Special Constable on the phone at time of collision
Discussion
She was using the phone which was on loudspeaker in her lap when she collided with a motor cyclist. The Crown Prosecution Service made a decision not to prosecute her following the collision.
http://www.bournemouthecho.co.uk/news/10221551.Spe...
http://www.bournemouthecho.co.uk/news/10221551.Spe...
Ironic considering Dorset's "No Excuse" campaign
http://www.dorset.police.uk/default.aspx?page=4277 should be renamed
"No excuse unless you're in the police" campaign
http://www.dorset.police.uk/default.aspx?page=4277 should be renamed
"No excuse unless you're in the police" campaign
Paul Dishman said:
Snowboy said:
There is exemption for dialing 999.
Dependibg on the reason fir her xall this may be the same sort of thing.
(haven't read link).
She was on the phone to her partner. Do special constables have an exemption for that?Dependibg on the reason fir her xall this may be the same sort of thing.
(haven't read link).
Being on the phone unless the law has changed is not an offence that automatically makes you culpable for careless or dangerous driving.
Unfortunately lying when interviewed isn't pcoj either. Or denying you did something.
Considering that its only the tenacity of the investigating officer that's proven she was on the phone to suggest the police decided not to press charges against a volunteer as some form of cover up or looking after their own is a bit of a leap.
CPS would have been looking at charges and with all the facts decided not enough for the substantive offences.
It would appear she was 'hands free' at the time of the crash so presumably it was felt the offence if using a mobile phone wouldn't succeed either.
It's not overly clear in the report about the full circumstances of the crash so it may be there were other factors that meant a careless / dangerous prosecution would fail.
Unfortunately lying when interviewed isn't pcoj either. Or denying you did something.
Considering that its only the tenacity of the investigating officer that's proven she was on the phone to suggest the police decided not to press charges against a volunteer as some form of cover up or looking after their own is a bit of a leap.
CPS would have been looking at charges and with all the facts decided not enough for the substantive offences.
It would appear she was 'hands free' at the time of the crash so presumably it was felt the offence if using a mobile phone wouldn't succeed either.
It's not overly clear in the report about the full circumstances of the crash so it may be there were other factors that meant a careless / dangerous prosecution would fail.
Rovinghawk said:
Will she be allowed to keep her post as a special constable? Could she have the nerve to issue tickets for others who do what she's done?
RH
I would hope not with regards her lying in interview. That would or should be enough to show dishonesty. RH
Never mind other discipline offences.
Mr_annie_vxr said:
Being on the phone unless the law has changed is not an offence that automatically makes you culpable for careless or dangerous driving.
Unfortunately lying when interviewed isn't pcoj either. Or denying you did something.
Considering that its only the tenacity of the investigating officer that's proven she was on the phone to suggest the police decided not to press charges against a volunteer as some form of cover up or looking after their own is a bit of a leap.
Can't see you see how bad it looks? Unfortunately lying when interviewed isn't pcoj either. Or denying you did something.
Considering that its only the tenacity of the investigating officer that's proven she was on the phone to suggest the police decided not to press charges against a volunteer as some form of cover up or looking after their own is a bit of a leap.
Dorset Police have a No Excuse campaign and I'm sure that various officers have been on local TV happily patronising away as usual, then this unfortunate woman kills someone while doing one of the things that the No Excuse campaign is supposed to be cracking down on.
As with the Chris Huhne case, the one thing that the British public won't forgive is hypocrisy
Paul Dishman said:
Mr_annie_vxr said:
Being on the phone unless the law has changed is not an offence that automatically makes you culpable for careless or dangerous driving.
Unfortunately lying when interviewed isn't pcoj either. Or denying you did something.
Considering that its only the tenacity of the investigating officer that's proven she was on the phone to suggest the police decided not to press charges against a volunteer as some form of cover up or looking after their own is a bit of a leap.
Can't see you see how bad it looks? Unfortunately lying when interviewed isn't pcoj either. Or denying you did something.
Considering that its only the tenacity of the investigating officer that's proven she was on the phone to suggest the police decided not to press charges against a volunteer as some form of cover up or looking after their own is a bit of a leap.
Dorset Police have a No Excuse campaign and I'm sure that various officers have been on local TV happily patronising away as usual, then this unfortunate woman kills someone while doing one of the things that the No Excuse campaign is supposed to be cracking down on.
As with the Chris Huhne case, the one thing that the British public won't forgive is hypocrisy
Are you able to show that's happened here then? Clearly unlike you in hadn't seem the full facts of the case.
Mr_annie_vxr said:
I'm sure.
Are you able to show that's happened here then? Clearly unlike you in hadn't seem the full facts of the case.
Sorry, I don't know what more you need. Looking at it from the point of view of a member of the public, I've read the newspaper report of the inquest and the "No Excuse" campaign will be in the local press and on the local TV.Are you able to show that's happened here then? Clearly unlike you in hadn't seem the full facts of the case.
Paul Dishman said:
Mr_annie_vxr said:
Being on the phone unless the law has changed is not an offence that automatically makes you culpable for careless or dangerous driving.
Unfortunately lying when interviewed isn't pcoj either. Or denying you did something.
Considering that its only the tenacity of the investigating officer that's proven she was on the phone to suggest the police decided not to press charges against a volunteer as some form of cover up or looking after their own is a bit of a leap.
Can't see you see how bad it looks? Unfortunately lying when interviewed isn't pcoj either. Or denying you did something.
Considering that its only the tenacity of the investigating officer that's proven she was on the phone to suggest the police decided not to press charges against a volunteer as some form of cover up or looking after their own is a bit of a leap.
Dorset Police have a No Excuse campaign and I'm sure that various officers have been on local TV happily patronising away as usual, then this unfortunate woman kills someone while doing one of the things that the No Excuse campaign is supposed to be cracking down on.
As with the Chris Huhne case, the one thing that the British public won't forgive is hypocrisy
On a prosecution basis, there must have been very little wrong with that she did to not even attract a due care prosecution.
Paul Dishman said:
Mr_annie_vxr said:
I'm sure.
Are you able to show that's happened here then? Clearly unlike you in hadn't seem the full facts of the case.
Sorry, I don't know what more you need. Looking at it from the point of view of a member of the public, I've read the newspaper report of the inquest and the "No Excuse" campaign will be in the local press and on the local TV.Are you able to show that's happened here then? Clearly unlike you in hadn't seem the full facts of the case.
Why would you need all the facts about anything
T
La Liga said:
Paul Dishman said:
Mr_annie_vxr said:
Being on the phone unless the law has changed is not an offence that automatically makes you culpable for careless or dangerous driving.
Unfortunately lying when interviewed isn't pcoj either. Or denying you did something.
Considering that its only the tenacity of the investigating officer that's proven she was on the phone to suggest the police decided not to press charges against a volunteer as some form of cover up or looking after their own is a bit of a leap.
Can't see you see how bad it looks? Unfortunately lying when interviewed isn't pcoj either. Or denying you did something.
Considering that its only the tenacity of the investigating officer that's proven she was on the phone to suggest the police decided not to press charges against a volunteer as some form of cover up or looking after their own is a bit of a leap.
Dorset Police have a No Excuse campaign and I'm sure that various officers have been on local TV happily patronising away as usual, then this unfortunate woman kills someone while doing one of the things that the No Excuse campaign is supposed to be cracking down on.
As with the Chris Huhne case, the one thing that the British public won't forgive is hypocrisy
On a prosecution basis, there must have been very little wrong with that she did to not even attract a due care prosecution.
Plod f
ks up, plod gets 'investigated' plod gets off with it. As for Annie, well as they say, there's none so blind......
REALIST123 said:
La Liga said:
Paul Dishman said:
Mr_annie_vxr said:
Being on the phone unless the law has changed is not an offence that automatically makes you culpable for careless or dangerous driving.
Unfortunately lying when interviewed isn't pcoj either. Or denying you did something.
Considering that its only the tenacity of the investigating officer that's proven she was on the phone to suggest the police decided not to press charges against a volunteer as some form of cover up or looking after their own is a bit of a leap.
Can't see you see how bad it looks? Unfortunately lying when interviewed isn't pcoj either. Or denying you did something.
Considering that its only the tenacity of the investigating officer that's proven she was on the phone to suggest the police decided not to press charges against a volunteer as some form of cover up or looking after their own is a bit of a leap.
Dorset Police have a No Excuse campaign and I'm sure that various officers have been on local TV happily patronising away as usual, then this unfortunate woman kills someone while doing one of the things that the No Excuse campaign is supposed to be cracking down on.
As with the Chris Huhne case, the one thing that the British public won't forgive is hypocrisy
On a prosecution basis, there must have been very little wrong with that she did to not even attract a due care prosecution.
Plod f
ks up, plod gets 'investigated' plod gets off with it. As for Annie, well as they say, there's none so blind......
She's a special. Off duty. Got involved in a crash where someone died. She was in a phone. She was interviewed a number of times. A case went to the CPS who decided with all the facts that they couldn't prove beyond all reasonable doubt she committed any offences.
It's not exactly difficult. Lots of people are in crashes where people die and face no criminal sanction.
The inquest I think even finds the death an 'accident'. They don't send it back for review or suggest charges.
Indeed there is very little information whatsoever about the crash.
Lets hope if you are ever a juror you actually want the facts of a case not just the odd selected highlight to base your opinion on.
There is no cover up. No collusion. No hiding of evidence.
If you have proof otherwise I suggest you contact the IPCC or the family of the deceased.
Forums | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff