Got away with speeding :-)
Discussion
turbobloke said:
If you had tried the sort of tactic with me about PACE etc, you may well have had to explain to a magistrate what you were doing, as my colleague and myself would have estimated your speed over a specific distance to be in excess of the limit and corroborated that with the speedo!!!!>> Edited by gone on Sunday 28th November 18:02
Perjury is OK for you then, while a possibly safe 95 mph isn't; yep good call...
I don't see where I said anything which could be prescribes as committing perjury. I never have and have never needed to. I have watched many of my customers do so. That is up to them. I do not have perjury on my conscience
gone said:OK that's all we need to know, better than malicious falsified evidence. Good to see the courts standing up to the Brunstroms of this world and demanding justice is properly served, hopefully part of a wider move towards fairness and natural justice.
Pepipoo is misleading you !
turbobloke said:
Pepipoo is misleading you
OK that's all we need to know, better than malicious falsified evidence. Good to see the courts standing up to the Brunstroms of this world and demanding justice is properly served, hopefully part of a wider move towards fairness and natural justice.
Had plenty of chips with your lunch Turbo?
I think you dropped a couple and they are on your shoulder
!gone said:Apologies if I misinterpreted your earlier comment. I took it to mean that, if you were engaged in dialogue with a MoP who was 'trying it on'
I don't see where I said anything which could be prescribes as committing perjury. I never have and have never needed to. I have watched many of my customers do so. That is up to them. I do not have perjury on my conscience
by expecting their rights to be upheld, after being stopped for an alleged speed limit offence that would normally be covered by a fixed penalty option, you would a) at worst, disclose a higher made-up speed backed up by a colleagues' impression that was then checked (not) against your speedo, or
b) at best, report for a hearing rather than go for a fixed penalty route on the basis that the Court would probably award a bigger fine and more points - like they do - and I assumed also that there would be some made up aggravating circumstance that would explain your decision.
Sorry if these are both wrong. Trouble is, from your post, I can't see what else you could mean, and both would einvolve you telling naughties in Court
[quote] On the other hand the man in the red coat may take some of your free money that the kind British working man puts into your account every other Friday.[/quote]
This whole explanation : brilliant and so very true ! Best thing I have read on PH this year.
The rest of you are miserable, boring pedants. Go buy a rover and get back to
www.ihaveaflatcapandnosenseofhumour.com
This whole explanation : brilliant and so very true ! Best thing I have read on PH this year.
The rest of you are miserable, boring pedants. Go buy a rover and get back to
www.ihaveaflatcapandnosenseofhumour.com
Turbo.
If I had been in patrol car dealing with this incident, I would have probably dealt with it in exactly the same way the 2 officers did until the suspected driver started to ask questions about PACE.
I would have explained to the driver that PACe covers certain aspects of this interaction and that he was not entitled to a copy of codes of Practice and thae reasons why. The incident may well have continued in the way it did and with the same result to the errant driver, but from previous dealings/experience with 'barrack room lawyers', this often becomes the turning point where the customer starts to dictate the direction the incident is going to take.
Customers that 'think they know' will start to argue their corner. The place to do this is not in the back of a patrol car on the side of the road. The place to do this is in a court room where qualified legal experts can make a decision about the circumstances.
Having had an initial conversation with the driver who may well have slipped up in his answers, I would abort the reading not obtained on the video but used the tape as evidence of the incident. I would have reported the driver for the offence of exceeding the permitted limit for a distance of XXX miles/meters and the speeds would have reflected the speeds that were invovled in checking the vehicle and not in catching it up! Corroboration would have been the speedometer and my colleague of which I only need one and not both!
I will not argue with motorists who decide to fight fire with fire. I am above all fair and consistent in my dealings with the public whether they are driving or not but I will not be patronised or intimidated by them. If it comes to their knowledge against mine, the route to go will be throught the court for them to decide who is right. This will be done without any fabrictaion whatsoever. If the experts in Court decide the customer was right, then so be it. They have had a result!
They may well have had the same result if they had taken the original advice at the time and not tried to be a bit of a 'clever dickie' to get away with it.
I hope that explains where I am coming from. Enjoy the rest of your afternoon at work. I have just taken a substantial amount of skin off the side of my left ring finger whilst filing down a piece of wood to assist in my laying of a laminate floor! I hope your afternoon goes slightly better than mine has!
I am working later and hope that I do not meet anyone who decides to challenge my knowledge of PACE or any other relevant legislation to avoid the possibility of a ticket. they may well become another ardent supporter of the Police Public relationship if they do!
If I had been in patrol car dealing with this incident, I would have probably dealt with it in exactly the same way the 2 officers did until the suspected driver started to ask questions about PACE.
I would have explained to the driver that PACe covers certain aspects of this interaction and that he was not entitled to a copy of codes of Practice and thae reasons why. The incident may well have continued in the way it did and with the same result to the errant driver, but from previous dealings/experience with 'barrack room lawyers', this often becomes the turning point where the customer starts to dictate the direction the incident is going to take.
Customers that 'think they know' will start to argue their corner. The place to do this is not in the back of a patrol car on the side of the road. The place to do this is in a court room where qualified legal experts can make a decision about the circumstances.
Having had an initial conversation with the driver who may well have slipped up in his answers, I would abort the reading not obtained on the video but used the tape as evidence of the incident. I would have reported the driver for the offence of exceeding the permitted limit for a distance of XXX miles/meters and the speeds would have reflected the speeds that were invovled in checking the vehicle and not in catching it up! Corroboration would have been the speedometer and my colleague of which I only need one and not both!
I will not argue with motorists who decide to fight fire with fire. I am above all fair and consistent in my dealings with the public whether they are driving or not but I will not be patronised or intimidated by them. If it comes to their knowledge against mine, the route to go will be throught the court for them to decide who is right. This will be done without any fabrictaion whatsoever. If the experts in Court decide the customer was right, then so be it. They have had a result!
They may well have had the same result if they had taken the original advice at the time and not tried to be a bit of a 'clever dickie' to get away with it.
I hope that explains where I am coming from. Enjoy the rest of your afternoon at work. I have just taken a substantial amount of skin off the side of my left ring finger whilst filing down a piece of wood to assist in my laying of a laminate floor! I hope your afternoon goes slightly better than mine has!
I am working later and hope that I do not meet anyone who decides to challenge my knowledge of PACE or any other relevant legislation to avoid the possibility of a ticket. they may well become another ardent supporter of the Police Public relationship if they do
! gone said:Glad to read this
I am above all fair and consistent in my dealings with the public whether they are driving or not but I will not be patronised or intimidated by them. If it comes to their knowledge against mine, the route to go will be throught the court for them to decide who is right. This will be done without any fabrictaion whatsoever. If the experts in Court decide the customer was right, then so be it. They have had a result! They may well have had the same result if they had taken the original advice at the time and not tried to be a bit of a 'clever dickie' to get away with it. I hope that explains where I am coming from. Enjoy the rest of your afternoon at work. I have just taken a substantial amount of skin off the side of my left ring finger whilst filing down a piece of wood to assist in my laying of a laminate floor! I hope your afternoon goes slightly better than mine has! I am working later and hope that I do not meet anyone who decides to challenge my knowledge of PACE or any other relevant legislation to avoid the possibility of a ticket. they may well become another ardent supporter of the Police Public relationship if they do
And remember, if your finger hurts that much, even a big strong manly BiB can be excused for 
turbobloke said:
Glad to read this
I did stifle something which I shouldn't have started to say in time! I have now sucked out the poison and have had a nice cup of tea. I will now go and remove the piece of flesh that is hanging off the side of my vice and the floor can get stuffed for the immediate time being!
GreenV8S said:
probably only about 95 mph, nothing to get too excited about if the conditions were decent.
GreenV8S said:
Do you really believe that 95+ is an acceptable speed?
Yes. It was perfectly OK this morning on a SC road.
GreenV8S said:
I don't dispute that there are times and places where this sort of speed could be achieved safely, and it could well be that this was one of them, but IMO it's well past the point where I would expect the BiB to turn a blind eye.
Yes I think that's pretty much right.
GreenV8S said:
The chances of encountering BiB or cameras may be low, but if you do encounter any I would expect to be in serious trouble and only a few MPH away from a probably ban.
Yes I guess you're right again. Fingers crossed.
[quote=GreenV8S]
Personally, that isn't a risk I'm prepared to take which is why 95 mph is well outside my 'comfort zone'.
Fair enough Peter, I respect your views. It's just that they differ from mine somewhat. One of us might be wrong - and I don't know who it is.
BTW - ever thought of selling that TVR and buying a wheelbarrow?
Best wishes all,
Dave - attempting to end on a lighter note.
gone said:
" You have done something bad/wrong/against the law. It is my job to tell the courts about this. I must give you chance to say something to help me and the court understand why you did this thing. You do not have to tell me anything if you don't want to. This bad thing will be written about by me to someone in charge of the law. They will decide on my behalf whether you must go and see another person in a big red coat and wearing a silly rug, unfortunately this will not be St Nicholas, Father Christmas or Santa Claus. If this happens the man in the red coat and the silly rug may send you to a small disgusting place without much of a view where you will have to piss in a bucket and be careful about dropping any soap in the shower. On the other hand the man in the red coat may take some of your free money that the kind British working man puts into your account every other Friday. I hope this is now more clear to you and I will allow you to continue from this point reflecting on the valuable advice I have just given you"
That's very good 'gone', most amusing. Is Blott a pal of yours?
Best wishes all,
Dave.
TripleS said:
" You have done something bad/wrong/against the law. It is my job to tell the courts about this. I must give you chance to say something to help me and the court understand why you did this thing. You do not have to tell me anything if you don't want to. This bad thing will be written about by me to someone in charge of the law. They will decide on my behalf whether you must go and see another person in a big red coat and wearing a silly rug, unfortunately this will not be St Nicholas, Father Christmas or Santa Claus. If this happens the man in the red coat and the silly rug may send you to a small disgusting place without much of a view where you will have to piss in a bucket and be careful about dropping any soap in the shower. On the other hand the man in the red coat may take some of your free money that the kind British working man puts into your account every other Friday. I hope this is now more clear to you and I will allow you to continue from this point reflecting on the valuable advice I have just given you"
That's very good 'gone', most amusing. Is Blott a pal of yours?
Best wishes all,
Dave.
Glad you liked it
Who is Blott
?Hello 'gone'
Blott is foreign gentleman employed as gardener/handyman/chauffeur (sp?) by Sir Giles and Lady Lynchwood (the fearsome Maud) in the BBC TV series "Blott on the Landscape".
For a real example of drinking and driving see George Cole (Sir Giles) in his Rover.
Very funny series, and the music accompanying the titles is very funny too. The final note at the end of the closing titles rounds it off very well!
Best wishes all,
Dave.
Blott is foreign gentleman employed as gardener/handyman/chauffeur (sp?) by Sir Giles and Lady Lynchwood (the fearsome Maud) in the BBC TV series "Blott on the Landscape".
For a real example of drinking and driving see George Cole (Sir Giles) in his Rover.
Very funny series, and the music accompanying the titles is very funny too. The final note at the end of the closing titles rounds it off very well!
Best wishes all,
Dave.
Once back in Dec 02 was sat at about 115 on the M62- stupid thing to do. Usual conditions. Saw traff poll in front of the lorry which I had passed half of , stood on the E39's brakes back to 80 as completley passed the lorry. And not stopped, dunno how, but v. lucky. Needless to say never gone at that speed when my view of any lane is blocked.
Baz
Baz
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff