 2005 13:43:35 GMT 1
As for Link51, the most disturbing thing about his post is his poor grammar. The lack of logic or reason to were utterly predictable. I only changed one four letter word for another.
|
|
|
Post by soupie on May 22, 2005 15:40:38 GMT 1
Out of interest who polices the judges? The Lord Chancellor's Office - and I think a judge would have to be guilty of something rather more serious than giving a verdict with which many people are not happy to incur the wrath of that office.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 22, 2005 18:51:58 GMT 1
The Lord Chancellor's Office - and I think a judge would have to be guilty of something rather more serious than giving a verdict with which many people are not happy to incur the wrath of that office. Hmmm
|
|