Traffic Officers Reports - a means to an end?
Discussion
A month or so ago, a concerned friend contacted me to say he had been stopped while speeding whilst on holiday just outside London, but instead of being told he would be prosecuted, after the inevitable lecture, he was told a Traffic Officers Report would be submitted, and a civilian team would decide if he was to be prosecuted.
His concern was that he may have to attend a Speed Awareness Course in Hertfordshire, which I pointed out was unlikely, as he could attend locally. However, somebody else has told him that the decision will be based upon how busy the courses are in the area concerned, as to whether any further offenders could be accommodated on the courses in that area!
I'm a little sceptical, but this week I heard a similar tale from another area - that TROs are a way of postponing making a decision on prosecuting offences, while a civilian team decide if they have met their targets!
Has anyone else encountered TROs? We do not appear to have them in Cumbria, so I am puzzled as to their status, and the potential for a management team to second guess an officers perception of an offence.
After todays news, I can see the sense in not putting drivers forward for a SAC course that is over subscribed...
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3049962/Ar...
His concern was that he may have to attend a Speed Awareness Course in Hertfordshire, which I pointed out was unlikely, as he could attend locally. However, somebody else has told him that the decision will be based upon how busy the courses are in the area concerned, as to whether any further offenders could be accommodated on the courses in that area!
I'm a little sceptical, but this week I heard a similar tale from another area - that TROs are a way of postponing making a decision on prosecuting offences, while a civilian team decide if they have met their targets!
Has anyone else encountered TROs? We do not appear to have them in Cumbria, so I am puzzled as to their status, and the potential for a management team to second guess an officers perception of an offence.
After todays news, I can see the sense in not putting drivers forward for a SAC course that is over subscribed...
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3049962/Ar...
Daily Wail said:
Driving campaigners have accused police forces of sending motorists on road safety courses instead of issuing fines or deducting points in order to make money.
The accusation came after figures showed the number of drivers being sent on courses after being caught speeding, not wearing a seatbelt, or using a mobile phone has tripled in five years.
Drivers typically pay between £80 and £195 for a half-day lecture, and are charged a levy of up to £35, most of which is handed back to the police, leading to allegations of profiteering.
The accusation came after figures showed the number of drivers being sent on courses after being caught speeding, not wearing a seatbelt, or using a mobile phone has tripled in five years.
Drivers typically pay between £80 and £195 for a half-day lecture, and are charged a levy of up to £35, most of which is handed back to the police, leading to allegations of profiteering.
It's a TOR or 'Tor', and Traffic Offence Report (not officer's and not a TRO - which is a Traffic Regulation Order.)
Had some success in court with these - Thames Valley Police wrongly believing that a "warning at the time" (police officer called this a 'verbal NIP') could be 24-36hrs after the offence. It can't. That's not a warning at the time. A TOR isn't a written NIP as required by section 1 - well, it could be but the Thames Valley TOR isn't appropriately worded. An easy mistake to remedy. Not the officer's fault, but whoever drafted the thing.
Had some success in court with these - Thames Valley Police wrongly believing that a "warning at the time" (police officer called this a 'verbal NIP') could be 24-36hrs after the offence. It can't. That's not a warning at the time. A TOR isn't a written NIP as required by section 1 - well, it could be but the Thames Valley TOR isn't appropriately worded. An easy mistake to remedy. Not the officer's fault, but whoever drafted the thing.
Dos it matter about offer about a course?
Whilst the courses are about money, it helps us, as we dont recieve points, so bonus all round.
Money gets spunked into chief consable's pockets, or budgets somewhere....., we dont get points, roads stay as dangerous as ever, idiots 'supposed' to be in charge of safety get boxes ticked, we continue to work and support our families with some of our income transfered into the 'safety partnership' funds to get spent, well - not on safety.
These idiots are less brought to task than our pedo supporting Labour councilors/Police Investigators/CPS criminals........
Whilst the courses are about money, it helps us, as we dont recieve points, so bonus all round.
Money gets spunked into chief consable's pockets, or budgets somewhere....., we dont get points, roads stay as dangerous as ever, idiots 'supposed' to be in charge of safety get boxes ticked, we continue to work and support our families with some of our income transfered into the 'safety partnership' funds to get spent, well - not on safety.
These idiots are less brought to task than our pedo supporting Labour councilors/Police Investigators/CPS criminals........
Mill Wheel said:
A month or so ago, a concerned friend contacted me to say he had been stopped while speeding whilst on holiday just outside London, but instead of being told he would be prosecuted, after the inevitable lecture, he was told a Traffic Officers Report would be submitted, and a civilian team would decide if he was to be prosecuted.
His concern was that he may have to attend a Speed Awareness Course in Hertfordshire, which I pointed out was unlikely, as he could attend locally. However, somebody else has told him that the decision will be based upon how busy the courses are in the area concerned, as to whether any further offenders could be accommodated on the courses in that area!
I'm a little sceptical, but this week I heard a similar tale from another area - that TROs are a way of postponing making a decision on prosecuting offences, while a civilian team decide if they have met their targets!
Has anyone else encountered TROs? We do not appear to have them in Cumbria, so I am puzzled as to their status, and the potential for a management team to second guess an officers perception of an offence.
After todays news, I can see the sense in not putting drivers forward for a SAC course that is over subscribed...
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3049962/Ar...
I think that's an outrageous allegation and without foundation or proof. Complete garbage.His concern was that he may have to attend a Speed Awareness Course in Hertfordshire, which I pointed out was unlikely, as he could attend locally. However, somebody else has told him that the decision will be based upon how busy the courses are in the area concerned, as to whether any further offenders could be accommodated on the courses in that area!
I'm a little sceptical, but this week I heard a similar tale from another area - that TROs are a way of postponing making a decision on prosecuting offences, while a civilian team decide if they have met their targets!
Has anyone else encountered TROs? We do not appear to have them in Cumbria, so I am puzzled as to their status, and the potential for a management team to second guess an officers perception of an offence.
After todays news, I can see the sense in not putting drivers forward for a SAC course that is over subscribed...
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3049962/Ar...
Daily Wail said:
Driving campaigners have accused police forces of sending motorists on road safety courses instead of issuing fines or deducting points in order to make money.
The accusation came after figures showed the number of drivers being sent on courses after being caught speeding, not wearing a seatbelt, or using a mobile phone has tripled in five years.
Drivers typically pay between £80 and £195 for a half-day lecture, and are charged a levy of up to £35, most of which is handed back to the police, leading to allegations of profiteering.
The accusation came after figures showed the number of drivers being sent on courses after being caught speeding, not wearing a seatbelt, or using a mobile phone has tripled in five years.
Drivers typically pay between £80 and £195 for a half-day lecture, and are charged a levy of up to £35, most of which is handed back to the police, leading to allegations of profiteering.
There, that's what I reckon and I think I have more proof of what I say than you do about your allegation.
Convince me.
Mill Wheel said:
A month or so ago, a concerned friend contacted me to say he had been stopped while speeding whilst on holiday just outside London, but instead of being told he would be prosecuted, after the inevitable lecture, he was told a Traffic Officers Report would be submitted, and a civilian team would decide if he was to be prosecuted.
His concern was that he may have to attend a Speed Awareness Course in Hertfordshire, which I pointed out was unlikely, as he could attend locally. However, somebody else has told him that the decision will be based upon how busy the courses are in the area concerned, as to whether any further offenders could be accommodated on the courses in that area!
I'm a little sceptical, but this week I heard a similar tale from another area - that TROs are a way of postponing making a decision on prosecuting offences, while a civilian team decide if they have met their targets!
Has anyone else encountered TROs? We do not appear to have them in Cumbria, so I am puzzled as to their status, and the potential for a management team to second guess an officers perception of an offence.
After todays news, I can see the sense in not putting drivers forward for a SAC course that is over subscribed...
This 'concerned friend', what is his concern? That he won't be prosecuted?His concern was that he may have to attend a Speed Awareness Course in Hertfordshire, which I pointed out was unlikely, as he could attend locally. However, somebody else has told him that the decision will be based upon how busy the courses are in the area concerned, as to whether any further offenders could be accommodated on the courses in that area!
I'm a little sceptical, but this week I heard a similar tale from another area - that TROs are a way of postponing making a decision on prosecuting offences, while a civilian team decide if they have met their targets!
Has anyone else encountered TROs? We do not appear to have them in Cumbria, so I am puzzled as to their status, and the potential for a management team to second guess an officers perception of an offence.
After todays news, I can see the sense in not putting drivers forward for a SAC course that is over subscribed...
He admits he was caught speeding and so far not received anything worse than a word in his ear.
I'd be grateful, hope nothing more materialises but if it does, take it in on the chin.
I'm not sure what the worry is about civilians making decisions.
I ran a process unit in the middle 90s, with half a dozen civilians and one sergeant. Apart from significant offences, they made prosecution decisions, following guidelines, and only passed stuff to me or my sergeant where circumstances fell outside the guidelines or, as occasionally happened, the officer in the case challenged their decision.
I would check a certain number of decisions for management reasons, but hardly ever overturned one of theirs.
If a member of the public submitted mitigation then a police officer would make a decision.
Since then the process unit has been subject to pfi, so is entirely civilianised.
Since 1984, the discretion of the individual police officer is only to fail to report. The decision to prosecute has been taken from the police remit.
There are one or two minor matters where the police officer's decision can be instant but these, generally, are not offences.
By the way, I'm not sure any force has targets for process. Further, if a report is not proceeded with, it will probably still result in a tick.
As regards the police having a nice little earner from courses, I agree that this is something that should be looked into rather closely. The police should not financially benefit from decisions as to the outcome of a report.
I ran a process unit in the middle 90s, with half a dozen civilians and one sergeant. Apart from significant offences, they made prosecution decisions, following guidelines, and only passed stuff to me or my sergeant where circumstances fell outside the guidelines or, as occasionally happened, the officer in the case challenged their decision.
I would check a certain number of decisions for management reasons, but hardly ever overturned one of theirs.
If a member of the public submitted mitigation then a police officer would make a decision.
Since then the process unit has been subject to pfi, so is entirely civilianised.
Since 1984, the discretion of the individual police officer is only to fail to report. The decision to prosecute has been taken from the police remit.
There are one or two minor matters where the police officer's decision can be instant but these, generally, are not offences.
By the way, I'm not sure any force has targets for process. Further, if a report is not proceeded with, it will probably still result in a tick.
As regards the police having a nice little earner from courses, I agree that this is something that should be looked into rather closely. The police should not financially benefit from decisions as to the outcome of a report.
Elroy Blue said:
We've used offence reports for a while now, as do all the surrounding Forces. We don't like them, as they do indeed take away our discretion. They have added to our daily paperwork burden.
If you do get offered a course, it is just that, an offer. You don't have to take it.
Presumably you have the discretion not to submit an offence report though ?If you do get offered a course, it is just that, an offer. You don't have to take it.
outnumbered said:
Presumably you have the discretion not to submit an offence report though ?
Yes. But once upon a time we'd choose whether a speeding offence warranted a ticket or a report to court (If there was no aggravating factors, then often a three figure speed would be a ticket.) The offence reports now mean above a certain speed it's automatically a court appearance. LordGrover said:
This 'concerned friend', what is his concern? That he won't be prosecuted?
He admits he was caught speeding and so far not received anything worse than a word in his ear.
I'd be grateful, hope nothing more materialises but if it does, take it in on the chin.
He admits he was caught speeding and so far not received anything worse than a word in his ear.
I'd be grateful, hope nothing more materialises but if it does, take it in on the chin.
No, his concern was that he might have to journey to Hertfordshire to take the course!
Apparently he was doing 62 in a 50, and so far has heard nothing back.
I have been away myself at Easter, so I only caught up with him at the weekend to ask if he had been awarded an offer of a course.
Derek Smith said:
I'm not sure what the worry is about civilians making decisions.
I ran a process unit in the middle 90s, with half a dozen civilians and one sergeant. Apart from significant offences, they made prosecution decisions, following guidelines, and only passed stuff to me or my sergeant where circumstances fell outside the guidelines or, as occasionally happened, the officer in the case challenged their decision.
I would check a certain number of decisions for management reasons, but hardly ever overturned one of theirs.
If a member of the public submitted mitigation then a police officer would make a decision.
Since then the process unit has been subject to pfi, so is entirely civilianised.
Since 1984, the discretion of the individual police officer is only to fail to report. The decision to prosecute has been taken from the police remit.
There are one or two minor matters where the police officer's decision can be instant but these, generally, are not offences.
By the way, I'm not sure any force has targets for process. Further, if a report is not proceeded with, it will probably still result in a tick.
As regards the police having a nice little earner from courses, I agree that this is something that should be looked into rather closely. The police should not financially benefit from decisions as to the outcome of a report.
I'm not worried about civilians making decisions - my concern is that the decision to prosecute/award a SAC is based on course numbers and money rather than the severity of the offending.I ran a process unit in the middle 90s, with half a dozen civilians and one sergeant. Apart from significant offences, they made prosecution decisions, following guidelines, and only passed stuff to me or my sergeant where circumstances fell outside the guidelines or, as occasionally happened, the officer in the case challenged their decision.
I would check a certain number of decisions for management reasons, but hardly ever overturned one of theirs.
If a member of the public submitted mitigation then a police officer would make a decision.
Since then the process unit has been subject to pfi, so is entirely civilianised.
Since 1984, the discretion of the individual police officer is only to fail to report. The decision to prosecute has been taken from the police remit.
There are one or two minor matters where the police officer's decision can be instant but these, generally, are not offences.
By the way, I'm not sure any force has targets for process. Further, if a report is not proceeded with, it will probably still result in a tick.
As regards the police having a nice little earner from courses, I agree that this is something that should be looked into rather closely. The police should not financially benefit from decisions as to the outcome of a report.
The gist of the Mail article seems to be along the same lines... and the TOR seems to leave the officers evidence/opinion out of the equation.
Mill Wheel said:
I'm not worried about civilians making decisions - my concern is that the decision to prosecute/award a SAC is based on course numbers and money rather than the severity of the offending.
Decisions are based on the severity of the offence.Mill Wheel said:
The gist of the Mail article seems to be along the same lines... and the TOR seems to leave the officers evidence/opinion out of the equation.
I have yet to see a Daily Mail article on traffic matters that is not packed with error, inaccuracy and bias. The DM is hardly a valid reference publication.Your concerns seem to be imagined, do you write for the Daily Mail perhaps?
tapereel said:
Mill Wheel said:
A month or so ago, a concerned friend contacted me to say he had been stopped while speeding whilst on holiday just outside London, but instead of being told he would be prosecuted, after the inevitable lecture, he was told a Traffic Officers Report would be submitted, and a civilian team would decide if he was to be prosecuted.
His concern was that he may have to attend a Speed Awareness Course in Hertfordshire, which I pointed out was unlikely, as he could attend locally. However, somebody else has told him that the decision will be based upon how busy the courses are in the area concerned, as to whether any further offenders could be accommodated on the courses in that area!
I'm a little sceptical, but this week I heard a similar tale from another area - that TROs are a way of postponing making a decision on prosecuting offences, while a civilian team decide if they have met their targets!
Has anyone else encountered TROs? We do not appear to have them in Cumbria, so I am puzzled as to their status, and the potential for a management team to second guess an officers perception of an offence.
After todays news, I can see the sense in not putting drivers forward for a SAC course that is over subscribed...
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3049962/Ar...
I think that's an outrageous allegation and without foundation or proof. Complete garbage.His concern was that he may have to attend a Speed Awareness Course in Hertfordshire, which I pointed out was unlikely, as he could attend locally. However, somebody else has told him that the decision will be based upon how busy the courses are in the area concerned, as to whether any further offenders could be accommodated on the courses in that area!
I'm a little sceptical, but this week I heard a similar tale from another area - that TROs are a way of postponing making a decision on prosecuting offences, while a civilian team decide if they have met their targets!
Has anyone else encountered TROs? We do not appear to have them in Cumbria, so I am puzzled as to their status, and the potential for a management team to second guess an officers perception of an offence.
After todays news, I can see the sense in not putting drivers forward for a SAC course that is over subscribed...
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3049962/Ar...
Daily Wail said:
Driving campaigners have accused police forces of sending motorists on road safety courses instead of issuing fines or deducting points in order to make money.
The accusation came after figures showed the number of drivers being sent on courses after being caught speeding, not wearing a seatbelt, or using a mobile phone has tripled in five years.
Drivers typically pay between £80 and £195 for a half-day lecture, and are charged a levy of up to £35, most of which is handed back to the police, leading to allegations of profiteering.
The accusation came after figures showed the number of drivers being sent on courses after being caught speeding, not wearing a seatbelt, or using a mobile phone has tripled in five years.
Drivers typically pay between £80 and £195 for a half-day lecture, and are charged a levy of up to £35, most of which is handed back to the police, leading to allegations of profiteering.
There, that's what I reckon and I think I have more proof of what I say than you do about your allegation.
Convince me.
You've either got proof or not. Let's see it.
Mill Wheel said:
A month or so ago, a concerned friend contacted me to say he had been stopped while speeding whilst on holiday just outside London, but instead of being told he would be prosecuted, after the inevitable lecture, he was told a Traffic Officers Report would be submitted, and a civilian team would decide if he was to be prosecuted.
What does the reference to 'civilian' mean?We are all civilians unless we are serving in the armed services.
The police are civilians.
The Mad Monk said:
Mill Wheel said:
A month or so ago, a concerned friend contacted me to say he had been stopped while speeding whilst on holiday just outside London, but instead of being told he would be prosecuted, after the inevitable lecture, he was told a Traffic Officers Report would be submitted, and a civilian team would decide if he was to be prosecuted.
What does the reference to 'civilian' mean?We are all civilians unless we are serving in the armed services.
The police are civilians.
EDIT: in fact, you are also wrong :
civilian
[si-vil-yuh n]
noun
1. a person who is not on active duty with a military, naval, police, or fire fighting organization.
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/civilian
Edited by calibrax on Thursday 23 April 09:23
calibrax said:
The Mad Monk said:
Mill Wheel said:
A month or so ago, a concerned friend contacted me to say he had been stopped while speeding whilst on holiday just outside London, but instead of being told he would be prosecuted, after the inevitable lecture, he was told a Traffic Officers Report would be submitted, and a civilian team would decide if he was to be prosecuted.
What does the reference to 'civilian' mean?We are all civilians unless we are serving in the armed services.
The police are civilians.
EDIT: in fact, you are also wrong :
civilian
[si-vil-yuh n]
noun
1. a person who is not on active duty with a military, naval, police, or fire fighting organization.
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/civilian
Edited by calibrax on Thursday 23 April 09:23
REALIST123 said:
tapereel said:
Mill Wheel said:
A month or so ago, a concerned friend contacted me to say he had been stopped while speeding whilst on holiday just outside London, but instead of being told he would be prosecuted, after the inevitable lecture, he was told a Traffic Officers Report would be submitted, and a civilian team would decide if he was to be prosecuted.
