Police driver suspended for 140mph

[Rovinghawk]

340600 said:

There's still a potential for prosecution if the driver wasn't using any exemptions.

I'll have a 10p bet with you on it if you'd like? I say it won't happen barring a major media outcry.

[Rovinghawk]

Greendubber said:

The thing is its every topic. Its not about misreading etc its about deliberately misquoting to back up a floored opinion.

Flawed.

You keep doing that.

It's 'flawed', FFS.

[Red 4]

Rovinghawk said:

340600 said:

There's still a potential for prosecution if the driver wasn't using any exemptions.

I'll have a 10p bet with you on it if you'd like? I say it won't happen barring a major media outcry.

Will that be the same kind of wager you made on another thread some time ago ?

You remember the one .... the thread when you promised to make a donation to the Air Ambulance if you were proved wrong on the subject matter ....

And when you were proved wrong .... you fill in the rest ... (it didn't end well for you).

[Rovinghawk]

Red 4 said:

And when you were proved wrong ....

I wasn't. Tiny detail.

[Derek Smith]

I think you have to take into account the poor quality of reporting in the press with the current encouragement to attack the police from the government, but it would appear that the police have taken all the procedures it could.

I await accusations that the police should be subject to stricter laws than the public from rovingrobins of course, but I would guess that there is insufficient evidence for a criminal prosecution. The opinion of a handcuffed prisoner would not be sufficient to prosecute a MotP so I'm struggling, going by what is printed - always dangerous but as it doesn't seem to stop a number of posters, so what the hell - it would seem that there would be no coherent reason why the police officer should be prosecuted.

Sauce for the goose is what the predictables are asking for so if my interpretation is correct then they must be very happy with the outcome.

[Red 4]

Rovinghawk said:

Red 4 said:

And when you were proved wrong ....

I wasn't. Tiny detail.

Not as I recall, my dear Rovingtroll - you were proved wrong. Wrong, wrong, wrong.

I cba searching for the thread but it was Cat who proved you wrong on whatever subject it was.

Cat, in my experience, is correct on most subjects on here that he comments on ... whereas you are not

Cat ... remember the thread and the (broken) promises ? Shame, I'm sure the Air Ambulance would have been grateful for your donation .

Edited by Red 4 on Friday 24th January 14:57

[Greendubber]

Rovinghawk said:

Flawed.

You keep doing that.

It's 'flawed', FFS.

That'll be my ste android predictive text, its not the end of the world.

Its entirely predictable to see you ignore the bits that show you up to be a massive troll though.

You keep doing that... ignoring the truth, FFS funny that.

[Rovinghawk]

Derek Smith said:

it would appear that the police have taken all the procedures it could.

Accepted with the possible exception of referral to CPS.

Derek Smith said:

I await accusations that the police should be subject to stricter laws than the public from rovingrobins of course, but I would guess that there is insufficient evidence for a criminal prosecution. The opinion of a handcuffed prisoner would not be sufficient to prosecute

I'm not suggesting stricter procedures at all- just equality.
My understanding is that the prisoner's word would be backed up by the 'black box' that was presumably used as evidence for the internal enquiry & its subsequent sanctions.

[carinaman]

Joe Willis Regional Chief Reporter with the Darlington and Stockton Times said:

Supt Ellis said the officer’s licence has been suspended, including removing his pursuit capabilities.

The PC will also have to go through a driving school reassessment before returning to full operational duties.

The make and model of the speeding police car is not known. However, Durham Constabulary uses BMW 330D, 530D, X3 and X5 vehicles all capable of 140mph.

The law allows police, ambulance and fire service drivers to exceed the speed limit - but only in emergencies.

That reads like he'll face an extended driving test like normal licence holders may face after they've been banned and/or convicted?

An X5 will crack a ton-forty with light bars on the roof? The light bars stop them from nudging the limiter?

You can imagine the detainee getting to the custody desk and exclaiming 'Wow, those Beemers shift, I've never done a ton-forty before....

[Devil2575]

Rovinghawk said:

I'm not suggesting stricter procedures at all- just equality.
My understanding is that the prisoner's word would be backed up by the 'black box' that was presumably used as evidence for the internal enquiry & its subsequent sanctions.

Assuming that the prisoner is willing to go on the record?

Assuming that the black box is admissable as evidence in court?

[Red 4]

carinaman said:

That reads like he'll face an extended driving test like normal licence holders may face after they've been banned and/or convicted?

It will be a re-qual for an advanced driving permit I would imagine (perhaps he will be required to take the whole course again - 4 weeks training).

[Rovinghawk]

Devil2575 said:

Assuming that the prisoner is willing to go on the record?
Assuming that the black box is admissable as evidence in court?

FP.

[carinaman]

Red 4 said:

carinaman said:

That reads like he'll face an extended driving test like normal licence holders may face after they've been banned and/or convicted?

It will be a re-qual for an advanced driving permit I would imagine (perhaps he will be required to take the whole course again - 4 weeks training).

Sounds expensive given SpitfireMk3 opined on page 6 of the following thread that he doubted many forces would continue to allow Specials to do such training due to the cost. I seem to remember some comment from them about Specials being known to do stuff they're not authorised to do too:

http://www.petrolheads.co.uk/xforums/topic.asp?h=0...


They'll get ribbed on that 4 week course so as to be an example to others on the course not to do the same unless they want seconds too? Or that could be deemed as special treatment and bullying?

[Elroy Blue]

Rovinghawk said:

I wasn't. Tiny detail.

I don't normally get involved in threads you post in, but I'll make an exception in this case. Not only are you a troll, you're a liar as well.
The thread concerned was about the Olympics and the report that the army were posting people with SAMs on rooftops. You did your usual nonsense and were proved very, very wrong.
Your offer if a donation was quickly forgotten

[Rovinghawk]

Elroy Blue said:

I don't normally get involved in threads you post in, but I'll make an exception in this case. Not only are you a troll, you're a liar as well.
The thread concerned was about the Olympics and the report that the army were posting people with SAMs on rooftops. You did your usual nonsense and were proved very, very wrong.
Your offer if a donation was quickly forgotten

Actually the bet was that the army having air-to-air missiles on those rooftops as claimed by somebody-or-other was incorrect. They didn't have air to air missiles therefore I was right unless you can prove otherwise.

Check your facts before you call people liars.

[Devil2575]

Elroy Blue said:

Rovinghawk said:

I wasn't. Tiny detail.

I don't normally get involved in threads you post in, but I'll make an exception in this case. Not only are you a troll, you're a liar as well.
The thread concerned was about the Olympics and the report that the army were posting people with SAMs on rooftops. You did your usual nonsense and were proved very, very wrong.
Your offer if a donation was quickly forgotten

Have you got a link to the thread?

I heard this news story at the time as was rather dubious as to how true it actually was. Would the Armed forces really put SAMS on roof tops to shoot down aircraft over London? The collateral damage of a shot down plane would potentially be as bad as one that was deliberately crashed. Far better to intercept with aircraft and shoot down before they were over large population centres.

[Rovinghawk]

Devil2575 said:

Have you got a link to the thread?.

This is the only one I can find:
http://www.pistonheads.com/gassing/topic.asp?h=0&a...

[Red 4]

carinaman said:

Sounds expensive given SpitfireMk3 opined on page 6 of the following thread that he doubted many forces would continue to allow Specials to do such training due to the cost. I seem to remember some comment from them about Specials being known to do stuff they're not authorised to do too:

There are 3 levels of training, although this will probably vary from force to force.

Basic - a once around the block to make sure you aren't dangerous - can drive certain police vehicles (low powered cars/ small vans). Cannot use exemptions or blues/ twos.

Standard - pursuit/ response. Low powered cars/ vans. Can use exemptions and blues/twos. 3 weeks course. Written exams and a driving test.

Advanced - pursuit/ response. High powered vehicles. Same principles as standard course but higher speeds and a higher level (pass mark) of skill required. 4 weeks course. Written exams and driving test.

After that it's TPAC, security escort, etc.

Specials will not be trained to advanced standard (if they are "trained" at all) - it costs too much.

[Greendubber]

Red 4 said:

There are 3 levels of training, although this will probably vary from force to force.

Basic - a once around the block to make sure you aren't dangerous - can drive certain police vehicles (low powered cars/ small vans). Cannot use exemptions or blues/ twos.

Standard - pursuit/ response. Low powered cars/ vans. Can use exemptions and blues/twos. 3 weeks course. Written exams and a driving test.

Advanced - pursuit/ response. High powered vehicles. Same principles as standard course but higher speeds and a higher level (pass mark) of skill required. 4 weeks course. Written exams and driving test.

After that it's TPAC, security escort, etc.

Specials will not be trained to advanced standard (if they are "trained" at all) - it costs too much.

Round my way its all gone 'role specific' so if you are a graded driver who is on for example CID or some other role that doesnt need blue lights then you dont ger refresher training.

There are a lot of people dropping their grades due to that so they certainly won't train specials here. There are some basic grade SC's knocking about from a few years back but not many at all.

Its rubbish because when bobbies come out of those non blue light roles they're not blue light grade!

[carinaman]

If someone wanted to carp they could point at an officer being out of circulation for a month, their wages and the cost of the course?

I got the point about the course costing too much for Specials to attend, but it could look like this officer is double dipping at taxpayers expense when they committed an offence for which there was no operational need.