|
IF he is convicted he will probably face censure from his Police Authority. As regards being driven around if he's banned, he will probably have that privilege already as he probably works in his car (don't think it will extend to his personal life/business, those days have gone) Heck, I get driven around most days in work these days, but I doubt whether my PA would run me to Tesco or any other shop for that matter. Its nothing flash, I had a 3 hour journey the other day and that time is better spent actually working by phone and Blackberry than driving !
Edited by Pugugly {P} on 30/10/2007 at 22:56
|
Right... so all Firemen who don't fit smoke alarms or regularly use chip pans (precisely what they spend their lives telling people not to do) are hypocrites are they? How about magistrates who tell white lies, or vets who swat flies?
Astounded at the sanctimonious comments on this thread.
The guy is a chief constable first and foremost, and just happens to hold an ACPO portfolio, which happens to be roads policing. It doesn't mean he is the oracle and role model on how people should drive. And he wasn't at work when he is alleged to have been speeding. Police officers are human after all. Yes, admittedly he should know better, and I'm not particularly defending him if the figures alleged are correct. I just think it's dangerous to start blurring the line between personal and work lives. Of course it would be a different response from me if the alleged offence had taken place on police time, in a police vehicle, because when in uniform at work he is representing his force and it's values. But he was on holiday.
Speeding's not big and not clever, but speeding as an off duty police officer is no worse than speeding from any other member of the community.
|
Astounded at the sanctimonious comments on this thread. >>
Yes, but it was (allegedly), 30 mph over the limit! Not just 'a bit'.
|
>> Astounded at the sanctimonious comments on this thread. >> Yes but it was (allegedly) 30 mph over the limit! Not just 'a bit'.
It's not really fair for us to judge without knowing more about where he was driving.
|
Well I personally am quite happy that we are discussing this thread because the cynic in me thought that something like this would have been hushed up at high levels.
--
2007 Seat Altea XL 2.0 TDI (140) Stylance
2005 Skoda Fabia vrS
|
|
|
|
Astounded at the sanctimonious comments on this thread.
As a senior police officer he is responsible for enforcing the law, that includes the speed limit on the public highway.
He should not break the law, he should set an example to us by complying with every part of it. And a policeman is a policeman 24 hours a day, not just when he is on duty.
That was what I was taught by my father, a policeman for over 30 years. But then he was not that senior.
|
Astounded at the sanctimonious comments on this thread.
I am astounded, nay apalled, by the lack of clear thinking by those who think it is OK for a CHIEF of any profession to be (allegedly) in breach of rules or laws that they are meant to live by.
A bad applee at the bottom of a tree may be fine in some circumstances, but a bad apple at the top of the tree? Never acceptable. If allegation proved to be true, it is a resignation matter, no question. I would go even further and say that the mere allegation brings the profession in to disrepute and in my eyes that it is a resignation matter.
In my view, the Police do a wonderful job most of the time, and need our support especially given the political constraints that they work under nowadays. However, they do not need people at the top allegedly doing 90 in a 60 zone.
|
>> Astounded at the sanctimonious comments on this thread.
Rubbish. Think most are going along the lines of the people upholding the law then go and break the law, then there is something a bit wrong.
I can't see him getting off now that it is mainstream news. If he is let off then the message that would get sent out would cause more damage than him losing his job. Having said that the police are always good at looking after themselves (or so it seems). Just a shame that it wasn't Brunstrom who was caught!
|
|
|
Some years ago when I was promoted {???} to Project Engineer, I had to learn a bit about contract law, particularly the Duty of Care, and recall a case in my studies where a rally driver was held [ in a UK court ] to have a higher duty of driving care than other road users because of his special abilities. I wonder if that could be argued in this case - does a senior policeman, particularly one in traffic control, have a higher duty of care to the public safety than an ordinary driver? Interesting thought, even though it is in the Civil law area, not criminal law.
|
"Meredydd Hughes has received a notice of prosecution in respect of an alleged driving offence in North Wales in the early morning of a bank holiday Monday in May while on holiday."
I can't see the problem. What difference does it make what job he does when he's not on holiday? At the time of the alleged offence he was a motorist and he's entitled to be judged by the same set of rules and ethics as any other motorist.
--
L\'escargot.
|
|
|
The problem with those who say private life is private etc., is where do you draw the line? If he'd been driving an unsafe car, with a bald tyre, would you still adopt that line? What if he had no tax/MoT/insurance?
He's got very little room to wriggle, IMHO. He has a high profile job, and he should live his life accordingly, if he wants his force and his service to be respected by the people who pay his salary.
|
If he'd been driving an unsafe car with a bald tyre would you still adopt that line?
Yes. There shouldn't be one set of rules for one person and a different set of rules for another person. What he does for a living is just a job.
--
L\'escargot.
|
|
|
This thread has reminded me of that guy from the National Audit Office with his rather large expense claims.
Oh, just remind ourselves he hasn't been found guilty of anything yet...
|
This thread has reminded me of that guy from the National Audit Office ..........
Exactly my point. That guy from the NAO has done the decent thing and resigned.
www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2007...l
"Sir John Bourn, the Government's spending watchdog, has announced his retirement in the wake of allegations over his lavish taxpayer funded globe-trotting and meals at top London restaurants."
"At the moment, the auditor general is one of the few officials who cannot be sacked by the Government and can only be dismissed after votes in both houses of Parliament. "
"Sir John has been cleared of any wrongdoing after it was ruled he had acted "in accordance with the existing rules." "
Note that he has resigned despite the fact that he had done nothing against any rules and the fact that it would be nbecessary for both Houses of Parliament to pass resolutions asking him to go before he could be made to go!
So as I said in my earlier post above, it is time for Meredydd Hughes, head of roads policing for the Association of Chief Police Officers (ACPO), to offer his resignation.
Edited by jbif on 31/10/2007 at 11:30
|
|
|
|
The problem with those who say private life is private etc. is where do you draw the line? If he'd been driving an unsafe car with a bald tyre would you still adopt that line? What if he had no tax/MoT/insurance?
Maybe we would or maybe we wouldn't. But the point is we don't know anything more about this yet so we are not in a position to judge!
Maybe he was driving an unsafe car with no MOT and insurance. Maybe he was driving recklessly in the pouring rain with no lights on. Or maybe it was a clear day without another car on the road. Maybe his wife was giving birth and he was rushing her to the hospital. Perhaps the camera was faulty and he will be found not guilty.
I'm not saying any of these are likely. Most probably he was doing what many of us do and driving to what he felt was a safe limit rather than within the speed limit (which as you all say he should not do in his position). But we don't know yet - so we can't judge!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Right... so all Firemen who don't fit smoke alarms....
This guy, apart from being a CC, is head of the ACPO Roads Policing unit. If a Fire Prevention officer (rather than an ordinary fireman) didn't fit smoke detectors etc then yes, that would be hypocritical.
|
>Yes. There shouldn't be one set of rules for one person and a different set of rules for another person. What he does for a living is just a job.
His job is exceptional, as a) he never legally goes off duty and b) he has promised to uphold the law, coupled with the status his rank and appointment bring him.
While a 35 mph ticket in a 30 is one thing, driving at 20 mph above the NSL and 30 mph above the local limit suggest a lack of attention to his driving that he would decry in a driver his force had caught. To be clocked driving at 90 mph also suggests his speedo may have read much closer to 100 mph.
|
|
|
|
|
|
