Policeman accused of 11 speeding offences
Discussion
...on the same day.
as well as four counts of failing to comply with traffic lights and one charge of failing to comply with a traffic sign.
This cropped up in the local paper and rather intrigued me. Offences include driving at 101, 118, 122mph, as well as 86 and 75 (in a 30),
https://www.edp24.co.uk/news/crime/norfolk-policem...
Appearance at magistrates court scheduled for February. Will be interesting to see what went on here (my guess - he was on duty, somebody reported his driving, his superiors had a look at what else he'd been up to...maybe).
as well as four counts of failing to comply with traffic lights and one charge of failing to comply with a traffic sign.
This cropped up in the local paper and rather intrigued me. Offences include driving at 101, 118, 122mph, as well as 86 and 75 (in a 30),
https://www.edp24.co.uk/news/crime/norfolk-policem...
Appearance at magistrates court scheduled for February. Will be interesting to see what went on here (my guess - he was on duty, somebody reported his driving, his superiors had a look at what else he'd been up to...maybe).
andy118run said:
...on the same day.
as well as four counts of failing to comply with traffic lights and one charge of failing to comply with a traffic sign.
This cropped up in the local paper and rather intrigued me. Offences include driving at 101, 118, 122mph, as well as 86 and 75 (in a 30),
https://www.edp24.co.uk/news/crime/norfolk-policem...
Appearance at magistrates court scheduled for February. Will be interesting to see what went on here (my guess - he was on duty, somebody reported his driving, his superiors had a look at what else he'd been up to...maybe).
Charges will be dropped; you read it here first.as well as four counts of failing to comply with traffic lights and one charge of failing to comply with a traffic sign.
This cropped up in the local paper and rather intrigued me. Offences include driving at 101, 118, 122mph, as well as 86 and 75 (in a 30),
https://www.edp24.co.uk/news/crime/norfolk-policem...
Appearance at magistrates court scheduled for February. Will be interesting to see what went on here (my guess - he was on duty, somebody reported his driving, his superiors had a look at what else he'd been up to...maybe).
DaveTheRave87 said:
I think he's missed the boat for making it go away.
Much harder to do once the press gets hold of it.
Not at all.Much harder to do once the press gets hold of it.
25 May 2013
A Woking teenager has been charged in connection with comments placed on a social media website following the murder of British soldier Lee Rigby in Woolwich.
Mohammed Mazar, 19, of Balmoral Drive, has been charged with an offence of improper use of public electronic communications network under section 127 of the Communications Act 2003.
Drummer Rigby, 25, was brutally attacked and killed by two men in south east London on Wednesday.
Neighbourhood Superintendent Matt Goodridge said: “Surrey Police will not tolerate language used in a public place, including on social media websites, which causes harassment, alarm or distress.
11 June 2013
A 19-year-old man accused of making comments on a social media website following the murder of Drummer Lee Rigby has had his court case discontinued.
Mohammed Mazar, of Woking, Surrey, was charged with improper use of the public electronic communications network under section 127 of the Communications Act 2003.
He was on the list to appear at Guildford magistrates court but a prosecutor said a letter informing Mazar that the case was to be discontinued had been sent earlier.
See, easy.
Rasta Pickles said:
DaveTheRave87 said:
I think he's missed the boat for making it go away.
Much harder to do once the press gets hold of it.
Not at all.Much harder to do once the press gets hold of it.
25 May 2013
A Woking teenager has been charged in connection with comments placed on a social media website following the murder of British soldier Lee Rigby in Woolwich.
Mohammed Mazar, 19, of Balmoral Drive, has been charged with an offence of improper use of public electronic communications network under section 127 of the Communications Act 2003.
Drummer Rigby, 25, was brutally attacked and killed by two men in south east London on Wednesday.
Neighbourhood Superintendent Matt Goodridge said: “Surrey Police will not tolerate language used in a public place, including on social media websites, which causes harassment, alarm or distress.
11 June 2013
A 19-year-old man accused of making comments on a social media website following the murder of Drummer Lee Rigby has had his court case discontinued.
Mohammed Mazar, of Woking, Surrey, was charged with improper use of the public electronic communications network under section 127 of the Communications Act 2003.
He was on the list to appear at Guildford magistrates court but a prosecutor said a letter informing Mazar that the case was to be discontinued had been sent earlier.
See, easy.
andy118run said:
...on the same day.
as well as four counts of failing to comply with traffic lights and one charge of failing to comply with a traffic sign.
This cropped up in the local paper and rather intrigued me. Offences include driving at 101, 118, 122mph, as well as 86 and 75 (in a 30),
https://www.edp24.co.uk/news/crime/norfolk-policem...
Appearance at magistrates court scheduled for February. Will be interesting to see what went on here (my guess - he was on duty, somebody reported his driving, his superiors had a look at what else he'd been up to...maybe).
You're obviously localish to me as it cropped up on my FB as well.as well as four counts of failing to comply with traffic lights and one charge of failing to comply with a traffic sign.
This cropped up in the local paper and rather intrigued me. Offences include driving at 101, 118, 122mph, as well as 86 and 75 (in a 30),
https://www.edp24.co.uk/news/crime/norfolk-policem...
Appearance at magistrates court scheduled for February. Will be interesting to see what went on here (my guess - he was on duty, somebody reported his driving, his superiors had a look at what else he'd been up to...maybe).
Will be interesting to find out what was going on.
Presumably on duty or it would be the same as any other bod.
Policing purpose is the crux.....
Officers taking the piss is not unknown but fairly rare.. .
Easy to make one or two go away but such a large number hmm...
Just thought I saw an smv pass me etc turned round and caught up to check.
Thought I saw wanted suspect /disqual driver go past etc etc etc
Known drug dealer crimos in a car etc etc
All perfectly valid policing purposes for which the exemptions are designed to be used in a reasonable fashion..
You don't see much haring around at warp 9 all the time, and the chances of incidents, accidents and public complaints obviously increases.
I used to bimble about 95% of the time but when you did need to hoof it that's what you do.
Much easier to justify on those 5% of actually important occasions.
120mph to catch up with the moped without lights or mobile phone user = probably unreasonable.
120mph speed pursuing murder suspect/armed robbers etc etc = non issue
Policing purpose is the crux.....
Officers taking the piss is not unknown but fairly rare.. .
Easy to make one or two go away but such a large number hmm...
Just thought I saw an smv pass me etc turned round and caught up to check.
Thought I saw wanted suspect /disqual driver go past etc etc etc
Known drug dealer crimos in a car etc etc
All perfectly valid policing purposes for which the exemptions are designed to be used in a reasonable fashion..
You don't see much haring around at warp 9 all the time, and the chances of incidents, accidents and public complaints obviously increases.
I used to bimble about 95% of the time but when you did need to hoof it that's what you do.
Much easier to justify on those 5% of actually important occasions.
120mph to catch up with the moped without lights or mobile phone user = probably unreasonable.
120mph speed pursuing murder suspect/armed robbers etc etc = non issue
Edited by peterperkins on Tuesday 26th November 17:25
peterperkins said:
Presumably on duty or it would be the same as any other bod.
Policing purpose is the crux.....
Officers taking the piss is not unknown but fairly rare.. .
Easy to make one or two go away but such a large number hmm...
Just thought I saw an smv pass me etc turned round and caught up to check.
Thought I saw wanted suspect /disqual driver go past etc etc etc
Known drug dealer crimos in a car etc etc
All perfectly valid policing purposes for which the exemptions are designed to be used in a reasonable fashion..
You don't see much haring around at warp 9 all the time, and the chances of incidents, accidents and public complaints obviously increases.
I used to bimble about 95% of the time but when you did need to hoof it that's what you do.
Much easier to justify on those 5% of actually important occasions.
120mph to catch up with the moped without lights or mobile phone user = probably unreasonable.
120mph speed pursuing murder suspect/armed robbers etc etc = non issue
I'm sure some or all will be subject of incident logs if hes driven at those speeds legitimatelyPolicing purpose is the crux.....
Officers taking the piss is not unknown but fairly rare.. .
Easy to make one or two go away but such a large number hmm...
Just thought I saw an smv pass me etc turned round and caught up to check.
Thought I saw wanted suspect /disqual driver go past etc etc etc
Known drug dealer crimos in a car etc etc
All perfectly valid policing purposes for which the exemptions are designed to be used in a reasonable fashion..
You don't see much haring around at warp 9 all the time, and the chances of incidents, accidents and public complaints obviously increases.
I used to bimble about 95% of the time but when you did need to hoof it that's what you do.
Much easier to justify on those 5% of actually important occasions.
120mph to catch up with the moped without lights or mobile phone user = probably unreasonable.
120mph speed pursuing murder suspect/armed robbers etc etc = non issue
Edited by peterperkins on Tuesday 26th November 17:25
LosingGrip said:
Be interesting to see the reasons behind it.
There's more to this than meets the eye. I have the suspicion that he hadn't got the necessary authority to speed according to the force's regs. I can't see that negating the exemptions written in law, but you never know.Odd.
Derek Smith said:
LosingGrip said:
Be interesting to see the reasons behind it.
There's more to this than meets the eye. I have the suspicion that he hadn't got the necessary authority to speed according to the force's regs. I can't see that negating the exemptions written in law, but you never know.Odd.
Who knows but I'm glad I'm not in his shoes
Greendubber said:
Looking at the speeds I reckon hes driving out of his grade, a standard driver in my force can only do +20mph. As you say its policy and not law though, maybe he's only a basic driver.
Who knows but I'm glad I'm not in his shoes
There's got to be more than just that basic speeding. I would have thought they might have gone for dangerous if he wasn't qualified.Who knows but I'm glad I'm not in his shoes
There's ample decided cases with regards the interpretation of the law, some defying logic, and most seem to support that as long as if conformed to the letter of the law, there's no problem. D&C will have a go of course later. But if it's that simple, why have CPS continued? I mean, apart from caving into pressure from a CC.
A bit tricky with the lights though, and much depends on the traffic sign.
He must have known he was going through speed cameras, so why continue?
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff