One rule for the cops, one rule for the public!! Policeman escapes driving ban....
04 January 2003, 02:55 PM
#1
Scooby Regular
Thread Starter
Join Date: Sep 1999
Location: £1.785m reasons not to be here :)
Posts: 6,095
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Not at all, there cannot be different rules for joe public and off duty coppers alleging they were chasing a drug dealer.
For one, how was an off duty copper going to charge the guy "if" he caught him?
In Scotland certainly you can only be charged by a policeman in full uniform. So if he could call for backup to do this, he could call for backup from a patrol car.
Not exactly rocket science to make a mockery of his "excuse" if you got caught doing the same thing, now, is it?
Off duty or not, the police have to obay the law as much as you and I. And they have to have the lights going if they are not.
Whatever this bloke was doing, he was wrong, hence the points.
Its a very clear precedent and better that Alex Ferguson's "stomach upset" and Beckham's "chased by gangsters"
D
[Edited by Diablo - 4/1/2003 3:02:13 PM]
For one, how was an off duty copper going to charge the guy "if" he caught him?
In Scotland certainly you can only be charged by a policeman in full uniform. So if he could call for backup to do this, he could call for backup from a patrol car.
Not exactly rocket science to make a mockery of his "excuse" if you got caught doing the same thing, now, is it?
Off duty or not, the police have to obay the law as much as you and I. And they have to have the lights going if they are not.
Whatever this bloke was doing, he was wrong, hence the points.
Its a very clear precedent and better that Alex Ferguson's "stomach upset" and Beckham's "chased by gangsters"
D
[Edited by Diablo - 4/1/2003 3:02:13 PM]
01 April 2003, 11:25 AM
#2
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Jan 1999
Posts: 5,786
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
01 April 2003, 11:56 AM
#4
Scooby Senior
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Radiator Springs
Posts: 14,810
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Ban the idiot...Police should set an example to the rest of us
another point...
So what about the 27 other accidents which aren't a direct result of speed, don't they need looking into????? We're dealing with ignorant idiots who know less than nothing about motoring IMO
another point...
The campaign, being run by police in conjunction with the Scottish Road Safety Campaign, is aiming to make people see speeding as being as socially unacceptable as drink-driving. Last year there were 36 fatal crashes in the Lothian and Borders area with nine of those as a direct result of speeding.
IMO
Trending Topics
01 April 2003, 12:22 PM
#9
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Jun 2000
Posts: 13,735
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
So, chasing a drug dealer who's known to be banned from driving isn't any justification whatsoever?
It is in my book. It doesn't excuse the chap, but it does provide mitigating circumstances as the magistrate (or whatever the scottish equivalent is) notes. It also goes without saying that a ban would be extremely detrimental to his job.
Come on, get some sense of perspective. Everyone wants the law applied fairly, and this appears to be a very sensible application of the law.
It is in my book. It doesn't excuse the chap, but it does provide mitigating circumstances as the magistrate (or whatever the scottish equivalent is) notes. It also goes without saying that a ban would be extremely detrimental to his job.
Come on, get some sense of perspective. Everyone wants the law applied fairly, and this appears to be a very sensible application of the law.
01 April 2003, 12:38 PM
#13
BANNED
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: In my own little world
Posts: 9,644
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
No excuses.....Did he phone in a report the chase??? Did he mention it to his govenor???
me thinks he is just telling porkies..
Also .. with modern technology Cop radios should be hand free in cars. They are driving faster and sometimes all over the place. They should not be on the radio.
me thinks he is just telling porkies..
Also .. with modern technology Cop radios should be hand free in cars. They are driving faster and sometimes all over the place. They should not be on the radio.
01 April 2003, 12:41 PM
#14
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Mar 2003
Posts: 241
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
do you believe his story? I don't another lying weasly policeman if u ask me. Funny handshakes and one touser leg rolled up is how that "cont" got away with it. Hangings too good for em. The police should be subject to even harsher penalties than the general public if they break the law.
01 April 2003, 12:54 PM
#16
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Jun 2000
Posts: 13,735
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
We don't know the facts of the case, however...
I'd give him the benefit of the doubt; ultimately, if that drug dealer had sold drugs to your kids, you might want him off the streets.
Yeah, I know it's a weak and often-spouted argument, and as has been said he might be making it all up. However, he might not...
Whatever, I'd rather have police at work and able to do their job after a minor error in his judgement rather than banned and utterly useless. I do expect the police to exhibit good judgement at all times, and I don't think that this indiscretion is enough to get all worked up about.
As for "one rule for us, one for them", then look how many people have escaped a ban over 100 mph on here for starters. Perhaps it's because they knew the secret handshakes too, or perhaps it's because scoobynet has a massive influence on the courts? Either scenario is just as likely
this is merely a paper digging up a story in order to be sensationalist and populist. Looks like that worked then!
Cheers,
Nick.
I'd give him the benefit of the doubt; ultimately, if that drug dealer had sold drugs to your kids, you might want him off the streets.
Yeah, I know it's a weak and often-spouted argument, and as has been said he might be making it all up. However, he might not...
Whatever, I'd rather have police at work and able to do their job after a minor error in his judgement rather than banned and utterly useless. I do expect the police to exhibit good judgement at all times, and I don't think that this indiscretion is enough to get all worked up about.
As for "one rule for us, one for them", then look how many people have escaped a ban over 100 mph on here for starters. Perhaps it's because they knew the secret handshakes too, or perhaps it's because scoobynet has a massive influence on the courts?
Either scenario is just as likely this is merely a paper digging up a story in order to be sensationalist and populist. Looks like that worked then!
Cheers,
Nick.
01 April 2003, 12:56 PM
#17
Scooby Senior
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Radiator Springs
Posts: 14,810
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If he was on duty, in a stickered up car, lights and sirens a blazing...no problem, off duty, yadda yadda, you bet your *** I have a problem with it, he prolly put an overtime claim in too
As for the Police having training... what, to talk on the phone, I don't think so, why can't we go on a course aswell then? The whole thing stinks of horse poo[img]images/smilies/mad.gif[/img]
As for the Police having training... what, to talk on the phone, I don't think so, why can't we go on a course aswell then? The whole thing stinks of horse poo[img]images/smilies/mad.gif[/img]
01 April 2003, 01:06 PM
#18
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Mar 2003
Posts: 241
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"ultimately, if that drug dealer had sold drugs to your kids, you might want him off the streets."
No I wouldnt automatically-if the quality of his drugs were poor or adulterated perhaps then I would. A drug dealer at the level we are talking about is really just likely to be an addict himself. I blame the user (for wanting them), society and parents for drug deaths of the young as much as the dealer who probably sells them to fund his addiction. Strange how those actively buying the drugs seem to be absolved of blame as if some evil pusher forced the drugs on them. A bit off topic perhaps but just goes to show how desperate this cop was to pervert the course of justice. He would have used any excuse to wriggle out of it. Like I said before the Police should be under the closest scrutiny and punished more harshly than the general public for all lawbreaking.
No I wouldnt automatically-if the quality of his drugs were poor or adulterated perhaps then I would. A drug dealer at the level we are talking about is really just likely to be an addict himself. I blame the user (for wanting them), society and parents for drug deaths of the young as much as the dealer who probably sells them to fund his addiction. Strange how those actively buying the drugs seem to be absolved of blame as if some evil pusher forced the drugs on them. A bit off topic perhaps but just goes to show how desperate this cop was to pervert the course of justice. He would have used any excuse to wriggle out of it. Like I said before the Police should be under the closest scrutiny and punished more harshly than the general public for all lawbreaking.
01 April 2003, 01:28 PM
#21
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Reading, Berks
Posts: 286
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
There are a number of issues here.
Firstly, (whilst not condoning his speed) his authority as a Constable does ot exist just for his 8 hour tour of duty, but 24 hours a day, so even though it may have been his day off, he retains his authority of a constable regardless.
Secondly, if the pursuit was genuine then his vehicle was being used for Police purposes, which meant that he would have been exmpt from prosecution. However the question remains was he actually in pursuit of this said person. I suspect not, as he would I suggest have seen the vehicle turn off had he given immidiate chase.
There is also the question (if it was a genuine case) of whether he neglects his duty. If an off duty Policeman sees someone having the crap kicked out of them, then they are duty bound to get involved. Now whilst this is slightly different, if it was genuine then he would have been dammed if he did and dammed if he didn't.
Most Police vehicles are using a hands free radio (phones are not fitted to Police vehicles) but there are occasions when the handset has to be used. Like speed, there are exceptions to when hand held radio/phones can be used, and Emergency service personell are one of those categories that are exempt. In this case he would have been using his own mobile and would have been acting in what would be considered a reasonable manner.
Now he has been convicted at Court, he will now be disciplined by his Force. Thatcould range from dismissal for conduct unbecoming, to a heavy fine perhaps several thousands deducted from his salary for a number of years, to a reduction in rank, to a drop in salary, to a move to another station or department, the list is endless, so as far as a policeman is concerned, it is double jeapordy which doesn't happen to the average member of the public.
The problem whith this case is that assumptions are being made on the basis of a newspaper report, and they do not always relate the full facts accurately, and assumption is the mother of all sins.
Firstly, (whilst not condoning his speed) his authority as a Constable does ot exist just for his 8 hour tour of duty, but 24 hours a day, so even though it may have been his day off, he retains his authority of a constable regardless.
Secondly, if the pursuit was genuine then his vehicle was being used for Police purposes, which meant that he would have been exmpt from prosecution. However the question remains was he actually in pursuit of this said person. I suspect not, as he would I suggest have seen the vehicle turn off had he given immidiate chase.
There is also the question (if it was a genuine case) of whether he neglects his duty. If an off duty Policeman sees someone having the crap kicked out of them, then they are duty bound to get involved. Now whilst this is slightly different, if it was genuine then he would have been dammed if he did and dammed if he didn't.
Most Police vehicles are using a hands free radio (phones are not fitted to Police vehicles) but there are occasions when the handset has to be used. Like speed, there are exceptions to when hand held radio/phones can be used, and Emergency service personell are one of those categories that are exempt. In this case he would have been using his own mobile and would have been acting in what would be considered a reasonable manner.
Now he has been convicted at Court, he will now be disciplined by his Force. Thatcould range from dismissal for conduct unbecoming, to a heavy fine perhaps several thousands deducted from his salary for a number of years, to a reduction in rank, to a drop in salary, to a move to another station or department, the list is endless, so as far as a policeman is concerned, it is double jeapordy which doesn't happen to the average member of the public.
The problem whith this case is that assumptions are being made on the basis of a newspaper report, and they do not always relate the full facts accurately, and assumption is the mother of all sins.
01 April 2003, 01:42 PM
#23
Scooby Regular
Thread Starter
Join Date: Sep 1999
Location: £1.785m reasons not to be here :)
Posts: 6,095
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Oh ffs [img]images/smilies/mad.gif[/img]
I know of a few people who have been done for over 100 on Scottish roads (60/70 limits) and who have not been banned.
Give the guy a break, and, after all, it sets a precedent
Sometimes I wonder.........
I know of a few people who have been done for over 100 on Scottish roads (60/70 limits) and who have not been banned.
Give the guy a break, and, after all, it sets a precedent
Sometimes I wonder.........
01 April 2003, 01:45 PM
#24
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Mar 2003
Posts: 241
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
sets a precedent if your an off duty copper chasing a "drug dealer" maybe- that doesn't apply to me or most others in the UK. Ban him and kick him out of the force as an example to the rest of them what to expect when they try their corrupt tricks.
I hope he ends up as a security guard in a dole office.
I hope he ends up as a security guard in a dole office.
01 April 2003, 01:51 PM
#25
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Reading, Berks
Posts: 286
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
OK so lets change it around slightly. A guy has just driven off having raped or molested your wife or girlfriend, and the only one able to give chase is the off duty Policeman. If he said "Sod it I'm off duty" you would be furious and he would be accused of neglect of duty and, and, and.
What is the difference? If he was genuinely doing his job, then fine, but there is no evidence to substantiate that he wasn't, so he should be given the benefit of the doubt, which is why he was only fined and given points.
What is the difference? If he was genuinely doing his job, then fine, but there is no evidence to substantiate that he wasn't, so he should be given the benefit of the doubt, which is why he was only fined and given points.
01 April 2003, 01:53 PM
#26
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Mar 2003
Posts: 241
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
This guy was obviously lying the footage proved that- he would have seen the guy turn off. Just another cynical excuse by a corrupt policeman as far as I can see. They take the p1ss cos they think they are above the law. If it had been genuine then there wouldnt have been a court case.
01 April 2003, 01:59 PM
#28
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Oct 1998
Location: Scoobysport, Basildon, UK
Posts: 4,300
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I take all of TC's comments on board but the court didn't believe his story either, as he was found guilty. Its the scale of the penalty that sends out the wrong signals, considering that the road was one that the Police were specifically targetting to reduce accidents.
And "moderately" trafficked does not mean it was quiet either.
I suspect that most Police officers will cringe when reading about this case.
And "moderately" trafficked does not mean it was quiet either.
I suspect that most Police officers will cringe when reading about this case.
01 April 2003, 02:04 PM
#30
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Reading, Berks
Posts: 286
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Pete, that was the point I was trying to make (albeit very badly) that an assumption has been made on the basis of a newsaper report.
I am not condoning what he did or the way he did it, but we have to take a balanced view.
I know that the rules can be somewhat different in Scotland, but in England and Wales it doesn't matter whether the Policeman is on or off duty, in uniform or out, he retains his powers of arrest at all times, and both drugs and disqualified driving are arrestable offences.
I too am sceptical about his story, I have been involved in matters whilst off duty myself, all I am saying is don't jump to conclusions on the basis of a newspaper report.
I am not condoning what he did or the way he did it, but we have to take a balanced view.
I know that the rules can be somewhat different in Scotland, but in England and Wales it doesn't matter whether the Policeman is on or off duty, in uniform or out, he retains his powers of arrest at all times, and both drugs and disqualified driving are arrestable offences.
I too am sceptical about his story, I have been involved in matters whilst off duty myself, all I am saying is don't jump to conclusions on the basis of a newspaper report.