"do as i say, not as i do"

[monkey104 10]

but, i still maintain, when not answering an emergency or apprehending an offender - i.e. without blues and twos, they should be treated as a normal motorist, subject to the same rules of the road as the rest of us. if not, it damn well should be.

 

with blues and twos, other road users are warned of their prescence, thus allowing the police driver to safely exceed the speed limit and pass red traffic lights, etcetera.

 

without blues and twos (and this is just a hypothetical situation) a pedestrian could step into the road and BAM! two tons of steel, KSI, game over.

if the police driver was adhering to the speed limit, the collision could have been avoided completely, or minor injuries at worst.

 

speed doesn't kill. inappropriate use of speed kills.

 

What about en route to a location where burglars are on scene and they don't want to alert them?

What about when they are travelling behind another vehicle to measure its speed before alerting the driver?

And as for alerting other road users to their presence! Have you ever seen how some panic when they see an ambulance etc behind them!

Blues and twos and their usage are justified by the driver. How do I know?

I live on an ambulance route and rang Yorkshire ambulance and asked if they could ask their drivers to desist using sirens in the early hours on a long clear stretch where I live.

I received a lengthy email detailing warning devices, their usage, the drivers justification for use and non used of said devices.

In short, the driver has to justify any use or non use of warning devices in the event of an accident.

I do not know what the justification would be for not using as I have never attended a blue light course in the UK, but who in their right mind is going to put their job or even their liberty at risk without justification?

[deaf andy 10]

What about en route to a location where burglars are on scene and they don't want to alert them?

What about when they are travelling behind another vehicle to measure its speed before alerting the driver?

fair points. but none of the cases i have personally witnessed fit either of these scenarios. the first example, there was nothing in front of the police car until it followed the traffic around arena square, including waiting at red lights, rather than finding a way quickly and discreetly through it. the second example, the police officer looked quite calm and relaxed, untroubled even, as she waited at the traffic lights. discount the uniform and livery, and she could have been Mrs Ava Ridge, on her way back from shopping.

 

And as for alerting other road users to their presence! Have you ever seen how some panic when they see an ambulance etc behind them!

again, fair point. but any* pedestrian is far less likely to step out into the path of an emergency vehicle if the sirens are sounding.

 

Blues and twos and their usage are justified by the driver. How do I know?

I live on an ambulance route and rang Yorkshire ambulance and asked if they could ask their drivers to desist using sirens in the early hours on a long clear stretch where I live.

I received a lengthy email detailing warning devices, their usage, the drivers justification for use and non used of said devices.

In short, the driver has to justify any use or non use of warning devices in the event of an accident.

yeah, pretty much the same as the info on south yorkshire police's website (i've scoured it this afternoon) - it's the driver's call.

 

I do not know what the justification would be for not using as I have never attended a blue light course in the UK, but who in their right mind is going to put their job or even their liberty at risk without justification?

maybe they believe they are above the law, and therefore no justification is required. but they should be justifying why they are breaking the speed limit when time is not a critical factor.

 

*i'm going to assume a well trained officer would see, identify and take steps to avoid a pedestrian holding a white stick with red bands.

[sushi 10]

Another comment for the guns in McDonald's. As someone who used to work there, I can say that we did give free coffee to police to encourage their presence. We had a lot of trouble with fights and drug related stuff. From college students smoking weed just outside the entrance, and one or two dealing. We also had a few undesirables who would kick off at the staff regularly. Police presence stops that. Would you rather see a copper with a holstered gun having a coffee or some 17 year old college kid having his nose broken in a small restaurant packed with members of the public.

[petecob 10]

Well, if you are drunk, sitting on the pavement, singing rude songs, and refuse to go home when requested, I would say ALL those names apply pretty well.

 

i was just below city hall, thats where the taxi rank was,

a quiet word was enough,

to ask me to move on was not needed, as i was waiting for a taxi,

and as for name calling, all it does is it creates a 2nd sittuation that could have gone out of control.

and to push me in the direction they wanted me to go, is basically assault,

 

if i had done same i would get arrested, law for 1 should be same for all,

or you prefer law for 1 and law for another, lets pick n choose for who n when

[Hogstar 10]

But everyone is assuming that they know what the police officers intentions are, I appreciate what it may look like to people but do they know exactly what the police officer is doing, for example was the police speeding to catch up with a car and then just following it to monitor it?

I'm sure that not all police officers stick to the speed limits and traffic directions but without being in that officers shoes its impossible to say he was in the wrong. However a if a report is made or if the officer is caught on a camera he would have to justify his decisions.

 

---------- Post added 13-05-2013 at 18:39 ----------

 

i was just below city hall, thats where the taxi rank was,

a quiet word was enough,

to ask me to move on was not needed, as i was waiting for a taxi,

and as for name calling, all it does is it creates a 2nd sittuation that could have gone out of control.

and to push me in the direction they wanted me to go, is basically assault,

 

if i had done same i would get arrested, law for 1 should be same for all,

 

or you prefer law for 1 and law for another, lets pick n choose for who n when

 

Maybe you should be thankful for not getting arrested? Some would call it common sense policing.

[petecob 10]

But everyone is assuming that they know what the police officers intentions are, I appreciate what it may look like to people but do they know exactly what the police officer is doing, for example was the police speeding to catch up with a car and then just following it to monitor it?

I'm sure that not all police officers stick to the speed limits and traffic directions but without being in that officers shoes its impossible to say he was in the wrong. However a if a report is made or if the officer is caught on a camera he would have to justify his decisions.

 

---------- Post added 13-05-2013 at 18:39 ----------

 

 

Maybe you should be thankful for not getting arrested? Some would call it common sense policing.

 

 

sensible policing would have been , to have a quiet word, allow me to wait for the taxi and for to get home,

 

To verbal abuse me, to physically push me so that i had go in the direction they wanted me to go,

 

that is not sensible policing,

 

If there is ever a next time, i will treat them the same way as they treat me

[Hogstar 10]

sensible policing would have been , to have a quiet word, allow me to wait for the taxi and for to get home,

 

To verbal abuse me, to physically push me so that i had go in the direction they wanted me to go,

 

that is not sensible policing,

 

If there is ever a next time, i will treat them the same way as they treat me

 

Good luck then. I keep an eye on the Star court reports for you

[AndrewC 306]

Its jusdt one rule 4 dem an one rule for efery1 else

 

 

Has anyone said that yet?

[monkey104 10]

Its jusdt one rule 4 dem an one rule for efery1 else

 

 

Has anyone said that yet?

 

Not as eloquently:hihi:

[Mr Bloom 10]

Another comment for the guns in McDonald's. As someone who used to work there, I can say that we did give free coffee to police to encourage their presence. We had a lot of trouble with fights and drug related stuff. From college students smoking weed just outside the entrance, and one or two dealing. We also had a few undesirables who would kick off at the staff regularly. Police presence stops that. Would you rather see a copper with a holstered gun having a coffee or some 17 year old college kid having his nose broken in a small restaurant packed with members of the public.

 

Is that the choice we're given?

 

Do you think a "small restaurant packed with members of the public" is a good place for police to turn up for a coffee with guns?

 

This was daylight, during half term, the restaurant was full of families and young kids. Guns were not appropriate. If the police want to fill up with a free coffee courtesy of McDonalds that's fine by me, but I'm not interested in patronising a restaurant where armed cops are encouraged to turn up. It makes me feel unsafe and at risk, and I don't want to take my kids anywhere were cops or anyone else have real guns on them if I can avoid it.

In my opinion, the only time armed cops should be inside a McDonalds is if a civilian has a gun in the restaurant.

 

I've been at the restaurant at night a few times, when it's popular with students, and never seen one bit of trouble, probably because they have security on the door and inside, and the staff seem really on the ball there. The security and staff even challenge bad language at night time, which is a breath of fresh air.

Edited May 13, 2013 by Mr Bloom

[alchresearch 214]

A black Astra jumped some red lights on me yesterday. I flashed my headlights at him, he pulled to the left (into a bus lane) and flashed his police badge as I passed. I could clearly see it was an unmarked car because of all the cameras on the back shelf.

 

He wasn't in any kind of hurry or on a call. Perhaps his boss will be able to explain why he did it. Or more like it will be ignored.

 

An update to this. Cheshire Police wanted me to provide photographic evidence of this.

[Watson B 10]

slight jump of topic but still on the subject of police,

 

i was in town afew months ago, and had too much too drink,

i was being loud and the rest, but would not say i was any more offensive than most around me,

 

i got pulled to 1 side by a couple of police men, and was asked where i was going and all the rest,

then was told to get out of the town centre or else, I was actually at the spot where taxi's pull up below city hall,

so i told them i was waiting for 1, and they told me i had to start walking, i could not stay there, and was called an idiot, when i said i will leave when taxi came, i was told to stop be stupid to get on my way, not to come back to town ( i was in town 6am working that day )

i said it was not me that was being stupid, it was them, as i would not get home on my own,

they then told me if i talked to them like that again, i would get arrested, i was told to move with a gentle push in the direction they wanted me to go,

I left ofcourse, police cells are not my favourite sleeping place,

 

i was drunk, i was sitting on the floor singing but also at a taxi rank, ( my songs tend to be rude when under the influence of ale )

 

if i had carried on calling that police officer i would have been arrested, if i had pushed them i would have been pinned, handcuffed and arrested, then ended up in court for assault,

 

how comes they are allowed to call me an idiot,stupid and push me. and walk away free men

There are lots of police who behave like this.

Thats why they have such a bad rap.

They deserve it.