flycop2000 wrote:

I agree with some comments and 100% disagree with other comments. Unless you work in law enforcement you will not fully undestand the 'red tape' and hoops you have to jump through to get a conviction. The ECHR (The criminals charter) in my opinion has made life easy for the criminal. The criminal has more rights than joe public? e.g. A prisoner tries to escape by climbing a security fence, a guard throws a stone and the prisoner falls off the fence and hurts his leg. Prisoner gets £25,000 compenation.

Steal a motor cycle in my local force and race around how the hell you like and the police will not pursue because if the cyclist crashes and kills himself or someone else its the fault of the police! because they tried to follow and caused the motor cyclist to go faster and crash in an effort to escape? The same happens with stolen vehicles, if you drive very dangerously? the pursuit will be called off.

"To pay lip service to equal oportunities, sexual, ethnic and racial descrimination, even physically challenged "

This comment could not be further from the truth, The police service goes over the top in this to the stage where it discriminates everybody else. My local force was flying the Gay rights flag infront of its HQ to show how it supported the movement. It holds open days to recruit people from ethnic backgrounds. It has a womans police officers forum. These are to name but a few.

Police resources are getting reduced every year due to finacial cutbacks and calls are now being graded.


I also agree that there is rubbish at the top and bottom of the ranks and it should be easier to sack a incompetant or corrupt officer.

How many readers on this forum have witnessed a person being assaulted and walked on by as It's got nothing to do with me" or seen somone lying on the road and called the police as "It's got nothing to do with me" and then walked on by or witnessed a crime and never even called the police as "It's got nothing to do with me"

If you have got involved, WELL DONE

Flycop
The point I was making about for me and my family is borne out of my experiences. If you were to meet me in the street and talk to me you would not be able to determine that I have a disability. I look normal and sound normal. The only way that I have of imparting my difficluties to the police is to tell then and I have no embarrasment in doing so.
Sitting in the back of the police car the traffic officer in question started to talk to me and I stated "I am disyexic and have a problem with written and verbal communication". The officers ignored this statement and continued to question me. I repeated my statement over and over again because I could not think what else I could say. Needless to say they got very p d off which is why they reported me to DVLA who then sent me to medical specialist who then told DVLA that there was no issue that they need to worry about.
I agree with you about criminals getting compensation and I beleive that if you commit a crime you loose all rights.
I would have and did get involved previously but as far as I am concerened now it is for me and my own now and will only do what is necessary to protect us. This is as a reult of the whole criminal justice system because I was treated exactly the same by the courts despite having the medical evidence to fully support my claims.
There is no need for police officers being IGNORANT they were fully appraised of my condition as politely as I could under the circumstances and they have a duty and responsibility to treat me the same.
We all have rights and the officers at all levels do pay lip service to them and criminals get off.

I agree with some of the things you are saying, the police have adapted to the ECHR that is the problem, it is followed to the letter where in my opinion it needs to be adapted to the needs of our country. The experienced criminals all know how to work the system. Prison is a school for criminals to expand their knowledge in law breaking.
In a vehicle pursuit, the "bad guys" have more incentive to get away and will drive very dangerously to achieve this where as the police will drive as safely as possible in the pursuit. It's a no win situation. The vehicle owner is not always impressed when his car is found hours later burnt out.

I know of another case where a violent male started fighting with a police officer and during the struggle the officer was injured and the prisoner suffered a broken arm. The prisoner received £65,000 compensation which incedently he squandered on drink and drugs.

Two police officers recently were injured when thier stationary Shogun partol car was rammed by 3 youths in a stolen Mercedez. Both vehicles were written off due to the amount od damage. The officers tried to claim criminal injuries compensation but were declined, the reason given: you should expect these things to happen during the course of duty ????????????

Regarding your comment:
Your Force may well stick up a Gay Rights Flag, but it's all for show

Believe me its not in my local force.

Don't believe everything you read in the news papers, they only print what makes a story and sell papers,they often omit or don't know all the facts. I know from experience.

As for walking on by, yes sometimes this is the best thing to do, you have to judge every incident on what you see and your own personnel skills.

Anyway this thread strted off of ACPO speeding guidlines

Simon CSK

I'm sorry that you were dealt with in such a improper manner by the officers. Some officers I know have no inter personal skills and It's beyond me how they managed to get through police college or even the recruitment stage. Some seem to develope a power hunger? I personally have been thanked by people when I hand over the fixed penalty ticket, I assume its due to way you treat the driver after all the majority are not hardened criminals.

Remember that you will get bad apples in every barrel. Fortunatly these officers are in a minority.

Unfortunately you don't tend to hear people praise the police, because they are expected to do good, so when they do, people turn a blind eye. However, when they do something someone doesn't agree with, or when they are completely wrong, the whole coountry seems to hear about it.

Now fair enough, if the police, who are supposed to be setting an example, do something wrong I think people should shout about it, but when they do something good, I think it would be good for both the publics support and also police moral that people heard about it.

I can tell plenty of stories of the local police beating up people, a few sly digs here there and everywhere, giving my dad abuse over a completely legal number plate, hassling him when his company was extremely successful.

On the flip side, I can also tell stories of a bike cop that followed me into a cafe and offered riding tips over a drink of tea, much better than fining me for a couple of mph over the limit, along with how many uninsured cars are taken off the road, the drugs busts they've done.

There's 2 sides to all stories, unfortunately the bad ones come to llight more often. Mine: 2012 Golf GTI Edition 35
Family's: 2009 Freelander 2 HSE TD4 Auto, Stornoway

Yorkshire - God's County

flycop2000 wrote:

Simon CSK

I'm sorry that you were dealt with in such a improper manner by the officers. Some officers I know have no inter personal skills and It's beyond me how they managed to get through police college or even the recruitment stage. Some seem to develope a power hunger? I personally have been thanked by people when I hand over the fixed penalty ticket, I assume its due to way you treat the driver after all the majority are not hardened criminals.

Remember that you will get bad apples in every barrel. Fortunatly these officers are in a minority.

Simon CSK

I agree speed limits need to be looked at, unfortunatly in some cases this could increase the number of fatalities as some people are not good at 'Roadcraft' they can't judge road conditions, foresee danger ahead, keep their vehicles in a road worthy condition or over estimate their own driving ability. . There are lots of variables.

Remember just because the speed limit is 30mph, it does not mean it is safe to drive at that speed, you may well find yourself being cautioned and charged. eg dangerous driving (sec 2 RTA 1968) or some other offence.

Drive safe

Think it's the RTA 1988 as amended? There was a 1966, 1968 and a 1972 etc Act, in fact the 66 Act introduced the offence of driving whilst over the limit, but it was replaced over time.

Remember if you are ever charged with a Section 2, the Plod have to prove the recklessness rather than just carelessness, A more of a deliberate act than a mere transgression as in a Section 3. Yes, it can be inferred from the circumstances, but it would have to take account of the road, including road surface, topology, junctions, hazards etc, the time of the offence, the volume of traffic using the road at the time, the condition of the vehicle/tyres. You don't want a Section 2 offence on your licence!

flycop2000 wrote:

Simon CSK

I agree speed limits need to be looked at, unfortunatly in some cases this could increase the number of fatalities as some people are not good at 'Roadcraft' they can't judge road conditions, foresee danger ahead, keep their vehicles in a road worthy condition or over estimate their own driving ability. . There are lots of variables.

Remember just because the speed limit is 30mph, it does not mean it is safe to drive at that speed, you may well find yourself being cautioned and charged. eg dangerous driving (sec 2 RTA 1968) or some other offence.

Drive safe

In a world where global warming and carbon emissions are at the forefront of the political agenda the only changes to speed limits would be a downward direction. The argument of safer vehicles with better handling and braking is more than outweighed by the increase in volume of traffic. The only possibility of increases would be the introduction of variable speed limits according to traffic flow but these would almost certainly have average speed cameras installed also so the reality would be no increase at all  

christian138 wrote:

flycop2000 wrote:

Simon CSK

I agree speed limits need to be looked at, unfortunatly in some cases this could increase the number of fatalities as some people are not good at 'Roadcraft' they can't judge road conditions, foresee danger ahead, keep their vehicles in a road worthy condition or over estimate their own driving ability. . There are lots of variables.

Remember just because the speed limit is 30mph, it does not mean it is safe to drive at that speed, you may well find yourself being cautioned and charged. eg dangerous driving (sec 2 RTA 1968) or some other offence.

Drive safe

In a world where global warming and carbon emissions are at the forefront of the political agenda the only changes to speed limits would be a downward direction. The argument of safer vehicles with better handling and braking is more than outweighed by the increase in volume of traffic. The only possibility of increases would be the introduction of variable speed limits according to traffic flow but these would almost certainly have average speed cameras installed also so the reality would be no increase at all

Global Warming

There is no such thing

Thousands of years ago the south pole was a lush and green land. In the 18th Century the Thames froze over because it was so cold!
Egypt was a lush green land!
The world is a living organisme that is constantly in flux do we honestly beleive that we are King Canute and can order the tide back GET REAL.

THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS THE CO2 LEVELS RISING. IT IS A GOVERNEMENT CONSPIRACY.

What your saying is it's Evolution! Cool, I'll go with that!

Carnoch wrote:

What your saying is it's Evolution! Cool, I'll go with that!

Exactly

Well the last Ice age disappeared when dinosaurs ruled the earth so why do we now blame a few 4x4 for the present ice melt... rough med weather ......oh yea.....carbon fuel tax  2010 HSE Galway Green auto GONE

charliefoxtrot999 wrote:

Well the last Ice age disappeared when dinosaurs ruled the earth so why do we now blame a few 4x4 for the present ice melt... rough med weather ......oh yea.....carbon fuel tax

CF
It is rumoured that 75% of all Landrovers ever built are still in use. That is over a life of 50 years. Cars will produce more carbon emmissions during the manufacturing phase than they ever will whilst in use.

A Canadian newspaper produced an article a while back where the took every component in 100 vehicles manufacture and plotted the carbon life of each component making up each vehicle. They then converted that figure to a cash value and rated all 100 vehicles accordingly per mile.

From memory the Toyota Prius worked out at $2.86 per mile whilst the Hummer was in the region of half of that.

Why? They stated that the Nickle used in the batteries of most hybrids is excavated in Canada, Shipped to Wales where it is processed, shipped then to China where it is reprocessed and then shipped to Japan where it is constructed into a vehicle before the car is shipped to its final destination. The carbon emmited in the processing and the transportation is absolutely huge.

http://hewitt.auctionsystem.co.uk/auction.aspx?aid=1548 At work
At home

"I can't always believe facts I read on the web" - Charles Dickens

winner by default of the tractor vs caravan race

chicken george wrote:

http://hewitt.auctionsystem.co.uk/auction.aspx?aid=1548