| Author |
 Topic Search  Topic Options
|
stephenperry 
Bavarian-Board Contributor
Joined: 20-April-2004
Location: Elgin
Status: Offline
Points: 7213
|
 Posted: 23-January-2006 at 19:17 |
i've always wondered livvy, are/were you a serving traffic police officer?
just curious 
Edited by stephenperry
|
2007 Ford Mondeo 2.0 TDCI Titanium X Auto
1983 Ford Sierra XR4i
2000 Alpina B10 3.3 #118
1999 BMW 323Ci
1995 BMW 318i SE
1994 Vauxhall Omega 2.0 GLS
1995 Ford Mondeo 1.8 LX
1990 Honda Concerto 1.6 EX
1986 Ford Orion 1.6 GL
1989 Ford Fiesta 1.1 Firefly
|
 |
|
Sponsored Links
|
|
|
spokey
Bavarian-Board Contributor
Offensive and obnoxious tub of lard
Joined: 02-March-2004
Location: United Kingdom
Status: Offline
Points: 1948
|
Posted: 23-January-2006 at 19:16 |
|
He may CHARGE me only with speeding, but I'll bet a fiver (or even a
tenner) I will get a mahoosive lecture about how dangerous it was for
me to do what I was doing, and how lucky I am that he's not charging me
with dangerous driving.
|
Ciao,
Spokey
|
|
livvy
Really Senior Member II
Joined: 12-November-2005
Status: Offline
Points: 745
|
Posted: 23-January-2006 at 19:12 |
 spokey wrote:
livvy wrote:
scarface wrote:
60 in a 30, 120 in a 60 and 160 in a 70.
|
We
can't however say the speed he was doing was dangerous at the time
though unless we have viewed the evidence, because it is dependent on
the circumstances.
|
So, one rule for us ... because I'm sure no policeman would ever tell
me that doing 60 on a dead-straight, empty, well-lit road that happened
to be a 30 zone was not dangerous.
|
How can I tell you what a Policeman will say to you. It may be dangerous it may not be. But if you are being prosecuted for excess speed I would say they could not prove danger was present. They are merely prosecuting you because you were over a limit which is designed to be preventative in allowing danger to occur. If they think they can prove the danger they charge you with both excess speed & dangerous driving. Dangerous driving is based on opinion in relation to circumtances, speeding is not, it's absolute.
Edited by livvy
|
|
My views expressed are just that.
Mine & mine alone.
|
|
spokey
Bavarian-Board Contributor
Offensive and obnoxious tub of lard
Joined: 02-March-2004
Location: United Kingdom
Status: Offline
Points: 1948
|
Posted: 23-January-2006 at 19:10 |
livvy wrote:
scarface wrote:
60 in a 30, 120 in a 60 and 160 in a 70.
|
We
can't however say the speed he was doing was dangerous at the time
though unless we have viewed the evidence, because it is dependent on
the circumstances.
|
So, one rule for us ... because I'm sure no policeman would ever tell
me that doing 60 on a dead-straight, empty, well-lit road that happened
to be a 30 zone was not dangerous.
|
Ciao,
Spokey
|
|
livvy
Really Senior Member II
Joined: 12-November-2005
Status: Offline
Points: 745
|
Posted: 23-January-2006 at 18:54 |
scarface wrote:
60 in a 30, 120 in a 60 and 160 in a 70.
To my mind that's dangerous even with 'a police purpose'. The old chesnut 'if a kid ran out..' springs to mind. He'd have little more chance of avoiding an accident than we would. There's possibly a misconception that police advanced driving makes you superhuman.
There is a time and a place to test the limits of the car, and a limit to how far to push it, and I really don't think that was it.
I'm glad you agree Livvy.
|
I agree he was wrong to be doing what he was doing. I agree that Police training can't make you superhuman. I would state however that I don't think you can get training anywhere else that can better equip you to travel at higher speeds on our roads. I would also say that the majority of the public if subjected to that training could pass it as well. We can't however say the speed he was doing was dangerous at the time though unless we have viewed the evidence, because it is dependent on the circumstances. I have never subscrribed to speed in itself being dangerous. It is my understanding that he was charged with dangerous driving by virtue of the speed, but the court had available the video of his driving & they declared there was no actual danger caused. That fact displays how hard it is to get a conviction for dangerous driving etc on speed alone & why we need speed limits. Otherwise there would be no way to enforce sensible speeds wholesale on our roads.
Edited by livvy
|
|
My views expressed are just that.
Mine & mine alone.
|
|
scarface
Really Senior Member I
Joined: 16-June-2004
Location: Surrey, UK
Status: Offline
Points: 414
|
Posted: 23-January-2006 at 18:37 |
|
60 in a 30, 120 in a 60 and 160 in a 70.
To my mind that's dangerous even with 'a police purpose'. The old chesnut 'if a kid ran out..' springs to mind. He'd have little more chance of avoiding an accident than we would. There's possibly a misconception that police advanced driving makes you superhuman.
There is a time and a place to test the limits of the car, and a limit to how far to push it, and I really don't think that was it.
I'm glad you agree Livvy.
|
|
Nigel
Moderator Group
Joined: 09-November-2002
Status: Offline
Points: 6941
|
Posted: 23-January-2006 at 18:24 |
dutch wrote:
"the Police Federation also defended Milton"???????? |
Thats their job I would imagine.
If we are honest here, the only reason we are all in the slightest bit interested in what he did is the total miss-management of how the scameras were introduced into this country.
|
|
Best Wishes
Nigel
|
|
dutch
Really Senior Member I
Joined: 17-December-2005
Location: lakeside Essex
Status: Offline
Points: 438
|
Posted: 23-January-2006 at 18:13 |
|
"the Police Federation also defended Milton"????????
|
|
e39,1200 bandit
cooper S, Z3 topazbleu
|
|
livvy
Really Senior Member II
Joined: 12-November-2005
Status: Offline
Points: 745
|
Posted: 23-January-2006 at 18:12 |
spokey wrote:
livvy wrote:
Well I'm pretty sure that at least a few others will have
at some time as well. But that doesn't make it right & I'm sure
they would get prosecuted if caught as well.
|
Mmm. Just for going a couple of MPH over the limit? I doubt it.
|
The camera doesn't discriminate. Over the limit of tolerance = NIP issued.
|
|
My views expressed are just that.
Mine & mine alone.
|
|
spokey
Bavarian-Board Contributor
Offensive and obnoxious tub of lard
Joined: 02-March-2004
Location: United Kingdom
Status: Offline
Points: 1948
|
Posted: 23-January-2006 at 18:11 |
livvy wrote:
Well I'm pretty sure that at least a few others will have
at some time as well. But that doesn't make it right & I'm sure
they would get prosecuted if caught as well.
|
Mmm. Just for going a couple of MPH over the limit? I doubt it.
|
Ciao,
Spokey
|
|
livvy
Really Senior Member II
Joined: 12-November-2005
Status: Offline
Points: 745
|
Posted: 23-January-2006 at 18:10 |
dutch wrote:
come come livvy
"i think they were all aware that self familiarising was not training & never considered it was such. That is why they prosecuted him in the belief that nobody was going to wear that lame excuse"
Incidentally, the Police Federation also defended Milton. They said that he was driving 'in accordance with his training, honing his skills while possible and testing the vehicle's capabilities. errrrrr |
He may have been employing his training whilst driving, but that doesn't mean he was training when he was driving to my mind. I've already said I don't agree with what he was doing & neither did his colleagues, supervisors or the CPS.
Edited by livvy
|
|
My views expressed are just that.
Mine & mine alone.
|
|
dutch
Really Senior Member I
Joined: 17-December-2005
Location: lakeside Essex
Status: Offline
Points: 438
|
Posted: 23-January-2006 at 18:07 |
come come livvy
"i think they were all aware that self familiarising was not training & never considered it was such. That is why they prosecuted him in the belief that nobody was going to wear that lame excuse"
Incidentally, the Police Federation also defended Milton. They said that he was driving 'in accordance with his training, honing his skills while possible and testing the vehicle's capabilities. errrrrr
|
|
e39,1200 bandit
cooper S, Z3 topazbleu
|
|
livvy
Really Senior Member II
Joined: 12-November-2005
Status: Offline
Points: 745
|
Posted: 23-January-2006 at 18:06 |
|
Well I'm pretty sure that at least a few others will have at some time as well. But that doesn't make it right & I'm sure they would get prosecuted if caught as well.
|
|
My views expressed are just that.
Mine & mine alone.
|
|
spokey
Bavarian-Board Contributor
Offensive and obnoxious tub of lard
Joined: 02-March-2004
Location: United Kingdom
Status: Offline
Points: 1948
|
Posted: 23-January-2006 at 18:04 |
|
Yeah, I just bet not one other policeman went out familiarising himself with his car.
Definitely.
|
Ciao,
Spokey
|
|
livvy
Really Senior Member II
Joined: 12-November-2005
Status: Offline
Points: 745
|
Posted: 23-January-2006 at 17:56 |
spokey wrote:
I wonder how many of his colleagues he has alienated now, by forcing
the closure of such a nice little loophole. I'm sure that if he hadn't
been so utterly beyond the pale, he would not have gone to court and
that little loophole would still be there for rank and file coppers
"familiarising" themselves with their cars.
I'm willing to put down a fiver that most people would like to indulge
in a bit of self-familiarisation with their cars, but we don't have the
loophole to start off with, do we? It is kind of one rule for us...
|
Of course there is one rule for them & another for us.......in so much that the Police have an exemption from the speed limit & the public don't. I don't think his colleagues thought of it as a loophole. I think they were all aware that self familiarising was not training & never considered it was such. That is why they prosecuted him in the belief that nobody was going to wear that lame excuse. But they weren't banking on the ruling that happened.
|
|
My views expressed are just that.
Mine & mine alone.
|
|
spokey
Bavarian-Board Contributor
Offensive and obnoxious tub of lard
Joined: 02-March-2004
Location: United Kingdom
Status: Offline
Points: 1948
|
Posted: 23-January-2006 at 17:52 |
|
I wonder how many of his colleagues he has alienated now, by forcing
the closure of such a nice little loophole. I'm sure that if he hadn't
been so utterly beyond the pale, he would not have gone to court and
that little loophole would still be there for rank and file coppers
"familiarising" themselves with their cars.
I'm willing to put down a fiver that most people would like to indulge
in a bit of self-familiarisation with their cars, but we don't have the
loophole to start off with, do we? It is kind of one rule for us...
|
Ciao,
Spokey
|
|
livvy
Really Senior Member II
Joined: 12-November-2005
Status: Offline
Points: 745
|
Posted: 23-January-2006 at 17:46 |
dutch wrote:
As well as reaching a speed of 159mph, Milton also managed to do 120 in a 60mph zone and 60 in a 30mph zone.
On seeing the film, these law-enforcing guys were perturbed enough by Milton's extra-curricular speeding to enquire of the Crown Prosecution Service as to whether Milton should be prosecuted. The CPS said he should be. He was. This week however, as we say, he walked free.
Milton's defence was that he was 'familiarising' himself with a new patrol car. He is after all a specialist police driver and needs to 'familiarise' himself with new vehicles. Of course he does. But surely, if Milton was officially familiarising himself with the car, then it would have been exactly that: official. Which means that his colleagues would never in a million years have sought to prosecute him.
Milton's lawyer, David Twigg, could not care less. He told Ludlow magistrates court that his client was not 'a recalcitrant schoolboy or even a rookie recruit driving for kicks or to impress a newly-acquired female companion.' He added that he 'should not need a note from teacher' to practise his driving.
perhaps a one off could be wrong! |
I have never said that I agreed with what he did. He was rightly prosecuted in my opinion. However he got off at the original court hearing with claiming a police purpose in that he was training. The difficulty is that a Police purpose was never defined in the statute. What is defined, from stated cases, is that training is a Police purpose. He said he was training by self familiarising with it, I say he wasn't. His colleagues say he wasn't. The CPS say he wasn't. To my mind training could only be done in the presence of another, someone qualified to instruct/assess/test that activity. What it hinged on at court was that the judge asked what the force's driving regulations said about self familiarising. The force had to admit that they didn't specifically mention that in the regs. The judge then ruled that because the regs didn't forbid it, that he was entitled to believe it was OK. The regs have since been amended to specifically forbid such behaviour along with a few other little loop holes that they thought others might be able to use in similar situations. An appeal was lodged by the CPS (I don't know on what grounds though.) You can't blame the Police for what he did & the fact that he got off. He got off on a loophole just as many of the public do as well. Without being able to prosecute him for excess speed, that means you have to look at other offences & there wasn't sufficient evidence to prosecute for them.
|
|
My views expressed are just that.
Mine & mine alone.
|
|
Nigel
Moderator Group
Joined: 09-November-2002
Status: Offline
Points: 6941
|
Posted: 23-January-2006 at 17:38 |
PC Mark Milton did not break the law...i'm afraid.
He would break West Mercia guidelines if it were to happen again
|
|
Best Wishes
Nigel
|
|
Nigel
Moderator Group
Joined: 09-November-2002
Status: Offline
Points: 6941
|
Posted: 23-January-2006 at 17:30 |
livvy wrote:
Peter Fenwick wrote:
A mate of mine knows a guy who rides a powerful bike. Biker was out one day with a friend who happens to be a copper. They both get pulled by the Police doing over 90mph on a 60 road. They were about to get the book thrown at them until friend shows his warrant card and they are sent on their way. Now i don't have so much of a problem with the speed, it's the fact that in some cases the Police are getting away with things that we would be punished for.
|
Undoubtedly things like that will happen sometimes, because there are bad apples in all walks of life. But it's foolish on the part of the officer (they could lose their job) & it is most definitely wrong.
We can of course also cite many cases where Police officers are prosecuted by their colleagues, including as was said earlier, even the head of GMP road policing.
|
If it matters, as far as I'm aware, the GMP bloke was done by west mids scamera partnership...talivan on a bridge, not a police patrol......not that having served with them I believe a traffic patrol would have acted any differently, because I don't believe they would.
A traffic patrol would still have reported him.
|
|
Best Wishes
Nigel
|
|
dutch
Really Senior Member I
Joined: 17-December-2005
Location: lakeside Essex
Status: Offline
Points: 438
|
Posted: 23-January-2006 at 17:29 |
As well as reaching a speed of 159mph, Milton also managed to do 120 in a 60mph zone and 60 in a 30mph zone.
On seeing the film, these law-enforcing guys were perturbed enough by Milton's extra-curricular speeding to enquire of the Crown Prosecution Service as to whether Milton should be prosecuted. The CPS said he should be. He was. This week however, as we say, he walked free.
Milton's defence was that he was 'familiarising' himself with a new patrol car. He is after all a specialist police driver and needs to 'familiarise' himself with new vehicles. Of course he does. But surely, if Milton was officially familiarising himself with the car, then it would have been exactly that: official. Which means that his colleagues would never in a million years have sought to prosecute him.
Milton's lawyer, David Twigg, could not care less. He told Ludlow magistrates court that his client was not 'a recalcitrant schoolboy or even a rookie recruit driving for kicks or to impress a newly-acquired female companion.' He added that he 'should not need a note from teacher' to practise his driving.
perhaps a one off could be wrong!
|
|
e39,1200 bandit
cooper S, Z3 topazbleu
|
|
WARNING! Unmarked Subaru on M23