Late for meeting? its ok to speed

[pesty]

Traffic cheif in speeding car
82 in a 40
but its ok he was late for a meeting.
yes he was caught and may be punished but the thing is in his head he thought it was ok to be a hypoccrit

One rule eh?

[url]http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/london/4454107.stm[/url]

>>> Edited by pesty on Monday 18th April 13:14

[jezzaaa]

And amazingly, the driver was only given six points and a fine...and then, unbelievably, it was reduced to 3 points. Imagine what the penalty would be if ordinary joe was doing twice the speed limit.....especially in a 40 zone. Banned without question.

Typical.

[chazuk]

Makes me

[Plotloss]

You're suprised by nepotism in the Police Force?

[pdV6]

Blimey. 3pts & £250 for double the limit in a built up area? For you or I they'd throw away the key...

[Deester]

And I was banned for a month for 21MPH over the limit.

[Dwight VanDriver]

Dear Pistonheads.

You are the ultimate authority when such a case is reported to you. The driver of a vehicle which is being used for Police purposes and carrying the Chief Constable as passenger has been found to be speeding.

You look at the file and yes there is no dispute that the limit has been exceeded, BUT...........

the very last piece of paper on the file is a letter/statement from said Chief Constable in a declaration that the vehicle was being used on police purposes and that to have obeyed the limit would have hindered the use of the vehicle and the purpose of which it was being used on that occasion. The very exemption contained under sect 87 RTR Act 1984. Remember also that a High Court case exonerated a PC from speeding in his own car going to Court after it had broken down.

Now bearing in mind the suggestions to escape prosecution that have appeared herein do you mark up Prosecution or NFA. ?

DVD
playing Devils Advocate.

[off_again]

In the Metro this morning, it is reported that the Head of the Traffic department is being disciplined for inappropriate use of the car on police business. Whether this is true or not, it does still sniff of something going wrong.

DVD, I think I understand your comments, but without knowing the full circumstances of the "police business" that this bloke was on, I fail to see why he thinks it is fair to speed at 85 in a 40/50 zone. In fact, the driver was convicted (obviously NOT on police business then!) and got 3 points and a £250 fine.

So, either this is a huge injustice of the poor police driver who has been a scape goat for an inappropriate prosecution...... or

.... its a senior police officer who believes it is fair and reasonable to misuse his powers.....

Either way it is poor. People have been banned for less and fined much more.

[pdV6]

I'm with Off on this one - surely the result is either book thrown (i.e. not police business) or nothing at all (if legit)?

[TripleS]

Well I'm sorry to bore you all yet again with my old familiar line, but I reckon nobody should be penalised merely for exceeding a speed limit, so long as safety is being properly maintained.

Best wishes all,
Dave.

[streaky]

Dwight VanDriver said:

Dear Pistonheads. You are the ultimate authority when such a case is reported to you. The driver of a vehicle which is being used for Police purposes and carrying the Chief Constable as passenger has been found to be speeding. You look at the file and yes there is no dispute that the limit has been exceeded, BUT........... the very last piece of paper on the file is a letter/statement from said Chief Constable in a declaration that the vehicle was being used on police purposes and that to have obeyed the limit would have hindered the use of the vehicle and the purpose of which it was being used on that occasion. The very exemption contained under sect 87 RTR Act 1984. Remember also that a High Court case exonerated a PC from speeding in his own car going to Court after it had broken down. Now bearing in mind the suggestions to escape prosecution that have appeared herein do you mark up Prosecution or NFA. ? DVD playing Devils Advocate.

As posted in Living in a police state ... (qv) :

The test for whether one is living in a police state is that those charged with enforcing the law are allowed to break the laws with impunity. (Jon Roland)

When T BLiar can use the Bus lane of the M4 ...

When Robin Cook (did I spell that correctly?) can exceed the ton ...

Pah!

Streaky

[autismuk]

Dwight VanDriver said:

Dear Pistonheads. You are the ultimate authority when such a case is reported to you. The driver of a vehicle which is being used for Police purposes and carrying the Chief Constable as passenger has been found to be speeding. You look at the file and yes there is no dispute that the limit has been exceeded, BUT........... the very last piece of paper on the file is a letter/statement from said Chief Constable in a declaration that the vehicle was being used on police purposes and that to have obeyed the limit would have hindered the use of the vehicle and the purpose of which it was being used on that occasion. The very exemption contained under sect 87 RTR Act 1984. Remember also that a High Court case exonerated a PC from speeding in his own car going to Court after it had broken down. Now bearing in mind the suggestions to escape prosecution that have appeared herein do you mark up Prosecution or NFA. ? DVD playing Devils Advocate.

... fine, as long as everyone else can write the same thing hen they are late for a meeting.

The "police purposes" use is completely irrelevant. The Police are subject to the same laws and rules as everyone else. The occasional right to break those laws is not granted to the Police in all cases. Emergencies - yes. Personal convenience - no.

"obeyed the limit would have hindered the use of the vehicle and the purpose of which it was being used on that occasion" is so laughably illiterate that it's hardly worth commenting on.

"Hindered the use of the vehicle" ? The use of the vehicle is to get from A to B. So this applies to everyone else as well.

"(hindered) the purpose of which it was being used" ? Apart from the illiteracy of the CC in question, this is completely meaningless as well. In fact, it's really (incompetently) repeating the first clause.

What is the difference between its "use" and the "purpose for which it is being used" ? I supposed you could argue it is being used for driving and the purpose is to get to the meeting, but then it's even more asinine.

Can you or I write such a statement to get off speeding ? Of course not.

And this is one of the big issues with the Police ; they seem to think they are above the law. They are not.

Conclusions :-

1) This Chief Constable is an illiterate bullsh*t merchant.
2) This bloke should be treated the same as anyone else.

[Size Nine Elm]

My thoughts are these: if the driver was convicted for speeding - even if reduced - and he was the driver for the CC, on the business of the CC, then surely the CC himself is guilty of a 'permitting' or 'causing' offense as well?

Or are we to believe he just sat in the back, late for his meeting, and the driver drove at those speeds on his own initiative?

[JoolzB]

TripleS said:

Well I'm sorry to bore you all yet again with my old familiar line, but I reckon nobody should be penalised merely for exceeding a speed limit, so long as safety is being properly maintained. Best wishes all, Dave.

I totally agree with you but the thing that I'm sure narks everyone off is the fact that it was a copper. Just goes to show the general feelings people have towards the police these days... Here "we" are wanting more TrafPol and yet everyone is so keen to pummel[sp] the bloke into the ground for doing what alot of us would do (if the conditions were safe).

[streaky]

JoolzB said:

TripleS said: Well I'm sorry to bore you all yet again with my old familiar line, but I reckon nobody should be penalised merely for exceeding a speed limit, so long as safety is being properly maintained. Best wishes all, Dave. I totally agree with you but the thing that I'm sure narks everyone off is the fact that it was a copper. Just goes to show the general feelings people have towards the police these days... Here "we" are wanting more TrafPol and yet everyone is so keen to pummel[sp] the bloke into the ground for doing what alot of us would do (if the conditions were safe).

Mostly, it's the two-faced attitude that narks me (us).

Following the instalment of five new cameras in east London in February 2003, Ch Supt Owen said: "The fact is that speeding kills. Having witnessed first hand the suffering of families whose loved ones have been seriously injured or tragically killed, I would strongly urge all motorists not to speed."

Of course that doesn't include himself or his driver.

It's also the iuse of the siren even when it was not an emergency. Next time a driver on the A12 hears a police siren, they might well assume it was a senior officer late for a meeting ... and not give way. This could become a defence:

Q: "Why did you not stop when the police car flashed its lights and sounded its siren?"
A: "Well, I thought it was just some Chief Super running late!"
A titter ran round the court.

Streaky