It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Officer's speed sentence quashed

page: 1
3

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 10 2009 @ 08:01 AM
link   

Officer's speed sentence quashed


news.bbc.co.uk

A traffic officer jailed for dangerous driving has had his prison sentence quashed by the Court of Appeal.

Sergeant Craig Bannister, 30, of Briton Ferry, was sentenced to five months in March after earlier being found guilty by crashing his car at 113mph.

He served 20 days before he was released on bail in April pending an appeal against conviction.
(visit the link for the full news article)



[edit on 10/6/09 by gallifreyan medic]

[edit on 10/6/2009 by Mirthful Me]




posted on Jun, 10 2009 @ 08:01 AM
link   
Another one rule for them and one for us.
Not much information at the moment as is just breaking,but as said on the site,more of the story to come.

Would you have a ruling for driving 115 mph quashed?
No and neither should he.
Driving at that speed and especially being someone who should no better should be set as an example.

news.bbc.co.uk
(visit the link for the full news article)

[edit on 10/6/2009 by Mirthful Me]



posted on Jun, 10 2009 @ 08:15 AM
link   
Do you ever get the feeling the phrase...


'Exemplary' character


Means never been caught before and/or has the right friends.



posted on Jun, 10 2009 @ 08:26 AM
link   
I keep reading stories on here about how folks disagree with what local governments/judges/police are doing. No matter if its here in the US, the UK, or any other democratic country, you do have the power to change some of these things you disagree with. When you post an article on ATS with such a topic, why not include the the phone numbers of those we can call and complain to within that local government. You can guarantee that if the mayors office suddenly gets 10K calls complaining about an incident, or the way an incident was handled, that the mayor is going to get to the bottom of it ASAP for fear of losing his next election. You disagree with a judges ruling on something? You think it's a mockery of the law? Well guess what, judges are also elected officials, same with Sheriffs. The mayor though is often the best person to file a complaint with, because they will pass it down the line and lean on the Chief of Police, Sheriff, or local Judge. Always go to the elected official that is one set higher then the person that did the wrong, and call, write, and let them know your displeasure and how you will be voting the next time around. I am pretty sure that there is no law which states you have to be local to do this either, they certainly will not have the time to sort out where all the calls are coming from, they will just know a ton are coming in from PO'ed Citizens.



posted on Jun, 10 2009 @ 09:05 AM
link   
reply to post by Now_Then
 


I would go with has the right friends.Boys network as they say.

Being a traffic officer he has obviously had first hand experience of what can result from speeding and has I'm sure on many occasion given some one some
verbal over having done so.



posted on Jun, 10 2009 @ 09:13 AM
link   
reply to post by defcon5
 


Unfortunately here in the UK we do not vote in our mayors (Except London) nor our judges.
Even if we did those that would be voted in would no doubt still be doing the same.Time and time again we see the old boys network working.



posted on Jun, 10 2009 @ 09:52 AM
link   
113 MPH is an incredible speed, and even when your alert and behind the wheel I doubt even a trained driver really appreciates how fast it is.

In one second the car will have travelled 165.7 feet or 50.5 meters.

A longish blink of the eye is .4 seconds.

That car is a ground borne missile to all intents and purposes, that sort of speed is highly dangerous and you had better have a flipping good reason for doing it, I know this next bit is a phrase that gets used a lot but the only real place for that speed is a race track where everyone knows and expects it... Not an open public highway where the car could and actually did end up in an unexpected position.

Muppet... £50 and even that is going to get forgotten about on appeal? I once got fined £40 for having a sneekey pee against a wall because no public toilets were available



posted on Jun, 10 2009 @ 01:32 PM
link   
What bothers me about these stories is less and less that they happen in the first place, but that there seems to be no public outrage.



posted on Jun, 10 2009 @ 02:01 PM
link   
5 months for speeding seems a little harsh. Is that an usual sentance in the UK? Also was that his first moving violiation?


I don't think I have heard someone getting almost half a year for a moving violation if it was their first or second offense.



posted on Jun, 10 2009 @ 02:46 PM
link   
I gotta say that 113 mph would scare the Hell out of me, that is if I realized that I was going that fast. I've been driving a police cruiser for about ten years. Don't think I've ever had it up to 113 mph. I would only consider going that fast for an officer in trouble/down call, or because someones life depended on me getting there as fast as possible.

I recall a disturbance call that I went to during my first year on the force. It was almost time for me to go home from my night shift. A call came over the radio of a disturbance at an apartment complex. The dispatcher stated that the female complainant called and stated that her boyfriend tried to choke her. They dispatched the call to one of my partners and I decided to start heading that way as backup. As I was driving to the location, police dispatch toned the channel (as they do when a serious incident goes down so all officers listen up) and the dispatcher said "stabbing in progress at (same location as the orginal disturbance), unit 148 en route, all other units go!" I could tell my the tone of the dispatchers voice that something very bad was going down. Well I gunned the gas pedal, hit the lights and sirens, and flew down the road. The radio was silent as is usual when a "hot" call goes out. I was taking "S" turns at such a high rate I could feel the rearend of my cruiser sliding out from underneath me. I finally got there, after what had only felt like seconds, in reality possibly just over a minute response time, located my partner and the unfortunate female complainant. She had succumbed to her wounds. I remember telling myself what a waist of a human life! Damn it, Damn it, Damn it! I told myself in my head, I/We just couldn't get there fast enough!



posted on Jun, 10 2009 @ 02:48 PM
link   
Let me add that during this incident I never looked down at my speedometer to see how fast I was going.



posted on Jun, 10 2009 @ 03:27 PM
link   
reply to post by Now_Then
 


Having experienced and survived as a passenger on an occasion of 120 mph (Never again) in a car,you know you're not below a 100.

reply to post by skyeyes
 


As in your job in the line of duty,then of course speed can make the difference.
But off duty knowing the dangers I'm sure keeps you within the limits (Except as all do on certain okay to do occasions).

[edit on 10/6/09 by gallifreyan medic]

[edit on 10/6/09 by gallifreyan medic]



posted on Jun, 10 2009 @ 03:33 PM
link   
reply to post by Happyfeet
 


There is sometimes,but it's a rare occasion for it to make it to the MSM.
And then if it does its only a brief report.



posted on Jun, 10 2009 @ 04:09 PM
link   
reply to post by jd140
 


For me it seems adequate,especially for some one who should have known better.What could have occured doesn't bare thinking about.

I do not know if it is a usual penalty for doing,maybe somebody else can tell us.



posted on Jun, 10 2009 @ 04:39 PM
link   
reply to post by gallifreyan medic
 


Yhea, you're right, when I'm off duty I drive like an old man (SLOW). Once had a girlfriend that complained because I drove so slow. To many impatient driver's on the streets these days.



new topics

top topics



 
3

log in

join