Derby police in 124 mph shocker
Discussion
I am not one for knocking our boys in blue, but sometimes they do themselves no favours.....
www.thisisderbyshire.co.uk/displayNode.jsp?nodeId=124378&command=displayContent&sourceNode=200109&home=yes&more_nodeId1=124522&contentPK=14972065
www.thisisderbyshire.co.uk/displayNode.jsp?nodeId=124378&command=displayContent&sourceNode=200109&home=yes&more_nodeId1=124522&contentPK=14972065
I'm sure the Officer was driving safely, but what was the need for it? Probably just a bit of fun, the same reason many enthusiasts exceed limits when it's safe. I like the bit about "if the officer had sneezed we could have been killed", what desperate twaddle!
I think this bit sums it up for me : "The officer does in fact display clear double standards in correctly seeking to stop Mr Cox for crossing a solid white line, only to reach 91 mph in the very same area a matter of minutes later."
That's what happens all the time isn't it?
I think this bit sums it up for me : "The officer does in fact display clear double standards in correctly seeking to stop Mr Cox for crossing a solid white line, only to reach 91 mph in the very same area a matter of minutes later."
That's what happens all the time isn't it?
If speed limits are posted on our roads and to exceed them is considered unsafe to do so, and hence a punishable offence under road-user legislation, then that surely applies to ALL road users, including, Police, Ambulance and Fire crews, under ALL circumstances. The fact that the Police often CHASE other motorists whilst KNOWINGLY breaking the speed limits can surely NEVER be condoned, since in effect they are compounding the danger supposedly createded by another motorist failing to observe legally acceptable driving etiquette and legislation.
Surely it is morally and legally wrong for the Police to break the same laws to catch Joe Public when he breaks the law.
Surely it is morally and legally wrong for the Police to break the same laws to catch Joe Public when he breaks the law.
article said:
The report also reveals that in a letter from IPCC commissioner Amerdeep Somal to Superintendent Debbie Platt, Head of Professional Standards at Derbyshire Constabulary, the question of prosecuting the officer is raised.
The letter, dated October 2005, states: "I suggested that Chief Inspector Paul Berry issue a summons for the speeding offence upon the officer and was informed, following him seeking advice from the force solicitor, that there appears no legal power to do this as the statutory six months time limit had elapsed.
"I agree with this, but am concerned at the delay."
Mr Cox said: "The police procrastinated for six months. I have a letter dated June 2005 saying they were still waiting for the officers in question to reply.
"Then the next thing I know they can't prosecute because it's been more than six months since the incident.
The letter, dated October 2005, states: "I suggested that Chief Inspector Paul Berry issue a summons for the speeding offence upon the officer and was informed, following him seeking advice from the force solicitor, that there appears no legal power to do this as the statutory six months time limit had elapsed.
"I agree with this, but am concerned at the delay."
Mr Cox said: "The police procrastinated for six months. I have a letter dated June 2005 saying they were still waiting for the officers in question to reply.
"Then the next thing I know they can't prosecute because it's been more than six months since the incident.
Why not charge Chief Inspector Paul Berry with failing to provide, that's what would happen if it was any other company car?
Makes my blood boil it really does.
buckshee said:
If speed limits are posted on our roads and to exceed them is considered unsafe to do so, and hence a punishable offence under road-user legislation, then that surely applies to ALL road users, including, Police, Ambulance and Fire crews, under ALL circumstances. The fact that the Police often CHASE other motorists whilst KNOWINGLY breaking the speed limits can surely NEVER be condoned, since in effect they are compounding the danger supposedly createded by another motorist failing to observe legally acceptable driving etiquette and legislation.
Surely it is morally and legally wrong for the Police to break the same laws to catch Joe Public when he breaks the law.
Surely it is morally and legally wrong for the Police to break the same laws to catch Joe Public when he breaks the law.
I would much prefer they break a speed limit than allow a drunk driver to continue his journey and then to ensure they get them tested in time.
They also have the advantage of sirens and lights to warn others of their imminent high speed approach. And as has been pointed out a few times here they are only allowed to do so because they have undertaken much stricter levels of testing than the average driver.
So a snotty teacher who didn't like getting caught for drink driving bleats about the way he was treated. My heart bleeds for him. if he hadn't been arsey then there would be no need for him be driven to the station at speed. Yes maybe the police driver went too far but lets not forget the teacher was a drunk. No sympathy at all. in fact I would sack him and take his pension off him as further punishment.
spaximus said:
Yes maybe the police driver went too far but lets not forget the teacher was a drunk. No sympathy at all. in fact I would sack him and take his pension off him as further punishment.
That's an assumption. The driver was banned for failing to provide a sample. How do you know he was drunk?
spaximus said:
So a snotty teacher who didn't like getting caught for drink driving bleats about the way he was treated. My heart bleeds for him. if he hadn't been arsey then there would be no need for him be driven to the station at speed. Yes maybe the police driver went too far but lets not forget the teacher was a drunk. No sympathy at all. in fact I would sack him and take his pension off him as further punishment.
He's a drunk driver so has no rights to be driven comfortably, he was put at significantly less risk by the 124mph than by driving his own car. Scum. Glad he's banned.
On the other hand the police driver deserves a "Plank of the Month" award for 91 in a 40 . . . unless it's a dual carriageway that should be 60 or 70 and has recently been reduced . . . 124 on the motorway, bit unremarkable these days in a modern car. I'd prefer him to do that than loose the prosecution.
On the other hand the police driver deserves a "Plank of the Month" award for 91 in a 40 . . . unless it's a dual carriageway that should be 60 or 70 and has recently been reduced . . . 124 on the motorway, bit unremarkable these days in a modern car. I'd prefer him to do that than loose the prosecution.
mungo said:
Basically this bloke who was drink driving, refused to take a road side breath test because he knew he was over the limit... he then got nicked with failing to provide and paid the penalty...
He was then pissed off and made a complaint about police.
You know what? Complaints against the police are 98% of the time malicious and usually people who complain normally do it after they have been arrested
What a load of bollox
He was then pissed off and made a complaint about police.
You know what? Complaints against the police are 98% of the time malicious and usually people who complain normally do it after they have been arrested
What a load of bollox
In the main I agree with you but most people only have contact with bib when being arrested so it's not surprising that's when they make complaints. He sounds like a whinging leftie trying to get his own back at the system. He does have a point about the speeding though. It may have been quite safe but it's allowed him to have a right good dig at them.
Boosted
Thing is, this article made the front page of Derby's daily paper.
It reflects double standards by the police, i.e. stopping someone for 60 in a 40, then proceeding to do an unnecessary 90 in a 40. (You only lose 1 unit of alcohol / hour so you couldn't justify the speeding on that basis). I'm sure the police were driving 'safely' but so are many other motorists that are prosecuted for speeding. I'm also pretty convinced the perp was a guilty, whinging leftie but that's largely irrelevant.
Bearing in mind that the speeds were confirmed by their own video evidence it is a poor advert for our police.
You can get your car confiscated for this in France..........
It reflects double standards by the police, i.e. stopping someone for 60 in a 40, then proceeding to do an unnecessary 90 in a 40. (You only lose 1 unit of alcohol / hour so you couldn't justify the speeding on that basis). I'm sure the police were driving 'safely' but so are many other motorists that are prosecuted for speeding. I'm also pretty convinced the perp was a guilty, whinging leftie but that's largely irrelevant.
Bearing in mind that the speeds were confirmed by their own video evidence it is a poor advert for our police.
You can get your car confiscated for this in France..........
mungo said:
Basically this bloke who was drink driving, refused to take a road side breath test because he knew he was over the limit... he then got nicked with failing to provide and paid the penalty...
He was then pissed off and made a complaint about police.
You know what? Complaints against the police are 98% of the time malicious and usually people who complain normally do it after they have been arrested
What a load of bollox
He was then pissed off and made a complaint about police.
You know what? Complaints against the police are 98% of the time malicious and usually people who complain normally do it after they have been arrested
What a load of bollox
article said:
However, during the inquiries it was discovered from the police video tapes that PC Newsome was travelling at 91 mph in a 40mph zone and at 124 mph along the A52 in a 70mph zone.
I don't think anybody on this thread is suggesting that the complainant should be let off for drink driving (or failing to provide a sample of breath). However, these speeds especially 91 in a 40 limit are over the top. The Police driver should be charged with speeding. According to the article, he would of been had the delay not occurred and therefore too late to bring the charges. What possible merit could there have been in speeding to this degree to get the arrested driver to the Police Station? If the driver was as far over the limit as the BiB claimed, there is no justification whatsoever in the speed he attained.
mungo said:
micky g said:
mungo said:
micky g said:
You can get your car confiscated for this in France..........
... and you reckon the police in France are more professional?
Let's not go there!
Exactly! I think the UK is lucky to have the most professional police force on the planet personally but then I would say that
I agree and would like to think that the public perception was similar. Reponsible (and sensible) policing, particularly when applying traffic laws, (as this is where the public are most likely to encounter the police as an offender), would reinforce that sentiment.
This, unfortunately, doesn't.
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff