PDA

View Full Version : It's on the idiot box and I wannna talk about it.


The Real Slim Shady
18th Sep 2008, 19:31
How come the driver of the police Volvo, Adam, can drive his Volvo at hgh speed on the motorway, using a handheld radio at the same time and get away with it when you and me can be done for using a handheld mobile phone?

One law for us and entirely separately law for the police?

fireflybob
18th Sep 2008, 19:53
Yes but what did disappoint me was the attitude of the 18 year old who was pulled up by the police on the motorway whilst committing various offences. I don't know how the police officers involved kept their patience and the demeanour of the 18 year old towards the police and authority in general seems to symbolise much of what's wrong in the UK these days. (I realise of course that there are many young people who behave in an exemplary manner).

In the "olden days" the youth would have got a clip round the ear for such insubordination towards the police who, after all, are there to protect us all.

Pete_slf
18th Sep 2008, 19:53
Handheld radios aren't covered by the same law that governs mobile phones.

It's quite legal for anyone to use a handheld radio whilst driving, as long as it doesn't affect your control of the vehicle (then you're driving without due care).

bucket_and_spade
18th Sep 2008, 19:57
A tick in the Advanced Driving Course box would do it I'd imagine.

Yes, a different law for them, which is perfectly reasonable. They'd be fairly naff at pulling people over if they had to obey the same speed limits as us.

Maybe the usual practice is for the non-driver to be handling the radio but for whatever reason (other guy being busy etc.) the driver did it.

Mountain and mole hill if you ask me.

SpringHeeledJack
18th Sep 2008, 20:40
Yes but what did disappoint me was the attitude of the 18 year old who was pulled up by the police on the motorway whilst committing various offences. I don't know how the police officers involved kept their patience

Normally I would agree with your view, however in this case the yoof was treated unfairly. He had been driving under the speed limit and with due care and pulled over immediately the police made themselves known to him. They ran to the car dragged him out pretty forcefully (assault) and marched him over to the squad car. If I were him I'd have been pretty pi$$ed off as well. They wouldn't have acted in this way if the driver had been older methinks, they would've been more respectful and reasonable, as the situation really warranted.

The suspicions of the suspects of driving off from a petrol station without paying were quickly proved in error (the cashier couldn't accept his card because of some tech reason, so he left his personal details) AND the 'fake-plates' were the error of the garage that had sold him the car a week before and it was being dealt with. He had been stopped before and given a 14 day compliance order by the police. No one had explained to him that technically every trip thereafter was a transgression. The officers were IMHO VERY condescending towards him and were contradicting the information (apparently correct) that he had previously been given and he (yoof) was the personality type to not take their attitude lying down. In this case, he was correct and to be referred to as 'little boy' by the officer was, in this PC modern day unacceptable.

They didn't apologize for being rough with him and out of spite and just because he could the officer gave him a fixed penalty fine for the technical motoring transgression, which was pretty pathetic, I thought his handbag would be next in his repertoire. :rolleyes:

There are way too many gob-shites amongst the yoof of today that's for sure, but in this instance I would lean towards this "Rebel without a cause"


Regards


SHJ

west lakes
18th Sep 2008, 20:54
Handheld radios aren't covered by the same law that governs mobile phones.

Yer tis a curious one is that, we have two way radios in our vehicles, they look like a phone, you dial on them like a phone - but they are a radio with a push to talk button, on which we have to use recognised RT procedure. Though in most of the vehicles they are also equipped for handsfree use, which is a bit odd to use on a radio system.

The Flying Pram
18th Sep 2008, 20:59
It's quite legal for anyone to use a handheld radio whilst driving, as long as it doesn't affect your control of the vehicle (then you're driving without due care).

But the latest research shows that is actually having a conversation which is the real distraction, so it doesn't make any difference whether you are doing it with handheld phone or radio. Yes, I know, the government should ban ALL conversations when driving.....

WorkingHard
18th Sep 2008, 21:09
SHJ - I have to disagree entirely with you. The reason for the apparent rough handling of the stuation was safety of both the policeman and the mouthy youth, who were in extreme danger in that position. I have to admire the way the police dealt with him, I would not have been so laid back in similar circumstances. As for his not being properly advised by the police in the first stop incident it seems to me with the attitude displayed he probably just never listened and so he paid a penalty. Imaging what he would be like if some unhappy soul made a mistake in front of him whilst driving.

419
18th Sep 2008, 21:37
I don't know how the police officers involved kept their patience

I'm sure that them being on camera helped a lot.
If there was video evidence of any of them verbally abusing the 18 year old, he probably would have sucessfully sued them for infringing his human rights.

Two's in
18th Sep 2008, 21:49
towards the police who, after all, are there to protect us all.

That was the case until about 1997.

Protect = raise revenue via motoring penalties.

It's not a bad thing, they should just have the balls to admit it.

DX Wombat
18th Sep 2008, 21:53
Yes, a different law for them, which is perfectly reasonable. No, not a different law for them at all. As a holder of an Amateur Radio Licence it is also legal for me to use a radio whilst driving.

The Real Slim Shady
18th Sep 2008, 22:55
As a holder of a radio telephony licence does that allow all of us holding a pilot's licence to do the same?

DX Wombat
18th Sep 2008, 23:04
As a holder of a radio telephony licence does that allow all of us holding a pilot's licence to do the sameMy understanding is that it doesn't. The Radio Amateur Licence, and also the CB Licence, are for ground* and inland water based use only. The FRTL is for use solely in an aircraft. I'm open to correction.
*This includes car / caravan / motorhome etc.

TimmoWhakatane
18th Sep 2008, 23:20
The FRTL is for use solely in an aircraft

Define aircraft? A vehicle with a large wing/aerodynamic appendage?

http://img165.imageshack.us/img165/5776/hugespoilerzm0.jpg
;):p

haughtney1
18th Sep 2008, 23:28
The reason for the apparent rough handling of the stuation was safety of both the policeman and the mouthy youth, who were in extreme danger in that position

Utter crap.

That mouthy, hard to understand, mentally challeged copper with the big teeth and silly glasses just didn't like being made to look like a fool in front of his younger less experienced partner.
The 18 year old (for all his youthfull bolshiness) was correct, he deserved an apology, he also deserved the benefit of the doubt on the basis of the Police making the mistake in the first place.
Stereotypical bloody traffic police IMHO, all mouth, and no brains.

Avitor
18th Sep 2008, 23:31
These cop shows are well dated, long before legislation was introduced.

Krystal n chips
19th Sep 2008, 04:14
The programme has been aired before....and was worth watching again given that it clearly shows Police selection procedures are flawed at best..in the case of several of those filmed that is..... they clearly enjoy massaging their inflated ego's with all the "trappings of power"....and they let these people drive high speed cars ??......IMHO more than one showed traits which went well beyond adrenalin induced behaviour..... then there was the thug in uniform who told us how "wonderful" he was....and duly gave a most insightful performance of bravado when dealing with the kid as mentioned previously....I have to say that said kid gets my support after his treatment when frankly the plods actions were well over the top.....interpersonal and communication skills = 0

And it was also notable that many of the plods on display had clearly been contestants in the Divisional Pie, Chips and Pizza Eating Contest.....thus adding considerably to the fuel consumption please note.....one would not wish to use the terms Fat, or Corpulent here as this is not PC :E

mixture
19th Sep 2008, 08:10
Handheld radios aren't covered by the same law that governs mobile phones.

I wouldn't be so sure....

149 Higway Code :

You MUST exercise proper control of your vehicle at all times. You MUST NOT use a hand-held mobile phone, or similar device.....


I would say a radio is a "similar device", wouldn't you ?

denis555
19th Sep 2008, 08:27
Hasn't this type of program gone long past it's sell by date ?

There seem to be dozens of cops-in-cars and cops-patrolling-dodgy-Inner-city-areas-at-chucking-out-time programs about.

It seems that programs with roving cameras following Ambulance crews around are the 'latest' thing - there were two seperate ones on last night.

Some bright spark will have the ingenious idea to follow Fire crews next, then coastguard, social workers, pizza delivery boys, milkman etc etc

Grrrr...

Parapunter
19th Sep 2008, 08:30
Let's see. 30 minutes quality drama: Actors, producer, director, catering, electricians, set makers, sets, costumes, locations, carpenters, makeup, lighting & sound people etc.

Fat cops in fast cars: One cameraman. Editing suite guy. QED.

Effluent Man
19th Sep 2008, 08:55
I'm not so sure attitudes are that much different from the ones that we had to the police nearly forty years ago.I remember being pursued by a Vauxhall Cresta late one night on snow covered roads in Suffolk and deliberately letting him almost catch up before making off.Things have got a little nastier in society since and that is what is reflected in the interaction between the accosters and the acostees.Of course in my day they had no technology and one of them told me that their 3.3 straight six two ton Vauxhalls handled "like a turd in a pisspot".

SpringHeeledJack
19th Sep 2008, 10:11
Let's see. 30 minutes quality drama: Actors, producer, director, catering, electricians, set makers, sets, costumes, locations, carpenters, makeup, lighting & sound people etc.

Fat cops in fast cars: One cameraman. Editing suite guy. Q

Nail, hammer......and this crap gets put on BBC1 in prime viewing time..... what ever happened to auntie ? Perhaps the dozing masses just sit on their collective sofas and need not the gripping caprices of clever dramas of a night. Strangely enough, if one ventures to stay in front of said goggle-box a bit later, there are any number of good films, documentaries on so on. Perhaps it really is about feeding the dumbed-down masses :confused:

Regards


SHJ

tony draper
19th Sep 2008, 10:50
I have had to stop watching these You are there Police type progs,at the end of the prog when they tell you what punishment the scumbags merit,released without charge, released without charge,case dismissed,Police caution,one hundred hours community service,bound over ect ect,it makes my blood boil it's just a joke,dunno why the Coppers on the street bother
:suspect:

BladePilot
19th Sep 2008, 11:33
Didn't catch the episode in question but is this a rerun of the series where the Traffic chappies are following a big black executive car in the fast lane on the M1 clocking over 100mph and decide not to pull him because he was dsiplaying 'good car control at speed' and not showing agrression to other drivers:ugh: what the f:mad:k?

Way to go Officer:D correct me if I'm wrong but isn't anything above warp factor 100 still classed as 'dangerous driving'?

I'm wiv you TD never watch the Police 'reality' type shows now.

frostbite
19th Sep 2008, 11:44
You're right about re-run there.

Amazed yet another showing has generated so much verbiage.

Also totally p'd off with all the cops n' robbers stuff.

clicker
19th Sep 2008, 12:51
Hi,

As some of you may know I work for a police force, below is an exact copy of part of our forces policy re radio's etc

Quote

All staff, when driving, will not operate vehicle radios or use mobile ‘phones otherwise than through approved hands-free devices in contravention of regulation 110 Road Vehicles (Construction and Use) Regulations 1986, unless the nature of the communication would be considered a genuine emergency AND that it is unsafe or impractical to stop driving.

Unquote

Mr Grimsdale
19th Sep 2008, 13:07
But the latest research shows that is actually having a conversation which is the real distraction, so it doesn't make any difference whether you are doing it with handheld phone or radio. Yes, I know, the government should ban ALL conversations when driving.....


What about flying?:}

Should simplify ATC.

Beer_n_Tabs
19th Sep 2008, 16:24
I'm with SHJ on this one, the Police over reacted on this occasion. The officer who pretty much lept out of the car to the vehicle was out of line. The vehicle had pulled over and the police car was infront of it.

The officer concerned could quite easily have gone to the passenger window.

Once in the car and the story was unravelling showing the young upstart being guilty of nothing more than making an error by not imediately rectifing the number plates, they made no attempt to apologise for the accusations of stealing the vehicle or the petrol.

The officer who issued the ticket lost his cool, and shouldn't of. The young lad may have been a gobby little so and so but that was all. The officers concerned would have found any possible reason to issue the lad with a ticket.

He was stopped for allegedly stealing a car, and stealing petrol neither of which were true. I would have been pretty annoyed if that was me... not at the fact they were doing their job by stopping me, but by the heavy handed and poor way they conducted themselves.... a shame, the boys and girls in blue do a cracking job much of the time.

fireflybob
19th Sep 2008, 18:05
Ok well yes on reflection the police were a bit heavy handed, especially in view of the facts - I rarely watch these TV shows (in fact I rarely watch any TV now) and had the programme on as " white noise" and it caught my attention.

But even if the police were unreasonable I still feel that the young person's manner towards the police was unreasonable. It takes two to tango and if he had calmly presented them with the facts without resorting to confrontation the outcome might have been different.

Parapunter
19th Sep 2008, 18:43
A proper copper should rise above it. That treatment is meted out daily to the Police, I regret to say. It should be taken in stride.

Krystal n chips
19th Sep 2008, 18:49
Bit difficult I would have thought to try and present a reasoned and logical conversation when confronted with an individual who lacked the capability / intellect to do so as he clearly demonstrated by his "Oscar" winning performance.....the kid concerned had a certain justification IMHO in responding accordingly... massaging the ego of said plod was clearly the objective after all and if said kid had been nice and contrite, then the ego would have gone to about FL600.

Might as well mention the wonderful couple from Birmingham's finest as well.....what a wonderful pairing they were...she doing more than a credible impression of Viowet Elizibuth Bott at times....overall, hardly a programme to show the Police in a good light.

Regulation 6
19th Sep 2008, 20:47
Give a Guy with an ego a fast car / firearm / tazer (delete as appropriate) in what is in reality a Police State and you will inevitably get what we have now - innocent members of the public being maimed or killed by reckless policemen; who invariably get away with it.

For starters - ALL POLICE PURSUITS SHOULD BE BANNED. In fact, Police should not even be issued with fast cars, the general public would then be a lot safer.

Ambulance & Fire Appliance drivers are also in a hurry during the course of their work - but notice that you don't get as many innocent casualties from their driving. Perhaps because they are psycologically more suited for it.

tony draper
19th Sep 2008, 21:02
Here here! tell you what, why not disband the Police altogether? I'm sure there will be a gang of Yardies Chavs or the local mullah's junior paramilitaries or indeed the local nightclub doormen's organisation who will willingly step into the role and keep law and order in your neigbourhood for you.
:E

Seldomfitforpurpose
19th Sep 2008, 22:10
Every time a car load of thieving pikey chav bastards end up "brown bread" after a high speed pursuit I smile wryly and think thats a job well done and hope the good guys keep up the good work :ok:

Regulation 6
20th Sep 2008, 09:14
And if the person ending up "brown bread" happens to be an entirely innocent bystander - possibly your kid / parent / friend? What do you think then?
Idiot

The Real Slim Shady
20th Sep 2008, 10:30
High speed pursuit i.e the police vehicle is following a vehicle which is setting the speed and tenor of the pursuit......or High speed "push" where the police vehicle is pushing the vehicle in front hence encouraging it to travel faster?

How many times have you had a vehicle so close to your back bumper that you have increased your speed to create a gap only to find that the driver behind speeds up to maintain his position?

Standard Noise
20th Sep 2008, 16:31
Rarely see that one Slim, but then not many people are daft enough to tailgate a Discovery.
Anyhoo, any tw4ts who do tailgate me find out that when I take my foot off the accelerator (not even touching the brake), the Disco has the same qualities as a brick sliding up a rocky slope.

Have to say, although I'm all for the rozzers stopping those who've done wrong, I thought that pair were a little heavy handed. The wee bollox in the souped up shopping trolley had an attitude which didn't help though.

Flingingwings
20th Sep 2008, 17:04
Reg 6,

Some sweeping generalisations there I think. You get good and not so good in any profession.

Banning pursuits is an interesting theory. Do you propose a total ban???? What if it's your car thats been stolen? Your child or a friends thats been abducted??? Still want that pursuit stopped? Bet you'd be screaming from the highest rooftop if da boys in blue said " Sorry you're kid has been taken, but we don't pursue vehciles" :hmm: Not only that but what message does it send to the law breakers???? They get lenient enough treatment from an apathetic Govt and Court system, without making it plainly clear that if they run they'll simply be allowed to go :(

Think you'll also find that a fair few pursuits begin because the suspect vehicle is being driven poorly and in a manner that attracts attention.

Police state gave me a chuckle though! You obviously never been to any Middle Eastern countries :p

As for your Fire and Ambulance theories maybe less blue light calls, over shorter distances in vehicles that are larger and slower might be factors.

Nice to see you creating a new user ID purely for your rant though :ugh:

Standard Noise
20th Sep 2008, 17:08
Hole in the wall, BBC1

As I sit here on Proon, I'm being tortured within an inch of my licence fee.
Not the usual 'sick' stuff or chavs roaring blue language at each other (Big Brother, Wife Swap etc).
No, no, no, no, no. This offering from Auntie is clean, but must be just the worst waste of the licence fee as I have witnessed in all my years. A group of 'celebs' stand in the studio dressed up in silver lycra jumpsuits like six of they tinfoil roasting chickens with crash hats on while a 'wall' of polystyrene races towards them with shapes in it. They have to get themselves into the right shape to fit through the hole or else the wall pushes them into a big pool of water. Then you watch it again in slow motion.
Christ on a bike, is this what has become of my 139 sovs? I mean, the sight of one of the Hairy Bikers in lycra has put me right off me kebab.
The only redeeming feature is that the winning team gets to donate £10K to their favourite charity.
Still, it's absolute, unadulterated, utter sh1te.

:ugh::mad::ugh::mad::ugh::mad::ugh:

G-CPTN
20th Sep 2008, 17:14
Entertainment for the masses.
If they didn't watch they wouldn't produce the programmes.

acbus1
20th Sep 2008, 17:17
How low can TV actually sink?

Depends how hard you swing the sledgehammer from above.




Anyway, why do you need the telly when you've got Jet Blast?




Nothing sinks any lower than Jet Blast.

Aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaargh!
20th Sep 2008, 17:23
Hey look, my post is lower than yours!

acbus1
20th Sep 2008, 17:26
Naturellement! (see the Hadron Collider thread).

stevef
20th Sep 2008, 17:44
I don't have a television set because of bilge like that. Now my entertainment consists of ignoring the TV Licensing Deptment's threatening letters and notes under the door. :p

SpringHeeledJack
20th Sep 2008, 18:07
I don't have a television set because of bilge like that. Now my entertainment consists of ignoring the TV Licensing Deptment's threatening letters and notes under the door.

Speaking of which, haven't they got menacing in the last while ? Not the famous TV ads telling the viewer "that they've got every address in the country and they're coming for YOU!", but the letters and what have you being sent to many people around the country. NO OTHER utility or service provider comes remotely close to the threatening language of the TV licensing bods and the tenacity and regularity of their missives. It's really incredible that they haven't been censured and prosecuted by now. They send these abusive letters even before the person has not paid! However in some EU countries, the mere crime of having a radio is enough to have to pay the charge to the state broadcaster.

How long before the use of the internet will be taxed ? Not too long me thinks.


Regards


SHJ

G-CPTN
20th Sep 2008, 19:03
I believe it was always thus - no licence, assumption that resident has a television and is therefore watching illegally. The offensive letter didn't used to have 'No television' as one of the options to reply.

FlyingFox 29
20th Sep 2008, 19:13
Life immitating art it would seem. Life being the crud broadcast unto us and the "ahem" art if you will, being: TV Go Home (http://www.tvgohome.com) (WARNING: some material may cause offense)

Sadly so very true.

SHJ:
In Germany, the equivalent of the TV licencsing gestapo (Oooh, sorry, that's not very PC) already tax the internet. It works like this:

You pay a "contribution" to fund the public broadcast channels.

Have radio? if yes then pay.
TV? A little more please.
Radio in your car sir? that'll be just a little bit on top of the previous fees.
Mobile phone with FM radio built in? Hmmm, think you owe us for that one.
Internet connection (or device capable of connecting to the internet) ..... yup, cough some more.

Why the internet? Because you can view the websites of the public broadcast channels .... and someone has to pay, don't they?

Same dumb rule as the UK. If you have the equipment, you have to pay. I'm internet only. Strangely, the authorities won't provide a list of websites I can block on my firewall, to prove I don't access their "pay-for" sites. All this ostensibly so they can manage the radio spectrum.

You can guess my opinion and response.
FF29er

Romeo India Xray
20th Sep 2008, 19:18
I ditched the TV for the last 4 years I was in the UK. Couldn't stand to watch the drivvel on there and inaccurate reporting on the news. Had Sky but gave that up too after too many occasions of flicking through nearly 1000 channels and finding NOTHING of the slightest interest. No thank you! Good bye and bonne ridence :cool:

The letters however were somthing very special. Time has faded the memory (trauma). I seem to remember they suggested a large fine (1000 GBP? - all relative guys, not really large) and imprisonment!!!

For the first few attempts at blackmail by the TV Licensing people I called them and informed them that I did not have a TV, and even REQUESTED they send an inspector round for a cup of tea. Alas the threatening letters continued to come forth. Just took to filing them in file 13 along with the local free paper. In 4 years I was never graced with an inspector popping in for a cuppa. I suppose it is cheaper to send out menacing letters in the hope of scaring the s**t out of people into paying, rather than sending inspectors to sort out those in blatant violation (I could think of many types of housing estate where this abounds, but for reasons of being PC I shall not state them here).

Hold out, dont pay and ignore the letters (unless you USE a TV), the crime is not having a TV but being able to recieve programmes. Perfectly legal to plug into a VCR/DVD only.

RIX

Manc
20th Sep 2008, 19:40
Happily I've not seen it but from the description, it sounds rather like human tetris (http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=Ll2kajMH2u0) so the people responsible cannot even claim any credit for originality.

I also gave up on television over 3 years ago and now I amuse myself by trying to guess which style of threat-o-gram Crapita are going to send me each month (they have about half a dozen designs of form letters).

SyllogismCheck
20th Sep 2008, 19:41
It's also perfectly legal not bother with a TV or licence, pick out the few good bits the BBC do still make and watch them online on their very own iPlayer. :ok:

stevef
20th Sep 2008, 19:49
I've had trouble with them before. If they had the courtesy to enclose a pre-paid envelope along with one of their many bullying letters, then I might consider telling them that I don't own a television set. When one of their 'enforcers' eventually does find me in, he'll be invited to go away; they don't have the right to interview me under caution; I don't even need to speak to them, never mind let them in to make sure I don't have a set hidden under the bed. As long as you're not contravening the Wireless Act of 1947 (or whatever its modern name is), they can't touch you. Anyway, if their detector systems are as good as stated, why don't they just park their van outside suspect's houses for an evening and then come with a warrant (accompanied by a police officer)?
It's the old and meek people I feel sorry for when they start their unpleasant tactics: I'm big and ugly enough to look after myself.

BigEndBob
20th Sep 2008, 19:55
Why be awkward.

I have no tele, no tv licence, had a visit, satisfied the 'inspector' when he called and get no no letters...simple really.








Now let me get back to watching the tele!


Only joking!

stagger
20th Sep 2008, 22:49
BigEndBob - how long ago was your visit? I've heard that after a while the letters tend to start again and you're back to square one.

SyllogismCheck is absolutely correct - you do not need a licence to download or stream content from the BBC iplayer to watch on a computer.

BBC - BBC iPlayer - Help - Do I need a TV licence to watch programmes on BBC iPlayer? (http://iplayerhelp.external.bbc.co.uk/help/about_iplayer/tvlicence)

Aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaargh!
20th Sep 2008, 23:26
I watch them all on DVD. I watched State Of Play last week, very good, but I don't need a license for that (especially not in 'merrica)

Regulation 6
21st Sep 2008, 08:29
So, as a professional pilot who joined a professional pilot's website on 17th June, I have created my identity just in case there happens to be a thread about Police chases that I can have a rant about? Hmmm - please tell me you are not a Policeman you idiot!

Moving on to the 25+ unnecessary fatalitities during Police chases last year and the 50+ unnecessary fatalities during Police chases the year before that..... How many children during that time were saved from abduction by our heroes aprehending their abductor after a high speed Police chase? (How about - none!)

And our Ambulance and Fire Engine drivers are safer due to slower heavier vehicles and less blue light call outs are they? Thank you - you make my argument for me.

I repeat - ALL POLICE CHASES SHOULD BE BANNED.

I have huge admiration for our Police service - most of the time. But now tell me that a Country in which an entirely innocent man can be shot in the head 7 times by the Police (who will not even be identified, let alone be bought to justice for it) - is not a Police State. Still having a chuckle mate? OK then, I'll bet you a pint that I have spent a great deal more time in the Middle East that you have - sure I don't approve of aspects of their Policing either but that doesn't mean that we, as a nation, have to descend to their levels.

Drapes - I wouldn't approve of the alternatives that you put forward either Sir, but that doesn't mean that we should be unable to comment on aspects of our Police service that we feel strongly about.

Flingingwings
21st Sep 2008, 11:13
Reg 6,

Neither a Policeman or an idiot but thanks for the childish comments :ugh:

Why just stop with the Police, why not ban all high performance cars? (heh go the whole 9 yards, ban all cars and stop all innocent lives being taken by vehicles). Or suggest an 'ego' test before allowing a person to own or drive one :uhoh: Or ban motorcycles cos they're involved in lots of fatalities too.

My comments re child abduction were but a mere example in an effort to see if there was a benchmark for your suggestion. Clearly you have your blinkers on! I'm clearly missing your fire and ambulance point - they make significantly less emergency drives, over in many cases shorter distances and in the whole sit waiting for the call to work- and they have less fatal crashes. How about getting Policing done that way? A supply of local officers, sat waiting only for an emergency call :ugh:

AND as you know diddly about me or where I may or may not have spent my years, I'd rather you wind your neck in and keep your insults to yourself.

Like I said within every job you find good examples and not so good examples :D

Blues&twos
21st Sep 2008, 11:53
Think about it Reg6.

How many ambulances, fire service vehicles, coastguards etc etc are required to pursue their casulaties/fires/sinking boats? I've never had to chase after a collapsed casualty.

For the police, this adds another dimension to driving. That's probably why they are more likely to have accidents. They also tend to spend much more time on the road, especially the traffic police.

Bizarre that you should think that other emergency services somehow attract naturally better drivers.

Regulation 6
21st Sep 2008, 12:15
Blues & Twos - sorry, I got out of synch there - thanks for your comments.

No, I do not think that the other emergency services attract naturally better drivers.

To me, it comes down to simple risk management. If no-one got killed or injured by Police chases I would be all for them. But the death rate is out of all proportion to the benefit. Hundreds of lives ruined (including the Police Officers involved), just to catch a few toe-rags who would more than likely be caught in due course anyway - without a chase.

SpringHeeledJack
21st Sep 2008, 12:26
Why do so many threads on pprune end up in bitchy p1ssing contests where one side seeks to demean and get one over on the other ?

Come on gents, joust around the topic, but leave each other alone, because we are ALL make believe here, no one really knows who is what except in a few cases, so it is fruitless to engage in such behaviour.

To introduce an aviation theme to this thread, it has been shown in many police forces that by backing off (double irony) in pursuits and using Police helicopters the sucess rate was higher in apprehending the suspects AND the rate at which connected accidents occurred went down. But as Mr Draper wisely noted the miscreants invariably get minimal punishment and the madness goes on. Peace.

Regards


SHJ

Capot
21st Sep 2008, 12:35
I'm confused by all this....

The BBC article (link above) says

It is a criminal offence to watch 'live' television without a TV licence or to posses or control a device which you know or reasonably believe will be used to watch 'live' TV without a TV licence.If you have no TV, but do have one or more computers in the house with a broadband connection and use them to watch iPlayer material, do you have to pay a licence fee on the grounds that you have a device which.........will be used to watch live TV.In other words, is any computer capable of watching live TV using Broadband, and thus is such a device?

Are there any test cases? I strongly suspect that the authorities would try and substitute the word "can" for "will" in the quote above, if any computer "can" be used to watch live TV.

It's ironic, isn't it, that the agressive and unpleasant tactics used to collect the Licence Tax provide all the evidence that's needed that it must be dropped now.

The need for the tactics is precisely because the BCC is so appallingly badly run, with such dreadful content that people bitterly resent being forced to pay for it and must be bullied and threatened into handing over their cash.

In responding to what they perceive to be a need to "compete" for audience with the commercial companies, the BBC simply become one of them by trying to please the mob and get the audience. Thus the reason for the Licence Tax has been removed, by the BBC itself.

The resentment also stems from way the BBC unashamedly uses the Licence Tax to waste many millions of pounds on its own grotesque administration, on subsidising its managers' self-aggrandising international ambitions and schemes which have nothing to do with what the Licence Tax is about, on unbelievably wasteful use of resources (eg: hundreds and hundreds of people having a jolly good time at the Olympics), and finally on paying fortunes to tired has-been national treasures.

The BBC really is the architect of its own misfortune. What Gordon Brown could do, as a vote winner, is simply stop the Licence Tax from next April, and sell the BBC lock, stock and barrel to the highest bidder. The only howls of rage and pain would come from the overpaid, featherbedded, idle employees themselves, as their gravy train comes to an emergency stop.

Flingingwings
21st Sep 2008, 13:00
OR might simply be describing the section of the industry within which they work. Try 'hating the game', rather than the 'players' to shamelessly use a film quote.

My ego is fine ta, and my blood pressure probably lower.

SyllogismCheck
21st Sep 2008, 13:08
Capot,

The current version of iPlayer only allows you to watch material which was broadcast earlier. In some cases it's shown on iPlayer as soon as the original broadcast ends, but that's good enough.

You have to be a little careful as the BBC also mention 'simulcasts', which are programs streamed live to the internet as they're broadcast. iPlayer doesn't currently support these, so you can't watch one by accident. I believe the BBC did do some live broadcasting of the olympics through another type of player, however. I don't know more than that as I have no intention of watching such broadcasts so have not looked into the subject.

As for computers being capable of receiving broadcast TV, yes they can be. You'd need to have a TV card it to be possible to actually recieve the broadcast over the airwaves though.

I don't have such a device so have no worries there. I just need to watch out for the BBC changing the iPlayer system, so that it can stream programs as they are broadcast, in order not to get caught out.

For now though, I can pick out the odd decent program there is and watch it when I want to on iPlayer without the need to have a TV licence, and it's perfectly legal.

Blues&twos
21st Sep 2008, 13:31
The main problem, I believe, in banning all vehicle pursuits is that a suitably equipped helicopter isn't always available at the drop of a hat.

The use of a vehicle to escape any crime would then massively increase your odds as a criminal of getting away with it. Mugging, shoplifting, armed robbery, assault etc - you'd just have to use a car. And these crimes sometimes have a devastating effect on the victims' lives.

It the vast majority of cases, the police on the ground have to follow a fleeing suspect for some time first before the helicopter has a chance to get off the ground and catch up with the action! Once the chopper is on scene, maybe that's when backing off should be more evident. The problem is that even when there is no pursuit a percentage of these criminals drive like loonies anyway.

Ixixly
21st Sep 2008, 13:32
How low can TV sink you ask?

Simply really, DON'T ASK!! you won't like the answer :ok:

frostbite
21st Sep 2008, 14:44
That's a good idea, Capot!

Tell Mr Brown that if he adopts it, I will vote Labour for the first time in my life.

Capot
21st Sep 2008, 15:02
Well, for all that the BBC isn't worth the licence fee, they don't even begin to plumb the depths that others aspire to...

There's a show on Channel 4 that goes on for weeks at a time, where socially, mentally, educationally and sometime physically challenged freaks are made to live together in a sort of cage, under constant view from numerous cameras. (They are chosen from among celebrities, politicians and George Galloway, but sometimes the freaks are selected from the human race as well). They are not allowed any stimulus such as reading, but then some of them can't manage that. Every now and again they are told to do a very simple task, so that viewers can laugh at them trying, just as they laugh at their abnormalities and stupidity manifested during their daily lives in the cage. Sometimes the cameras just show someone asleep for several hours, but that's for the benefit of the equally challenged people watching. The show is a modern version of the Victorian freak shows at fairs, where the audience prodded captive abnormal people in a cage to see what would happen, and have a good laugh at them, and it should be about as bad as TV can get. But it isn't.

There's Channel 20 on Freeview late in the evening, a show for adolescent boys with little else to do.

There's "Shopping" shows, where over-priced rubbish is sold to the terminally gullible with a phone and a credit card.

I'm certain prooners can nominate worse. We don't have satellite, on the grounds that more channels = more rubbish, but I would imagine that even lower depths are reached there.

Other prooners would be grateful for the leads, too.

BTW, Syllogism, thanks for the info.

Krystal n chips
21st Sep 2008, 15:35
Funnily enough, I have just got one of those "We Work for the State, and are coming to get you!" letters.......which is nice now isn't it.:mad:

Moved in about 1 month ago.

Bought new TV.....based on past experience, waited for letter offering me direct debit form etc......non arrived.....and then get this little gem with the intro about "No response to our previous letters"....erm, that's because you haven't actually sent me any.........thick or what !!!!

It is nice though, to note how arrogant this Dept is and how it feels it can relate to the public......and presumably this approach is condoned by the Beeb who are the sole reason for their existence are they not ?

Given that it gets used for about 4 hrs a day...if that some days given the :mad: that the cokeheads.....sorry, that's TV excecutives:yuk: ( well they have to be taking something to sanction the production of what is loosely described as "entertainment"....unless of course you are clinically brain dead as a fair percentage of the UK population are and thus will watch anything that's aired anyway ) feel we should watch....NOTE to any of those just mentioned...it may come as a surprise but there are still members of the UK populace that have a functioning brain and would like to be entertained accordingly.......so anyway, why can't I have a rebate ? :E

mixture
21st Sep 2008, 16:55
The main problem, I believe, in banning all vehicle pursuits is that a suitably equipped helicopter isn't always available at the drop of a hat.

Don't you think cost is a consideration too ?

How much would it cost the taxpayer if the police started using eggbeaters for every single vehicle persuit ? :cool:

Gertrude the Wombat
21st Sep 2008, 17:20
I don't have a television set because of bilge like that. Now my entertainment consists of ignoring the TV Licensing Deptment's threatening letters and notes under the door. http://static.pprune.org/images/smilies/tongue.gif
They stop bothering you after a while. I haven't heard from them for over a decade.

StaceyF
21st Sep 2008, 17:42
How low can TV sink you ask?

Simply really, DON'T ASK!! you won't like the answer :ok:

If you've ever watched a Jeremy Kyle show you'll know it can't (in the UK at least) sink any lower.

There was one earlier in the week (it's on at my gym, I wouldn't watch it through choice) where two unattractive, plump sisters with Croydon facelifts had slept with two equally unattractive brothers (picture The Thin Blue Line episode where the gay cop thumps a racist skinhead.......got the image of the skinhead?......Both brothers looked identical to him).

And guess what? They were both pregnant but neither knew who the father was.

The whole family tree permutation went out of the window.......

Parapunter
21st Sep 2008, 18:04
I take comfort that all those ever so clever Oxbridge graduates who run telly, well on the beeb anyway, must finish work every day and go home to the empty meaningless feeling that must come from another hard eight hours producing Cash in the attic and houses under the hammer.

How futile that 2:1 ppe must look as they reach for the whisky bottle.

mr fish
21st Sep 2008, 18:12
what the hell are you lot talking about, theres a new series of x factor, casualty, celebraty come dancing, family fortunes, national lottery who dares wins, car booty, cash in the attic, judge judy etc etc.
to quote homer j , HOUR AFTER HOUR OF QUALITY PROGRAMS, WHY WON'T THEY LET ME LIVE:}:}

Union Jack
21st Sep 2008, 18:27
"theres a new series of ....celebraty come dancing (sic!:))"

.... on which, amongst a series of other pretty mediocre "jokes" last night, Bruce Forsyth (BF for short?) almost certainly succeeded in upsetting any of the unfortunate staff of XL, Lehman Brothers, and HBOS, who might have been watching, in a rather cheap shot.

Jack

forget
21st Sep 2008, 18:44
Nothing I've seen before comes even close. :ok::ok::ok:

HOVIS. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Cv4c4ER8Pzo&feature=related)

The Real Slim Shady
21st Sep 2008, 19:25
And you have a vote

frostbite
21st Sep 2008, 20:06
Disagree in one instance, Parapunter.

I find Homes under the Hammer quite watchable, mainly because both presenters are not only normal people but also quite knowledgeable.

Granted, the programme often shows you what you've already seen five minutes earlier, but they all do that.

Krystal n chips
21st Sep 2008, 20:36
Forget,

Now that Hovis ad really IS good. :ok:....some tosser at ITV will probably pull it though as it "doesn't connect with modern yoof yah ".

Not quite the best though....Cadbury's Flake every time....:p:E

HOVIS
21st Sep 2008, 21:10
I Thankyou!! :D

CATIII-NDB
21st Sep 2008, 21:18
I have an Idiot's Lantern - barely use the thing - I have not seen "Hole in the Wall" - that seems dire, but one that I have is "The One Show" - Yee Gods. Also another dog of a thing is "Spring Watch" - Anyone remember Animal Magic - Bizzare anthromorphic TV (Timmy the titmouse - sort of thing) and various bits of carnage.
Brought to you the viewer, by a cast of thousands in a smashy & nicey sort of way. Bring back Zoo Time -Nature is facinating, but not in "a lets gawp at the /Badgers/Swallows/small cutey fluffy bundles" sort of way. Operation Dumb-Down TV is alive and condecending. I'm not digging at the people who present this sort of thing, but the producers who treat us like idiots. Anyone remember when "Horizon" was worth looking forward to watching.

CAT III

frostbite
21st Sep 2008, 21:44
"Anyone remember when "Horizon" was worth looking forward to watching."

Indeed, and they would never have permitted the commentary of some damn female who says 'nukular' to ruin their programme!

After about six nukulars, I switched off (i.e. 5 minutes max.)

Cap'n Arrr
22nd Sep 2008, 09:48
In Aus, they seem to be moving away from the "Big Brother" style reality shows (thank god!:ok:) but they're trying now to reproduce Japanese game shows.:ugh:

Anyone who's watched an original Japanese game show (as in filmed in Japan) will likely have found them at least amusing, but the western versions of these shows, such as Hole In The Wall, are missing that thing which makes the Japanese versions so entertaining. I'm not quite sure what it is, maybe its the arrogant wankers who think they're all special on it, or it could be the crap hosts who take themselves and the show so seriously, but the only western version that comes close to the original is Wipeout, and even that falls well short.

Actually thinking about it, apart from movies and Family Guy/Simpsons et al, there isnt much on TV worth watching anymore. Google News is so much better than the news at 7:ok: