Tuesday 30th January 2007

Fastest ever speedster nabbed

Man caught at 172 mph in Porsche 911 Turbo

---

Porsche 911 Turbo

Sky News reports that the fastest ever speeding ticket has just been issued to one Tim Brady.

He was doing 172mph in a Porsche Turbo -- borrowed according to the story -- whose speed broke the previous ticket speed maximum of 156mph. Brady is a courtesy car driver who, said Sky News, borrowed the car to show off to his mates.

The company for whom Brady used to work said he took the car without permission -- and afterwards came in and resigned.

The previous speeding record, set in 2003, was held by a car dealer, Jason McAllister, at 156mph in Scotland. He was jailed for five months. Brady is currently on bail.

[pewe]

I don't know if you have seen this but it does absolutely nothing to promote good plod/public relations.
Policeman free after 2am car chase-News-UK-Crime-TimesOnline
www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/crime/article1361962.ece
Cheers, Pewe

[vonhosen]

No, it's one law for all.

Where evidence exists you are placed before a court, who judge the case on it's merits.

The officer was judged by 12 members of the public, not to have commited the offence he was charged with.

Let's not suggest either that an acquittal is a rare event for a member of the public in traffic cases. The Porsche driver hasn't even gone on trial yet.

Edited by vonhosen on Saturday 10th February 12:46

[toni896]

vonhosen said:

No, it's one law for all.

just fairer for some.

[vonhosen]

toni896 said:

vonhosen said:

No, it's one law for all.

just fairer for some.

He'll probably lose his job with the disciplinary hearing despite being acquitted of the offence. Would you ?

[WildCat]

vonhosen said:

toni896 said:

vonhosen said:

No, it's one law for all.

just fairer for some.

He'll probably lose his job with the disciplinary hearing despite being acquitted of the offence. Would you ?

He has already been disciplined once already for drinking booze whilst on duty. Mad Doc und myself would both be suspended immediately und also fired for such offence. We would not keep jobs for just the one tipple. Ist Gross Misconduct und against the rules as laid out in contract of employment und the body which govern our professions.

He already has one speeding offence. He failed to stop when requested to.. evaded arrest..

CPS obviously gave a wishy washy performance .. und jury led to believe "good character". I posted in that thread that the past should not have been disclosed to them as it prejudice result. But by same token .. they should not have been led to believe "of good character prior to this" when sent out to consider. His character .. good, bad .. indifferent was not the issue. The standard of driving was.. but this "of good character" may have influenced decision in any case.

[vonhosen]

WildCat said:

vonhosen said:

toni896 said:

vonhosen said:

No, it's one law for all.

just fairer for some.

He'll probably lose his job with the disciplinary hearing despite being acquitted of the offence. Would you ?

He has already been disciplined once already for drinking booze whilst on duty. Mad Doc und myself would both be suspended immediately und also fired for such offence. We would not keep jobs for just the one tipple. Ist Gross Misconduct und against the rules as laid out in contract of employment und the body which govern our professions.

He already has one speeding offence. He failed to stop when requested to.. evaded arrest..

CPS obviously gave a wishy washy performance .. und jury led to believe "good character". I posted in that thread that the past should not have been disclosed to them as it prejudice result. But by same token .. they should not have been led to believe "of good character prior to this" when sent out to consider. His character .. good, bad .. indifferent was not the issue. The standard of driving was.. but this "of good character" may have influenced decision in any case.

And the huge numbers of traffic cases that members of the public get acquitted at ?

[WildCat]

vonhosen said:

No, it's one law for all.

Where evidence exists you are placed before a court, who judge the case on it's merits.

The officer was judged by 12 members of the public, not to have commited the offence he was charged with.

Let's not suggest either that an acquittal is a rare event for a member of the public in traffic cases. The Porsche driver hasn't even gone on trial yet.

Edited by vonhosen on Saturday 10th February 12:46

The difference ist.. he stopped when pulled und resigned his job as well.

It depend on evidence as presented when it come to trial. One hopes he get the same judge as PC Milton as he was "just testing the Porsche" (tongue ist in cheeky cheek Liebchen )

[toni896]

vonhosen said:

He'll probably lose his job with the disciplinary hearing despite being acquitted of the offence. Would you ?

maybe not for aquital(although in a former job yes), but considering he's already had a chat over drink while on duty, I wouldn't have got that far to have a second/third chance.

[vonhosen]

toni896 said:

vonhosen said:

He'll probably lose his job with the disciplinary hearing despite being acquitted of the offence. Would you ?

maybe not for aquital(although in a former job yes), but considering he's already had a chat over drink while on duty, I wouldn't have got that far to have a second/third chance.

And what were the circumstances of the first case ?
How do we know that it was appropriate for a sacking ?

What if it had been a case that he had been family liason officer, who had just had to liase with a family, following the kidnap & murder of their 3 year old daughter. Following that he had returned to the station & had misguidedly had one small glass of scotch 10 mins before officially knocking off & with no further contact with the public ?


I'm not in anyway defending what he is alleged to have done in this dangerous driving case (even though acquitted), but the relevant sentence of any previous disciplinary cases must be with regard to the full circumstances surrounding that case & which we do not have at our disposal.

Edited by vonhosen on Saturday 10th February 13:17

[vonhosen]

WildCat said:

vonhosen said:

No, it's one law for all.

Where evidence exists you are placed before a court, who judge the case on it's merits.

The officer was judged by 12 members of the public, not to have commited the offence he was charged with.

Let's not suggest either that an acquittal is a rare event for a member of the public in traffic cases. The Porsche driver hasn't even gone on trial yet.

The difference ist.. he stopped when pulled und resigned his job as well.

It depend on evidence as presented when it come to trial. One hopes he get the same judge as PC Milton as he was "just testing the Porsche" (tongue ist in cheeky cheek Liebchen )

That's because he TWOC'd the car though.

[sultanbrown]

vonhosen said:

WildCat said:

vonhosen said:

toni896 said:

vonhosen said:

No, it's one law for all.

just fairer for some.

He'll probably lose his job with the disciplinary hearing despite being acquitted of the offence. Would you ?

He has already been disciplined once already for drinking booze whilst on duty. Mad Doc und myself would both be suspended immediately und also fired for such offence. We would not keep jobs for just the one tipple. Ist Gross Misconduct und against the rules as laid out in contract of employment und the body which govern our professions.

He already has one speeding offence. He failed to stop when requested to.. evaded arrest..

CPS obviously gave a wishy washy performance .. und jury led to believe "good character". I posted in that thread that the past should not have been disclosed to them as it prejudice result. But by same token .. they should not have been led to believe "of good character prior to this" when sent out to consider. His character .. good, bad .. indifferent was not the issue. The standard of driving was.. but this "of good character" may have influenced decision in any case.

And the huge numbers of traffic cases that members of the public get acquitted at ?

I fail to recollect the huge number of cases where members of the public have been acquitted after speeding whilst pissed and failing to stop.

Edited by sultanbrown on Saturday 10th February 13:19

[vonhosen]

sultanbrown said:

vonhosen said:

WildCat said:

vonhosen said:

toni896 said:

vonhosen said:

No, it's one law for all.

just fairer for some.

He'll probably lose his job with the disciplinary hearing despite being acquitted of the offence. Would you ?

He has already been disciplined once already for drinking booze whilst on duty. Mad Doc und myself would both be suspended immediately und also fired for such offence. We would not keep jobs for just the one tipple. Ist Gross Misconduct und against the rules as laid out in contract of employment und the body which govern our professions.

He already has one speeding offence. He failed to stop when requested to.. evaded arrest..

CPS obviously gave a wishy washy performance .. und jury led to believe "good character". I posted in that thread that the past should not have been disclosed to them as it prejudice result. But by same token .. they should not have been led to believe "of good character prior to this" when sent out to consider. His character .. good, bad .. indifferent was not the issue. The standard of driving was.. but this "of good character" may have influenced decision in any case.

And the huge numbers of traffic cases that members of the public get acquitted at ?

I fail to recollect the huge number of cases where members of the public have been acquitted after speeding whilst pissed and failing to stop.

He is still to be tried for the drink drive, so he hasn't got off with that.

IIRC it's about a third of traffic cases end in acquittal, so yes plenty do whatever the offence.

[HarryW]

vonhosen said:

No, it's one law for all.

Where evidence exists you are placed before a court, who judge the case on it's merits.

The officer was judged by 12 members of the public, not to have commited the offence he was charged with .

Let's not suggest either that an acquittal is a rare event for a member of the public in traffic cases. The Porsche driver hasn't even gone on trial yet.

Is that not what the whole nub of the problem is, not only what he was charged with but what charges did the CPS bring forward for the court to determine. The whole episode stinks and does the police no favours, it is imho unacceptable.

Understand the guy has been on fully paid gardening leave at the tax payers expense as well, surely they could have at least got him answering the bloody phone rather than sit at home.

[jasandjules]

AS a wise person once wrote:

Everyone is equal, it is just that some are more equal than others.

[vonhosen]

HarryW said:

vonhosen said:

No, it's one law for all.

Where evidence exists you are placed before a court, who judge the case on it's merits.

The officer was judged by 12 members of the public, not to have commited the offence he was charged with .

Let's not suggest either that an acquittal is a rare event for a member of the public in traffic cases. The Porsche driver hasn't even gone on trial yet.

Is that not what the whole nub of the problem is, not only what he was charged with but what charges did the CPS bring forward for the court to determine. The whole episode stinks and does the police no favours, it is imho unacceptable.

But you are suggesting he is being treated substantially differently from any other person.

As I said elsewhere you don't get charged with every offence in one incident. You will get charged with a couple, being the more serious offences that the CPS believe there is a realistic likelyhood of conviction with. Somebody who TWOCs a car & is pursued, isn't charged with every speed limit they exceed, every red light they go through etc. They are charged with TWOC & if convicted the circumstances of all the rest will be considered in sentencing. If he had been convicted of dangerous driving it is how it would have been with him.

A burglar caught for 100 burglaries won't be charged with 100 burglaries.

Edited by vonhosen on Saturday 10th February 13:46

[HarryW]

vonhosen said:

HarryW said:

vonhosen said:

No, it's one law for all.

Where evidence exists you are placed before a court, who judge the case on it's merits.

The officer was judged by 12 members of the public, not to have commited the offence he was charged with .

Let's not suggest either that an acquittal is a rare event for a member of the public in traffic cases. The Porsche driver hasn't even gone on trial yet.

Is that not what the whole nub of the problem is, not only what he was charged with but what charges did the CPS bring forward for the court to determine. The whole episode stinks and does the police no favours, it is imho unacceptable.

But you are suggesting he is being treated substantially differently from any other person.

As I said elsewhere you don't get charged with every offence in one incident. You will get charged with a couple, being the more serious offences that the CPS believe there is a realistic likelyhood of conviction with. Somebody who TWOCs a car & is pursued, isn't charged with every speed limit they exceed, every red light they go through etc. They are charged with TWOC & if convicted the circumstances of all the rest will be considered in sentencing. If he had been convicted of dangerous driving it is how it would have been with him.

A burglar caught for 100 burglaries won't be charged with 100 burglaries.

Edited by vonhosen on Saturday 10th February 13:46

I realise this topic crosses over into another thread and have posted there instead .

[nobleguy]

toni896 said:

vonhosen said:

No, it's one law for all.

just fairer for some.

Exactly. Police seem to be immune from prosecution in every case as far as I can see.

[chrispy porker]

I suggest you read my post on the other thread.

[vonhosen]

nobleguy said:

toni896 said:

vonhosen said:

No, it's one law for all.

just fairer for some.

Exactly. Police seem to be immune from prosecution in every case as far as I can see.

I think you'll find he was prosecuted so not immune from it.
12 of your peers found the case against him not proved though.

[HarryW]

vonhosen said:

nobleguy said:

toni896 said:

vonhosen said:

No, it's one law for all.

just fairer for some.

Exactly. Police seem to be immune from prosecution in every case as far as I can see.

I think you'll find he was prosecuted so not immune from it.
12 of your peers found the case against him not proved though.

Back on this thread

Perhaps the information given to the 12 peers was of limited value, making it impossible for them to bearing a guilty verdict. Not forgetting the case for the prosecution is made by the very machine the defendant is part of .