Special Constable on the phone at time of collision
Discussion
Well should they proced to do her for carless driving or driving without due care .
using a phone 20mins prior to a accident is good enough grounds to sentance on as concentration was still on the phone call from 20mins prior to the accident .
Many pepole have done prison time for few years down to collishion even when notr been on phone at time under the grounds that was still focused on the call , why should she get diffrent treatment should be pushed for prison time
using a phone 20mins prior to a accident is good enough grounds to sentance on as concentration was still on the phone call from 20mins prior to the accident .
Many pepole have done prison time for few years down to collishion even when notr been on phone at time under the grounds that was still focused on the call , why should she get diffrent treatment should be pushed for prison time
Edited by wizzbilly on Tuesday 12th February 18:17
Mr_annie_vxr said:
Dorset police investigates. Identified offences. Passes to CPS to decide.
Not sure how Dorset police are seen as being hypocritical?
Stop being sensible. This is SP+LNot sure how Dorset police are seen as being hypocritical?
wizzbilly said:
Well should they proced to do her for carless driving or driving without due care .
using a phone 20mins prior to a accident is good enough grounds to sentance on as concentration was still on the phone call from 20mins prior to the accident .
Many pepole have done prison time for few years down to collishion even when notr been on phone at time under the grounds that was still focused on the call , why should she get diffrent treatment should be pushed for prison time
Can you say that in English.using a phone 20mins prior to a accident is good enough grounds to sentance on as concentration was still on the phone call from 20mins prior to the accident .
Many pepole have done prison time for few years down to collishion even when notr been on phone at time under the grounds that was still focused on the call , why should she get diffrent treatment should be pushed for prison time
Edited by wizzbilly on Tuesday 12th February 18:17
Paul Dishman said:
OK.
Lets say you're a traffic cop in Dorset and you stop someone for using their mobile phone.
TC: "We're having a campaign sir, there's no excuse for using your phone while driving"
Driver: "I'm a special constable"
TC : "ok then, mind how you go"
Lets say I wouldn't do that. Lets say you're a traffic cop in Dorset and you stop someone for using their mobile phone.
TC: "We're having a campaign sir, there's no excuse for using your phone while driving"
Driver: "I'm a special constable"
TC : "ok then, mind how you go"
Indeed if anyone identified themselves as a police officer they would be reported for summons & reported to PSD.
I decide on how I proceed based on a number of factors. Them being s police officer will only aggravate the outcome. Not mitigate it.
Try not to apply your corrupt attitudes to others. Instead look at all the facts not just those sparsely reported.
anonymous said:
[redacted]
If you interviewed someone and they repeatedly changed their story, would you be trusting them ? Taking the fact she's 'Job' (sort of).The bottom line is, she is not someone who tells the truth. Could you have confidence she wouldn't do the same (exercise such a lack of sagacity, if not mendacity) if it helped her and did you over.
I want my police officers (and she is a plastic plod, but to the public is still police) to be honest. She isn't. [/]
I think I already stated she should be out of the police.
Well should they proceed to do her for careless driving or driving without due care .
Using a phone 20mins prior to a accident is good enough grounds to sentence on as concentration was still on the phone call from 20mins prior to the accident .
Many people have done prison time for few years down to collision even when not been on phone at time under the grounds that was still focused on the call , why should she get different treatment should be pushed for prison time
Using a phone 20mins prior to a accident is good enough grounds to sentence on as concentration was still on the phone call from 20mins prior to the accident .
Many people have done prison time for few years down to collision even when not been on phone at time under the grounds that was still focused on the call , why should she get different treatment should be pushed for prison time
wizzbilly said:
Well should they proced to do her for carless driving or driving without due care .
using a phone 20mins prior to a accident is good enough grounds to sentance on as concentration was still on the phone call from 20mins prior to the accident .
Many pepole have done prison time for few years down to collishion even when notr been on phone at time under the grounds that was still focused on the call , why should she get diffrent treatment should be pushed for prison time
So even if evidence doesn't support it. She should be charged with it ?using a phone 20mins prior to a accident is good enough grounds to sentance on as concentration was still on the phone call from 20mins prior to the accident .
Many pepole have done prison time for few years down to collishion even when notr been on phone at time under the grounds that was still focused on the call , why should she get diffrent treatment should be pushed for prison time
Edited by wizzbilly on Tuesday 12th February 18:17
Again. I cannot reach an informed decision on do little information. I tend to want the circumstances of the crash. Not just that someone died & there was a crash.
wizzbilly said:
Well should they proceed to do her for careless driving or driving without due care .
Using a phone 20mins prior to a accident is good enough grounds to sentence on as concentration was still on the phone call from 20mins prior to the accident .
Many people have done prison time for few years down to collision even when not been on phone at time under the grounds that was still focused on the call , why should she get different treatment should be pushed for prison time
Do you honestly wait for half an hour before you drive if you've had a phone call ?Using a phone 20mins prior to a accident is good enough grounds to sentence on as concentration was still on the phone call from 20mins prior to the accident .
Many people have done prison time for few years down to collision even when not been on phone at time under the grounds that was still focused on the call , why should she get different treatment should be pushed for prison time
wizzbilly said:
Well should they proced to do her for carless driving or driving without due care .
using a phone 20mins prior to a accident is good enough grounds to sentance on as concentration was still on the phone call from 20mins prior to the accident .
Many pepole have done prison time for few years down to collishion even when notr been on phone at time under the grounds that was still focused on the call , why should she get diffrent treatment should be pushed for prison time
She didn't. She was investigated and the evidence then went to the CPS who put it through the Full Code Test. Why do people who have no idea what they are talking about insist in saying what should have happened? using a phone 20mins prior to a accident is good enough grounds to sentance on as concentration was still on the phone call from 20mins prior to the accident .
Many pepole have done prison time for few years down to collishion even when notr been on phone at time under the grounds that was still focused on the call , why should she get diffrent treatment should be pushed for prison time
vonhosen said:
Do you honestly wait for half an hour before you drive if you've had a phone call ?
Yes i do i no of 2 drivers who have been done for manslaughter both on the grounds phone call 20mins prior to the accident even though the passengers in the car was ok the driver died and was not wearing seatbelt . long story short front car elderly gent had heart attack while in the inside lane and just put the brakes on in the lane multi pile up no one to blame they could not do the problem causer as they dies with heart attack wizzbilly said:
Yes i do i no of 2 drivers who have been done for manslaughter both on the grounds phone call 20mins prior to the accident even though the passengers in the car was ok the driver died and was not wearing seatbelt . long story short front car elderly gent had heart attack while in the inside lane and just put the brakes on in the lane multi pile up no one to blame they could not do the problem causer as they dies with heart attack
As a road death SIO (that's someone who supervises investigations into road death to you), I have one thing to say about your post.BULLs
t. Not even just smelly bullst. Complete unadulterated, total, complete bullst.wizzbilly said:
vonhosen said:
Do you honestly wait for half an hour before you drive if you've had a phone call ?
Yes i do i no of 2 drivers who have been done for manslaughter both on the grounds phone call 20mins prior to the accident even though the passengers in the car was ok the driver died and was not wearing seatbelt . long story short front car elderly gent had heart attack while in the inside lane and just put the brakes on in the lane multi pile up no one to blame they could not do the problem causer as they dies with heart attack Two separate cases of friends convicted of manslaughter as a result of a collision in a car on the basis they made a phone call 20mins prior to the collision ?
wizzbilly said:
Yes i do i no of 2 drivers who have been done for manslaughter both on the grounds phone call 20mins prior to the accident even though the passengers in the car was ok the driver died and was not wearing seatbelt . long story short front car elderly gent had heart attack while in the inside lane and just put the brakes on in the lane multi pile up no one to blame they could not do the problem causer as they dies with heart attack
Go on then, name these people you know. I'm sure we'll be able to find the cases .The Special in the OP was a muppet though.
Rovinghawk said:
It would mitigate the damage if the police force that 'use' her make a public statement that she's been booted out due to hypocrisy & dishonesty. The sooner the better, as far as their image goes.
RH
It would. However they won't even if they do. RH
They will apply due process to her case.
In fairness however I'd not issue a ticket for using a mobile phone to someone on loudspeaker. I may consider the offence of not in full control if evidence supported it
Having the phone on loudspeaker and not in contact with it is not really any different than handsfree.
Honest is the main issue for me. Most of us at some point break traffic laws. That's why a wider discretion is applied to their application by officers
Forums | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff