Member of the public reported speeding police car
Discussion
https://www.leicestermercury.co.uk/news/leicester-...
An incensed member of the public followed a speeding car to police station to report it.
The driver resigns or retires, it seems GPS identified eight other cases of speeding without a legitimate policing purpose, and he was subsequently issued with 4 points and a £500 fine.
His fellow officer in the car faced a Misconduct hearing for not challenging the driver or reporting his driving to his superiors. It seems the fellow officer didn't notice the speed as he was checking his mobile phone and pre-occupied with a serious assault he'd dealt with earlier in the day. That was accepted by those undertaking the Misconduct hearing.
I don't envy that officer's situation, of having to tell the truth or make excuses to help cover for a colleague. In a former job I answered the phone after hours to a colleague's wife asking where that colleague was. I replied that I didn't know and that as we were working on different projects I wasn't likely to know where they were, both of which were true.
Due to the way local newspaper websites work I didn't have to search out that news item, it was on the sidebar of another news website.
https://www.leicestermercury.co.uk/news/leicester-...
An incensed member of the public followed a speeding car to police station to report it.
The driver resigns or retires, it seems GPS identified eight other cases of speeding without a legitimate policing purpose, and he was subsequently issued with 4 points and a £500 fine.
His fellow officer in the car faced a Misconduct hearing for not challenging the driver or reporting his driving to his superiors. It seems the fellow officer didn't notice the speed as he was checking his mobile phone and pre-occupied with a serious assault he'd dealt with earlier in the day. That was accepted by those undertaking the Misconduct hearing.
I don't envy that officer's situation, of having to tell the truth or make excuses to help cover for a colleague. In a former job I answered the phone after hours to a colleague's wife asking where that colleague was. I replied that I didn't know and that as we were working on different projects I wasn't likely to know where they were, both of which were true.
Due to the way local newspaper websites work I didn't have to search out that news item, it was on the sidebar of another news website.
https://www.leicestermercury.co.uk/news/leicester-...
I hope there is more to this than meets the eye. 80-90mph on a NSL dual carriageway is normal, albeit a technical offence, and the punishment for the driver- forced to resign- seems excessive.
The lying to superior officers accusation is I suppose more serious -but the idea that the noise and vibration would make it obvious to a passenger concentrating on something else- unless the car is 30 years old- seems ridiculous too.
The lying to superior officers accusation is I suppose more serious -but the idea that the noise and vibration would make it obvious to a passenger concentrating on something else- unless the car is 30 years old- seems ridiculous too.
mac96 said:
I hope there is more to this than meets the eye. 80-90mph on a NSL dual carriageway is normal, albeit a technical offence, and the punishment for the driver- forced to resign- seems excessive.
The lying to superior officers accusation is I suppose more serious -but the idea that the noise and vibration would make it obvious to a passenger concentrating on something else- unless the car is 30 years old- seems ridiculous too.
Why should any officer who uses a public owned and fuelled vehicle be exempt for road traffic laws when they have no cause to be?The lying to superior officers accusation is I suppose more serious -but the idea that the noise and vibration would make it obvious to a passenger concentrating on something else- unless the car is 30 years old- seems ridiculous too.
If in our marked service vehicle and tracked vehicles I exceed the speed limit by 10mph I would be reprimanded.
Avon & Somerset have an issue with its fleet of non emergency vehicles not being tracked. Some have clearly be bashed and abused and we are talking 10 year old focus's in some cases driven by Detectives and Civilian Police staff. I have seen some shocking driving by some of these even being in the 3rd lane of a empty section of motorway while going through road works 50mph zone.
Why should members of the public show speed limits or lane discipline or speed limits. Most of the time they are 60mph lane 1 but its normally 4/5 are and that 1 in 5 will be making every mistake under the sun!
mac96 said:
I hope there is more to this than meets the eye. 80-90mph on a NSL dual carriageway is normal, albeit a technical offence, and the punishment for the driver- forced to resign- seems excessive.
The lying to superior officers accusation is I suppose more serious -but the idea that the noise and vibration would make it obvious to a passenger concentrating on something else- unless the car is 30 years old- seems ridiculous too.
It's can't be normal and a technical offence. It is an offence, it's just a lot of people do it. It doesn't make it less of an offence. And there is not a single police officer in the country that is above the law. They're there to uphold it, and if anything should be setting an example. Too many times I've seen them on mobile phones driving, not indicating, speeding, a few with non functioning brake lights. Yet if any of us do any of them, we get pulled over and have to suffer. The lying to superior officers accusation is I suppose more serious -but the idea that the noise and vibration would make it obvious to a passenger concentrating on something else- unless the car is 30 years old- seems ridiculous too.
So good on the member of the public for doing this. More of us should be doing it!
surveyor_101 said:
mac96 said:
I hope there is more to this than meets the eye. 80-90mph on a NSL dual carriageway is normal, albeit a technical offence, and the punishment for the driver- forced to resign- seems excessive.
The lying to superior officers accusation is I suppose more serious -but the idea that the noise and vibration would make it obvious to a passenger concentrating on something else- unless the car is 30 years old- seems ridiculous too.
Why should any officer who uses a public owned and fuelled vehicle be exempt for road traffic laws when they have no cause to be?The lying to superior officers accusation is I suppose more serious -but the idea that the noise and vibration would make it obvious to a passenger concentrating on something else- unless the car is 30 years old- seems ridiculous too.
If in our marked service vehicle and tracked vehicles I exceed the speed limit by 10mph I would be reprimanded.
Avon & Somerset have an issue with its fleet of non emergency vehicles not being tracked. Some have clearly be bashed and abused and we are talking 10 year old focus's in some cases driven by Detectives and Civilian Police staff. I have seen some shocking driving by some of these even being in the 3rd lane of a empty section of motorway while going through road works 50mph zone.
Why should members of the public show speed limits or lane discipline or speed limits. Most of the time they are 60mph lane 1 but its normally 4/5 are and that 1 in 5 will be making every mistake under the sun!
There have been instances of officers being caught at speeds of 150mph plus, not on an emergency call, and not losing their jobs.
Gareth79 said:
"... Pc Moffatt hit speeds in excess of 90mph with no justification and 'undertook' the member of the public's vehicle as they approached the town."
I would've done the same thing, but losing his job over it seems pathetic. I don't particularly like police forces, and I find most of the police I've come across have been dicks with inflated egos, but at the end of the day they're people that signed up to do a job protecting people, which is admirable no matter what. So to lose his job for doing speeds that, lets face it we all do, it's just pathetic. Hmmm.......
A marked police car comes past you at speed. The only way that you have to ascertain the vehicle's speed is to match its speed and follow it at a safe distance - which means that you are also breaking the law. Aren't you therefore laying yourself open to prosecution?
I can’t believe that the police or magistrates would give any leeway at all under those circumstances.
A marked police car comes past you at speed. The only way that you have to ascertain the vehicle's speed is to match its speed and follow it at a safe distance - which means that you are also breaking the law. Aren't you therefore laying yourself open to prosecution?
I can’t believe that the police or magistrates would give any leeway at all under those circumstances.
sgtBerbatov said:
mac96 said:
I hope there is more to this than meets the eye. 80-90mph on a NSL dual carriageway is normal, albeit a technical offence, and the punishment for the driver- forced to resign- seems excessive.
The lying to superior officers accusation is I suppose more serious -but the idea that the noise and vibration would make it obvious to a passenger concentrating on something else- unless the car is 30 years old- seems ridiculous too.
It's can't be normal and a technical offence. It is an offence, it's just a lot of people do it. It doesn't make it less of an offence. And there is not a single police officer in the country that is above the law. They're there to uphold it, and if anything should be setting an example. Too many times I've seen them on mobile phones driving, not indicating, speeding, a few with non functioning brake lights. Yet if any of us do any of them, we get pulled over and have to suffer. The lying to superior officers accusation is I suppose more serious -but the idea that the noise and vibration would make it obvious to a passenger concentrating on something else- unless the car is 30 years old- seems ridiculous too.
So good on the member of the public for doing this. More of us should be doing it!
My original point was about proportionality of punishment, not whether police should set examples- of course they should, and he failed to do so.
I agree entirely on phone use etc- they are actually dangerous in themselves. Unlike any particular speed.
I
And while I'll agree it took guts to follow the police car and accuse the driver of offences, do we really want people looking for others errors and transgressions rather than concentrating on their own driving? See DCW thread.
PC Moffatt wasnt / wouldnt have been sacked for the speeding on its own. He went to court and copped a fine and points.
Its the fact that he lied about his conduct and driving to investigators that led to the misconduct aspect of the case and would have resulted in the sack had he not resigned / retired - he wasnt sacked. If he'd put his hands up and admitted his wrongdoing then it would probably have finished up as management advice
20/03/19 Former PC Anthony Moffatt faced allegations that between 28 July 2017 and 12 July 2018 he breached the standards of professional behaviour in respect of using police vehicles while on duty, namely: orders and instructions; discreditable conduct; and, duties and responsibilities. These breaches were founded, and were Mr Moffatt still an officer with the force, he would have been dismissed without notice for breaching the standards of professional behaviour.
Its the fact that he lied about his conduct and driving to investigators that led to the misconduct aspect of the case and would have resulted in the sack had he not resigned / retired - he wasnt sacked. If he'd put his hands up and admitted his wrongdoing then it would probably have finished up as management advice
20/03/19 Former PC Anthony Moffatt faced allegations that between 28 July 2017 and 12 July 2018 he breached the standards of professional behaviour in respect of using police vehicles while on duty, namely: orders and instructions; discreditable conduct; and, duties and responsibilities. These breaches were founded, and were Mr Moffatt still an officer with the force, he would have been dismissed without notice for breaching the standards of professional behaviour.
Bigends said:
PC Moffatt wasnt / wouldnt have been sacked for the speeding on its own. He went to court and copped a fine and points.
Its the fact that he lied about his conduct and driving to investigators that led to the misconduct aspect of the case and would have resulted in the sack had he not resigned / retired - he wasnt sacked. If he'd put his hands up and admitted his wrongdoing then it would probably have finished up as management advice
20/03/19 Former PC Anthony Moffatt faced allegations that between 28 July 2017 and 12 July 2018 he breached the standards of professional behaviour in respect of using police vehicles while on duty, namely: orders and instructions; discreditable conduct; and, duties and responsibilities. These breaches were founded, and were Mr Moffatt still an officer with the force, he would have been dismissed without notice for breaching the standards of professional behaviour.
That's interesting. I suspected the lies were the real issue- makes you wonder why an officer would lie in the first place, when the original offence was relatively minor, and the consequences of being caught lying so severe. If I was cynical, I might conclude that lies generally succeed and are not detected, so there is no real incentive to be honest. I'd like to think that isn't the reason.Its the fact that he lied about his conduct and driving to investigators that led to the misconduct aspect of the case and would have resulted in the sack had he not resigned / retired - he wasnt sacked. If he'd put his hands up and admitted his wrongdoing then it would probably have finished up as management advice
20/03/19 Former PC Anthony Moffatt faced allegations that between 28 July 2017 and 12 July 2018 he breached the standards of professional behaviour in respect of using police vehicles while on duty, namely: orders and instructions; discreditable conduct; and, duties and responsibilities. These breaches were founded, and were Mr Moffatt still an officer with the force, he would have been dismissed without notice for breaching the standards of professional behaviour.
mac96 said:
Bigends said:
PC Moffatt wasnt / wouldnt have been sacked for the speeding on its own. He went to court and copped a fine and points.
Its the fact that he lied about his conduct and driving to investigators that led to the misconduct aspect of the case and would have resulted in the sack had he not resigned / retired - he wasnt sacked. If he'd put his hands up and admitted his wrongdoing then it would probably have finished up as management advice
20/03/19 Former PC Anthony Moffatt faced allegations that between 28 July 2017 and 12 July 2018 he breached the standards of professional behaviour in respect of using police vehicles while on duty, namely: orders and instructions; discreditable conduct; and, duties and responsibilities. These breaches were founded, and were Mr Moffatt still an officer with the force, he would have been dismissed without notice for breaching the standards of professional behaviour.
That's interesting. I suspected the lies were the real issue- makes you wonder why an officer would lie in the first place, when the original offence was relatively minor, and the consequences of being caught lying so severe. If I was cynical, I might conclude that lies generally succeed and are not detected, so there is no real incentive to be honest. I'd like to think that isn't the reason.Its the fact that he lied about his conduct and driving to investigators that led to the misconduct aspect of the case and would have resulted in the sack had he not resigned / retired - he wasnt sacked. If he'd put his hands up and admitted his wrongdoing then it would probably have finished up as management advice
20/03/19 Former PC Anthony Moffatt faced allegations that between 28 July 2017 and 12 July 2018 he breached the standards of professional behaviour in respect of using police vehicles while on duty, namely: orders and instructions; discreditable conduct; and, duties and responsibilities. These breaches were founded, and were Mr Moffatt still an officer with the force, he would have been dismissed without notice for breaching the standards of professional behaviour.
Mort7 said:
Hmmm.......
A marked police car comes past you at speed. The only way that you have to ascertain the vehicle's speed is to match its speed and follow it at a safe distance - which means that you are also breaking the law. Aren't you therefore laying yourself open to prosecution?
Presumably the member of the public was sitting at, or around, the limit when the police car passed him at speed.A marked police car comes past you at speed. The only way that you have to ascertain the vehicle's speed is to match its speed and follow it at a safe distance - which means that you are also breaking the law. Aren't you therefore laying yourself open to prosecution?
It wasn’t the MoP who reported the specific speed.
mac96 said:
sgtBerbatov said:
mac96 said:
I hope there is more to this than meets the eye. 80-90mph on a NSL dual carriageway is normal, albeit a technical offence, and the punishment for the driver- forced to resign- seems excessive.
The lying to superior officers accusation is I suppose more serious -but the idea that the noise and vibration would make it obvious to a passenger concentrating on something else- unless the car is 30 years old- seems ridiculous too.
It's can't be normal and a technical offence. It is an offence, it's just a lot of people do it. It doesn't make it less of an offence. And there is not a single police officer in the country that is above the law. They're there to uphold it, and if anything should be setting an example. Too many times I've seen them on mobile phones driving, not indicating, speeding, a few with non functioning brake lights. Yet if any of us do any of them, we get pulled over and have to suffer. The lying to superior officers accusation is I suppose more serious -but the idea that the noise and vibration would make it obvious to a passenger concentrating on something else- unless the car is 30 years old- seems ridiculous too.
So good on the member of the public for doing this. More of us should be doing it!
My original point was about proportionality of punishment, not whether police should set examples- of course they should, and he failed to do so.
I agree entirely on phone use etc- they are actually dangerous in themselves. Unlike any particular speed.
I
And while I'll agree it took guts to follow the police car and accuse the driver of offences, do we really want people looking for others errors and transgressions rather than concentrating on their own driving? See DCW thread.
carinaman said:
An incensed member of the public followed a speeding car to police station to report it.
Good.carinaman said:
The driver resigns or retires, it seems GPS identified eight other cases of speeding without a legitimate policing purpose, and he was subsequently issued with 4 points and a £500 fine.
Should have been fired as should the accomplice.poLICE.
Mort7 said:
Hmmm.......
A marked police car comes past you at speed. The only way that you have to ascertain the vehicle's speed is to match its speed and follow it at a safe distance - which means that you are also breaking the law. Aren't you therefore laying yourself open to prosecution?
I can’t believe that the police or magistrates would give any leeway at all under those circumstances.
That's the first thing that crossed my mind!!A marked police car comes past you at speed. The only way that you have to ascertain the vehicle's speed is to match its speed and follow it at a safe distance - which means that you are also breaking the law. Aren't you therefore laying yourself open to prosecution?
I can’t believe that the police or magistrates would give any leeway at all under those circumstances.
The incensed driver would of at first had to increase there speed to catch up, then keep up at there speed to follow the officers!!!
I remember when the fuel protests were on, a police car came past, in a 30 doing at least double of not more. I was then surprised to find him at a petrol station guiding cars in!!!
Any people crossing that road would've been toast!!!
M4CK 1 said:
That's the first thing that crossed my mind!!
The incensed driver would of at first had to increase there speed to catch up, then keep up at there speed to follow the officers!!!
I remember when the fuel protests were on, a police car came past, in a 30 doing at least double of not more. I was then surprised to find him at a petrol station guiding cars in!!!
Any people crossing that road would've been toast!!!
I would imagine there’s all sorts of reasons why an officer would do double the limit on a 30 and their training covers this. At any time during a legitimate response run anyone crossing the road would be toast. This driver got away with that one. Interesting to see if the defence of his partner holds up!The incensed driver would of at first had to increase there speed to catch up, then keep up at there speed to follow the officers!!!
I remember when the fuel protests were on, a police car came past, in a 30 doing at least double of not more. I was then surprised to find him at a petrol station guiding cars in!!!
Any people crossing that road would've been toast!!!
Edited by anonymous-user on Thursday 21st March 19:54
carinaman said:
https://www.leicestermercury.co.uk/news/leicester-...
An incensed member of the public followed a speeding car to police station to report it.
The driver resigns or retires, it seems GPS identified eight other cases of speeding without a legitimate policing purpose, and he was subsequently issued with 4 points and a £500 fine.
His fellow officer in the car faced a Misconduct hearing for not challenging the driver or reporting his driving to his superiors. It seems the fellow officer didn't notice the speed as he was checking his mobile phone and pre-occupied with a serious assault he'd dealt with earlier in the day. That was accepted by those undertaking the Misconduct hearing.
I don't envy that officer's situation, of having to tell the truth or make excuses to help cover for a colleague. In a former job I answered the phone after hours to a colleague's wife asking where that colleague was. I replied that I didn't know and that as we were working on different projects I wasn't likely to know where they were, both of which were true.
Due to the way local newspaper websites work I didn't have to search out that news item, it was on the sidebar of another news website.
https://www.leicestermercury.co.uk/news/leicester-...
Yes, must be tough to tell the truth.....An incensed member of the public followed a speeding car to police station to report it.
The driver resigns or retires, it seems GPS identified eight other cases of speeding without a legitimate policing purpose, and he was subsequently issued with 4 points and a £500 fine.
His fellow officer in the car faced a Misconduct hearing for not challenging the driver or reporting his driving to his superiors. It seems the fellow officer didn't notice the speed as he was checking his mobile phone and pre-occupied with a serious assault he'd dealt with earlier in the day. That was accepted by those undertaking the Misconduct hearing.
I don't envy that officer's situation, of having to tell the truth or make excuses to help cover for a colleague. In a former job I answered the phone after hours to a colleague's wife asking where that colleague was. I replied that I didn't know and that as we were working on different projects I wasn't likely to know where they were, both of which were true.
Due to the way local newspaper websites work I didn't have to search out that news item, it was on the sidebar of another news website.
https://www.leicestermercury.co.uk/news/leicester-...
Forums | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff