Lucky to be alive.
Discussion
Bigends said:
Police make charging decisions on around 80% of all cases now
I doubt it's 80% given that every DV job has to go via CPS even if it's a full admission in interview. Over the last 12 months it seems like everything including authorisation for a caution has to go for advice.
So glad I don't deal with prisoners anymore!
Greendubber said:
I doubt it's 80% given that every DV job has to go via CPS even if it's a full admission in interview.
Over the last 12 months it seems like everything including authorisation for a caution has to go for advice.
So glad I don't deal with prisoners anymore!
I was thinking this. Assuming he's referring to traffic cases. Seems custody can't charge with abything bar the most basic shoplifter these days...everything has to go to CPS it seems.Over the last 12 months it seems like everything including authorisation for a caution has to go for advice.
So glad I don't deal with prisoners anymore!
Mk3Spitfire said:
Greendubber said:
I doubt it's 80% given that every DV job has to go via CPS even if it's a full admission in interview.
Over the last 12 months it seems like everything including authorisation for a caution has to go for advice.
So glad I don't deal with prisoners anymore!
I was thinking this. Assuming he's referring to traffic cases. Seems custody can't charge with abything bar the most basic shoplifter these days...everything has to go to CPS it seems.Over the last 12 months it seems like everything including authorisation for a caution has to go for advice.
So glad I don't deal with prisoners anymore!
The police may charge:
(i) any Summary Only offence (including criminal damage where the value of the loss or damage is less than £5000) irrespective of plea;
(ii) any offence of retail theft (shoplifting) or attempted retail theft irrespective of plea provided it is suitable for sentence in the magistrates’ court; and
(iii) any either way offence anticipated as a guilty plea and suitable for sentence in a magistrates’ court;
provided that this is not:
a case requiring the consent to prosecute of the DPP or Law Officer;
a case involving a death;
connected with terrorist activity or official secrets;
classified as Hate Crime or Domestic Violence under CPS Policies;
an offence of Violent Disorder or Affray;
causing Grievous Bodily Harm or Wounding, or Actual Bodily Harm;
a Sexual Offences Act offence committed by or upon a person under 18;
an offence under the Licensing Act 200
Elroy Blue said:
Yes. There's loads of internet detectives whose sole role is to trawl the internet for evidence relating to minor RTCs. There's even keyword searches, especially relating to 'Eclassy', so they know that any report of serious assault is actually someone tapping on their window.
I thought you were plod but I doubt it with that reply.Have you read 10ps thread about his accident and the repercussions of posting stuff on the internet?
Mind you I do agree with you about Eclassy, but maybe they should do searches for him/her/it just so they can send round the men in white coats!
Greendubber said:
Mk3Spitfire said:
I'm not sure I would say that that amounts to 80%?
Especially when you factor in the domestic aspect, and increasingly now the racist aspect.
Yep, it's nothing like 80% based on my experience. Especially when you factor in the domestic aspect, and increasingly now the racist aspect.
skeggysteve said:
Elroy Blue said:
Yes. There's loads of internet detectives whose sole role is to trawl the internet for evidence relating to minor RTCs. There's even keyword searches, especially relating to 'Eclassy', so they know that any report of serious assault is actually someone tapping on their window.
I thought you were plod but I doubt it with that reply.Have you read 10ps thread about his accident and the repercussions of posting stuff on the internet?
Those who have warned of the dangers of posting the location of this incident have been asked what specifically the danger might be in this case, but so far they haven't been able to say. That's because there isn't any such danger.
skeggysteve said:
I thought you were plod but I doubt it with that reply.
Have you read 10ps thread about his accident and the repercussions of posting stuff on the internet?
Mind you I do agree with you about Eclassy, but maybe they should do searches for him/her/it just so they can send round the men in white coats!
I've spent two decades investigating fatals and POLACs. We don't have an 'internet' dept scouring the net for snippets of information. We don't have enough Officers to patrol the bloody streets these days. Have you read 10ps thread about his accident and the repercussions of posting stuff on the internet?
Mind you I do agree with you about Eclassy, but maybe they should do searches for him/her/it just so they can send round the men in white coats!
OP, you seem to be a very sensible guy and are going in the right direction. Don't go for a local 'motorist' solicitor. Unless you are exceptionally lucky, most are less than useless for difficult cases. Do your research and find a national RTA or motoring legal 'expert' that has documented history of success. A while ago I had need and after being very disappointed by the local lawyers giving incorrect and even damaging advice..., I did a lot of googling and eventually came up with one guy (after several verbal referrals) that was magnificent and turned an apparently hopeless case where circumstances seemed stacked against us into a winner. This guy was incandescent about the crap given out by the local solicitors..., Yes good specialists cost good money, but they are worth it. Do your research thoroughly, keep shtum on the internet forums.... Good luck!
XJ Flyer said:
The idea of not using sirens and lights at night is a dangerous idea and I've noticed an increasing habit of police and ambulances only using lights with limited if any use of sirens even in the daytime recently.
Yet in the next breath , those who like yourself, who live in a self absorbed and selfish fantasy land where the entire world revolves around your wants will be whinging about the over use of warning devices and how it upsets your goldfishes sleep pstterns.Edited by mph1977 on Tuesday 28th October 09:37
My money's on shared blame. The OP for not noticing the blue lights in the dark and for not proceeding with caution and the Policeman for driving at an inappropriate speed.
I saw the potential for this just this week. I know of a mini roundabout upon the corner of which is a large pub. Let's say the corner is the 6 + 3 o'clock position. On the road coming from the 6 o'clock position, immediately outside the pub, is a pedestrian crossing. There were a number of cars paused at the pedestrian crossing and a police car on B+T's is coming along the road from the 6 o'clock position, seeing the cars flips to the wrong side of the crossing and passes through the mini roundabout at speed (30 limit). My heart was in my mouth in case someone came from the 3 o'clock road and just swung a left. Their view of the police car would have been obscured by the pub. Sure they should have proceeded with caution but there are a lot of inattentive people out there with their heads up their arses.
The police do a great job and have to make some difficult decisions but I think in his position I would have been proceeding a little more slowly, it would have taken 1/2 a second longer and could have avoided a lot of grief had the luck not gone his way that day.
I saw the potential for this just this week. I know of a mini roundabout upon the corner of which is a large pub. Let's say the corner is the 6 + 3 o'clock position. On the road coming from the 6 o'clock position, immediately outside the pub, is a pedestrian crossing. There were a number of cars paused at the pedestrian crossing and a police car on B+T's is coming along the road from the 6 o'clock position, seeing the cars flips to the wrong side of the crossing and passes through the mini roundabout at speed (30 limit). My heart was in my mouth in case someone came from the 3 o'clock road and just swung a left. Their view of the police car would have been obscured by the pub. Sure they should have proceeded with caution but there are a lot of inattentive people out there with their heads up their arses.
The police do a great job and have to make some difficult decisions but I think in his position I would have been proceeding a little more slowly, it would have taken 1/2 a second longer and could have avoided a lot of grief had the luck not gone his way that day.
OpulentBob said:
And no Police have ever been found to be lying to protect their own arses.
indeed they have. One member on here was able to prove to the satisfaction of the court that 3 officers concocted a BS story involving a red traffic light offence he was alleged to have committed.Red Devil said:
OpulentBob said:
And no Police have ever been found to be lying to protect their own arses.
indeed they have. One member on here was able to prove to the satisfaction of the court that 3 officers concocted a BS story involving a red traffic light offence he was alleged to have committed.
Just thought Id give an update as to how this is progressing...
Initially the police lawyers went for 100% liability. It is now down to 60/40, still in their favour.
They are quoting case law - Griffin vs Merseyside Ambulance in which the ambulance had sirens on and Griffin failed to give way.
They are also quoting the The Traffic Signs Regulations and General Directions 2002 with regards to how emergency vehicles should approach a red light.
Im a bit miffed to say the least as neither side seems to be taking into consideration any of the data recorder information that is sitting in the police station. The traffic officer attending has explained to me that the police car was doing 83mph on the approach, he braked to 56mph 5 seconds before the accident, 3 seconds before the accident he put his blue lights on. By this time I had already pulled away and was looking left as I crossed the junction.
The data above shows that the case law and regulations are not relevant in my opinion but the legal teams dont seem to be bothered and are more concerned about minimising loses. Ive explained that Im not happy and want it taking further and was then told 'well I can take it to the boss but he'll probably pull funding!'
I cant believe how corrupt and unfair the whole system is but Im not one for letting things go so will be seeking further advice.
Initially the police lawyers went for 100% liability. It is now down to 60/40, still in their favour.
They are quoting case law - Griffin vs Merseyside Ambulance in which the ambulance had sirens on and Griffin failed to give way.
They are also quoting the The Traffic Signs Regulations and General Directions 2002 with regards to how emergency vehicles should approach a red light.
Im a bit miffed to say the least as neither side seems to be taking into consideration any of the data recorder information that is sitting in the police station. The traffic officer attending has explained to me that the police car was doing 83mph on the approach, he braked to 56mph 5 seconds before the accident, 3 seconds before the accident he put his blue lights on. By this time I had already pulled away and was looking left as I crossed the junction.
The data above shows that the case law and regulations are not relevant in my opinion but the legal teams dont seem to be bothered and are more concerned about minimising loses. Ive explained that Im not happy and want it taking further and was then told 'well I can take it to the boss but he'll probably pull funding!'
I cant believe how corrupt and unfair the whole system is but Im not one for letting things go so will be seeking further advice.
Mk3Spitfire said:
Surely, if your own legal team are concerned with minimising losses on your part, there is more to it than your belief that the police are totally at fault?
No...I think I have a really lazy legal team. They are sending me the case file so I can read it. Im also visiting the police station next week to get copies of the evidence held there. I'll then be sitting with an independent. To go through options. Approaching red lights at 56mph, at night in the rain with no blue lights on? Normal police procedure? If so Im surprised they havent killed anyone yet.KungFooPanda said:
No...I think I have a really lazy legal team. They are sending me the case file so I can read it. Im also visiting the police station next week to get copies of the evidence held there. I'll then be sitting with an independent. To go through options. Approaching red lights at 56mph, at night in the rain with no blue lights on? Normal police procedure? If so Im surprised they havent killed anyone yet.
I can't/wont speak for the police because it wasn't me, and I wasn't there.What I was getting at, was that a professional legal team, having dealt, I imagine with hundreds of accidents are under the impression that damage limitation is the way forward. That to me suggests they feel there is more to it...otherwise they'd pursue it and argue the case more.
If they are that lazy...can you change them? Or employ your own if these are via your insurance?
I'm not trying to be obtuse, by the way.
Edited by Mk3Spitfire on Friday 20th March 21:27
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff