Bobbeh Posted August 22, 2006 Share Posted August 22, 2006 80 in a 30 - people should be shot - there is a time and a place for everything. Yeah, and as the advert says.. 'ITS 30 FOR A REASON!!11 ARRG" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matt H Posted August 22, 2006 Share Posted August 22, 2006 A very sweeping statement. Care to back that up professionally then? O.k, maybe i was a bit harsh, say 98% of coppers are Tw*ts Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
THE DON Posted August 22, 2006 Share Posted August 22, 2006 O.k, maybe i was a bit harsh, say 98% of coppers are Tw*ts lol Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chiefgroover Posted August 22, 2006 Share Posted August 22, 2006 One of the negative points of having a complusory bann on drivers over xxxmph is that they will quite often try to outrun the cops as it's walking time anyway, and maybe the cop didnt get close enough to read the number plate, unless he has in car camera that is. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chiefgroover Posted August 22, 2006 Share Posted August 22, 2006 When is the case up again? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scoboblio Posted August 25, 2006 Share Posted August 25, 2006 Sky news have just reported that he's been found guilty of dangerous driving, and been given an 'absolute discharge'. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cashpoint Posted August 25, 2006 Share Posted August 25, 2006 What does that mean? He's guilty but they not going to do anything? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scoboblio Posted August 25, 2006 Share Posted August 25, 2006 They've just explained that he will face no disiplinary action. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tbourner Posted August 25, 2006 Share Posted August 25, 2006 Being sacked from the police is a big deal - he'll find it hard to get another job. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scoboblio Posted August 25, 2006 Share Posted August 25, 2006 Being sacked from the police is a big deal - he'll find it hard to get another job. They've just explained that he will face no disiplinary action. News story here; http://news.sky.com/skynews/article/0,,30000-13539643,00.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shaun. Posted August 25, 2006 Share Posted August 25, 2006 I would find it hard to get a new job if I lost my license, do you think I would get away with it ? Just being a police officer doesn't excuse him from wrong doing and punishment. A disgraceful decision. Shaun. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
michael Posted August 25, 2006 Share Posted August 25, 2006 District Judge Peter Wallis said the 38-year-old from Telford, Shropshire, had "suffered enough" with two-and-a-half years of court proceedings Poor chap Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pete Posted August 25, 2006 Author Share Posted August 25, 2006 "Absolute Discharge" - so that means he's lost his job then? I dare not type discharge into Google He did something stupid and has now lost his livelyhood, probably decent pension and has to look forward to being a security guard somewhere. If he was actually any good at being a policeman it seems a shame given the cost to train these people and the few people that actually want to do it in the first place. I expected points and a hefty fine. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rob Posted August 25, 2006 Share Posted August 25, 2006 It doesn't mean "discharged" from his job, it means discharged from court, ie no more punishment will be given. So apart from attending court a few times, and presumably a big bollocking from chief-super, he's scot free. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pete Posted August 25, 2006 Author Share Posted August 25, 2006 It doesn't mean "discharged" from his job, it means discharged from court, ie no more punishment will be given. Now I've re-read it the tone of the article does imply that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scoboblio Posted August 25, 2006 Share Posted August 25, 2006 Is everyone ignoring my posts? Why do I bother?!?! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Class One Posted August 25, 2006 Share Posted August 25, 2006 An absolute discharge, means a finding of guilt without punishment. He will face no sanction from the court. However, I can't see anything in the article about not facing disciplinary proceedings. IMO he won't be driving Police vehicles again, and he'll be lucky if he keeps his job, for bringing the service into disrepute. I think he'll receive a requirement to resign. What that means is that he will keep his pension (bit it'll be worthless when he retires) and he'll get a certificate of service. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pete Posted August 25, 2006 Author Share Posted August 25, 2006 An absolute discharge, means a finding of guilt without punishment. Thanks for the true definition. I hate it when people use terms which can be missinterpreted if you don't understand them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tbourner Posted August 25, 2006 Share Posted August 25, 2006 Now I've re-read it the tone of the article does imply that. Yeah I get that now, my fault sorry I assumed it meant a sacking! I'm an idiot OK! /vbb/images/smilies/bbcode_oops.gif If he does get 'asked to leave' that won't be quite as bad, and certainly not as bad as we could expect for the same crime! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bobbeh Posted August 25, 2006 Share Posted August 25, 2006 Unbelievable.. in that case why doesnt anyone who has to wait and stress for months before a court case get a reduction in their sentencing? This countrys justice is a total JOKE. Another victory for the freemasons me thinks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
grahamc Posted August 25, 2006 Share Posted August 25, 2006 Sorry, I only read the first 3 pages, but had put my comment up. Firstly, at that speed, in an unfamilar vehicle, if anything happened, he could possibably have killed someone. Secondly, mechanical failure, could have caused him to kill someone. At the end of the day, at that speed you only have X control over what happens around you and unless in completely controlled environments, being a police officer is less of an excuse, he should receive even more of a punishment. Yes the time at which he did this, is less of a risk, but who is he to do decide that? Police/traffic, whatever, should be setting the example. So if I were to have the same training as him and do those sorts of speeds when he did them, would I get away with it? Doubtful! I am actually quite pissed off at this statement: "But District Judge Bruce Morgan acquitted him..." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tbourner Posted August 25, 2006 Share Posted August 25, 2006 Unbelievable.. in that case why doesnt anyone who has to wait and stress for months before a court case get a reduction in their sentencing? They do, any time in custody is taken off any custodial sentence you're given. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bobbeh Posted August 25, 2006 Share Posted August 25, 2006 But thats only if you've been held in custody right? This guy has been free to live his life up to the trial. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KaoriFan Posted August 25, 2006 Share Posted August 25, 2006 Is there something wrong with the law, i would answer 'yes'. i am sure he wasn't using any of his superior police driving skills at the time, just going fast. we can all do that, and end up with a ban and prison for our troubles. he should be made an example of to the general public. after all how will joe-public have any respect for the police if they seem to be able to get away with most things. if he want's to 'familiarise' himself with a new car, why can't he do it on a test circuit, if he has to go at 159mph. can always get a few other police to drive car's so he can pracitice handling in traffic. in South-East there was the policeman who killed a woman and seriously injured her son, as he drove through a red light and his her car. not much happened to him either in punishment. the excuse was the prisoner he was tranporting distracted him for a second. that instills confidence as well. haven't been in a police car myself (and not wanting any offers), but if they are not done like this and have no barrier, why can't they put mesh between the rear seats and driver, that is the norm in New York. the amount of times i see police cars overtake with no indicators, no lights in bad weather, etc etc, i really wonder how they are allowed to drive. i have known a traffic policeman in the past he was always out on the local roads, and he was totally competent and anyone would respect him. he didn't need to go at 159mph not slagging off all the police who drive, many of the police motorcyclists seem competent enough on the road. edited to add: didnt one of the Met commisioners get driven fast around London as he was late for a meeting, seem to remember that in the news a year or so ago. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fifty Posted August 25, 2006 Share Posted August 25, 2006 actually I have been passed on the A30 recently by police cars doing way over the ton with no blues on -is that legal?? I dont think so. Hes probably going to get moved. Rich Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Please sign in to comment
You will be able to leave a comment after signing in
Sign In Now