Emails to Brunstrom.
Discussion
I have decided to make my email correspondence with Chief Brunstrom public.
They are printed in chronological order below.
-----Original Message-----
From: x [mailto:]
Sent: 04 December 2003 16:44
To: ACPO Chief Constable
Subject: The drugs vs speeding debate.
Dear Sir,
I realise you are a busy man so ill try to keep this
short.
I would like to know why you, as a Chief Constable,
believe the war on drugs is lost, so using your
rationale, it should be legalised?
I suspect its simply on the basis that there are so
many people doing it, so therefore it becomes
unenforceable.
Applying that same rationale to your current campaign
against drivers that exceed speed limits, we have
millions, (not a minority) of people breaking an
archaic law that no one believes in, every single time
they drive.
Yet here you apply a different set of rules.
Here you apply the "zero tolerance" rule.
Why the difference?
Heres what I believe.
I believe that you have NO idea how to combat the
drugs problem in your area that your lenient polices
have encouraged.
I believe implicitly that you have set out to "make
money" from drivers as opposed to junkies, (who have
no money) and because automated systems can detect
speeding violations, but not drug offences.
I believe that you wish to "make a name" for yourself.
At what cost to the community youve deserted?
I think my questions have been fair, and to the point
and deserve YOUR full attention in the form of a
detailed response.
I DO NOT wish to hear statistics from dubious sources
to prop up your ideas, i just want to hear the true
facts.
Are you up to the job? I guess we'll see.
Thanks for your time.
Alfred. P. Waterstone (criminal speeder).
(First main response)
Thank you for your e-mail dated the 4/12/03.
The North Wales Police are combating drug related crime on two fronts. One is through enforcement where we target and arrest the Class A drug suppliers (heroin, cocaine, crack cocaine for example) and we are successful in this work. For example, for the month of January, eleven offenders were charged or summons for supplying Class A drugs, heroin, cocaine and amphetamine sulphate.
We also ensure that the drug users themselves who have to commit crime to purchase illicit drugs are offered every opportunity to access treatment facilities through a range of initiatives such as Arrest Referral and Caution Plus.
The speed limit is set by Government, it is the law, and it is a law for the greater good. When law is set for society it is done so, taking into account individuals, however, it must be for society as a whole. The issue you appear to be raising is one of proportionality - a very difficult concept. When I joined the police service I took an oath to protect life and property. This is an oath I take very seriously. The UK road death rate is around 3,500 people per annum of these a proportion are drivers, however, a number are pedestrians, cyclists and passengers whose deaths are caused by excessive or inappropriate speed. Drivers of motor vehicles have a duty to these people and to the state to uphold the law. I wish to make speeding as anti social as drink drive and will not be deflected from this aim. I would commend to you that you re-think your stance on the speed debate.
The safety camera project is the largest road safety initiative in the world if you continue in your behaviour as a criminal driver you will lose your license; hopefully you will not injure or kill anyone before you do.
Sgt Alan Jones
(My response below)
Date: Fri, 20 Feb 2004 02:36:17 -0800 (PST)
From: "x" <>
Subject: Re: Response
To: "ACPO CC Staff Officer RPBA"
Dear Sir,
I thank you for your response, devoid though it is of
any real substance in regard to the points i raised.
I note that the different stances adopted by Mr
Brunstrom on the two points raised have not been
adressed. For such a response to have taken almost
three months is, to say the least, somewhat
disappointing.
Self congratulation for the arrest of just eleven
offenders is certainly nothing to boast about, but it
would seem that such offenders arent exactly
considered to be public enemy number one by the Chief
Constable, even though the "680,000" would mostly
disagree with him.
Drug users dont "have to commit crime to purchase
illicit drugs", they choose to do so, and making drugs
available to all as Mr Brunstrom suggests, wont make
the problem go away, itll fuel it. How many people
will "chase the dragon" and then go on to drive their
cars if they dont have to worry about being nailed for
illegal drugs in the first place?
Id suggest that if the resources put into scamming
drivers were diverted into *serious* crime, (drugs,
rapes, muggings, burglaries etc etc) then your figures
would be very much more impressive than they appear
now. Not that im attempting to detract from any
success in the fight against drugs.
It is plain from the answer recieved and the amount of
wording/time dedicated to the drugs part, that its not
considered nearly as serious as exceeding the numerals
painted upon a roadsign, which by and large "offends"
no one.
To continually use the 3500(one third killed by speed)
figure as unacceptable and then go on to say that its
ok for large numbers of people to intentionally harm
themselves, is somewhat an alien concept to me.
Why isnt Mr Brunstrom attempting to make the 100,000
deaths from smoking related diseases as unacceptable
as drink driving?? Are these deaths in some way
different?
In his recent drugs speech, Mr Brunstrom asked "Just
what is the problem? If people want to abuse their
bodies?". Someone has to pick up the tab for it, thats
what the problem is. Someone has to bury them, someone
has to tell their families that the Chief Constable
has "no problem" with it because their life wasnt
worth a dam. Basically the message Mr Brunstrom is
broadcasting is that its ok for 100,000 people to
commit suicide by drug assisted means,(smoking) but
not for 3% of people to die in accidents that have no
connection with exceeding a speed limit, and were
simply "accidents"!
I think the above statement in particular brings into
sharp focus the issue of "proportionality". I have no
difficulties with its concept.
The speed camera "project" may well be the largest in
the world, but unfortunately it has little to do with
safety.
If as you seem to believe speed cameras are effective
at slowing drivers down, then can you explain why
youre projecting even more drivers prosecuted in the
coming years?
It cant all be down to "detection", although it may
explain it in part.
Surely if speed cameras were effective, then you'd
expect to see less drivers being prosecuted?
Once the "great experiment" is over, will an apology
be issued to all those who have been persecuted in the
name of safety by Mr Brunstrom, when its proved he
was wrong? I doubt it.
Finally regarding my behaviour as a "crimnal driver".
I am afraid that i, as well as many millions of others
do not see exceeding a speed limit by a few mph in any
way as a "criminal" act.
The law may well be the law, but the law is not always
right. Its about time Mr Bunstrom stopped picking
which ones HE feels should be broken.
Regards A.P.Waterstone.
(And their final)
From: "ACPO CC Staff Officer RPBA"
To: "x" <>
Date: Fri, 20 Feb 2004 11:09:56 -0000
Subject: RE: Response
I have no intention of entering into a e-debate with you over the
issues.....however, if you wish to visit me in H.Q. Colwyn Bay , I will
happily discuss the issues that appear to be causing you some angst on
a
face to face basis.
Sgt Alan Jones
(And my final)
Date: Fri, 20 Feb 2004 07:48:24 -0800 (PST)
From: "x" <>
Subject: RE: Response
To: "ACPO CC Staff Officer RPBA"
Dear Sir,
Thank you for your last reply.
I have thought carefully about your suggestion but i
cannot see what it would accomplish that couldnt be
accomplished via email correspondence.
However, i am more than willing to allow a
representative of my choosing to debate the questions
face to face with you, if that is acceptable.
If not then i wish you well as there would not appear
to be any reason to attempt to debate the points i
raised any further.
Regards. A.P.W
As ever, no direct attempts to answer "the difficult ones", just diversionary tactics telling us all how darned good those "safety cameras" are.
They are printed in chronological order below.
-----Original Message-----
From: x [mailto:]
Sent: 04 December 2003 16:44
To: ACPO Chief Constable
Subject: The drugs vs speeding debate.
Dear Sir,
I realise you are a busy man so ill try to keep this
short.
I would like to know why you, as a Chief Constable,
believe the war on drugs is lost, so using your
rationale, it should be legalised?
I suspect its simply on the basis that there are so
many people doing it, so therefore it becomes
unenforceable.
Applying that same rationale to your current campaign
against drivers that exceed speed limits, we have
millions, (not a minority) of people breaking an
archaic law that no one believes in, every single time
they drive.
Yet here you apply a different set of rules.
Here you apply the "zero tolerance" rule.
Why the difference?
Heres what I believe.
I believe that you have NO idea how to combat the
drugs problem in your area that your lenient polices
have encouraged.
I believe implicitly that you have set out to "make
money" from drivers as opposed to junkies, (who have
no money) and because automated systems can detect
speeding violations, but not drug offences.
I believe that you wish to "make a name" for yourself.
At what cost to the community youve deserted?
I think my questions have been fair, and to the point
and deserve YOUR full attention in the form of a
detailed response.
I DO NOT wish to hear statistics from dubious sources
to prop up your ideas, i just want to hear the true
facts.
Are you up to the job? I guess we'll see.
Thanks for your time.
Alfred. P. Waterstone (criminal speeder).
(First main response)
Thank you for your e-mail dated the 4/12/03.
The North Wales Police are combating drug related crime on two fronts. One is through enforcement where we target and arrest the Class A drug suppliers (heroin, cocaine, crack cocaine for example) and we are successful in this work. For example, for the month of January, eleven offenders were charged or summons for supplying Class A drugs, heroin, cocaine and amphetamine sulphate.
We also ensure that the drug users themselves who have to commit crime to purchase illicit drugs are offered every opportunity to access treatment facilities through a range of initiatives such as Arrest Referral and Caution Plus.
The speed limit is set by Government, it is the law, and it is a law for the greater good. When law is set for society it is done so, taking into account individuals, however, it must be for society as a whole. The issue you appear to be raising is one of proportionality - a very difficult concept. When I joined the police service I took an oath to protect life and property. This is an oath I take very seriously. The UK road death rate is around 3,500 people per annum of these a proportion are drivers, however, a number are pedestrians, cyclists and passengers whose deaths are caused by excessive or inappropriate speed. Drivers of motor vehicles have a duty to these people and to the state to uphold the law. I wish to make speeding as anti social as drink drive and will not be deflected from this aim. I would commend to you that you re-think your stance on the speed debate.
The safety camera project is the largest road safety initiative in the world if you continue in your behaviour as a criminal driver you will lose your license; hopefully you will not injure or kill anyone before you do.
Sgt Alan Jones
(My response below)
Date: Fri, 20 Feb 2004 02:36:17 -0800 (PST)
From: "x" <>
Subject: Re: Response
To: "ACPO CC Staff Officer RPBA"
Dear Sir,
I thank you for your response, devoid though it is of
any real substance in regard to the points i raised.
I note that the different stances adopted by Mr
Brunstrom on the two points raised have not been
adressed. For such a response to have taken almost
three months is, to say the least, somewhat
disappointing.
Self congratulation for the arrest of just eleven
offenders is certainly nothing to boast about, but it
would seem that such offenders arent exactly
considered to be public enemy number one by the Chief
Constable, even though the "680,000" would mostly
disagree with him.
Drug users dont "have to commit crime to purchase
illicit drugs", they choose to do so, and making drugs
available to all as Mr Brunstrom suggests, wont make
the problem go away, itll fuel it. How many people
will "chase the dragon" and then go on to drive their
cars if they dont have to worry about being nailed for
illegal drugs in the first place?
Id suggest that if the resources put into scamming
drivers were diverted into *serious* crime, (drugs,
rapes, muggings, burglaries etc etc) then your figures
would be very much more impressive than they appear
now. Not that im attempting to detract from any
success in the fight against drugs.
It is plain from the answer recieved and the amount of
wording/time dedicated to the drugs part, that its not
considered nearly as serious as exceeding the numerals
painted upon a roadsign, which by and large "offends"
no one.
To continually use the 3500(one third killed by speed)
figure as unacceptable and then go on to say that its
ok for large numbers of people to intentionally harm
themselves, is somewhat an alien concept to me.
Why isnt Mr Brunstrom attempting to make the 100,000
deaths from smoking related diseases as unacceptable
as drink driving?? Are these deaths in some way
different?
In his recent drugs speech, Mr Brunstrom asked "Just
what is the problem? If people want to abuse their
bodies?". Someone has to pick up the tab for it, thats
what the problem is. Someone has to bury them, someone
has to tell their families that the Chief Constable
has "no problem" with it because their life wasnt
worth a dam. Basically the message Mr Brunstrom is
broadcasting is that its ok for 100,000 people to
commit suicide by drug assisted means,(smoking) but
not for 3% of people to die in accidents that have no
connection with exceeding a speed limit, and were
simply "accidents"!
I think the above statement in particular brings into
sharp focus the issue of "proportionality". I have no
difficulties with its concept.
The speed camera "project" may well be the largest in
the world, but unfortunately it has little to do with
safety.
If as you seem to believe speed cameras are effective
at slowing drivers down, then can you explain why
youre projecting even more drivers prosecuted in the
coming years?
It cant all be down to "detection", although it may
explain it in part.
Surely if speed cameras were effective, then you'd
expect to see less drivers being prosecuted?
Once the "great experiment" is over, will an apology
be issued to all those who have been persecuted in the
name of safety by Mr Brunstrom, when its proved he
was wrong? I doubt it.
Finally regarding my behaviour as a "crimnal driver".
I am afraid that i, as well as many millions of others
do not see exceeding a speed limit by a few mph in any
way as a "criminal" act.
The law may well be the law, but the law is not always
right. Its about time Mr Bunstrom stopped picking
which ones HE feels should be broken.
Regards A.P.Waterstone.
(And their final)
From: "ACPO CC Staff Officer RPBA"
To: "x" <>
Date: Fri, 20 Feb 2004 11:09:56 -0000
Subject: RE: Response
I have no intention of entering into a e-debate with you over the
issues.....however, if you wish to visit me in H.Q. Colwyn Bay , I will
happily discuss the issues that appear to be causing you some angst on
a
face to face basis.
Sgt Alan Jones
(And my final)
Date: Fri, 20 Feb 2004 07:48:24 -0800 (PST)
From: "x" <>
Subject: RE: Response
To: "ACPO CC Staff Officer RPBA"
Dear Sir,
Thank you for your last reply.
I have thought carefully about your suggestion but i
cannot see what it would accomplish that couldnt be
accomplished via email correspondence.
However, i am more than willing to allow a
representative of my choosing to debate the questions
face to face with you, if that is acceptable.
If not then i wish you well as there would not appear
to be any reason to attempt to debate the points i
raised any further.
Regards. A.P.W
As ever, no direct attempts to answer "the difficult ones", just diversionary tactics telling us all how darned good those "safety cameras" are.
Who are you kidding?
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff