I think the key statement here is he 'was not on an emergency call'
So no lights or sirens.
Doing 120+ in the rain.
What an idiot. Still I'm sure he can claim he was 'testing' the car like the last one who was doing 149mph and get away with it.
And no this isn't a police bashing post - its an idiot bashing post. I would expect to be fined/banned/ridiculed if I'd been doing the same.
|
|
It does seem an odd thing to have done, especially for someone who's not exactly a junior.
|
Remember rule number one: the Press don't always report the facts!
tinyurl.com/c47yp3
tinyurl.com/8fta55
Same event - different 'facts'.
|
|
Rather different times, too.
|
|
|
The facts relating to the 120 mph driving have been reported in an open court of law and I have seen the agency reports which are verbatim.
Please don't try and defend this persons antics. It was , in my view, an abuse of power and privilege that could have cost another innocent motorist their life.
|
Steady on, gents.
The two stories in the tiny links in this thread are both now proceeding court cases.
Best not to comment until the respective jurys have done their bit.
|
Actually, the facts are quite simple
quote
"Bannister, an advanced driver, claimed he was driving at an appropriate speed for the conditions before the car aquaplaned"
as the car aquaplanned, clearly he was not driving at an appropriate speed.
|
|
I take the view to some extent that if you do this and nothing happens and nobody is alarmed or upset - (ie by doing it at 2am on a deserted motorway) then that's fine. If you do it and there is a calamity (as here) you should get punished.
|
|
|
|
Mr X says:
"The facts relating to the 120 mph driving have been reported in an open court of law and I have seen the agency reports which are verbatim."
Unless I am labouring under a huge misapprehension here, I thought that it is "evidence" that is presented in a court of law. Whether or not it is "facts" is up to the court to decide.
Or have I missed something?
Edited by ChrisPeugeot on 11/02/2009 at 17:02
|
|
Just trying to point out that what has been said in court has been reported verbatim by an agency reporter from the court to his agency and picked up by the rest of the countries media. Still , as all ways, there's all ways some one who thinks every thing in our Daily papers is just made up tosh. Makes you wonder why they join a motoring forum run by some one who writes for a newspaper when they despise newspapers so much.
|
Difficult to justify 120 at any time let alone in the wet. Whether there is an adverse outcome or not is irrelevant - it's the potential outcome of such driving that should be considered, and indeed is exactly what much road traffic law is aimed at.
As for the previous officer doing 149 and claiming 'testing', in my opinion absolutely ludicrous. 'Testing' at such speed would have to be approved, and in my knowledge no such approval would be given. Manufacturers test their vehicles before sale. Are we suggesting an officers test is better?
I may be out of kilter with some of my colleagues here, but I struggle to regard either situation as defensible, to do so is simply to close ranks, and has no place in todays Police service.
|
|
Remember rule number 2: The police don't always report the facts.
|
Well done woodster.
Good comments!
The police should never be above the law, even though they need to be able to respond to emergency incidents quickly; there has to be risk assesment too, at individual level!
|
|
Every one seems to be forgetting one vital thing. That there is one rule for us and another rule for them...
You just know he will get a lighter punishment (If at all) and will be back on the road in no time lecturing other drivers
|
Err, I don't think so.
Edited by Fullchat on 12/02/2009 at 00:28
|
Have a few posters here forgotten that the Police are obviously prosecuting the officer concerned otherwise he wouldn't be in court? Hardly gives credence to the idea that the Police are covering it up does it?
|
|
|
"Still , as all ways, there's all ways some one who thinks every thing in our Daily papers is just made up tosh. Makes you wonder why they join a motoring forum run by some one who writes for a newspaper when they despise newspapers so much."
I take it this is a pop at me for daring to attempt to get some clarity into the discussion. If so, the comment is too silly to merit a rebuttal.
Mr X, you are ruining your case by over-stating it - not for the first time, if I may say so.
As it happens, if the facts are as reported, I think the policeman's driving was outrageous.
Edited by ChrisPeugeot on 12/02/2009 at 00:24
|
Makes you wonder why they join a motoring forum run by some one who writes for a newspaper when they despise newspapers so much."
I quite like to know the truth...not someone's angle to sell a few more newspapers. Why would this aim preclude me from joining a motoring forum? There's some quality info passed on here on a subject matter that greatly interests me...and yes, some post tripe!
|
|
Dacouch - I take it you're aware that the officer may well be subject to disciplinary proceedings following the court case. Internal sanction can include anything from dismissal downwards. So he may get done twice. Hardly 'one rule for them' is it?
|
Given that many in the BR condone setting your own speed limits depending on what YOU feel is safe, Im not sure many of you have any grounds to complain - clearly unless this officer was suicidal, HE was doing just that - what he thought was safe.
Sure he may have got it wrong, but human error is part of life, its why we have insurance!
Unless he injured anyone, what harm has he done? Far less than reversing out of his drive and knocking over a kid at 5 mph.
|
Stu - the point about speed limits is that we are NOT invited to apply our own judgement. I think many people find it an intolerable assault upon their personal freedom, at least until they want to apply the weight of law against another.
As for what harm was done, can I refer you to my previous post? The potential outcome of one's driving actions is the point that law attempts to address. That no-one was hurt is wholly irrelevant. To post an analogy about a child in/near a driveway is spurious in the context of this thread.
|
The guy caught doing handbrake turns on the M62 harmed no one as a result of his driving - he assaulted an officer after the event, but that happens every night of the week in towns and cities everywhere, but very few go to jail for it.
|
>>Stu - the point about speed limits is that we are NOT invited to apply our own judgement. I think many people find it an intolerable assault upon their personal freedom, at least until they want to apply the weight of law against another.<<
I know that, but just drive down the road on any given day and it is clear that the general public has taken it upon itself to consider speed limits a 'grey area' of the law ( even though in terms of getting caught, there is a bit of grey between the limit and the speed the prosecute you for anyway ).
Im a well known advocate of sticking to the limit, but it seems to me extremely hypocritical of anyone who breaks the limit themselves willingly, to pass judgement on another - if you put the limit in the hands of the individual and their own personal judgement, you end up with a free for all.
>>To post an analogy about a child in/near a driveway is spurious in the context of this thread.<<
I know, that was naughty and I was being sarcastic :-)
|
Woodster I know that he could face a displinary panel and could get two punishments but going by how the courts tend to treat police offices and how the displinary panels punish it is likely to be a rap on the knuckles. which is normally what happens to the boys in blue.
All people ask is they are treated the same as us and they should set a good example as they are the ones that lecture us when they pull us over for speeding.
Everyone admires the police for their bravery and devotion to civic duty but people including normal people are finding that the police now days can be very rude and officious when dealing with the public and when they do break the law and get brought to book they appear to be treated differently to us. Justice should be blind to whether you have money or celebrity or are a policeman etc.
|
**All people ask is they are treated the same as us and they should set a good example as they are the ones that lecture us when they pull us over for speeding. **
Absolutely! Read my first post for my clear view on this one.
I take it you speak from some experience of disciplinary judgements? I think you'll find that the courts view of those in positions of authority is clear. Unless there is some mitigation, (e.g. responding to an emergency call but overdoing it) the penalty is likely to be worse than for the general public. And then get fined again at disciplinary.
|
I'll be interested to see the outcome, if it turns out that he gets more than a rap on the knuckles I'll be pleased to see some posters admitting they were mistaken. :-)
|
Found guilty and withdrawn from "Driving and public-facing duties", awaiting sentence.
|
|
Keep this thread handy. He'll appeal in a couple of months and get any sentence reduced once they think the public out cry has died down.
|
Found guilty and withdrawn from "Driving and public-facing duties" awaiting sentence.
Well, I'm pleased about that. From the WalesOnline website, the jury at Cardiff Crown Court took three hours and 10 minutes before delivering its guilty verdict.
Recorder Peter Murphy QC said he wanted to consider the ?ramifications? for Bannister?s career before sentencing him in three weeks.
IMHO, the fact that no one was injured is wholly irrelevant. I could do some really dangerous driving myself and even if no one was injured I'd still have to answer for my actions.
|
' ?ramifications? for Bannister?s career"...
The ramifications are that he has thrown away his career just like the glazier who clocked up 9 speeding points on his licence then found that the police would no longer use his services because of the points.
|
|
Thats assuming there are any ramifcations, I'm betting 6 month ban, he stays in police but is removed from traffiic duties. Also betting he keeps the brusque and condscending manner of a modern policeman
|
You were wrong last time dacouch
"Every one seems to be forgetting one vital thing. That there is one rule for us and another rule for them...
You just know he will get a lighter punishment (If at all) and will be back on the road in no time lecturing other drivers" (dacouch, 11 Feb)
Oh, and regarding "the brusque and condscending manner of a modern policeman" - do you have a lot of dealings with the police which support that, or is that just a generalised smear based on nothing much except what the papers say?
|
How was I wrong, he had not been sentanced yet.
I work in Insurance and frequently have to deal with traffic police trying to tell me a customer is not insured because they do not fully understand either the MID or a wording on a certificate. This is generally when they take a dislike to the driver and want to impound the vehicle.
I'm not saying that they are all like that but a worrying amount are.
I'm sure you will find loads of people will note their opinions on the condscending way the police speak to you on occassions for no apparant reason.
I admire the job the police do and their bravery but cannot understand why they speak to people as if they are something they have trodden in.
I repeat I think the police in this country do a very good job on the whole and we are so lucky they are brave enough to patrol without guns as I believe it helps reduce the amount of criminals who carry a gun.
I know you have a hard job and you deal with rude people but we are not all like that, remember Its Nice To Be Important BUT ITS MORE IMPORTANT TO BE NICE
|
edinburghnews.scotsman.com/topstories/Assault-poli...p
Most of these would be sacked in the private sector...
|
Rubbish
You can't sack an employee without good cause. With no jail sentence you would really struggle to do so, unless yoou wanted a serious fight in the Employment Tribunal
|
So the judge wants to consider the 'ramifications' for this criminal's career before passing sentence.
Oh dear, more muddle-headed thinking.
What's his job got to do with it?
Are we saying the dustman should get a harsher penalty than the doctor?
Or the other way around?
As I said, muddle-headed thinking.
|
You forget that policemen go on a Magic Course which endows them with super human powers and if anything then goes wrong when they are behind the wheel it must be an act of God and therefore not their fault.
You too can go on the same course but for some reason the magic is not transfered to you and as such you are still responsible for your own actions.
Clear?
|
|
Some years ago, the government declared war on speeding to make it as unacceptable in the public eye as drink driving. Aided by various Chief Constable zealots, it's clearly been successful, judging by the comments on here!! My own opinion? Yes, he was going too fast, he got it wrong. Most of us have at some point haven't we? And yes, I speed regularly, not excessively and not in 30s or 40s or 50s. But when I do, I'll take the can if I get it wrong. Just like if I hit someone in the pub, I'll take the can for that too. I'm far from perfect, i admit that, but some of us on here maybe won't!!
|
Back to Police baiting again, I see...
Well I got pulled over a few weeks ago and the copper was as nice as anything, as was I, and we went on our way with me with a deserved flea in my ear! Sorry but I don't hold with this Police are arrogant thing... they have to exercise their authority to gain control of a situation otherwise they'd never get their job done, some may see that as arrogant, but after watching them at close quarters on the station dealing with fare dodgers and drunks its the only way they can keep control... if you treat then with respect you will get treated the same way... if you answer back and give them lip you deserve all you get.
|
THE CYCLE OF CONFLICT (Betari's Box)
The Cycle of Conflict illustrates how our attitude and behaviour affects the attitude and behaviour of the people we interact with.
YOUR ATTITUDE affects MY BEHAVIOUR affects MY ATTITUDE affects YOUR BEHAVIOUR
Can start and finish anywhere on the cycle.
A good example I saw was on a Traffic Cops re run where a young lad was stopped for allegedly leaving a petrol station without payment and having incorrect plates on the car. Appeared to start off badly and went downhill from there on.
Edited by Fullchat on 14/02/2009 at 10:55
|
b308 You hit the nail on the head, If you treat with respect you will get treated with respect. The only problem is it works both ways. So if the police treat people with respect (As they did to you then they will get treated with respect its a very simple principle.
Both parties have to treat each other respect, if an indivudual has been accusmtomed to being treated with disrespect then when they come in contact with the police they will often be disrespectful.
It works both ways, I sell Insurance, I treat all of my customers with respect and they do back, if I was narcky with them as they had bothered to disturb them then they would be disrespectful to me. Using your arguement the people who handle the insurance claims should be brusque and rude to customers so they can gain control of the situation with the customer...(I know there are some claims handlers like this however we alll agree that this is not the way to handle customers and after all the polices new buzz word for criminals and the public is that they are their customers)
Like I said before not all the police are rude etc by a long way, just a significant minority and it tars the rest of them.
Have a read of this article... (There are pages and pages if you google "rude police")
www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1022915/Middle-cl...l
I'm glad you had a good experience when you were pulled over, I have had many friendly encounters with the police when pulled over. However I have had a fair (Much less than the friendly encounters) amount of rude policemen to taint my judgement.
One of the thing that amuses / irritates me is on the police shows they often warn or arrest people for swearing under public order offences. But when the camera is on the same policeperson later they swear like a trooper often about the person they have arrested. That is on camera so you would assume they were restraining themselves a bit for the benefit of the camera.
My point is that the Police do a good job and you have to admire them for their public spirit but I think a lot of people will agree with me that some of them are beoming rude and brusque with people. Why don't they try and be a little bit friendlier, like you said if you treat with respect you get it back.
|
I'm glad you had a good experience when you were pulled over I have had many friendly encounters with the police when pulled over. However I have had a fair (Much less than the friendly encounters) amount of rude policemen to taint my judgement.
Interesting that that was the only dealing with the Police I've had in about 20 years other than as part of my job where I deal with them every day... I'd be worried if I was having more frequent encounters in my private life...
(Just realised that you could take that the wrong way... its just that I believe that you can stay "below the radar" if you really want to... but many people choose not to)
Edited by b308 on 14/02/2009 at 16:38
|
tinyurl.com/dd8jdo
20 weeks... long enough or just a token ?
|
|
He also needs to take a retest. So must certainly be without a job too after jail and no licence.
|
It is almost beyond belief that anyone can be so dumb as to try to browbeat plod with bluster and rudeness when he's got them bang to rights. It's difficult enough to preserve one's dignity even being polite with some plod... although others can be a pleasure to meet. They are just people really.
I think it's a bit much to send someone to jail for a crash in which no one else was injured. He was going a bit quickly, not quite as quickly as Mike Hawthorn but I suppose in heavier rain...
Edited by Lud on 18/03/2009 at 19:11
|
I don't think there's any dispute that what he did was wrong and some punishment had to be handed out. I think especially because he is in a position of authority and needs to be setting an example, but I'm quite surprised that he's been handed a custodial sentence.
There is no way that you could call that and the other punishment just a token when no one was injured in the incident (I won't call it accident because it was avoidable.....)
|
Seriously dangerous driving, evidence almost incontrovertible and he would have saved some grief and mitigated the penalty by pleading guilty.
Remission etc mean he probably won't serve anything near the whole sentence but being a copper in jail will not be a comfortable existence. Neither will be the likely loss of his job and possibly his accrued pension.
Edited by Bromptonaut on 18/03/2009 at 21:28
|
but I'm quite surprised that he's been handed a custodial sentence.
I have somewhat mixed feelings about this case...but...think that prison wasn't necessary. A finding of Guilt in a Crown Court, noticeable fine, points on licence (imagine what his personal insurance bill will be for a reckless driving conviction). Write up in the local paper etc. To most law abiding folk, that is plenty enough humiliation and punishment.
There are a considerable number of people in this country who IMO do deserve imprisonment though, who lead seemingly charmed lives...and every single one of the people I discuss it with can't understand how or why they get away with it... and these will be people who don''t pay for their insurance, don't care about penalty points even if they had a driving licence or one that isn't under a disqualification
There's some strange decisions made sometimes....and i'm not condoning this man's folly.
|
In this case, I think we have an individual who has been asked to up hold the motoring laws of this land but has decided that they don't apply to themselves. Having been found to have been abusing a privilege that goes with their job, they have been jailed and rightly so
People who smuggle drugs in to prisons are quite often fined but prison officers caught doing it are nearly all ways sentenced to a short term of imprisonment because of the position they hold.
|
South Wales Traffic Police in the news again today - they stopped a woman who somehow got into the driving seat of their new 40 grand BMW and drove off leaving the coppers chasing after her. She crashed it.
tinyurl.com/cakmag
|
Oh dear.
Nasty 'though predictable result on the snowy video on the RHS of that, too.
|
Nasty 'though predictable result on the snowy video on the RHS of that too.
Oh, I forgot about that. I should have posted that link a few days ago. It has caused much discussion locally :-)
|
You can actually see what's about to happen, unlike the person following doing the filming! Snow, person being towed, bridge coming, "Oh, there won't be any snow under there, look out!", crunch, scrape. I wonder whether the towee was squashed.
Perhaps a helpful moderator will sort out a new thread starting at your psot containing the clip?
|
|
As one of the comments attached pointed out, it's the tax payer who picks up the bill in the end. My council taxes police proportion has jumped by 5% this year.
|
IIRC the motorway around J46 is two lanes, and there are a series of junctions all at short distances, not a good place to drive in good conditions.
|
|
Perhaps about right - read Peter Murphy's reported comments.
|
From the BBC News website,
'An 82-year old woman has been seriously injured in a collision with a police car in Dorset.
The white BMW Dorset Police traffic car collided with the woman's red Rover car in Langton Herring, west of Weymouth, this morning.
Dorset Police said: "Emergency lights and sirens were in use on the police car in order to carry out a road test."'
Carry out a road test whilst endangering members of the public at the same time . What sort of road test ?
|
|
Try starting a new thread, that's got very little relevance to this one, & it'll mix things up a lot.
|
...likely loss of his job and possibly his accrued pension....
No chance, coppers and other public servants who turn to crime often try and pull this one.
All he loses pension-wise, is the opportunity to contribute further to the scheme, within that employment if he's sacked.
The court's sentence is prison, it is not and can never be: "Prison, and by the way we'll have all those pension contributions off you".
|
|
That's correct. His pension conts stay in the fund. It's just the same as if he left the force and got another job. He should be sacked though IMO.
|
The report I read said that the Officer had failed to end a pursuit when requested to do so. That would have served to compound the risk.
A jail sentence usually means end of job. At some stage I would expect resignation.
As an aside any police officer convicted of drink driving these days usually loses their job -well at least where I am they do.
In both circumstances they should be bright enough to realise that they put their job on the line.
|
|
-a police pension can be removed by the order of the Home Secretary.
|
|
Why can't these drivers "test" their cars off the public highway. To warp speed if they like, and only themselves to harm. There are plenty of empty test tracks they could utilise if they want to do this sort of thing. I'm flabbergasted that they don't.
|
The report I read said that the Officer had failed to end a pursuit when requested to do so. That would have served to compound the risk.
What i read was that he had been cancelled to an emergency call...not had a pursuit authority rescinded.
Even if it had been a pursuit and the authority was terminated, you'd still be permitted to attend the area (but not chasing the pursued vehcile), using warning equipment if necessary e.g. to try to place yourself in an area that might detain the suspects if/when they decamp...(there's a difference between actually pursuing something and getting closer to where the pursued vehicle is or is likely to be...)
This officer was a Sergeant, so a supervisor. Officers can make their own decisions on whether they attend some calls in some circumstances (to a degree, albeit they ought to keep the control room informed) and certainly a supervisor would be expected to exercise their judgement in this respect...and might very well decide to continue to make their way to a call that a control room had cancelled them to...for a number of reasons e.g. junior staff in control room have cancelled when experience suggests otherwise..or.. junior staff dealing and you know they might need support..or.. personal knowledge of the area/person(s) being dealt with gives you more cause for concern than a civilian member of staff in the control room would be able to consider, etc.
On reflection, IMO this was an unusually harsh punishment, albeit it would seem the driving was incredibly foolish....so again IMO that would mean the Judge was possibly unduly harsh...in which case an Appeal result will be interesting to note..or...there are more facts to this case than have been already mentioned.
Edited by Westpig on 20/03/2009 at 06:44
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