His concern was that he may have to attend a Speed Awareness Course in Hertfordshire, which I pointed out was unlikely, as he could attend locally. However, somebody else has told him that the decision will be based upon how busy the courses are in the area concerned, as to whether any further offenders could be accommodated on the courses in that area!
I'm a little sceptical, but this week I heard a similar tale from another area - that TROs are a way of postponing making a decision on prosecuting offences, while a civilian team decide if they have met their targets!
Has anyone else encountered TROs? We do not appear to have them in Cumbria, so I am puzzled as to their status, and the potential for a management team to second guess an officers perception of an offence.
After todays news, I can see the sense in not putting drivers forward for a SAC course that is over subscribed...
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3049962/Ar...
I think that's an outrageous allegation and without foundation or proof. Complete garbage.His concern was that he may have to attend a Speed Awareness Course in Hertfordshire, which I pointed out was unlikely, as he could attend locally. However, somebody else has told him that the decision will be based upon how busy the courses are in the area concerned, as to whether any further offenders could be accommodated on the courses in that area!
I'm a little sceptical, but this week I heard a similar tale from another area - that TROs are a way of postponing making a decision on prosecuting offences, while a civilian team decide if they have met their targets!
Has anyone else encountered TROs? We do not appear to have them in Cumbria, so I am puzzled as to their status, and the potential for a management team to second guess an officers perception of an offence.
After todays news, I can see the sense in not putting drivers forward for a SAC course that is over subscribed...
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3049962/Ar...
Daily Wail said:
Driving campaigners have accused police forces of sending motorists on road safety courses instead of issuing fines or deducting points in order to make money.
The accusation came after figures showed the number of drivers being sent on courses after being caught speeding, not wearing a seatbelt, or using a mobile phone has tripled in five years.
Drivers typically pay between £80 and £195 for a half-day lecture, and are charged a levy of up to £35, most of which is handed back to the police, leading to allegations of profiteering.
The accusation came after figures showed the number of drivers being sent on courses after being caught speeding, not wearing a seatbelt, or using a mobile phone has tripled in five years.
Drivers typically pay between £80 and £195 for a half-day lecture, and are charged a levy of up to £35, most of which is handed back to the police, leading to allegations of profiteering.
There, that's what I reckon and I think I have more proof of what I say than you do about your allegation.
Convince me.
You've either got proof or not. Let's see it.
By the way I saw a yeti holding hands with a yellow monkey outside of Tesco discussing what flavour electronic cigarette they would buy only a few moments ago. Did you see it in the Daily Mail...it was in there.
O
tapereel said:
It's up to the accuser to provide the proof. After years of castigating the Day Mail on here its up to the accuser to prove why he now relies upon them and unsubstantiated stories from friends of friends to come up with something worthwhile.
By the way I saw a yeti holding hands with a yellow monkey outside of Tesco discussing what flavour electronic cigarette they would buy only a few moments ago. Did you see it in the Daily Mail...it was in there.
Are you sure the monkey was yellow?By the way I saw a yeti holding hands with a yellow monkey outside of Tesco discussing what flavour electronic cigarette they would buy only a few moments ago. Did you see it in the Daily Mail...it was in there.
calibrax said:
Really? How pedantic are you? In this context it clearly means people who are not serving Police officers. Anyone can see that.
EDIT: in fact, you are also wrong :
civilian
[si-vil-yuh n]
noun
1. a person who is not on active duty with a military, naval, police, or fire fighting organization.
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/civilian
'Fraid not.EDIT: in fact, you are also wrong :
civilian
[si-vil-yuh n]
noun
1. a person who is not on active duty with a military, naval, police, or fire fighting organization.
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/civilian
Edited by calibrax on Thursday 23 April 09:23
That is an American dictionary that you referred to.
In the UK we have a civilian police service.
Just to help you a little, the situation changed when the police FORCE became a police SERVICE.
No, no need to thank me.
Forums | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff