Special Constable on the phone at time of collision
Discussion
Paul Dishman said:
Mr_annie_vxr said:
Try not to apply your corrupt attitudes to others.
Tends to suggest in my experience how you perhaps are with others
My experiences of the justice system regarding police officers is they are far more likely to face prosecution and that levels of investigation and expense that would not apply to others occur. Which owing to the nature of the role is wholly correct.
Her position as a special is of no relevance to her culpability for the incident.
La Liga said:
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
Elroy Blue said:
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.
Of cause it would be bullsBULLs
t. Not even just smelly bullst. Complete unadulterated, total, complete bullst.t it didnt come out of your mouth i aint got time to look for the article but will do when get some time ( up at 2am for work ) but 1 was a family member and was around 5yrs ago the accident and around 4yrs till sentanced , even a family member who is quite high up in the police force was very supprised on the outcome of the verdict , driver was sentanced to 3yrs in prison and driving licence revoked for 5yrs and has to take licence again wizzbilly said:
Of cause it would be bullst it didnt come out of your mouth i aint got time to look for the article but will do when get some time ( up at 2am for work ) but 1 was a family member and was around 5yrs ago the accident and yaround 4yrs till sentanced , even a family member who is quite high up in the police force was very supprised on the outcome of the verdict , driver was sentanced to 3yrs in prison and driving licence revoked for 5yrs and has to take licence again
Surely you remember family members names? Or is that a bit tricky in Lincolnshire.t it didnt come out of your mouth i aint got time to look for the article but will do when get some time ( up at 2am for work ) but 1 was a family member and was around 5yrs ago the accident and yaround 4yrs till sentanced , even a family member who is quite high up in the police force was very supprised on the outcome of the verdict , driver was sentanced to 3yrs in prison and driving licence revoked for 5yrs and has to take licence again of cause i remember family members names you fking idiot but dont think its my place to be putting names of others on the internet and quite frankly what do i have to prove ffs the incident was nearly 5years ago .
elroy blue it might not be manslaughter could be wrong it could be death by dangrous driving or some other term they wish to use i will dig the article out and i also belive there is a youtube video footage as was air lifted to hospiatl and was on that air ambulance show thing but will dig it out and also the court details should you wish to argue the facts then feel free butwhat reason do i have to make it up ffs
The article on this subject clearly states the officer is a liar and has been found out to be on her phone and to be quite frank should practice what they preach my pet hate any motorist using hand held devices
yes my spelling is st give me a golden badge of your grammer lesson
king idiot but dont think its my place to be putting names of others on the internet and quite frankly what do i have to prove ffs the incident was nearly 5years ago . elroy blue it might not be manslaughter could be wrong it could be death by dangrous driving or some other term they wish to use i will dig the article out and i also belive there is a youtube video footage as was air lifted to hospiatl and was on that air ambulance show thing but will dig it out and also the court details should you wish to argue the facts then feel free butwhat reason do i have to make it up ffs
The article on this subject clearly states the officer is a liar and has been found out to be on her phone and to be quite frank should practice what they preach my pet hate any motorist using hand held devices
yes my spelling is s
t give me a golden badge of your grammer lesson Jonleeper said:
La Liga said:
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
'Show' trails only encourage conspiracy theorists to think that the court system is bent. Even when the decisions are made by juries.
Mr_annie_vxr said:
You are the one making accusations then explaining how you'd let people off for offences. Not me.
Tends to suggest in my experience how you perhaps are with others
Where have you got that from? I'm the one wanting prosecution, you're the one making excuses for a colleague.Tends to suggest in my experience how you perhaps are with others
I was laughing at your accusation of me being corrupt.
Right, disregarding the bluff and bluster of the usual suspects... how can someone who causes the death of another motorist whilst on the phone (regardless of whether it was "on her lap" she lied about using it so might be lying about it not being held?) lied when questioned, and been blamed by both the IO and the coroner for the collision walk away with no charges at all? Something smells bad here...
[quote]Recording a verdict of accidental death, Mr Payne described her account of the incoming call as “total rubbish” and added: “She came up with misleading accounts of what happened.”
Miss Carpenter told him: “In the time of the first interview I just panicked and said what I said which I know is not the truth.
“I don’t know why I didn’t say about the phone. I was in shock, maybe I didn’t think it was relevant at the time. I was not distracted.”
But accident investigator PC John Hayward said: “The use of her mobile phone can only have been a distraction and has very likely contributed to her not seeing the motorcyclist.”
[/quote]
[quote]Recording a verdict of accidental death, Mr Payne described her account of the incoming call as “total rubbish” and added: “She came up with misleading accounts of what happened.”
Miss Carpenter told him: “In the time of the first interview I just panicked and said what I said which I know is not the truth.
“I don’t know why I didn’t say about the phone. I was in shock, maybe I didn’t think it was relevant at the time. I was not distracted.”
But accident investigator PC John Hayward said: “The use of her mobile phone can only have been a distraction and has very likely contributed to her not seeing the motorcyclist.”
[/quote]
Having read the report and a quick scan of google maps, I'm guessing the chap who was killed was filtering past traffic to the offside and she's pulled out of the side road into his path. Which MAY be why the CPS didn't prosecute, as the motorcyclist MAY have been partially liable for the collision by his actions.
And before everyone starts frothing at the mouth, the above is all purely supposition on my part. I am in no way suggesting the motorcyclist deserved to die, even if he MAY have been partially liable for the collision. Of course, he could equally have been being perfectly reasonable and prudent and she's just hit him and its 100% her fault
If she's lied in her interviews she shouldn't imho be a special. If she has lied, anything she does from now will be tainted with dishonesty and any evidence she could give in future (as a special) will be open to question at court.
I've no idea why the CPS didn't prosecute but as usual, we don't have the full facts of what was reported to them. It seems fairly clear what the opinions of the investigating officer and the coroner are.
And before everyone starts frothing at the mouth, the above is all purely supposition on my part. I am in no way suggesting the motorcyclist deserved to die, even if he MAY have been partially liable for the collision. Of course, he could equally have been being perfectly reasonable and prudent and she's just hit him and its 100% her fault
If she's lied in her interviews she shouldn't imho be a special. If she has lied, anything she does from now will be tainted with dishonesty and any evidence she could give in future (as a special) will be open to question at court.
I've no idea why the CPS didn't prosecute but as usual, we don't have the full facts of what was reported to them. It seems fairly clear what the opinions of the investigating officer and the coroner are.
jaf01uk said:
Right, disregarding the bluff and bluster of the usual suspects...
The only 'bluff and buster' is people posting in a similar vain to you who won't accept that it's overwhelmingly probable that there was insufficient evidence to provide a realistic prospect of a conviction. Disregard whatever you want, that's how it is. Or carry on pretending there is a CPS / Coroner conspiracy.
Setting aside the rights and wrongs for a moment, which is perhaps sensible since we don't have the full facts of the case, I think what we can probably all agree on is that this sort of thing always grates when compared, not to the letter of the law, but to the practical, everyday application of the law in the real world.
How often are we told that speeding kills, so we have speed limits to protect fluffy bunnies and all these hundreds of children who run out into the road unexpectedly (I'm on three billion road miles and still waiting for my first one...). The police in turn enforce these speed limits by hiding in bushes and zapping perfectly innocent motorists with radar guns. Those of us happily going about our business, doing no harm to man nor beast but technically breaking the law are summarily punished by points and a fine, even when the offence has no consequence. Of course, the arguments rage in little corners of the Internet such as this and we usually end up agreeing to disagree between those who see that there are shades of grey, and those who are adamant that the world is black and white. This is all fine and usually forgotten fairly quickly. What really annoys people is that we then have cases where police officers do silly things, like crashing Evos and Porsches at 150mph (or whatever) and then get away with it on some daft technicality. So, those of us doing no harm are punished, while those doing harm are allowed on their way. The same applies here. We saw very recently in a thread on this very board, a chap received a ticket for being on the phone while stationary in traffic and the argument raged between those who said he was doing no harm, so needn't be punished, those who said he was breaking the letter of the law, if not the spirit of it, so should be punished, and those who postulated that he was breaking both the letter and the spirit of the law, in so much as being on the phone increased his propensity to do something careless as he moved off, so should be severely punished. Now we have this case, where a woman (regardless of her occupation) is on the phone while she causes a fatal accident and is not prosecuted for it. This seems odd because there is no consistency.
We see the same thing all over the place. Football is an excellent example. One man brushes a ballboy and is banned for three games, another man tries his hardest to break an opponent's leg and is spared punishment because the FA refuse to take action. It's daft. All we ask, be it in football, road traffic law or anything else, is consistency and we don't seem to be getting it here and that, above all else, is what really hurts.
Simon.
How often are we told that speeding kills, so we have speed limits to protect fluffy bunnies and all these hundreds of children who run out into the road unexpectedly (I'm on three billion road miles and still waiting for my first one...). The police in turn enforce these speed limits by hiding in bushes and zapping perfectly innocent motorists with radar guns. Those of us happily going about our business, doing no harm to man nor beast but technically breaking the law are summarily punished by points and a fine, even when the offence has no consequence. Of course, the arguments rage in little corners of the Internet such as this and we usually end up agreeing to disagree between those who see that there are shades of grey, and those who are adamant that the world is black and white. This is all fine and usually forgotten fairly quickly. What really annoys people is that we then have cases where police officers do silly things, like crashing Evos and Porsches at 150mph (or whatever) and then get away with it on some daft technicality. So, those of us doing no harm are punished, while those doing harm are allowed on their way. The same applies here. We saw very recently in a thread on this very board, a chap received a ticket for being on the phone while stationary in traffic and the argument raged between those who said he was doing no harm, so needn't be punished, those who said he was breaking the letter of the law, if not the spirit of it, so should be punished, and those who postulated that he was breaking both the letter and the spirit of the law, in so much as being on the phone increased his propensity to do something careless as he moved off, so should be severely punished. Now we have this case, where a woman (regardless of her occupation) is on the phone while she causes a fatal accident and is not prosecuted for it. This seems odd because there is no consistency.
We see the same thing all over the place. Football is an excellent example. One man brushes a ballboy and is banned for three games, another man tries his hardest to break an opponent's leg and is spared punishment because the FA refuse to take action. It's daft. All we ask, be it in football, road traffic law or anything else, is consistency and we don't seem to be getting it here and that, above all else, is what really hurts.
Simon.
jaf01uk said:
Right, disregarding the bluff and bluster of the usual suspects... how can someone who causes the death of another motorist whilst on the phone (regardless of whether it was "on her lap" she lied about using it so might be lying about it not being held?) lied when questioned, and been blamed by both the IO and the coroner for the collision walk away with no charges at all? Something smells bad here...
[quote]Recording a verdict of accidental death, Mr Payne described her account of the incoming call as “total rubbish” and added: “She came up with misleading accounts of what happened.”
Miss Carpenter told him: “In the time of the first interview I just panicked and said what I said which I know is not the truth.
“I don’t know why I didn’t say about the phone. I was in shock, maybe I didn’t think it was relevant at the time. I was not distracted.”
But accident investigator PC John Hayward said: “The use of her mobile phone can only have been a distraction and has very likely contributed to her not seeing the motorcyclist.”
[quote]Recording a verdict of accidental death, Mr Payne described her account of the incoming call as “total rubbish” and added: “She came up with misleading accounts of what happened.”
Miss Carpenter told him: “In the time of the first interview I just panicked and said what I said which I know is not the truth.
“I don’t know why I didn’t say about the phone. I was in shock, maybe I didn’t think it was relevant at the time. I was not distracted.”
But accident investigator PC John Hayward said: “The use of her mobile phone can only have been a distraction and has very likely contributed to her not seeing the motorcyclist.”
There is no doubt that a mobile phone is a distraction, as is listening to the car radio, talking to passengers, thinking about your dinner.
What we don't know is where everybody involved was placed & doing what, leading up to the collision. There are so many permutations that it's impossible to say if any decision to prosecute or not was correct (in any of our opinions) from here.
We know she lied in an investigation, she's admitted such & that damages her status as a SPC.
vonhosen said:
She may well have lied
There is no doubt that a mobile phone is a distraction,
We know she lied in an investigation,
And yet she doesn't even get the same £60 FPN that she's dished out to others for similar, even though a tiny difference is that she killed someone.There is no doubt that a mobile phone is a distraction,
We know she lied in an investigation,
She got off scot free. This is what grates with many people.
RH
Forums | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff