It must be frustrating to be a copper

[wack]

watching police interceptors, Police had a fail to stop , white Audi in Leeds, driver is st , can't go round a corner without putting 2 wheels up the kerb , loses it and demolishes an electricity box after driving up the path

Gets out and runs , gets caught , 5 minutes and most of the residents of the street are out with the usual suspects giving the police lip .

Driver refuses to say who owns the car , fails the breathalyser then admits its his dad's and he's not insured

So dangerous driving , failing to stop, drunk , and no insurance

They read the sentence out, £315 fine and a 16 month ban for drunk driving , no action on no insurance or dangerous driving, so a similar sentence somebody that had a few the night before and was slightly over the limit the next day might get

Anybody got any idea why wouldn't they prosecute for dangerous driving and no insurance

[PorkInsider]

wack said:

Anybody got any idea why wouldn't they prosecute for dangerous driving and no insurance

No. It's a piss-boiler, isn't it?

If he'd just pulled up immediately he'd have got the same penalty.

Might as well fail to stop, drive like a retard, crash, run away, lie. In the knowledge that you might get away with it and if not you'll only get the same punishment as if you'd stopped.

The more I see these sorts of TV shows the more I get annoyed by it all.

[funboxster]

wack said:

watching police interceptors, Police had a fail to stop , white Audi in Leeds, driver is st , can't go round a corner without putting 2 wheels up the kerb , loses it and demolishes an electricity box after driving up the path

Gets out and runs , gets caught , 5 minutes and most of the residents of the street are out with the usual suspects giving the police lip .

Driver refuses to say who owns the car , fails the breathalyser then admits its his dad's and he's not insured

So dangerous driving , failing to stop, drunk , and no insurance

They read the sentence out, £315 fine and a 16 month ban for drunk driving , no action on no insurance or dangerous driving, so a similar sentence somebody that had a few the night before and was slightly over the limit the next day might get

Anybody got any idea why wouldn't they prosecute for dangerous driving and no insurance

Yes, I saw that and was astounded he wasn't done for no insurance/dd! What sort of message does that send out to the rest of us law abiding citizens! I bet the cops get annoyed about it as well, as they have to pay insurance on their private cars, and like us, pay through their premiums for uninsured drivers.

[jonwm]

I thought the same, it seems you might as well try and get away as the sentence rarely changes.

Also how does a 116d lose a armed response car? Seems a bit of a stretch against what I presume is an X5

[anonymous-user]

jonwm said:

I thought the same, it seems you might as well try and get away as the sentence rarely changes.

Also how does a 116d lose a armed response car? Seems a bit of a stretch against what I presume is an X5

They go through red lights, junctions and everything else the police have to slow down for without a care in the world while the cop loses everything if they cause a collision while pursuing.

You can lose a 330d in a Ford Ka driving like a maniac.

[wack]

PorkInsider said:

No. It's a piss-boiler, isn't it?

If he'd just pulled up immediately he'd have got the same penalty.

Might as well fail to stop, drive like a retard, crash, run away, lie. In the knowledge that you might get away with it and if not you'll only get the same punishment as if you'd stopped.

The more I see these sorts of TV shows the more I get annoyed by it all.

I know , I'm going to have to stop watching them before I start throwing stuff at the TV , you're right though , that is the message it sends , might as well try and get away.

[Krikkit]

funboxster said:

Yes, I saw that and was astounded he wasn't done for no insurance/dd! What sort of message does that send out to the rest of us law abiding citizens! I bet the cops get annoyed about it as well, as they have to pay insurance on their private cars, and like us, pay through their premiums for uninsured drivers.

Thing is, CPS will look at how comfortable they are trying to get a prosecution for it, any ambiguity and they'll step it down.

[anonymous-user]

You ultimately run into the same practical issue / limitation at the end of the line. Namely, where would you put people if sentences were harsher? There isn’t the prison space.

[vonhosen]

Plea bargaining.

[MB140]

I watched one a few years ago where a lady was stopped (known to the cops) in a stty car with her kids.

No license, no insurance, no mot, no seatbelt, kids not secured at all. Fails to stop. Short chase and she sees sense and stops.

The cops confiscate the car. Take her back to the cop shop. Charge and bail her.

Same day with the same film crew. There driving down the road and low and behold who’s driving the other way.

Yep you got it same woman in another stty car.

Same again. No license etc. Charge and bail her again

That’s twice in one day.

Result from the cps.

6 points on her license (what fking license, the imaginary one she is never going to get) and a few hundred quid fine (which she will no doubt pay at £5 a month.

She had over 40 motoring convictions and around 60 points on her license.

Prime example for a quick stretch at her majesty leisure but no it might impact her kids.

What has the world come to.

[wack]

vonhosen said:

Plea bargaining.

It's not right though is it , there's no facility available to enforce a sentence so the court doesn't hand it out , what sort of message does that send, do what you want, they won't do anything about it , just pay your VAT or you'll go to prison

[vonhosen]

wack said:

vonhosen said:

Plea bargaining.

It's not right though is it , there's no facility available to enforce a sentence so the court doesn't hand it out , what sort of message does that send, do what you want, they won't do anything about it , just pay your VAT or you'll go to prison

The CPS make a judgement. Savings on time expense of a trial (the officers can be out catching others rather than being sat in court for days) & the likelihood that the difference in sentence isn't going to be that great.
The CPS probably felt in the circumstances a conviction for dangerous driving wouldn't have resulted in more than a ban (ie not a custodial in the circumstances).

[wack]

These people need more than a driving ban , they couldn't care less if they kill somebody trying to get away as long as they escape

[anonymous-user]

La Liga said:

There isn’t the prison space.

It was managed with speed cameras they just upped the tech and memory.
Very easily solved.
Double them in cells, then triple then quadruple if you CBA building and running more jails.
I don't give a foook what squalor convicted prisoners have to put up with.

[kestral]

wack said:

watching police interceptors, Police had a fail to stop , white Audi in Leeds, driver is st , can't go round a corner without putting 2 wheels up the kerb , loses it and demolishes an electricity box after driving up the path

Gets out and runs , gets caught , 5 minutes and most of the residents of the street are out with the usual suspects giving the police lip .

Driver refuses to say who owns the car , fails the breathalyser then admits its his dad's and he's not insured

So dangerous driving , failing to stop, drunk , and no insurance

They read the sentence out, £315 fine and a 16 month ban for drunk driving , no action on no insurance or dangerous driving, so a similar sentence somebody that had a few the night before and was slightly over the limit the next day might get

Anybody got any idea why wouldn't they prosecute for dangerous driving and no insurance

Dangerous driving = Crown Court and legal aid for scrote likly to go to prison.

[Davel]

I suspect that the BiB are totally pissed off too by the pathetic penalties handed out by the courts.

[carreauchompeur]

Davel said:

I suspect that the BiB are totally pissed off too by the pathetic penalties handed out by the courts.

I don’t generally concern myself too much with the end result, although I am slightly peeved that the current Mags sentencing guidelines for a first offence of disqual driving seems to be 6 points....

Bonkers

[Red Devil]

La Liga said:

You ultimately run into the same practical issue / limitation at the end of the line. Namely, where would you put people if sentences were harsher? There isn’t the prison space.

Bring these back. - https://goo.gl/maps/SKNVsB9sf9K2
Make them wear 19th century garb.
Give us all the chance to pelt them with rotten fruit and veg.

[anonymous-user]

speedyguy said:

La Liga said:

There isn’t the prison space.

It was managed with speed cameras they just upped the tech and memory.
Very easily solved.
Double them in cells, then triple then quadruple if you CBA building and running more jails.
I don't give a foook what squalor convicted prisoners have to put up with.

Speed cameras pay for themselves so I’m not sure why you’d pick that as a comparison. It’s a little easier to increase the capacity of something that doesn’t result in a deficit.

Even if you cram more people into existing prisons you still need more staff to manage them as well as an increase in other roles like probation officers.

The government doesn’t fund the existing prisons we have properly, so I think there’s little chance of them funding more.

[XCP]

Hardly any body wants to be a prison officer now. Any suggestions as to where the extra staff are coming from? Or the money to pay them? I wouldn't do it if they tripled the salary.