PDA

View Full Version : Another "Us and them"??


419
24th Nov 2006, 10:19
So, another police officer has been found not guilty of speeding.

PC Stephen Akrill, triggered a "safety camera", and went to court to defend his actions.

The prosecution said that he was on his way to pick up a chinese takeaway when he caught for speeding.
He claimed that he was going to pick up the food, when he heard about an accident, so he decided to go and help, which is why he was speeding.

He admitted ordering the takeaway 20 minutes before being flashed by the camera.
He didn't at any time, inform his station that he was responding to the accident, nor had he been asked to attend.
He didn't have either his blue lights on, or siren sounding.
He was not taking the quickest route to the accident.
He then decided not to attend the accident, and collect the food instead, and still made no attempt to contact his superiors.
He did not report that he had been flashed, until the "NIP" arrived.

Another case of double standards???

Grainger
24th Nov 2006, 11:15
Double, triple, and quadruple standards. With an extra helping of Prawn Crackers on the side. :yuk:

Here's the link: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/south_yorkshire/6179632.stm

eal401
24th Nov 2006, 12:47
A police officer getting off a speeding fine?

You'll be telling me that bears use wooded areas for toilet facilities next.

(To be uncharacteristically fair, the BBC article does say that he faces "disciplinary action." Though this may just be the Chief Constable saying "you're a very naughty boy, don't do it again.")

Airbus38
24th Nov 2006, 13:20
It's inexcusable, obvious to any thinking person what happened, and disgusting that he can get away with this purely because of the position that he's in.

I'll play devil's advocate here though just to throw another idea in to the pot. Unfortunately it's a sad fact that very few people here can say they stick to the speed limit 100% of the time. In fact many of the PPRuNers will I'm sure at some time have picked up a speeding ticket due to those pesky cameras which, statistics show, do not cut the rate of road accidents/deaths and purely serve as a money spinner for the authorities who operate the camera.

Whilst ideally our police force would adhere to all of the laws of the land all of the time (including speed limits), they are human beings just like us, and equally as susceptible to the bloody cameras. Now I know that one speeding fine doesn't mean a ban - but is it in the interests of the general public to move another member of the nation's law enforcement team closer to a driving ban? We know that we could do with more officers around, this guy might well be a great cop who just got caught out. He may also be a very sensible driver, just like so many others who get caught at a moment of weakness. In my view there's no value sticking points on his licence.

I'm sure the media publicity and disciplinary action from the Chief Constable will do far more to make this guy an even safer driver than he may already be than a £60 fine and 3 points, which frankly just make all of us very bitter.

I know this argument then conjours other debate up, should the same be said for ambulance drivers/firemen in their own cars/doctors/everybody else in the general public, and it is a tricky one. All I'll say is that in this case, like it or not, points on this guy's licence could do more harm than good.

Now I can finally say that he should be thoroughly ashamed with himself for breaking the law and lying about his actions, and I hope the CC gives him a bloody good b******ing and reminds him how he, as a police officer, should behave, and that he learns his lesson. And yes, despite my thoughts above, it IS a case of double standards.

paulc
24th Nov 2006, 13:29
I wonder how many motorists will try this excuse now! "I was just trying the car out on my way to the chippy, officer"

Is it any wonder the police are held in such contempt by motorists.

3 points + a fine that is what motorists would expect if caught doing the same. Let's see if his disciplinary action concurs.

Two's in
24th Nov 2006, 13:30
You can rest assured that the disciplinary action will make him think long and hard before he does this again. He will almost certainly be forced to buy the first round at the bar when his Inspector, the Chief Constable, and the Magistrate get together with him at the next Freemason's social.

Standard Noise
24th Nov 2006, 17:31
Some magistrates are just complete f**kwits!:mad:

jayteeto
24th Nov 2006, 19:50
I work for the police, back them up on Pprune usually, not today. Nail him...

ShyTorque
24th Nov 2006, 20:05
Shouldn't this officer be congratulated for devotion to duty?

Obviously, not having had a decent pie or a doughnut all day, he had ordered some takeaway food and was driving slowly on his way to pick it up.

However, on the way, without a thought for himself or his waiting sweet and sour, completely off his own bat and without informing his control room, he set off to an urgent call of duty.....

So...the sudden double flash of a roadside camera must have "snapped him out of it" and he subsequently slowed down and went to pick up his dinner instead?

Yeh, right. :rolleyes:

Sack the magistrate too. Which Lodge are they both members of? *

G-CPTN
24th Nov 2006, 21:31
Is 'use of a Police vehicle' sanctioned for the fetching of takeaways?

I understand that Police Officers are entitled to take meal breaks (or at worst, eat 'on the job') but it reads as if this was (originally) a journey planned entirely for the collection of a pre-ordered carry-out and the intention would be to return to the Station with his food. There is no suggestion that the PC was 'on patrol'.

Under 'similar' circumstances I sneaked out of work during working time to have my hair cut. I found myself in the next chair to the Chief Engineer (my BIG boss). He 'suggested' that, under the circumstances, neither of us would mention it . . .

jayteeto
24th Nov 2006, 22:44
Because there are no canteens or kitchens in the majority of stations due to financial constraints, officers have to go to takeaways if they want hot food. Sandwiches are ok if you work in a warm office, but hot food is essential if you work in the cold for 10 hours. One of the only ways to do this is takeaways. I guess that he wasn't skivving, he was on a normal meal break. Still no excuses for the speed though, he should just bend over and take the punishment.

G-CPTN
24th Nov 2006, 22:49
I'm not suggesting that the PC was skiving (unlike ME!) but it is the use of a Police vehicle for 'private purposes' - ie fetching his hot meal (to which I agree he is entitled).

mini
25th Nov 2006, 00:42
Bad judgement by the Magistrate IMHO, Plod was (based on the "evidence" posted here) obviously caught out, and should have been stuffed. I'm quite sure Joe Public would not get away with his excuses - his standards should be higher.

Lack of respect for the Police is a huge problem, cases like this only make it worse.

lplsprog
25th Nov 2006, 09:35
Watched a marked Police car yesterday in the wrong lane, cut up another motorist on a roundabout, he was not going fast or responding to a call just going back to the nearby station. Anyone else would have been done for driving without due care and attention, Just another case of "don't do as I do, do as I say"?:}

ShyTorque
25th Nov 2006, 12:09
Speed cameras are always a hot topic because no discretion is shown to the public. Bearing this in mind, what irritates more than anything is the arrogance shown by some in authority.

This is one such example, as was the 159 mph "not guilty" case.

I can't see how this police officer could possibly plead not guilty when the evidence was in the camera.

A few miles from me are a set of speed cameras "protecting" a junction on the A1 where traffic has to cross the opposite carriageways to access a village. A local councillor campaigned vociferously for speed limits and cameras. A 50 mph limit was imposed well before and well after the junction and the cynical might think that the extended speed limit and second and third set of cameras were only there to raise revenue.

Motorists now look out for speed cameras instead of the roadsigns indicating the problem and are often taken by surprise, by cars emerging and crossing from right to left......it's no safer. A proper junction is what is really needed but of course this would mean that some of our road fund money would actually have to be spent on road improvements.

The counciller, the vociferous chief campaigner? Not long after he had used the campaign to further his career, he "forgot the cameras were there" and was caught driving at 80 mph through that very same stretch....

modtinbasher
25th Nov 2006, 17:18
Is 'use of a Police vehicle' sanctioned for the fetching of takeaways?

. . .

I remember someone telling me once that a serviceman "borrowed" an RAF van to assist in his house move. Evidently he was found out and was done for using the vehicle in an unauthorised manner, driving without insurance and theft of the diesel consumed whilst carrying out this dastardly task.

Should not the policeman be similarly treated?