If you need urgent support, call 999 or go to your nearest A&E. To contact our Crisis Messenger (open 24/7) text THEMIX to 85258.
Read the community guidelines before posting ✨
Options
Essential support for under 25s
Essential support for under 25s
Take a look around and enjoy reading the discussions. If you'd like to join in, it's really easy to register and then you'll be able to post. If you'd like to learn what this place is all about, head here.
Comments
Nope, but when they claim to have been attended an emergency call (which most people would accept as a defence), only for other witnesses to suggest that they hadn't actually been called, were heading in the wrong direction and had already ordered their food, then you do have to wonder if they were attempting to pervert the course of justice...
Given the recent conversation about smoking, that's a very relevant point...
Magistrates have no qualifications for their job, don't forget. They always believe the police ahead of any other witness. My biggest surprise, though, is that it even got to court.
If I am seen by 50 witnesses knifing someone to death on a busy street, and when the trial comes I testify that I was abducted by aliens, one of which cloned itself into a copy of me thanks to their advanced technology, murdered the victim and then freed me on a field and left, technically you really couldn't prove I was lying could you?
However I am sure you will agree that no sane court in the world would fail to return a guilty veredict.
So you must also agree that there are cases when a judge or jury is obliged to make a decision based on the plausability of the defendant's claims, regardless of whether they can be proved or not, right?
Because you appear to say that in some cases, no matter how absurd (such as the copper claiming he was doing 160mph as a vital training exercise and that nothing but a public road would do) the defendant should be just be given the benefit of the doubt. Specially if he's a good ol' boy in blue.
I wonder why that is...
Actually, it was proven that it was ordered in advance. And that the policeman wasn't going anywhere near the emergency. And that he wasn't called to it. And that he was taking a very scenic route to the emergency. And that he ran into the Chinese, and ran out again five seconds later with his egg fried rice and sped off.
The prosecution must prove beyond reasonable doubt- that doesn't mean that they must prove that a stupid defence didn't happen.
This is a magistrates decision, who are the best in the business at letting the boys in blue get away with anything and everything.
But still, he's a policeman so he must be telling the truth, eh? Just like they told the truth about de Menezes, Hillsborough, the Birmigham Six, the Guildford Four...
I'm sure you wouldn't be complaining if it was a civillian.
However some people here appear to be suggesting that cops should be above the law or treated differently to the rest of us.
I'm not talking about the severity of a crime here. I'm talking about how implausible an excuse has to be for a copper to actually be found guilty of anything in this country. Just because something cannot technically be proven beyond doubt does not mean a judge can deliver guilty veredict that is 100% justified.
Isn't that a completely different case ?
I would be complaining, but that isn't the point.
If I was caught doing 48mph in a 40, and the reason why I was speeding was that my Chinese was going cold, then I'd expect to get the points and the fine. I'd not be happy about getting caught, but its a fair cop, etc etc.
The police should not be above the law, but the old boys network and incompetent amateurs at magistrates level ensure that they are above the law.
Bear in mind that this is only news because an independent witness saw the policeman- if he hadn't been seen, it wouldn't have ever got to court.
On one hand we have the police prosecuting an ambulance driver for speeding whilst carrying an organ transplant, and on the other we have police officers routinely getting away with speeding whilst carrying a chow mein for his mates down the nick. Which do you think is more important?
Do you think it was right that he was acquitted when a civilian would not be, or even when an ambulance driver would not be? If so, why so?
That's just crap. Or are police allowed to get away with everything that's illgeal for us?:rolleyes:
Funnily enough even when on duty police officers have break entitlements. (Although that does not seem to be the issue in this case). Was at the kebab van round the corner last night, there were three police officers in front of us - all puffing away too actually before they got started on their lamb donner. It's amazing how some people would have a problem with that, in any other job break entitlements exist and nobody bats an eyelid at going out to get something to eat but if a police officer does it people have a go.
Of course discussion of cases like this is pointless with some people as they just hate the police but as any balanced observer knows most police officers are hard-working, do an excellent job and do not deserve the stick that they get.
They do- the fact he was using a squad car to get his Chinese doesn't especially bother me (although, of course, it is the taxpayer paying for his wastage of petrol), its the fact he was speeding to get there, and got away with it.
Most people are hard-working and do an excellent job, what's your point?
This policeman has been given preferential treatment from some middle-class, white, retired amateur moron because of who he is.
Unless you think that the police shouldn't have to obey the law?
Of course the police should in principle always obey the law and if they break it they should not receive preferential treatment. I think if our police force is compared to counterparts elsewhere though for corruption, illicit 'perks' and accountability our police force looks pretty good. Minor stuff like speeding has little effect on the record of a civilian but creates a lot more aggro for a police officer; unless it's dangerous driving tbh I don't see the big deal, perk of the job I think.
And what relevance does the age or race of the Magistrate have? Would you make stereotypes about young black people as you do about middle aged white people?
Quite a lot if their decisions are anything to go by.
Case against ambulance driver dropped. Policeman goes to magistrates court found not guilty, ambulance driver doesn't get as far because CPS withdraw the case.