RichieHall
|
| posted on 17/2/10 at 01:16 PM |
|
|
This entire thread seams to be taken completely out of context, notwithstanding the necessity to maintain a speed differential between the convoy and
'normal' traffic in order to easily identify threats to the, in this case, high value asset being transported, (no I can't believe
I've written that either!) but also the weight being given to an 'eye-witness' (who presumably has shown the police the calibration
certificate for his Mk1 eyeball) who no doubt looked down at his speedo, which tend to under-read by 10%, saw he was driving at 48mph (43 actual) and
decided the convoy was travelling 10mph faster?
This really is none news!
Rust is lighter than Carbon Fibre!
|
|
|
|
|
General Bilko
|
| posted on 17/2/10 at 01:44 PM |
|
|
So if GB is driven too slowly he's in danger of being assassinated, and if he's driven too quickly he could end up in a road traffic
accident.
Oh dear 
[Edited on 17/2/10 by General Bilko]
|
|
|
David Jenkins
|
| posted on 17/2/10 at 01:59 PM |
|
|
Oh dear - I really must put a flag next to my text that indicates that "this text was written with tongue firmly in cheek and should not be
taken too seriously"...
...I have been previously accused of having a far-too-subtle sense of humour... perhaps they're correct!
|
|
|
Steve G
|
| posted on 17/2/10 at 02:44 PM |
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by MikeR
Lets twist this another way - would you prefer the person in charge of the country to spend an hour in a traffic jam or an hour governing the
country?
Traffic jam please...
quote:
Answer based on the principle. Do you want the man with his finger on the nuclear button, the man in charge of the entire country, sat in a traffic
jam twiddling his thumbs not working and potentially open to assassination or kidnap?
in principle - yes!! I think he's most at danger from the UK masses anyway - not any terrorists 
|
|
|
02GF74
|
| posted on 17/2/10 at 03:14 PM |
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by MikeR
Lets twist this another way - would you prefer the person in charge of the country to spend an hour in a traffic jam or an hour governing the
country?
his office is in no. 10. he should be there instead of traipsing round the country trying to gain a couple of voters.
if they were that worried about assassination, then he should be put into the back of an armoured dustcart or similar.
|
|
|
scootz
|
| posted on 17/2/10 at 03:27 PM |
|
|
... his car is armoured, but not impenetrable.
It's Evolution Baby!
|
|
|
MikeRJ
|
| posted on 21/2/10 at 10:30 PM |
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by scootz
Offensive??? You must be a sensitive wee soul! I suppose defining someone by their disability as you did (the 'one-eyed remark' ), is
not offensive... well, each to their own I suppose!
Anyway, you can be pedantic and quote all the selected bits of legislation that you like to support your absolute horror of the situation... if you
can't accept that there are exemptions that cover the reported incident, then I'm afraid you'll just have to stew in your anger at
the whole injustice.
Me... ??? I'll happily dismiss it as the non-news story that it is!
What Brown has done (or at least continued to do after the last loser) to this country is offensive to me, and hopefully enough other people that he
will be out of a job at the next election. As for the one eyed comment...he does have one eye so clearly I made a factually accurate description.
As for the speeding exemption, I'm keen to know the details? The only ones I know of are in the RTR act and are very specific. In all honesty
I couldn't give a toss if he (or his driver) was caught speeding, as long as they are dealt with in the same way as other people, which would be
3 points and a £60 fine in this case. Am I allowed to drive 10mph over the limit if I feel I need to look out for threats?
Any other exemptions we should know about? (apart from apparently having free reign to bring the country to financial ruin).
[Edited on 21/2/10 by MikeRJ]
|
|
|
David Jenkins
|
| posted on 21/2/10 at 10:44 PM |
|
|
This incident even consumed a fair amount of time on BBC East local news - perhaps news WAS short that day!
Interesting point made though - the speed limit was set to protect the men working on the road...
discuss.
|
|
|
scootz
|
| posted on 21/2/10 at 11:15 PM |
|
|
Yaaaaaaaawn!
By virtue of Section 87 Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984 (as amended by Section 19 Road Safety Act 2006),
(1) NO STATUTORY PROVISION IMPOSING A SPEED LIMIT ON MOTOR VEHICLES SHALL APPLY TO ANY VEHICLE ON AN OCCASION WHEN –
(a) IT IS BEING USED FOR fire and rescue authority purposes or for or in connection with the exercise of ANY FUNCTION of a relevant
authority as defined in section 6 of the Fire (Scotland) Act 2005, for Ambulance purposes, or FOR POLICE or Serious Organised Crime Agency
PURPOSES,
(b) It is being used for there prescribed purposes in such circumstances as may be prescribed, or
(c) It is being used for training persons to drive vehicles for use for any of the purposes mentioned in paragraph (a) or (b) above, if the observance
of that provision would be likely to hinder the use of the vehicle for the purpose for which it was being used on that occasion.
(2) SUBSECTION (1) ABOVE DOES NOT APPLY UNLESS THE VEHICLE IS BEING DRIVEN BY A PERSON WHO -
(a) HAS SATISFACTORILY COMPLETED A COURSE OF TRAINING IN THE DRIVING OF VEHICLES AT HIGH SPEED PROVIDED IN ACCORDANCE WITH REGULATIONS UNDER THIS
SECTION, or
(b) Is driving the vehicle as part of such a course.
The legality of the matter is not in doubt...
It's Evolution Baby!
|
|
|
davie h
|
| posted on 21/2/10 at 11:22 PM |
|
|
whats next 3 points and £60 fine for police officers driving over the speed limit on a hurry up call.
oops thats my licence long gone then
Davie
[Edited on 21/2/10 by davie h]
[Edited on 21/2/10 by davie h]
http://www.flickr.com/photos/24179682@N04/?saved=1
|
|
|
RK
|
| posted on 21/2/10 at 11:57 PM |
|
|
Watch that Jenkins: he's a known troublemaker around here. I think he's probably on some list somewhere the government keeps. Of course,
ask them to produce said list, and they probably won't be able to find it.
|
|
|
MautoK
|
| posted on 22/2/10 at 01:25 AM |
|
|
The whole concept to which David alluded is reminiscent of the Eastern Bloc of 20 years ago.
To me, it stinks as does the whole of this rotten incompetent maladministration that have wrought such incomprehensible damage. 
John.
He's whittling on a piece of wood. I got a feeling that when he stops whittling, something's gonna happen. (OUATITW/Cheyenne)
|
|
|
MikeRJ
|
| posted on 22/2/10 at 07:59 PM |
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by scootz
The legality of the matter is not in doubt...
Errm...it wasn't being used for "Police purposes", it was ferrying Gordon to a childrens nursery. That's no more a police
operation than than a member of the local constabulary picking up their daughter from school.
Apparently it's easy to tell which eye is real and which one if false, the glass eye is the only one with a flicker of humanity in it...
quote:
Originally posted by davie h
whats next 3 points and £60 fine for police officers driving over the speed limit on a hurry up call.
The law provides you with a clear exemption.
quote:
Originally posted by David Jenkins
Interesting point made though - the speed limit was set to protect the men working on the road...
On another tack entirely...
As long as there were actually people working then a speed restriction is quite likely justifed.
For some reason the A38 near Plymouth now has several miles of average speed cameras to apparently protect the cones that have been sitting at the
side of the road for the last week since there have been no men working on the road so far.
However last year there were several weeks of road works on the same road closing off two lanes (out of three) with no speed restrictions at all.
[Edited on 22/2/10 by MikeRJ]
|
|
|
David Jenkins
|
| posted on 22/2/10 at 08:28 PM |
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by RK
Watch that Jenkins: he's a known troublemaker around here. I think he's probably on some list somewhere the government keeps. Of course,
ask them to produce said list, and they probably won't be able to find it.
Thank you comrade RK! (oops, what a giveaway...)
...and I promise not to post about this again...
[Edited on 22/2/10 by David Jenkins]
|
|
|
JoelP
|
| posted on 22/2/10 at 08:31 PM |
|
|
he wasnt speeding anyway, not to a prosecutable limit, and i'd be a hypocrite if i pretended to care anyway.
Another dull story like the one about his temper.
I must say though, i suspect he will survive the election. Cameron is a poor alternative and his policies arent different on some significant issues,
whereas Gord at least has experience in governance.
Discuss
Beware! Bourettes is binfectious.
|
|
|
scootz
|
| posted on 23/2/10 at 07:54 AM |
|
|
Mike... you're either on the wind-up, or your obvious hatred for the PM is clouding your ability to accept fact (and it is fact, Mike... whether
you approve or not!).
Every time the PM travels, coughs or farts, there will be a lengthy policing Operational Order drawn up, together with a Risk Assessment. His driver
is a Police Officer, he is On-Duty, and he will be driving in accordance with Police Procedures surrounding VIP transport and will be bound by the
Operational Order. Every aspect of his use of the vehicle is for 'Police use'.
It is an accepted fact of high-level Personal Protection that you do not stop unnecessarily, nor do you allow yourself to get caught up in a slow
moving convoy unnecessarily (as well as many many other things that would undoubtedly upset you!).
I suggest you lobby parliament for a change to all this if it bothers you that much... be prepared to be told where to go though!
It's Evolution Baby!
|
|
|
scootz
|
| posted on 23/2/10 at 08:10 AM |
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by JoelP
I must say though, i suspect he will survive the election. Cameron is a poor alternative and his policies arent different on some significant issues,
whereas Gord at least has experience in governance.
Discuss
Not a fan of either, but Cameron does not, and has never, impressed me. He strikes me as being a complete wimp!
I won't be voting for either party!
It's Evolution Baby!
|
|
|
MautoK
|
| posted on 23/2/10 at 12:52 PM |
|
|
Rather...
quote:
Originally posted by scootz
... a complete wimp...
...than the incumbent.
Words cannot adequately express the contempt for the latter. ... 
John.
He's whittling on a piece of wood. I got a feeling that when he stops whittling, something's gonna happen. (OUATITW/Cheyenne)
|
|
|
MikeRJ
|
| posted on 23/2/10 at 01:32 PM |
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by JoelP
he wasnt speeding anyway, not to a prosecutable limit, and i'd be a hypocrite if i pretended to care anyway.
60mph in a restricted 50mph limit is well above the ACPO threshold for a fixed penalty though.
Scootz, how did you guess? I don't like him one bit, or the rest of his party to be honest. However, even if this story was about the
opposition I would feel the same. Police officers on real police business can't break speed limits without good reason, and there
appears to be no good reason here.
Don't get me wrong, hundreds of thousands of people break speed limits perfectly safely everyday, though it's common sense and courtesy
not to speed in roadworks if workers are actually present. The difference is they know they risk points and a fine if caught, so it's entirely
at their own risk. Using the frankly laughable excuse of being late for visiting a children's nursery isn't going to wash for anyone
except his Browness apparently.
|
|
|
Ninehigh
|
| posted on 23/2/10 at 07:01 PM |
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by scootz
(2) SUBSECTION (1) ABOVE DOES NOT APPLY UNLESS THE VEHICLE IS BEING DRIVEN BY A PERSON WHO -
(a) HAS SATISFACTORILY COMPLETED A COURSE OF TRAINING IN THE DRIVING OF VEHICLES AT HIGH SPEED PROVIDED IN ACCORDANCE WITH REGULATIONS UNDER THIS
SECTION, or
(b) Is driving the vehicle as part of such a course.
Hang on have you just found us a licence to speed?
You know I can't believe this is still being argued. If I was in charge I'd be taking the p**s with abusing powers like this, ffs
I'd have a police escort to KFC!
You know Eastenders did a live thing this week, shall we talk about that for this long? Jeez..
|
|
|
David Jenkins
|
| posted on 23/2/10 at 07:41 PM |
|
|
So, who's in favour of me deleting this thread?
I don't mind either way...
|
|
|
Ninehigh
|
| posted on 23/2/10 at 07:48 PM |
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by David Jenkins
So, who's in favour of me deleting this thread?
I don't mind either way...
As soon as Scootz answers my question please, cos if what I'm thinking is right I'm gonna have sooo much fun!
|
|
|
scootz
|
| posted on 23/2/10 at 07:58 PM |
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Ninehigh
As soon as Scootz answers my question please, cos if what I'm thinking is right I'm gonna have sooo much fun!
Unfortunately, the PROVIDED IN ACCORDANCE WITH REGULATIONS UNDER THIS SECTION bit strikes a blow against that possibility buddy!
It's Evolution Baby!
|
|
|
scootz
|
| posted on 23/2/10 at 07:59 PM |
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by David Jenkins
So, who's in favour of me deleting this thread?
I don't mind either way...
Why would you want to delete the thread???
It's Evolution Baby!
|
|
|
David Jenkins
|
| posted on 23/2/10 at 08:01 PM |
|
|
I'm bored with it now...
|
|
|
