Discussion
Thank you Madcop.
Given a lot of assumptions about what has happened the natural reaction is one of condemnation. But it is typical of the media, and a natural facet of media reporting, to have provided the information implying a lot of facts that just aren't there.
In short, if this, if that, if the other...
...we are all correct to condemn the police and the Crown Prosecution Service. But we know not the "ifs".
Given a lot of assumptions about what has happened the natural reaction is one of condemnation. But it is typical of the media, and a natural facet of media reporting, to have provided the information implying a lot of facts that just aren't there.
In short, if this, if that, if the other...
...we are all correct to condemn the police and the Crown Prosecution Service. But we know not the "ifs".
madcop said: How can you make such sweeping judgements and statements about a small piece of information taken from a local rag without knowing THE FULL CIRCUMSTANCES?
As is often the way on PH, a large majority condemn situations on the absolute briefest of information.
I hope that those who think and post along these lines don't have to rely on similar thinking people if they are ever in the unfortunate position of sitting on the wrong side of a jury.
Why don't you wait to find out all the facts before posting your opinions?
So often I get a feeling of 'Tunnel vision' from many on this site (Not all, I admit).
I can understand PHrs posting with gripes and moans about situations they have found themselves in but to comment on stuff like this with such vitriole shows how narrow minded some of you can be!
'Gob off' as you will, but understand that you are not operating with all the facts!
No Police Officer I know, even civilians employed by the Police would prosecute someone who was in the act of saving life, from blood delivery to casualty evacuation.
>> Edited by madcop on Tuesday 27th May 11:25
No mad cop we may not know all teh facts But do you? you say we are blinkered but are you not doing exactly the same from a police point of view?
One force decided not to prosecute but one did! So why is that? are you saying the first force didnt know all the facts either or are they incompetant and they should have prosected aswell?
ps The A1 is a big long streight road if it was at 3am in the morning he could have been going faster easily.
us none police have a right to our opinions just as much as you do.
Organ transportation is important and if a helicopter isnt avaliable a car of a bike is the only avaliable option and i hope this highlights the importance of them to all.
this is completely off the topic but why is it ok for police to travel down the M40 (WARKS section) at over 120+mph during the day medium traffic. turn off and go into there base station just outside warwick.
I was following in a light aircraft at 1000ft saw the blue lights thought whats happened down the M40 followed and they turned off towards leamington/warwick and turned into there base.
whats there excuse, sorry cheif i was late for dinner.
pesty said:
No mad cop we may not know all teh facts But do you?
I do not which is why I refrain from making judgments and public statements about things of which I am not in full command of the whole facts in issue. I do not propose to go to the court hearing or read the paperwork involved as I neither have the time, the inclanation or even the authority to do so.
you say we are blinkered but are you not doing exactly the same from a police point of view?
Then you have failed to read many of my previous posts which in some cases criticise the actions of both individual officers and the organisationas a whole.
May I suggest that you read the thread posted by someone else 'Madcop...topcop' not that I want to blow my own trumpet but it was sdvice I gave to a PHr that got him off a speeding ticket that he would otherwise have had to pay!
One force decided not to prosecute but one did! So why is that?
I cannot say because I am not in possession of either of the case papers relating to either alleged offence.
are you saying the first force didnt know all the facts either or are they incompetant and they should have prosected aswell?
Situatins change as time moves on. We do not know of the facts relating to the specific points in the jpourney of the accused ambulance driver. was he given information over his phone or radio in relation to the task he was performing? was the circumstances of hois speed in one force completely different to those in the other?
If life was only as simple as you appear to want it to be!
God help you if you are met with a magistrate with similar lack of thought to your own when it is your turn to stand and be counted!
ps The A1 is a big long streight road if it was at 3am in the morning he could have been going faster easily.
You are right he could! And if he was and was found by a court not to have had the legal exemption for doing so, he would have suffered even more draconian punishment.
us none police have a right to our opinions just as much as you do.
You are right. I have my opinions, but they are generally fair ones and I try to think outside the box as well
stc_bennett said:
this is completely off the topic but why is it ok for police to travel down the M40 (WARKS section) at over 120+mph during the day medium traffic. turn off and go into there base station just outside warwick.
Again, you do not know. They may have been called to an urgent job which required a briefing at the base.
Only last week I got a call and had to respond on blue lights right into the back yard of a Major Berkshire town to attend a briefing to a firearms incident which was running at that time spontaneously and getting to a critical point. In fact there were 10 Police vehicles from all over the force area travelling at high speed, some marked, some unmarked, all to be seen at various time scales within a 20 minute window driving into the back yard prior to arming up and deploying.
How many PHr's not knowing the facts happened to see one or two of those vehicles and thought to themselves
" How can they get away with that, they must be late for their lunch"
What you do not seen to comprehend is that if you drive at high speed in any Police vehicle and are caught out or are caught, then the same and if not probably worse procedures are applied to the driver if he has not got an available exemption to show to the investigating officer.
Investigating officers have much more power under the Police discipline regulations than just receiving an NIP as a civilian.
If you crash at speed or cause someone else to do so, then the punishments are severe.
I am not pretending that there are not some complete 'dick heads' behind the wheels of Police vehcles, but we all know the consequences and those of us that hold our occupations, status, reputations and pensions dear, are more careful than the picture painted vy many PH posters that do not know the reasons why or wherefore!
mad cop I have read your threads before and I agree with the vast majority of what you say!
I think it was the Shouty thingys that anoyed me a little. But your point is well taken.
some more info taken off the telly which may not be correct.
the driver was actualy in a Vectra and not an ambulance
The offence apparently happened in the early hours of the morning.
the organ was for an urgent operation.
he was cought on camera and not stopped
There may be more involved which we dont know about.
But it could just be an over zelous copper who's using the letter of the law to get someone nicked.
i.e the law may say he can only speed with a patient and not an organ
This man may lose his license(which means his job also)
I for one would like to know that if my daughter needed a transplant the autorites would get them their as soon as.
I think it was the Shouty thingys that anoyed me a little. But your point is well taken.
some more info taken off the telly which may not be correct.
the driver was actualy in a Vectra and not an ambulance
The offence apparently happened in the early hours of the morning.
the organ was for an urgent operation.
he was cought on camera and not stopped
There may be more involved which we dont know about.
But it could just be an over zelous copper who's using the letter of the law to get someone nicked.
i.e the law may say he can only speed with a patient and not an organ
This man may lose his license(which means his job also)
I for one would like to know that if my daughter needed a transplant the autorites would get them their as soon as.
Ok Madcop - you may have a point about jumping to conclusions, but one important fact remains - the precidence that this could potentially set. Ok, so the official line is that he was not on an official 'medical emergency' but we all know that transporting an organ for a life saving operation is pretty damn close to a 'medical emergency' and therefore if it were us on the receiving end we would expect a pretty damn fast response.
But, going by the letter of the law (as you indicate) he was not on a 'medical emergency' and therefore is open to prosecution. BUT, and this is the big one here - what constitutes the use of excessive speed for the Police? So you are allowed to speed to an important meeting, but the ambulance service isnt allowed to speed carrying an organ for transplant? Sniffs of a slight disparity here....
So what exactly constitutes a reasonable case for the Police to speed and what differences are their between them and the Fire and Ambulance services???
Cheers,
Paul
P.S. Agree with the 'was late for lunch' or the 'playing snooker' comments made against police speeding patrols - it probably happened once and someone found out. Now it is constantly used to beat the Police over the head with - kinda not been allowed to forget that one....
But, going by the letter of the law (as you indicate) he was not on a 'medical emergency' and therefore is open to prosecution. BUT, and this is the big one here - what constitutes the use of excessive speed for the Police? So you are allowed to speed to an important meeting, but the ambulance service isnt allowed to speed carrying an organ for transplant? Sniffs of a slight disparity here....
So what exactly constitutes a reasonable case for the Police to speed and what differences are their between them and the Fire and Ambulance services???
Cheers,
Paul
P.S. Agree with the 'was late for lunch' or the 'playing snooker' comments made against police speeding patrols - it probably happened once and someone found out. Now it is constantly used to beat the Police over the head with - kinda not been allowed to forget that one....
I have nothing but the utmost respect for Madcop, and I take his point about not knowing all the facts, but could he please explain how it was possible for a Police car to deliver a liver from Cambridge to central London, at speeds well in excess of 100 mph, in the daytime?
I refer to the video footage of this journey shown some years ago on television, on one of those speeding thingy programmes.
Personally, I thought that it was an excellent display of professional driving skills and communication between the driver and his observer. So why has this ambulance driver been prosecuted for doing almost exactly the same thing?
I refer to the video footage of this journey shown some years ago on television, on one of those speeding thingy programmes.
Personally, I thought that it was an excellent display of professional driving skills and communication between the driver and his observer. So why has this ambulance driver been prosecuted for doing almost exactly the same thing?
You don't suppose the Lincolnshire Police are treating this as a test case in an attempt to clear up the confusion regarding speeding and emergency vehicles do you?
I'd hate to be required by my duties to risk my licence as a result of fuzzy legislation and lack of clear precidence, I'd be anxious to get a definitive ruling.
I'm with Madcop, lets drop the histionic knee jerk insults and wait for the facts including, of course, an explanation of why a helicopter wasn't used.
I'd hate to be required by my duties to risk my licence as a result of fuzzy legislation and lack of clear precidence, I'd be anxious to get a definitive ruling.
I'm with Madcop, lets drop the histionic knee jerk insults and wait for the facts including, of course, an explanation of why a helicopter wasn't used.
There is a video update on the BBC website.
According to the video, under the Road Traffic Act, ambulances are allowed to exceed the speed limit when responding to a medical emergency. However Lincolnshire Police argue that the delivery of human organs for an emergency transplant operation does not constitute "a medical emergency."
Mr Ferguson was apparently caught by a Gatso so all the evidence of this alleged "crime" comes from an unmanned camera. He could lose his job if the prosecution is successful.
According to the video, under the Road Traffic Act, ambulances are allowed to exceed the speed limit when responding to a medical emergency. However Lincolnshire Police argue that the delivery of human organs for an emergency transplant operation does not constitute "a medical emergency."
Mr Ferguson was apparently caught by a Gatso so all the evidence of this alleged "crime" comes from an unmanned camera. He could lose his job if the prosecution is successful.
The bad side as i see it, is that as i understand, an ambulance driver cannot drive (by their own rules) with a speeding conviction and therefore would either lose his job or at the very least driving priviledges...
Therefore without making any further judgement i do hope it was a fair choice by CPS and not 'just for the sake of it' or 'to prove a point'. This country needs more ambulance/paramedics than it has and a lot are going on the sick through back problems etc. it can ill affrd to lose one through a minor point such as speeding, unless there was good reason (by the way an ambulance is not allowed to speed, nor jump lights etc, the BiB merely look the other way 99% of the time as of course they are doing a service. However if an accident or whatever they still can get a dangerous driving conviction etc AFAIK).
Just my 2p worth....
Therefore without making any further judgement i do hope it was a fair choice by CPS and not 'just for the sake of it' or 'to prove a point'. This country needs more ambulance/paramedics than it has and a lot are going on the sick through back problems etc. it can ill affrd to lose one through a minor point such as speeding, unless there was good reason (by the way an ambulance is not allowed to speed, nor jump lights etc, the BiB merely look the other way 99% of the time as of course they are doing a service. However if an accident or whatever they still can get a dangerous driving conviction etc AFAIK).
Just my 2p worth....
One point about knowing all the facts - we as joe public will probably NEVER know all the real facts, just what is realeased by the media and police reports (which is usually what they WANT us to know) so all we can do is speculate on what we do know.
That is what a forum is all about, is it not?
That is what a forum is all about, is it not?
mad jock said: ...but could he please explain how it was possible for a Police car to deliver a liver from Cambridge to central London, at speeds well in excess of 100 mph, in the daytime?
I am sorry, I cannot as I do not know the specific details of either journey or for either situation.
I refer to the video footage of this journey shown some years ago on television, on one of those speeding thingy programmes.
Personally, I thought that it was an excellent display of professional driving skills and communication between the driver and his observer. So why has this ambulance driver been prosecuted for doing almost exactly the same thing?
PASS
Lets say it wouldn't have been my decision but it wasn't me that dealt with the situation so I am at a loss as to why until all the facts come to light and they probably never will!
pesty said:
I think it was the Shouty thingys that anoyed me a little. But your point is well taken.
In that case I will not shout!
Somewtimes though when you see posts which represent how someone feels about a person because of the job they do, it makes you want to shout,
I refer to comments about hoping a police officer has need of urgent medical help and wishing that it is not forthcoming so as to 'teach him/her a lesson'.
Police officers are no different to the rest of the population. They are after all people, the same as everyone else. They do not always get things right and when they do not, there are plenty of avenues open to take a pound of flesh.
Wishing someone illwill just because they happen to do a specific job is not cricket in my book.
Would you have the same opinions about other proffessions/jobs in similar circumstances? Maybe you would.
I have occasions to dislike quite a few people from all walks of life but would never want someone from the generic occupation they belong to, to suffer just because of a wrong doing by one of their colleagues.
soulpatch said: One point about knowing all the facts - we as joe public will probably NEVER know all the real facts, just what is realeased by the media and police reports (which is usually what they WANT us to know) so all we can do is speculate on what we do know.
That is what a forum is all about, is it not?
Well in any camera based speeding prosecution there is only one person whois likely to be in possession of all the facts and that is the driver concerned!
However on the facts available to us at present this seems like a harsh decision, and I wonder if it will now be quietly dropped before getting to a hearing. If it does await the cries off "one rule for them another for us"!
I refer to the video footage of this journey shown some years ago on television, on one of those speeding thingy programmes.
Personally, I thought that it was an excellent display of professional driving skills and communication between the driver and his observer. So why has this ambulance driver been prosecuted for doing almost exactly the same thing?
PASS
Lets say it wouldn't have been my decision but it wasn't me that dealt with the situation so I am at a loss as to why until all the facts come to light and they probably never will! It was an episode of Police Camera Action which Alastair Stewart devoted the whole programme to showing the complete vascar video footage. From memory, speeds were in excess of 120mph on the motorway and up to 70 mph in built up areas.
In a break from tradition, Stewart's commentary throughout the show was full of praise for the driver, emphasising the need to get the transplant organ to hospital as quickly but as safely as possible.
>> Edited by Deadly Dog on Tuesday 27th May 17:09
Well thats a switch for Alastair Stewart, as he's one of the biggest "speed kills" buttsuckers ive ever seen!
Suppose he'd still be full of praise for those who go speeding even if they did have the same training as the police, or in fact better training? I doubt it seriously.
A sad day indeed for drivers in this dumpstation...
Suppose he'd still be full of praise for those who go speeding even if they did have the same training as the police, or in fact better training? I doubt it seriously.
A sad day indeed for drivers in this dumpstation...Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff