Incriminating Evidence
Discussion
nervous said:
10 pence, i have no idea if you can read this, or if you are able to receive mails, but if you can please feel free to drop me a mail at any time, id be happy to help you with anything i can in any way, even if its just a bit of rubbish email company from time to time. im sure that plenty of phers feel the same way.
were all here for you and were all thinking of you mate: youre a good person whose suffered bad luck, never allow yourself to think otherwise because of the sharp contrast that our ridiculous law allocates.
stay strong, friend.
Here here, I used to read the Civic forum a hell of a lot when I first got mine and remember your posts when the forum was still worth reading, before chavs discovered the car and the forum at the same time...
It really does send chills down you, reading your story, everyone has had an "oohhh sh*t" moment at some point but a well placed grippy patch saved the day. We all know deep down that what happened to you could have happened to any of us at some point had luck played a different card.
No punishment will ever exceed the mental anguish, remorse is what seperates this case from others.
Good luck, to both parties.
Edited by -Z- on Sunday 22 April 23:48
R_U_LOCAL said:
I'm quite surprised at some of the comments on this thread.
Tine and time again, I read comments from people who are fervently anti-speed camera, who think that the Police shouldn't be wasting their time prosecuting people for minor motoring offences, and that they should, instead, be putting more effort into catching and convicting the most serious road offenders.
Tine and time again, I read comments from people who are fervently anti-speed camera, who think that the Police shouldn't be wasting their time prosecuting people for minor motoring offences, and that they should, instead, be putting more effort into catching and convicting the most serious road offenders.
ps i genuinley think you have this wrong. and you seem not to be the only one. which is shocking, baring in mind the huge failing of logic in your argument.
what people want is not more effort into catching the worst road offenders, but more effort put into catching burglars, rapists, murderers etc. i recognise that they dont represent as ready form of revenue, but we'd all be really grateful if this message could get through.
R_U_LOCAL said:
In this case, a driver has been convicted of the second most serious offence in the road traffic act, but because he's a member of our "club", and an enthusiast, then it's disgusting that he's been gaoled, and an appalling waste of time.
Get a grip people.
I don't think that its the fact it was custodial at all, its the fact that the sentence seems to be broadly similiar to that recieved by many pre-medidtated crimes, for a lazy example, peadophilia (think of the children!).
Apologies for breking it down so morbidly, but there should be a massive, massive, not even on the same planet, kind of difference in sentences between crimes where injuries are caused by choice or for pleasure and crimes such as this one.
Edited by -Z- on Monday 23 April 00:05
-Z- said:
R_U_LOCAL said:
In this case, a driver has been convicted of the second most serious offence in the road traffic act, but because he's a member of our "club", and an enthusiast, then it's disgusting that he's been gaoled, and an appalling waste of time.
Get a grip people.
I don't think that its the fact it was custodial at all, its the fact that the sentence seems to be broadly similiar to that recieved by many pre-medidtated crimes, for a lazy example, peadophilia (think of the children!).
Apologies for breking it down so morbidly, but there should be a massive, massive, not even on the same planet, kind of difference in sentences between crimes where injuries are caused by choice or for pleasure and crimes such as this one.
Why should there? In my view, it's not the seriousness of the sentence for the motoring offence that's wrong - it's the leniency of the sentences for other offnces that makes it seem wrong.
12 months for dangerous driving - an offence which ranks much higher than drink driving, driving under the influence of drugs, driving whilst disqualified etc - seems about right to me.
R_U_LOCAL said:
said a lot of very, very interesting stuff
R_U,
Firstly I'd like to say a big thank you for that post - putting the BiB view across rather than the gutter press. Well done for having the guts to do it - hope you don't get in 'to' much trouble.
.....................
Now I'll tell you my tale - many years ago a 'mate', was hit by a car, at the traffic lights/cross roads between Burnley and Nelson.
Other car went through a red light and hit 'mates' car. 'Mate' was thrown out of car and was only save by MOP who, luckly, was a nurse. 'Mate' was in ITU,for a long time, brain damage etc. 'Mate' pulled through but still is not the same person he was before.
From what I have heard BiB thought that the drive of the other car had been drinking (some friends of 'mate' said BiB were chasing him - not proved) - BiB get to Hospital to see driver of other car and hospital would not allow them to talk to him or take blood sample.
Don't know what punishment other driver got.
My point is that sometimes, as R_U said earlier, the BiB want to do the right thing but can't.
Sorry it took me so long and not as well as R_U to say that
R_U_LOCAL said:
12 months for dangerous driving - an offence which ranks much higher than drink driving, driving under the influence of drugs, driving whilst disqualified etc - seems about right to me.
Sounds about right to me too, as you will still be charged with dangerous driving if you are doing so while drunk, disqualified etc anyway.
My only issue in this case may be that what evidence was used from internet forums could have swayed the charge from driving without due care to dangerous driving.
Of course no one here has seen the forum evidence that was used, and how much weighting it had, but I just feel that venturing into using what is often casual banter from internet forums to somehow build an attitude profile for use in a prosecution could result in alot of members here being deemed clinically insane for some of the silly comments that are made but could be suggested to be real.
Time to hang up the old keyboard and stop potentially incriminating myself?
Dave
nervous said:
what people want is not more effort into catching the worst road offenders, but more effort put into catching burglars, rapists, murderers etc. i recognise that they dont represent as ready form of revenue, but we'd all be really grateful if this message could get through.
Nervous,
Sorry for taking so long to post back but I don't type quick and my keyboard can't spell !
I agree with you 100% - MOP want to see BiB catching criminals not being tax collectors.
But as I said in my earlier post sometimes the BiB are hampered by red tape etc.
BUT.....
I alway thought that the BiB's job was primarily to prevent crime and then, if needed, catch criminals.
Maybe I'm getting old.
Edited by skeggysteve on Monday 23 April 00:46
Edited by skeggysteve on Monday 23 April 00:48
nervous said:
R_U_LOCAL said:
I'm quite surprised at some of the comments on this thread.
Tine and time again, I read comments from people who are fervently anti-speed camera, who think that the Police shouldn't be wasting their time prosecuting people for minor motoring offences, and that they should, instead, be putting more effort into catching and convicting the most serious road offenders.
Tine and time again, I read comments from people who are fervently anti-speed camera, who think that the Police shouldn't be wasting their time prosecuting people for minor motoring offences, and that they should, instead, be putting more effort into catching and convicting the most serious road offenders.
ps i genuinley think you have this wrong. and you seem not to be the only one. which is shocking, baring in mind the huge failing of logic in your argument.
what people want is not more effort into catching the worst road offenders, but more effort put into catching burglars, rapists, murderers etc. i recognise that they dont represent as ready form of revenue, but we'd all be really grateful if this message could get through.
So what? We shouldn't be prosecuting the worst motoring offenders?
Get real - the "you should be out catching burglars/rapists/murderers" argument is the oldest and weakest one in the book, and it's a big book. There are numerous different levels of Policing, the vast majority of which, believe it or not, are aimed at reducing domestic burglary, car crime and violent crime. The problem is that most people like yourself either don't see how much of this work goes on, or choose to ignore it for the sake of an argument.
Alongside the efforts put into preventing and detecting crime, the Police have a duty to enforce traffic laws, especially the most serious ones.
It seems the one with the failed logic is you, not me.
Either failed logic, or a seriously blinkered view of Policing.
R_U_LOCAL said:
I think some of the "it's not right" commentators on this thread should have a serious think about what action they expect to be taken after a serious accident.
I don't think anyone should be subjected to a penalty as expensive, barbaric and dow-right counter-productive as prison except where leaving them in circulation will pose a real risk to society at large.
I wouldn't put 10 Pence Short or, say, Tony Martin in jail on value for money grounds alone.
I wouldn't even jail Tony Blair, I'd send him to do 5000hrs of community service as a porter in the A&E department of Baghdad General...
Jail people who present a real, present and ongoing danger to people and their property, no-one else.
bad Arabic and speeling
Edited by fluffnik on Monday 23 April 01:56
R_U_LOCAL said:
...There are numerous different levels of Policing, the vast majority of which, believe it or not, are aimed at reducing domestic burglary, car crime and violent crime. The problem is that most people .....don't see how much of this work goes on....
R_U,
I think the PH answer is something like:
head
nail
hit
Or, to put another way, MOP want to see BiB on the streets not hobby bobbies/Community Support Officers/etc. etc.
That method used to work.
But I've just remembered, I'm an old git.
Now the BiB aren't allowed to give kid's a 'clip round the ear' and telling kids that you'll 'I'll speak to your Dad' doesn't have the same response as it once had.
Not, in any way, BiB's fault - but you/they have to deal with it day in, day out.
I, for one, am glad that there are still BiB like R_U.
OK rant over!
R_U_LOCAL said:
nervous said:
R_U_LOCAL said:
I'm quite surprised at some of the comments on this thread.
Tine and time again, I read comments from people who are fervently anti-speed camera, who think that the Police shouldn't be wasting their time prosecuting people for minor motoring offences, and that they should, instead, be putting more effort into catching and convicting the most serious road offenders.
Tine and time again, I read comments from people who are fervently anti-speed camera, who think that the Police shouldn't be wasting their time prosecuting people for minor motoring offences, and that they should, instead, be putting more effort into catching and convicting the most serious road offenders.
ps i genuinley think you have this wrong. and you seem not to be the only one. which is shocking, baring in mind the huge failing of logic in your argument.
what people want is not more effort into catching the worst road offenders, but more effort put into catching burglars, rapists, murderers etc. i recognise that they dont represent as ready form of revenue, but we'd all be really grateful if this message could get through.
So what? We shouldn't be prosecuting the worst motoring offenders?
Get real - the "you should be out catching burglars/rapists/murderers" argument is the oldest and weakest one in the book, and it's a big book. There are numerous different levels of Policing, the vast majority of which, believe it or not, are aimed at reducing domestic burglary, car crime and violent crime. The problem is that most people like yourself either don't see how much of this work goes on, or choose to ignore it for the sake of an argument.
Alongside the efforts put into preventing and detecting crime, the Police have a duty to enforce traffic laws, especially the most serious ones.
It seems the one with the failed logic is you, not me.
Either failed logic, or a seriously blinkered view of Policing.
ok, i take it all back. youre everything i feared you would be. and aggressive to boot, it would seem. what a lovely combination. and you cant beat telling people with genuine fears and worries that theyre wrong: youre a credit to modern policing.
also, significantly, and fractionally more worryingly it seems to me that any police officer using statements such as 'people like yourself' without taking the time to have any idea about the people hes reffering to is only ever going to make flawed judgements and ultimatley epitomise the worst perception of police work.
finally, the reason that my contention that you should be focussing on real crimes rather than penalising misdemeanours is the oldest in the book is simple: its because you havent done anything about it yet. or any of the other things in this (by own admission) very big book. perhaps if you treated it as a 'to do' list and worked your way through some of them it wouldnt be so big?
or, yknow, carry on as you are, tell us were wrong for wanting to feel safer and wanting you to do your jobs, and concentrate on whatever aspect of law enforcement that you nets you the biggest revenue and gets you the biggest results.
either way, were stuck with you.
nervous said:
R_U_LOCAL said:
nervous said:
R_U_LOCAL said:
I'm quite surprised at some of the comments on this thread.
Tine and time again, I read comments from people who are fervently anti-speed camera, who think that the Police shouldn't be wasting their time prosecuting people for minor motoring offences, and that they should, instead, be putting more effort into catching and convicting the most serious road offenders.
Tine and time again, I read comments from people who are fervently anti-speed camera, who think that the Police shouldn't be wasting their time prosecuting people for minor motoring offences, and that they should, instead, be putting more effort into catching and convicting the most serious road offenders.
ps i genuinley think you have this wrong. and you seem not to be the only one. which is shocking, baring in mind the huge failing of logic in your argument.
what people want is not more effort into catching the worst road offenders, but more effort put into catching burglars, rapists, murderers etc. i recognise that they dont represent as ready form of revenue, but we'd all be really grateful if this message could get through.
So what? We shouldn't be prosecuting the worst motoring offenders?
Get real - the "you should be out catching burglars/rapists/murderers" argument is the oldest and weakest one in the book, and it's a big book. There are numerous different levels of Policing, the vast majority of which, believe it or not, are aimed at reducing domestic burglary, car crime and violent crime. The problem is that most people like yourself either don't see how much of this work goes on, or choose to ignore it for the sake of an argument.
Alongside the efforts put into preventing and detecting crime, the Police have a duty to enforce traffic laws, especially the most serious ones.
It seems the one with the failed logic is you, not me.
Either failed logic, or a seriously blinkered view of Policing.
ok, i take it all back. youre everything i feared you would be. and aggressive to boot, it would seem. what a lovely combination. and you cant beat telling people with genuine fears and worries that theyre wrong: youre a credit to modern policing.
also, significantly, and fractionally more worryingly it seems to me that any police officer using statements such as 'people like yourself' without taking the time to have any idea about the people hes reffering to is only ever going to make flawed judgements and ultimatley epitomise the worst perception of police work.
finally, the reason that my contention that you should be focussing on real crimes rather than penalising misdemeanours is the oldest in the book is simple: its because you havent done anything about it yet. or any of the other things in this (by own admission) very big book. perhaps if you treated it as a 'to do' list and worked your way through some of them it wouldnt be so big?
or, yknow, carry on as you are, tell us were wrong for wanting to feel safer and wanting you to do your jobs, and concentrate on whatever aspect of law enforcement that you nets you the biggest revenue and gets you the biggest results.
either way, were stuck with you.
So putting up a reasoned argument and pointing out that you're wrong is "aggressive" is it?
I'm still stuggling to understand how a serious case of dangerous driving could possibly count as a "misdemeanour", and something which, according to you, the Police shouldn't be interested in.
Your argument is weak and I think you'll find there are very few people who agree with your simplistic view.
Edited by R_U_LOCAL on Monday 23 April 09:21
R_U_LOCAL said:
nervous said:
R_U_LOCAL said:
nervous said:
R_U_LOCAL said:
I'm quite surprised at some of the comments on this thread.
Tine and time again, I read comments from people who are fervently anti-speed camera, who think that the Police shouldn't be wasting their time prosecuting people for minor motoring offences, and that they should, instead, be putting more effort into catching and convicting the most serious road offenders.
Tine and time again, I read comments from people who are fervently anti-speed camera, who think that the Police shouldn't be wasting their time prosecuting people for minor motoring offences, and that they should, instead, be putting more effort into catching and convicting the most serious road offenders.
ps i genuinley think you have this wrong. and you seem not to be the only one. which is shocking, baring in mind the huge failing of logic in your argument.
what people want is not more effort into catching the worst road offenders, but more effort put into catching burglars, rapists, murderers etc. i recognise that they dont represent as ready form of revenue, but we'd all be really grateful if this message could get through.
So what? We shouldn't be prosecuting the worst motoring offenders?
Get real - the "you should be out catching burglars/rapists/murderers" argument is the oldest and weakest one in the book, and it's a big book. There are numerous different levels of Policing, the vast majority of which, believe it or not, are aimed at reducing domestic burglary, car crime and violent crime. The problem is that most people like yourself either don't see how much of this work goes on, or choose to ignore it for the sake of an argument.
Alongside the efforts put into preventing and detecting crime, the Police have a duty to enforce traffic laws, especially the most serious ones.
It seems the one with the failed logic is you, not me.
Either failed logic, or a seriously blinkered view of Policing.
ok, i take it all back. youre everything i feared you would be. and aggressive to boot, it would seem. what a lovely combination. and you cant beat telling people with genuine fears and worries that theyre wrong: youre a credit to modern policing.
also, significantly, and fractionally more worryingly it seems to me that any police officer using statements such as 'people like yourself' without taking the time to have any idea about the people hes reffering to is only ever going to make flawed judgements and ultimatley epitomise the worst perception of police work.
finally, the reason that my contention that you should be focussing on real crimes rather than penalising misdemeanours is the oldest in the book is simple: its because you havent done anything about it yet. or any of the other things in this (by own admission) very big book. perhaps if you treated it as a 'to do' list and worked your way through some of them it wouldnt be so big?
or, yknow, carry on as you are, tell us were wrong for wanting to feel safer and wanting you to do your jobs, and concentrate on whatever aspect of law enforcement that you nets you the biggest revenue and gets you the biggest results.
either way, were stuck with you.
So putting up a reasoned argument and pointing out that you're wrong is "aggressive" is it?
I'm still stuggling to understand how a serious case of dangerous driving could possibly count as a "misdemeanour", and something which, according to you, the Police shouldn't be interested in.
Your argument is weak and I think you'll find there are very few people who agree with your simplistic view.
Edited by R_U_LOCAL on Monday 23 April 09:21
you dont see how expressions like 'so what?' and 'get real!' could be seen as agressive and disinterested in a persons view point? oh. thats a shame. especially since you should be very observant of tone and the use of language.
when did i say that dangerous driving was a misdemeanour RU? i was, as im sure you know, referring to the policing strategy as a whole, thats why i mentioned things like murder and rape, as opposed to specific murders and rapes. your condensing as many of my points as you can to bolster your argument, theres no need. Im happy that I utterly disagree with you.
R_U_LOCAL said:
In this case, a driver has been convicted of the second most serious offence in the road traffic act, but because he's a member of our "club", and an enthusiast, then it's disgusting that he's been gaoled, and an appalling waste of time.
That's really not what comes across from reading this thread. Touchy subject?
nervous.
I've never met RUL but have read enough of his posts here since he joined PH and for over two years on another forum to have a pretty good idea of what sort of copper he is and with the utmost respect you could not be more wrong.
If I ever have the misfortune to deal with the BiB as either victim or offender I'd like (relative term) to be dealt with by a copper of his ilk. Even if it's because they finally caught me misbehaving in my car I know I'd be treated fairly and cop it sweet.
As for him being "aggressive" and 'just like all the others' words fail me. I've seen no evidence of that whatsoever. With all due respect perhaps it's you who is acting like 'all the others'?
I've never met RUL but have read enough of his posts here since he joined PH and for over two years on another forum to have a pretty good idea of what sort of copper he is and with the utmost respect you could not be more wrong.
If I ever have the misfortune to deal with the BiB as either victim or offender I'd like (relative term) to be dealt with by a copper of his ilk. Even if it's because they finally caught me misbehaving in my car I know I'd be treated fairly and cop it sweet.
As for him being "aggressive" and 'just like all the others' words fail me. I've seen no evidence of that whatsoever. With all due respect perhaps it's you who is acting like 'all the others'?
Flintstone said:
nervous.
I've never met RUL but have read enough of his posts here since he joined PH and for over two years on another forum to have a pretty good idea of what sort of copper he is and with the utmost respect you could not be more wrong.
If I ever have the misfortune to deal with the BiB as either victim or offender I'd like (relative term) to be dealt with by a copper of his ilk. Even if it's because they finally caught me misbehaving in my car I know I'd be treated fairly and cop it sweet.
As for him being "aggressive" and 'just like all the others' words fail me. I've seen no evidence of that whatsoever. With all due respect perhaps it's you who is acting like 'all the others'?
I've never met RUL but have read enough of his posts here since he joined PH and for over two years on another forum to have a pretty good idea of what sort of copper he is and with the utmost respect you could not be more wrong.
If I ever have the misfortune to deal with the BiB as either victim or offender I'd like (relative term) to be dealt with by a copper of his ilk. Even if it's because they finally caught me misbehaving in my car I know I'd be treated fairly and cop it sweet.
As for him being "aggressive" and 'just like all the others' words fail me. I've seen no evidence of that whatsoever. With all due respect perhaps it's you who is acting like 'all the others'?
you missed my point, or have ignored it. either way, you misunderstand me.
I started out by praising his post, as lke you i was impressed at its passion and candour.
later, he accused ME of being just like all the others. I did not accuse him of this.
then he used agressive expressions such as 'so what?' in response to one of my points. if this is not an aggressive rebuttal, Ive yet to see one.
It brings me no pleasure to think that a policeman is in any way ineffective. again, i praised him in my first post. if i am wrong then i am happy to 'cop it sweet' but based on the last few posts all i can see is agrression and a lack of judgement. these are not good characteristics in a police officer, in my humble O.
R_U_LOCAL said:
Nervous said:
what people want is not more effort into catching the worst road offenders, but more effort put into catching burglars, rapists, murderers etc.
So what? We shouldn't be prosecuting the worst motoring offenders?
Get real - the "you should be out catching burglars/rapists/murderers" argument is the oldest and weakest one in the book, and it's a big book. There are numerous different levels of Policing, the vast majority of which, believe it or not, are aimed at reducing domestic burglary, car crime and violent crime. The problem is that most people like yourself either don't see how much of this work goes on, or choose to ignore it for the sake of an argument.
Alongside the efforts put into preventing and detecting crime, the Police have a duty to enforce traffic laws, especially the most serious ones.
I don't think there's anything wrong with Nervous' pointing out of the fact that people want more police effort spent on the crimes that they consider to be more important to them, and I think RUL's unnecessarily tetchy response is what has escalated this beyond mere banter...
nervous said:
Flintstone said:
nervous.
I've never met RUL but have read enough of his posts here since he joined PH and for over two years on another forum to have a pretty good idea of what sort of copper he is and with the utmost respect you could not be more wrong.
If I ever have the misfortune to deal with the BiB as either victim or offender I'd like (relative term) to be dealt with by a copper of his ilk. Even if it's because they finally caught me misbehaving in my car I know I'd be treated fairly and cop it sweet.
As for him being "aggressive" and 'just like all the others' words fail me. I've seen no evidence of that whatsoever. With all due respect perhaps it's you who is acting like 'all the others'?
I've never met RUL but have read enough of his posts here since he joined PH and for over two years on another forum to have a pretty good idea of what sort of copper he is and with the utmost respect you could not be more wrong.
If I ever have the misfortune to deal with the BiB as either victim or offender I'd like (relative term) to be dealt with by a copper of his ilk. Even if it's because they finally caught me misbehaving in my car I know I'd be treated fairly and cop it sweet.
As for him being "aggressive" and 'just like all the others' words fail me. I've seen no evidence of that whatsoever. With all due respect perhaps it's you who is acting like 'all the others'?
you missed my point, or have ignored it. either way, you misunderstand me.
I started out by praising his post, as lke you i was impressed at its passion and candour.
later, he accused ME of being just like all the others. I did not accuse him of this.
then he used agressive expressions such as 'so what?' in response to one of my points. if this is not an aggressive rebuttal, Ive yet to see one.
It brings me no pleasure to think that a policeman is in any way ineffective. again, i praised him in my first post. if i am wrong then i am happy to 'cop it sweet' but based on the last few posts all i can see is agrression and a lack of judgement. these are not good characteristics in a police officer, in my humble O.
If you think that "so what" constitutes an aggressive response, then you are well suited to your username.
I've pointed out a few facts to you and you don't like it.
Tough.
Gassing Station | General Gassing | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff