‘year of hell’ after being wrongly convicted of 140mph
Discussion
Some might remember this:
http://www.edp24.co.uk/news/crime/police-officer-c...
And now the conclusion.
http://www.edp24.co.uk/news/crime/a47-bikers-140mp...
This is why the police in this country get zero respect from me.
Couple this with the recent news about the very low detection rates for burglary (and the like) and you have a case for a seriously failed force.
They will of course cry underfunding but doesn't seem to stop them presenting cases like this.
Couple this with the recent news about the very low detection rates for burglary (and the like) and you have a case for a seriously failed force.
They will of course cry underfunding but doesn't seem to stop them presenting cases like this.
The linked article about the SJP being used to ban people now is quite scary - http://www.edp24.co.uk/news/crime/what-is-the-sing...
trickywoo said:
budgie smuggler said:
So where did the 140MPH come from in the first place then?
Probably the old cliche of the speed plod had to do to catch up with them.Plod like bringing perverting the course of justice charges so much they should bring them against their own.
They do like to drop that in there though as it is their little trick to get you to say "Hang on a minute may be i was a little over the limit (bang- got you confession time) but i wasn't going that fast."
I long ago learnt that there is often little difference between the morality of some offenders and some police officers.
trickywoo said:
This is why the police in this country get zero respect from me.
Couple this with the recent news about the very low detection rates for burglary (and the like) and you have a case for a seriously failed force.
They will of course cry underfunding but doesn't seem to stop them presenting cases like this.
Easy pickings and motorist tend to have money for fines Couple this with the recent news about the very low detection rates for burglary (and the like) and you have a case for a seriously failed force.
They will of course cry underfunding but doesn't seem to stop them presenting cases like this.
Also, I don't understand why their costs are not fully awarded...
The report says they were out of pocket to the tune of up almost £900 each ... seems like they paid a penalty to be proven innocent...
Totally wrong in my book - the full amount should have been awarded.
Shows a massive flaw in out legal services - essentially it costs money to go to court to prove you are innocent and when proven you are still out of pocket.
In other words it's cheaper to accept a guilt charge even when innocent.
The report says they were out of pocket to the tune of up almost £900 each ... seems like they paid a penalty to be proven innocent...
Totally wrong in my book - the full amount should have been awarded.
Shows a massive flaw in out legal services - essentially it costs money to go to court to prove you are innocent and when proven you are still out of pocket.
In other words it's cheaper to accept a guilt charge even when innocent.
The Selfish Gene said:
I don't usually have time to read entire articles
not shocked to go back and see that 'no further action'
of course not...........why would they do the police for PoJ, lying or anything else
A quick google search seems to suggest that what you say is not true. not shocked to go back and see that 'no further action'
of course not...........why would they do the police for PoJ, lying or anything else
https://www.google.co.uk/search?safe=strict&rl...
pavarotti1980 said:
A quick google search seems to suggest that what you say is not true.
https://www.google.co.uk/search?safe=strict&rl...
what the article says is not true..........not what I say.https://www.google.co.uk/search?safe=strict&rl...
Although not sure how you can tell that's the same case.
Not guilty and not enough technical evidence isn't the same thing.
He clearly thought he'd followed them at around 140mph for at least 0.2 miles, what's that like 5 seconds at that speed?!!
He either should have got better evidence (clearly filmed it) or just given them a b
king. I think the fact he's only ever done 150 twice in his career suggests he's maybe in the wrong job or it's been dramatised by the papers.
They basically lawyered up and changed their plea once they realised how serious it was. End of the day most people on here would do the same.
He clearly thought he'd followed them at around 140mph for at least 0.2 miles, what's that like 5 seconds at that speed?!!
He either should have got better evidence (clearly filmed it) or just given them a b
king. I think the fact he's only ever done 150 twice in his career suggests he's maybe in the wrong job or it's been dramatised by the papers.They basically lawyered up and changed their plea once they realised how serious it was. End of the day most people on here would do the same.
The Selfish Gene said:
Red Devil said:
If you had read the OP's second link you would know the answer. 
- NFA.
I don't usually have time to read entire articles - NFA.
The number of people who make ill-informed posts on threads suggests you're not alone.
The Selfish Gene said:
pavarotti1980 said:
The Selfish Gene said:
not shocked to go back and see that 'no further action'
of course not...........why would they do the police for PoJ, lying or anything else
A quick google search seems to suggest that what you say is not true. of course not...........why would they do the police for PoJ, lying or anything else
https://www.google.co.uk/search?safe=strict&rl...
Although not sure how you can tell that's the same case.
The link posted by pavarotti1980 refers to more than one article.
They show that your comment in that respect is demonstrably false.
You're not making much sense. Which article are you actually referring to?
Forums | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff