New policy for the police
24 March 2005, 08:16 PM
#31
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Sheffield; Rome of the North
Posts: 17,582
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
In fairness though; Ive seen some f*cking apalling driving by non-advanced Police drivers in beat cars..... You are all overlooking that sub divisional responce cars (which are crewed by advanced drivers) and Traffic cars will not be affected by this (Traffic division officers do a lot more than stop Scooby drivers too.....).
Of course; this doesnt mean that I support the policy.
Simon
Of course; this doesnt mean that I support the policy.
Simon
24 March 2005, 09:28 PM
#32
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Sep 2004
Posts: 2,486
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Nathan L
With all due respect, don't be so bloody stupid. Stop turning this into a were being picked on thread. If you have something worthwhile to add then do so. If not then don't bother posting.
Oh, and with all due respect, so long as it's not racist or pornographic, I'll post what the **** I like
24 March 2005, 11:37 PM
#33
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: 1 of the ESC 1
Posts: 1,997
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Nathan L
No wind up, they are dead serious 
1. See and follow a drink driver down the road.
2. Put blue lights on, car fails to stop.
3. As you are not an advanced driver in a pursuit vehicle. Turn blue lights off.
4. Stop so there is no pursuit and let drink driver carry on.
5. Come round corner and find fatal crash, caused by drink driver.
It is going to happen.
1. See and follow a drink driver down the road.
2. Put blue lights on, car fails to stop.
3. As you are not an advanced driver in a pursuit vehicle. Turn blue lights off.
4. Stop so there is no pursuit and let drink driver carry on.
5. Come round corner and find fatal crash, caused by drink driver.
It is going to happen.
25 March 2005, 12:33 AM
#34
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Mar 2004
Posts: 277
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Nathan L
Yes it is perfectly true.
Well now Kent can't use their lights and sirens.
Unless there is serious risk to life, or a very serious crime happening. It could take 2 hours plus to get to that.
Well now Kent can't use their lights and sirens.
Unless there is serious risk to life, or a very serious crime happening. It could take 2 hours plus to get to that.
are quick thinin some one may have got hurt
25 March 2005, 12:50 AM
#35
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Surrey/London borders.
Posts: 8,300
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"A basic driver cannot go outside the Road Traffic Act"
There's the get-out clause.
Basic drivers of police vehicles are only allowed to put their blue lights on to pull over a vehicle.
Anyone above basic can drive as per normal police - as the public see them.
This will only affect a tiny % of police drivers in Kent. Still a joke.....
There's the get-out clause.
Basic drivers of police vehicles are only allowed to put their blue lights on to pull over a vehicle.
Anyone above basic can drive as per normal police - as the public see them.
This will only affect a tiny % of police drivers in Kent. Still a joke.....
25 March 2005, 02:30 PM
#37
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Nov 2001
Posts: 5,502
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by fatherpierre
This will only affect a tiny % of police drivers in Kent. Still a joke.....
As there are less than 400 drivers in Kent who make the grade.
Kent has been p1ss poor on training for ages, and now they are going to pay the price.
25 March 2005, 02:31 PM
#39
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: Markyate.Imprezas owned:-wrx-sti5typeR-p1-uk22b-modded my00. Amongst others!
Posts: 8,541
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hold on here. Police RTA's are at an all time high, and deaths due to emergency vehicles killing people as far as I can remember are at an all time high. ONE police force tries something new to try and curtail accidents such as these by removing lights/sirens on normal plod cars, usually driven by normal motorists who are no more skilled than the average driver (scary) and some people are on about looking for emigration sites 
get a grip.
Lets get some perspective here. The ARUs and fast response patrol cars will still be manned by qualified advanced drivers and the cars will still be adorned with lights/sirens.
Kent police have obviously looked into the increasing causalty rate of panda drivers and come to this conclusion. in any case this might only be a trial for a limited period. If it leads to a decrease in road deaths then it must be welcomed. How many deaths a year now, forty odd? It's a big increase from a few years back.
Rural CCTV, heard it all now, and so what if a police force doesn't have a police helicopter? Let's make it compulsory for CCTV everywhere and each force to have a few helicopters lying around, BTW here's your vastly increased council tax bill.
http://www.roadracers.co.uk/speeding.htm
get a grip.Lets get some perspective here. The ARUs and fast response patrol cars will still be manned by qualified advanced drivers and the cars will still be adorned with lights/sirens.
Kent police have obviously looked into the increasing causalty rate of panda drivers and come to this conclusion. in any case this might only be a trial for a limited period. If it leads to a decrease in road deaths then it must be welcomed. How many deaths a year now, forty odd? It's a big increase from a few years back.
Rural CCTV, heard it all now, and so what if a police force doesn't have a police helicopter? Let's make it compulsory for CCTV everywhere and each force to have a few helicopters lying around, BTW here's your vastly increased council tax bill.
http://www.roadracers.co.uk/speeding.htm
25 March 2005, 02:53 PM
#40
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Nov 2001
Posts: 5,502
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by scoobynutta555
Hold on here. Police RTA's are at an all time high, and deaths due to emergency vehicles killing people as far as I can remember are at an all time high. ONE police force tries something new to try and curtail accidents such as these by removing lights/sirens on normal plod cars, usually driven by normal motorists who are no more skilled than the average driver (scary) and some people are on about looking for emigration sites get a grip.
Lets get some perspective here. The ARUs and fast response patrol cars will still be manned by qualified advanced drivers and the cars will still be adorned with lights/sirens.
Kent police have obviously looked into the increasing causalty rate of panda drivers and come to this conclusion. in any case this might only be a trial for a limited period. If it leads to a decrease in road deaths then it must be welcomed. How many deaths a year now, forty odd? It's a big increase from a few years back.
Rural CCTV, heard it all now, and so what if a police force doesn't have a police helicopter? Let's make it compulsory for CCTV everywhere and each force to have a few helicopters lying around, BTW here's your vastly increased council tax bill.
http://www.roadracers.co.uk/speeding.htm
get a grip.Lets get some perspective here. The ARUs and fast response patrol cars will still be manned by qualified advanced drivers and the cars will still be adorned with lights/sirens.
Kent police have obviously looked into the increasing causalty rate of panda drivers and come to this conclusion. in any case this might only be a trial for a limited period. If it leads to a decrease in road deaths then it must be welcomed. How many deaths a year now, forty odd? It's a big increase from a few years back.
Rural CCTV, heard it all now, and so what if a police force doesn't have a police helicopter? Let's make it compulsory for CCTV everywhere and each force to have a few helicopters lying around, BTW here's your vastly increased council tax bill.
http://www.roadracers.co.uk/speeding.htm
one. You have totally twisted the CCTV and helicopter post. The fact is Kent police are stating they are using these methods when they clearly don't have them at their disposal. I.E. They are making it up to reassure members of the public, when it is clearly not true. I'm not saying we should have these things but pointing out that we shouldn't be telling people we have then when we don't.
The simple fact remains, there are not enough response officers to go round. Please don't try telling me there are, how would you know? I work for Kent Police, so if anyone is in a position to comment it is me. Members of the public are being put at risk by this new policy, fact.
Yes there are many Police collisions every day. In fact I think there are 30-40 a day. However that includes people scraping bollards in the back yard due to poorly parked vehicles and other minor stuff. Considering how many vehicles are on the road day in day out the numbers of police crashes are surprisingly small.
Otherwise thanks for the post, at least it was constructive, unlike some previous posts by others.
25 March 2005, 02:56 PM
#41
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Nov 2001
Posts: 5,502
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Actually whilst I'm thinking about it.
Tonight to cover, Tunbridge Wells, Paddock Wood, Pembury and all the small villages in between. There will be 10 drivers on section, all will be busy.
As of the start of this policy there will be 2.
Removing audible warning equipment from the cars is not the answer, as people will still be taking risks in them.
More training for everyone is the answer IMHO.
Tonight to cover, Tunbridge Wells, Paddock Wood, Pembury and all the small villages in between. There will be 10 drivers on section, all will be busy.
As of the start of this policy there will be 2.
Removing audible warning equipment from the cars is not the answer, as people will still be taking risks in them.
More training for everyone is the answer IMHO.
25 March 2005, 04:16 PM
#42
Guest
Posts: n/a
Originally Posted by Nathan L
Actually whilst I'm thinking about it.
Tonight to cover, Tunbridge Wells, Paddock Wood, Pembury and all the small villages in between. There will be 10 drivers on section, all will be busy.
As of the start of this policy there will be 2.
Removing audible warning equipment from the cars is not the answer, as people will still be taking risks in them.
More training for everyone is the answer IMHO.
Tonight to cover, Tunbridge Wells, Paddock Wood, Pembury and all the small villages in between. There will be 10 drivers on section, all will be busy.
As of the start of this policy there will be 2.
Removing audible warning equipment from the cars is not the answer, as people will still be taking risks in them.
More training for everyone is the answer IMHO.
25 March 2005, 04:38 PM
#43
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: Markyate.Imprezas owned:-wrx-sti5typeR-p1-uk22b-modded my00. Amongst others!
Posts: 8,541
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
This country going to pot whether I like it or not? What a crass and stupid statement. If there are better places to live in the world take your 'opinions' and go live somewhere else in the world. Stop bleating and complaining and just sling your hook.
When have I said there aren't enough response officers to go around?
So what. You don't agree with a new scheme the powers that be are testing and all of a sudden you want to leave the country for somewhere else, hello reality check
What's pretty simple is ordinary plod shouldn't be hair arsing it around at inappropriate speed to their training and vehicles capability. Perhaps because they are doing this with blues and twos on is one reason why deaths by police drivers had quadrupled in recent years. Show me where is says ARVs and quick response vehicles are being stripped of lights and sirens???????
Isn't it also true that members of the public are being put at risk by very poor and inappropriate driving by non qualified police officers? Surprisingly small or not, there is still a massive rise in deaths from patrol cars, and it won't be much of an arguement when you're T-boned by a pimply plod in a bog standard Astra doing 90 mph up the high st.
What's constructive is a police authority trying to address the problem of needless increase in deaths due to poor driving. What's not constructive is some wally complaining about immigrating to where the grass is always greener over a few relatively minor issues.
When have I said there aren't enough response officers to go around?
I work for Kent Police, so if anyone is in a position to comment it is me.
What's pretty simple is ordinary plod shouldn't be hair arsing it around at inappropriate speed to their training and vehicles capability. Perhaps because they are doing this with blues and twos on is one reason why deaths by police drivers had quadrupled in recent years. Show me where is says ARVs and quick response vehicles are being stripped of lights and sirens???????
Isn't it also true that members of the public are being put at risk by very poor and inappropriate driving by non qualified police officers? Surprisingly small or not, there is still a massive rise in deaths from patrol cars, and it won't be much of an arguement when you're T-boned by a pimply plod in a bog standard Astra doing 90 mph up the high st.
What's constructive is a police authority trying to address the problem of needless increase in deaths due to poor driving. What's not constructive is some wally complaining about immigrating to where the grass is always greener over a few relatively minor issues.
25 March 2005, 06:01 PM
#44
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Nov 2001
Posts: 5,502
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Stop bleating and complaining? Says you 
Hey if you don't like it you don't have to listen
I'm complaining loudly and not just on here, like some people do. Because I genuinely feel, as do other colleagues that this is a daft policy to introduce, in the manner it has been. Training is what's required here, not the cheap fix of removing blue lights and sirens from vehicles. Cost had a major factor in pushing the policy this way, rather than the training route.
A poorly driven marked police vehicle with no lights and sirens is more likely to crash than a poorly driven police vehice. No matter what the grade of driver. Where did I say ARVs and quick response vehicles are being stripped of lights and sirens? I didn't. What I did say is more officers should be trained to drive them.
You made it quite clear
I asked you not to tell me there were enough drivers, as I'm telling you before you try there isn't. The fast response vehicles won't be crewed as there are not enough trained officers to go round. Out of 3 response vehicles at T-Wells, only 1 will be in use by our section when this new policy comes in.
I'm not liking the policy as people are going to be put at risk, despite what you appear to think some of us do actually take pride in our jobs.
Oh and don't give me all this reality check rubbish, it's not just this but all the stupid things in this country add up and I would emigrate not immigrate.
My opinions are my opinions, but you appear in the minority in your position here. If you don't like my opinions. Tough
Hey if you don't like it you don't have to listen
I'm complaining loudly and not just on here, like some people do. Because I genuinely feel, as do other colleagues that this is a daft policy to introduce, in the manner it has been. Training is what's required here, not the cheap fix of removing blue lights and sirens from vehicles. Cost had a major factor in pushing the policy this way, rather than the training route.
A poorly driven marked police vehicle with no lights and sirens is more likely to crash than a poorly driven police vehice. No matter what the grade of driver. Where did I say ARVs and quick response vehicles are being stripped of lights and sirens? I didn't. What I did say is more officers should be trained to drive them.
You made it quite clear
The ARUs and fast response patrol cars will still be manned by qualified advanced drivers and the cars will still be adorned with lights/sirens.
I'm not liking the policy as people are going to be put at risk, despite what you appear to think some of us do actually take pride in our jobs.
Oh and don't give me all this reality check rubbish, it's not just this but all the stupid things in this country add up and I would emigrate not immigrate.
My opinions are my opinions, but you appear in the minority in your position here. If you don't like my opinions. Tough
25 March 2005, 06:13 PM
#45
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Jul 2001
Posts: 21,865
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I agree with Nathan totally on all the above, what is needed is the investment in training for all officers who will be driving. As opposed to what they are looking to do now which looks purely a cost cutting measure.
What I have noticed more and more now are that PCSO's are being given fully liveried up vehicles to use to get around, the only thing that they dont have are the Blues and Twos.
Something is going to have to change, and if officers and members of the public dont voice their concerns then nothing will be done.
What I have noticed more and more now are that PCSO's are being given fully liveried up vehicles to use to get around, the only thing that they dont have are the Blues and Twos.
Something is going to have to change, and if officers and members of the public dont voice their concerns then nothing will be done.
25 March 2005, 07:57 PM
#47
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Oct 2004
Posts: 4,249
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I just can't get my head round this. It seems to me that those at the top and making the decisions in the Police Service are incapable. Right, why not use the IAM to train all non advanced drivers. I don't mean IAM Fleet Training, I mean using the local IAM groups. It would at least mean all Police drivers were "better than average". I'm also sure local IAM groups would be happy to do this.
In Spring 2004 of Advanced Driving, the IAM magazine, on page 60 is a letter from a police officer in Derbyshire. Concerning 30 limits this officer writes "we have been informed by the CPS that if we were to have a collision when responding to a call we would not only receive no support but would be prosecuted for dangerous driving if we were found to be exceeding ANY speed limit by 20 mph".
WTF.
Dear criminals in Derbyshire please do not exceed any speed limit by more than 20 mph.
In Spring 2004 of Advanced Driving, the IAM magazine, on page 60 is a letter from a police officer in Derbyshire. Concerning 30 limits this officer writes "we have been informed by the CPS that if we were to have a collision when responding to a call we would not only receive no support but would be prosecuted for dangerous driving if we were found to be exceeding ANY speed limit by 20 mph".
WTF.
Dear criminals in Derbyshire please do not exceed any speed limit by more than 20 mph.
25 March 2005, 09:08 PM
#48
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Leeds
Posts: 618
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
What really needs to happen is that Blair and all his sponging,tax sapping,do- gooding,money wasters need to be voted out.
What also needs to happen is that the new Government start waking up to the fact that the vast majority of the public actually want the Police to be able to catch criminals,and in my opinion as a Qualified Advanced Police driver with hundreds of responds and pursuits under my belt,money needs to be pumped into the training of more officers to Advanced standard as well as investing in decent vehicles for the job.
This mindless bull**** is yet another wishy washy get out and money saving idea invented by some shiny arsed, suit wearing waste of tax payers money who wouldn't know a criminal if he got into bed with him and shagged his missus.
WE want to catch criminals and drive quickly and safely to the scene to do so,the public want us to do it too. The ONLY thing standing in our way is Government policy and the accomplished butt kissers who uphold it in every force.
Oh and you Scoobynutta.
What also needs to happen is that the new Government start waking up to the fact that the vast majority of the public actually want the Police to be able to catch criminals,and in my opinion as a Qualified Advanced Police driver with hundreds of responds and pursuits under my belt,money needs to be pumped into the training of more officers to Advanced standard as well as investing in decent vehicles for the job.
This mindless bull**** is yet another wishy washy get out and money saving idea invented by some shiny arsed, suit wearing waste of tax payers money who wouldn't know a criminal if he got into bed with him and shagged his missus.
WE want to catch criminals and drive quickly and safely to the scene to do so,the public want us to do it too. The ONLY thing standing in our way is Government policy and the accomplished butt kissers who uphold it in every force.
Oh and you Scoobynutta.
25 March 2005, 09:32 PM
#49
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Dec 2003
Posts: 166
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Ditto to the above, training is the answer and getting the job done and getting Nasty pasties sorted. We dont need more hinderances to block our paths we want freedom to do unto those who do unto others and the tools to put away tools and ..........!
reality check........!
Come on lets get real and stop messing us around....Vote blue green or yellow dont see RED.
reality check........!
Come on lets get real and stop messing us around....Vote blue green or yellow dont see RED.
25 March 2005, 09:34 PM
#50
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Dec 2003
Posts: 166
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by IanW
I agree with Nathan totally on all the above, what is needed is the investment in training for all officers who will be driving. As opposed to what they are looking to do now which looks purely a cost cutting measure.
What I have noticed more and more now are that PCSO's are being given fully liveried up vehicles to use to get around, the only thing that they dont have are the Blues and Twos.
Something is going to have to change, and if officers and members of the public dont voice their concerns then nothing will be done.
What I have noticed more and more now are that PCSO's are being given fully liveried up vehicles to use to get around, the only thing that they dont have are the Blues and Twos.
Something is going to have to change, and if officers and members of the public dont voice their concerns then nothing will be done.
25 March 2005, 09:38 PM
#51
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Dec 2003
Posts: 166
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Sorry Sir, it took me 3 hours to get to your burglary I Know i Know we saw the billy Burglar escaping but we got stuck in traffic and he got away, then when we tried to get back to your gaf we had to wait in the tail back of a crash where someone collided into the back of a police car that could not warn other motorists of a danger coz it did not have any warning beacons, then I wanted to pull someone over for a traffic violation and could not do so and had to follow him all the way to his house 50 miles away coz i did not have a beacon to flash to ask him to stop....What is this world coming too.
25 March 2005, 09:58 PM
#52
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Leeds
Posts: 618
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Exactly Wazza, well put. For anyone who is listening,we are actively DISCOURAGED to chase and catch criminals if it involves any kind of pursuit or the remote possibility of bumping another car.
Weigh it up in your mind....either we try and do our job or we pander to do gooders gone insane and just let thug culture take over.
BLAIR has not got a clue about reality.
Weigh it up in your mind....either we try and do our job or we pander to do gooders gone insane and just let thug culture take over.
BLAIR has not got a clue about reality.
26 March 2005, 01:10 AM
#53
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Surrey/London borders.
Posts: 8,300
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Nathan L
Err no.
As there are less than 400 drivers in Kent who make the grade.
Kent has been p1ss poor on training for ages, and now they are going to pay the price.
As there are less than 400 drivers in Kent who make the grade.
Kent has been p1ss poor on training for ages, and now they are going to pay the price.
How would it affect the orange button calls? That would be my biggest worry??!!
26 March 2005, 06:54 AM
#54
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: Markyate.Imprezas owned:-wrx-sti5typeR-p1-uk22b-modded my00. Amongst others!
Posts: 8,541
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If you don't like what I say you don't have to 'listen' either.
Back your theory up with some facts please, and vehice, what's one of them?????
Of course cost has a major impact on all policy decisions. In an ideal world all police drivers would be appropriately trained to drive at speed. It's not an ideal world though and there isn't a pot of gold at the end of each rainbow. Trying something innovative to stem the totally unacceptable crash and death statistics is to be encouraged. If the policy doesn't work, and the lights/sirens are not replaced, then is the time to criticise the exercise.
Since you seem to be in the know of police matters in Kent, please tell me how many officers are regularly behind the wheel of a patrol car and how much it would cost to train them to an acceptable standard? I hope you have a calculator handy
So what if I'm in the minority, that makes your position all the more valid, PMSL. Looking at the election poll on here about a general election, enough can be drawn from many peoples opinion here and how askew to reality many opinions are.
With your grasp of the economics of the situation and balanced view of the whole picture, you'll indeed go far in the Kent force. No doubt one day when you will be in charge you will implement your own saner policies.
More than likely you’ll be residing in a far superior country laughing at all the mugs left here
A poorly driven marked police vehicle with no lights and sirens is more likely to crash than a poorly driven police vehice.
Of course cost has a major impact on all policy decisions. In an ideal world all police drivers would be appropriately trained to drive at speed. It's not an ideal world though and there isn't a pot of gold at the end of each rainbow. Trying something innovative to stem the totally unacceptable crash and death statistics is to be encouraged. If the policy doesn't work, and the lights/sirens are not replaced, then is the time to criticise the exercise.
Since you seem to be in the know of police matters in Kent, please tell me how many officers are regularly behind the wheel of a patrol car and how much it would cost to train them to an acceptable standard? I hope you have a calculator handy
I asked you not to tell me there were enough drivers, as I'm telling you before you try there isn't.
My opinions are my opinions, but you appear in the minority in your position here.
With your grasp of the economics of the situation and balanced view of the whole picture, you'll indeed go far in the Kent force. No doubt one day when you will be in charge you will implement your own saner policies.
More than likely you’ll be residing in a far superior country laughing at all the mugs left here
26 March 2005, 08:24 AM
#56
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Aug 2001
Posts: 5,280
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Nathan L
Stop turning this into a were being picked on thread. If you have something worthwhile to add then do so.
I cant imagine what police morale must be like, but if you are half as pi$$ed off as the rest of the country's motorists, it aint good. Public & Police Unite!
D
26 March 2005, 11:02 AM
#57
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Oct 2003
Posts: 258
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Since you seem to be in the know of police matters in Kent, please tell me how many officers are regularly behind the wheel of a patrol car and how much it would cost to train them to an acceptable standard? I hope you have a calculator handy
A standard course will teach them to do 'response driving' but not pursuit driving. Currently in my force, you will only get an advanced course if you are on traffic or ARV.
26 March 2005, 11:16 AM
#58
Guest
Posts: n/a
and vehice, what's one of them
Back on topic, you seem unable to grasp the point here that you are suggesting peoples lives are at risk by the police driving fast when not trained to the top standard, yet you then go on to say there isn't a pot of gold at the end of each rainbow for everyone to be trained. Well whats the priority here? The priority is spending the money to train drivers to drive at a high enough standard so as to be able to carry out their duties effectively which is to catch criminals - not give the criminal an easy life by saying we can't go after them to stop them them unless its an advanced driver at the wheel. Having the normal plod car restrained is a joke - no of course they shouldn't go tear ar$sing down a busy high street at 60 mph to respond to an incident but at the same time they should be able to follow and attempt to pull the someone over where the conditions are right, such as if a driver jumps a red light they put their blues and twos on and follow, not have to sit at the lights and let the driver get away.
You think its sensible to stop the police from being able to follow a drunk driver thats sped off through red lights for example? All because the new rules say the police vehicle that has just seen him can not follow so must let him go due to the rules saying they arn't qualified to do so as they arn't an advanced driver? By the time they have called for a qualified driver to give chase the drunk is likely to be off the road or at worst having piled into someone coming the other way and killing them. Yes thats a good change to the rules
and the fact that you are happy with that situation certainly puts you in the minority.The fact that not one police officer on here thinks its a good idea would tend to suggest they know what they are talking about as they do the job, you on the other hand are not qualified through experience to argue with what they are saying.
Oh and if you find any spelling or grammer mistakes in my post, don't bother pointing them out to me because I really couldn't give a toss.
Edited to add something not to change spelling
Last edited by Bravo2zero_sps; 26 March 2005 at 11:25 AM.
26 March 2005, 01:28 PM
#60
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: Markyate.Imprezas owned:-wrx-sti5typeR-p1-uk22b-modded my00. Amongst others!
Posts: 8,541
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Next time we meet up I'll look forward to you telling me I'm a pedantic pr!ck 
Keyboard hero Scroll up for immigrate/emigrate post. And yes there are mistakes in your post apart from the ignorant content.
It's geeky IT know alls such as yourself who can't take their head out from their @rse to look at the real world and not some IR fantasy world.
As for the pathetic 'examples' being bandied about, such as not being able to stop a drink driver etc because of the lack of sirens/lights, I don't expect anything less from the moronic crowd of self opinionated 'everyone vote Tory or I'm emigrating'
Any post looking at the other side of the proposals is met with the same knee jerk reactions and eventually leads to lets blame Blair again (see above)
Read a post about higher council tax bills and you'd probably see the same names on there, apart from the odd 'newbie' cowardly not using their real name. Oh but look on your council tax bill, you pay a good chunk for local police services, how strange. Anyhow, lets push more and more funding into the police driving scheme so all police drivers are trained to the highest level, oh, and throw in some helicopters and rural cctv while I'm spending your money.
Never once have I posted that police shouldn't chase criminals. So file the pedantic and pathetically hypothetical drink driver non chase speaches to the large empty part of your brain.
Keyboard hero Scroll up for immigrate/emigrate post. And yes there are mistakes in your post apart from the ignorant content.It's geeky IT know alls such as yourself who can't take their head out from their @rse to look at the real world and not some IR fantasy world.
As for the pathetic 'examples' being bandied about, such as not being able to stop a drink driver etc because of the lack of sirens/lights, I don't expect anything less from the moronic crowd of self opinionated 'everyone vote Tory or I'm emigrating'
Any post looking at the other side of the proposals is met with the same knee jerk reactions and eventually leads to lets blame Blair again (see above)
Read a post about higher council tax bills and you'd probably see the same names on there, apart from the odd 'newbie' cowardly not using their real name. Oh but look on your council tax bill, you pay a good chunk for local police services, how strange. Anyhow, lets push more and more funding into the police driving scheme so all police drivers are trained to the highest level, oh, and throw in some helicopters and rural cctv while I'm spending your money.
Never once have I posted that police shouldn't chase criminals. So file the pedantic and pathetically hypothetical drink driver non chase speaches to the large empty part of your brain.