159mph speeding charge PC cleared

[Simon Brooke]

in message <[email protected]>, Tilly
('[email protected]') wrote:

> On Wed, 18 May 2005 13:49:08 GMT, Call me Bob
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>
>>http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/shropshire/4559173.stm
>>
>>I don't think I can make any comment on this without sounding cynical
>>and depressingly unsurprised. So I won't.
>
> The law justifies driving at high speed in certain circumstances
>
> The driver has claimed that he was familiarising himself with an
> unfamiliar car.
>
> The prosecution claim the driver was out on a jolly.
>
> Am I convinced beyond all reasonable doubt that the driver was out on
> a jolly and was not familiarising himself with an unfamiliar car in
> the absence of standard procedure?

Driving at 159mph on an empty motorway at night might well be
'familiarising himself with an unfamiliar car' but driving at 60mph in
a 30mph limit looks very like irresponsibility to me.

--
[email protected] (Simon Brooke) http://www.jasmine.org.uk/~simon/

;; Life would be much easier if I had the source code.

 

[JohnB]

Tilly wrote:

> Suspicion is not sufficient for a legal proof.
>
> I agree that the policeman was driving in a reckless manner - but it
> may be that with an absence of proper guidelines he was driving in a
> reckless manner legally.

In the absence of "proper guidelines" wouldn't normal traffic law prevail?

John B

 

[Mark Thompson]

> Driving at 160mph would require a braking distance in excess of
> 500metres. Was the car fitted with aircraft landing lights? If not he
> was driving whilst unable to stop in the distance he could see. so
> therefore dangerous and irresponsible, just like the 60 in a 30 limit.

Streetlighting?

 

[nobody760]

Who guards the guards?

I was just testing this new weapon yer
Worship so I shot Harry Stanley dead for carrying a chair leg! In case
I needed the gun it in the future to protect the innocent.

You may be afraid of being called cynical Mr original poster but I am
not.

 

[Helen Deborah Vecht]

I don't think police would 'shop' a colleague unless he was *seriously*
out of line.

I am very concerned that the magistrate threw the case out so easily.

--
Helen D. Vecht: [email protected]
Edgware.

 

[JLB]

Tilly wrote:
> On Wed, 18 May 2005 20:05:44 +0100, JLB <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
>
>>Tilly wrote:
>>
>>e prosecution claim the driver was out on a jolly.
>>
>>>Am I convinced beyond all reasonable doubt that the driver was out on
>>>a jolly and was not familiarising himself with an unfamiliar car in
>>>the absence of standard procedure?
>>
>>As someone has already pointed out in this thread, if this road journey
>>was undertaken for a legitimate work-related purpose, it would be
>>appropriate for it to be risk assessed. If there was a standard
>>procedure there might be a standard RA, otherwise it would probably be
>>specific to the particular test drive.
>>
>>The assessment should be recorded. Producing it in court would go a long
>>way to supporting the defendant's version of events. In my own view it
>>seems that without a RA either the car journey was an unauthorised
>>illegal self-indulgence or it was a work activity undertaken in breach
>>of H&S legislation. However, I'm a bit vague about exactly how H&S regs
>>(Management of Health and Safety at Work Regulations) apply to the
>>police, so could be wrong.
>
>
> Suspicion is not sufficient for a legal proof.
>
> I agree that the policeman was driving in a reckless manner - but it
> may be that with an absence of proper guidelines he was driving in a
> reckless manner legally.

I don't quite follow you, unless you are merely reiterating the court's
verdict; what's the bit about suspicion? What I was setting out was more
of a thought experiment than an attempt to convict the driver. What
other possibilities can there logically be than those I described?

--
Joe * If I cannot be free I'll be cheap

 

[JLB]

Jon Senior wrote:


>
> I have the strange feeling that cynicism shouldn't so often turn out to
> be right! ;-)

What particularly bothers me is that I keep thinking I have cranked up
my cynicism to its maximum setting only to find it's still well short of
what is required by events...

Everybody knows that the dice are loaded
Everybody rolls with their fingers crossed
Everybody knows that the war is over
Everybody knows the good guys lost
Everybody knows the fight was fixed
The poor stay poor, the rich get rich
That’s how it goes
Everybody knows

etc.
http://www.lyricsfreak.com/l/leonard-cohen/82809.html

--
Joe * If I cannot be free I'll be cheap

 

[Mark McNeill]

Response to John Mallard:
> I liked the comment on R4's P.M. this evening.
> Something like
> "I hope they'll warn us if he decides he needs to test his fire-arm skills
> at any time"

Um, that was me, that was; in a white-hot rage at the thought of all
those police drivers who presumably now have a precedent to test their
skills and their vehicle's capabilities at more than 60mph in a 30mph
zone.

--
Mark, UK

"'Michael Gilhaney,' said the Sergeant, 'is an example of a man that is
nearly banjaxed from the principle of the Atomic Theory. Would it
astonish you to hear that he is nearly half a bicycle?'"

 

[Jon Senior]

nobody760 wrote:
> Who guards the guards?
>
> I was just testing this new weapon yer
> Worship so I shot Harry Stanley dead for carrying a chair leg! In case
> I needed the gun it in the future to protect the innocent.

Who (In a further OT twist) has also been acquitted recently. A high
court judge saw fit to overturn the finding of the second inquest of
"Unlawful killing" returning the standing verdict to "open" and also saw
fit to rule out an appeal.

> You may be afraid of being called cynical Mr original poster but I am
> not.

I have the strange feeling that cynicism shouldn't so often turn out to
be right! ;-)

Jon

 

[Tilly]

On Wed, 18 May 2005 22:04:09 +0100, Simon Brooke
<[email protected]> wrote:

>Driving at 159mph on an empty motorway at night might well be
>'familiarising himself with an unfamiliar car' but driving at 60mph in
>a 30mph limit looks very like irresponsibility to me.

Almost certainly, yes. It is quite possible to behave in an
irresponsible manner legally: cycling in many of London's cycle lanes,
for example.

 

[JohnB]

Tilly wrote:
>
> On Wed, 18 May 2005 22:04:09 +0100, Simon Brooke
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> >Driving at 159mph on an empty motorway at night might well be
> >'familiarising himself with an unfamiliar car' but driving at 60mph in
> >a 30mph limit looks very like irresponsibility to me.
>
> Almost certainly, yes. It is quite possible to behave in an
> irresponsible manner legally: cycling in many of London's cycle lanes,
> for example.

Are you sure you are not a mole from uk.tosspot?

John B

 

[Tilly]

On Thu, 19 May 2005 06:58:39 +0100, JohnB <[email protected]> wrote:

>Tilly wrote:
>>
>> On Wed, 18 May 2005 22:04:09 +0100, Simon Brooke
>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>> >Driving at 159mph on an empty motorway at night might well be
>> >'familiarising himself with an unfamiliar car' but driving at 60mph in
>> >a 30mph limit looks very like irresponsibility to me.
>>
>> Almost certainly, yes. It is quite possible to behave in an
>> irresponsible manner legally: cycling in many of London's cycle lanes,
>> for example.
>
>Are you sure you are not a mole from uk.tosspot?

I'm sort of playing devil's advocate.

But rather than spout off at the judge for letting the man walk
unpunished, I'm going further. I'm examining if the law could be
wrong.

Surely it cannot be right for a car to be driven at 60mph in a
residential area, in a non-emergency situation, and without proper
authorisation. If the judge thinks that it is within the law, then
the law may be flawed.

Undoubtedly the police guidelines need to be tightened.

 

[wafflycat]

"Helen Deborah Vecht" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>I don't think police would 'shop' a colleague unless he was *seriously*
> out of line.
>
> I am very concerned that the magistrate threw the case out so easily.
>

Indeed. If said plod wanted to 'familiarise himself' with the car's
capabilities at that sort of speed, perhaps he should be doing that on a
closed circuit as opposed to doing it on the public highway... Said plod is
a tw@t of the highest order and has done nothing to develop public
confidence in plod. It's a classic one law for them and another for the rest
of us.

Cheers, helen s

 

[Richard]

Mark McNeill wrote:
> Response to John Mallard:
>
>>I liked the comment on R4's P.M. this evening.
>>Something like
>>"I hope they'll warn us if he decides he needs to test his fire-arm skills
>>at any time"
>
>
> Um, that was me, that was; in a white-hot rage at the thought of all
> those police drivers who presumably now have a precedent

Not a legal one. Magistrates' courts can't set legal precedents.

R.

 

[Nick Kew]

Tilly wrote:

> Surely it cannot be right for a car to be driven at 60mph in a
> residential area, in a non-emergency situation, and without proper
> authorisation. If the judge thinks that it is within the law, then
> the law may be flawed.

On a general note that may or may not be relevant to this instance
(I don't have the inside knowledge with which to tell that):

The law leaves judges with a huge amount of discretion to 'interpret'
it. This may mean setting aside or totally overriding commonsense, or
what parliament intended when they legislated.

And judges are the very heart of corruption in this country. They're
not accountable to anyone, and above (enjoy statutory protection from)
scrutiny and criticism except at a very general moan-over-a-pint[1]
level. Appointment to the position is by a self-perpetuating "he's
one of us, old chap" process. They fulfill the role of the communist
party in the old soviet union, but they're far more deep-rooted and
secure than that was.

At the law-making end of the system, Sir Humphrey basically says it.

So perhaps you need to expand the subject of the discussion to the
system of law.

[1] Mine's a pint of tea, in the pub of usenet.

--
Nick Kew

 

[Dan Gregory]

wafflycat wrote:
Said plod
> is a tw@t of the highest order and has done nothing to develop public
> confidence in plod. It's a classic one law for them and another for the
> rest of us.
Ah but now P**l Sm*ths friends can use that exemple as their defence.
One law for all
:-(
Dan Gregory

 

[Helen Deborah Vecht]

Mark McNeill <[email protected]>typed


> Response to John Mallard:
> > I liked the comment on R4's P.M. this evening.
> > Something like
> > "I hope they'll warn us if he decides he needs to test his fire-arm
> > skills
> > at any time"

> Um, that was me, that was; in a white-hot rage at the thought of all
> those police drivers who presumably now have a precedent to test their
> skills and their vehicle's capabilities at more than 60mph in a 30mph
> zone.

WELL SAID THAT MAN!

I nominate you as a urc hero!

--
Helen D. Vecht: [email protected]
Edgware.

 

[JLB]

Nick Kew wrote:
> Tilly wrote:
>
>
>>Surely it cannot be right for a car to be driven at 60mph in a
>>residential area, in a non-emergency situation, and without proper
>>authorisation. If the judge thinks that it is within the law, then
>>the law may be flawed.
>
>
> On a general note that may or may not be relevant to this instance
> (I don't have the inside knowledge with which to tell that):
>
> The law leaves judges with a huge amount of discretion to 'interpret'
> it. This may mean setting aside or totally overriding commonsense, or
> what parliament intended when they legislated.
>
> And judges are the very heart of corruption in this country. They're
> not accountable to anyone, and above (enjoy statutory protection from)
> scrutiny and criticism except at a very general moan-over-a-pint[1]
> level. Appointment to the position is by a self-perpetuating "he's
> one of us, old chap" process. They fulfill the role of the communist
> party in the old soviet union, but they're far more deep-rooted and
> secure than that was.
>
> At the law-making end of the system, Sir Humphrey basically says it.
>
> So perhaps you need to expand the subject of the discussion to the
> system of law.
>
> [1] Mine's a pint of tea, in the pub of usenet.
>
The sort of constitutional thinking that underlies the US Constitution
and others says it is important that the the legislative, executive and
judicial arms of government are separate. Hence, your observations
concerning what you describe as the "corruption" and lack of
accountability of the judiciary are in fact signs of constitutional
health. Judges in this country are sufficiently well paid that they are
difficult to bribe compared to those in many other countries. The judges
also cannot be dismissed or directly ordered by government ministers.
Again, this is usually seen as a strength of the system.

Their independence is under attack here (and under much more severe
assault in the US) by politicians and witless proles who think that
somebody like Blunkett (ex-Communist Party, hates our judges) should
have the power to take anybody's liberty from them at will, without real
judicial process. This leads quickly to the "Peoples Prosecutors"
condemning people to order on behalf of the ruling party and the secret
police arriving at dawn to "disappear" people. When this arrives, and
the UK has its own Vyshinskys, perhaps you will recall your laughable
assertion about our "communist" judges and realise how fatuous your
little rant was.


--
Joe * If I cannot be free I'll be cheap

 

[Peter B]

"Mark Thompson" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> > Driving at 160mph would require a braking distance in excess of
> > 500metres.

> Streetlighting?

M54? I don't think so.

Pete

 

[[email protected]]

Dan Gregory wrote:
> wafflycat wrote:
> Said plod
> > is a tw@t of the highest order and has done nothing to develop
public
> > confidence in plod. It's a classic one law for them and another for
the
> > rest of us.
> Ah but now P**l Sm*ths friends can use that exemple as their defence.

> One law for all
> :-(
> Dan Gregory

The deluded ****'s response can be found here:
http://www.safespeed.org.uk/milton.html
He's suggesting that the Government delayed the verdict until
after the General Election:

<quote>

Call me a cynic, but if this media frenzy that's resulted from Mark
Milton's case had taken place before the election on May 5th, the
motorist's vote may have been ignited and the election result may have
been different.

<unquote>

Mad as a lorry.