View Single Post
Old 29th Aug 2006, 07:07
  #213 (permalink)  
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: london/UK
Posts: 499

Thank you for clarify the points.

My, and I would suspect many other constables objection to your suggestion would be that we are responsible enough to drive at that speed in anger, but arn't responsible enoughy to decide when and where to practice.

However, I do take the point made by Slim Slag that there is a perception issue involved, hence my suggestion that a better way is to inform the officer's control room. As you say that satisfies part of what you suggest.

Traffic Supervisors would possibly have even less idea of the circumstances and capabilities of what was called a Divisional Officer. For example, at my first station although we had a Traffic Unit based on our Sub Division, we had no real dealings with them.

You have not answered the issue concerning what happens if having been authorised, the driver then finds himself facing prosecution. It may be the speeds he practiced at were would still be considered 'eye watering'. But of course even though he, working on your suggestion, authorised to practice, he would still be liable for conviction for it. The authorising officer of course would not be liable.

My example was perhaps bad, in that I was trying to demonstrate the scene often seen on TV where a PC is only there to cart the accused off on the whim of the main charater DI, is not reality, and that PC's are responsible for ensuring they have enough evidence to justify arrest, not just on the say so of an officer above thier own rank.

Yes, I have seen the situation I discribe, in so many words. And yes, I have declined to arrest on the instruction of an Inspector, because I was not satisfied there was sufficent evidence.
bjcc is offline