This one's going down

[Gary L]

Originally Posted by foreverwar

Did you have radishes for tea?

No, but if you're just bored and want to kill some time. we can hear what you had for tea?

[Peter_]

He killed therefore he should be prosecuted and banned from ever driving again and no mitigating circumstances can ever make that the wrong thing to do because he might as well have used a loaded gun because the car was just as lethal.

Would you you feel this way if it was a neighbour who killed this girl and he walked free and avoided prosecution and was able to get on with his life or are you saying that our Police have the right to kill because they were trying to catch a motorist who was maybe uninsured and would have got a slap on the wrist but looked good on crime statistics.

The is not one law for the Police and one law for the public regards dangerous driving they should and must be prosecuted for all such offences.

[keyholder]

Originally Posted by Derek S

Err yes. If you want to discuss the full ins and outs of Police driving it would be nice if you had some form of advanced (Police, Ambulance, Fire Brigade, Armed Forces) driving training with regards to high speed driving.

regardless of weather people like myself have had advance driver training Or weather we drive a HGV or not, Pc plods still think they are superior drivers & that us people who have had the training still cannot control a vehicle in a safe mannor. Maybe they need to stop sniffing what they talk and stop thinking that they are the best at what they do on the road.

They are alaw to themselves full stop.

AS for the little Girl whos died, The Police should of had his Lights on regardless, due to the time and noise within the housing estate.

If he like many people say / think that he will use it as an excuse is just a pathetic excuse to cover his own tracks & quite frankly disrepect to the girls family and local residents.

P.s no i havent nor would i be a police officer. I wouldnt lower myself to thier stupidty or intolerance.

Also, Pc plod in question might of not been a trained high speed pursuit officer. So does this mean he will be charged for driving a vehicle in a likely manor to cause danger to himself or others?

Originally Posted by Moldova

He killed therefore he should be prosecuted and banned from ever driving again and no mitigating circumstances can ever make that the wrong thing to do because he might as well have used a loaded gun because the car was just as lethal.

Would you you feel this way if it was a neighbour who killed this girl and he walked free and avoided prosecution and was able to get on with his life or are you saying that our Police have the right to kill because they were trying to catch a motorist who was maybe uninsured and would have got a slap on the wrist but looked good on crime statistics.

The is not one law for the Police and one law for the public regards dangerous driving they should and must be prosecuted for all such offences.

Now, slowly, put down your false dilemma and step away from the thread ...

Seriously, you are so far from treating this objectively, there's not a lot of point discussing it, is there? How can you say 'he should be prosecuted and banned' in the same breath, when he is in the middle of a criminal trial and you haven't heard any of his evidence?

You want to join the hang 'em high brigade, well fine, why don't you just grab yourself a pitchfork and go and yell at him outside the courthouse? It might make you feel better.

[Peter_]

Originally Posted by Chris

Now, slowly, put down your false dilemma and step away from the thread ...

Seriously, you are so far from treating this objectively, there's not a lot of point discussing it, is there? How can you say 'he should be prosecuted and banned' in the same breath, when he is in the middle of a criminal trial and you haven't heard any of his evidence?

You want to join the hang 'em high brigade, well fine, why don't you just grab yourself a pitchfork and go and yell at him outside the courthouse? It might make you feel better.

You know what Chris your right let us see what the courts make of this case it will be interesting to hear what his mitigating circumstances are and how this prosecution is having a detrimental affect on his home life and not to forget the possibility that he could lose his job and have to put his family through hardship because of his lack of earnings.

Of course lets not forget her family who will have to live with this for the rest of their lives as the loss a child must be heartbreaking.
My thought are with them not the person who drove the car.

What annoys me is the people who rally around offering excuses or reasons for her death because they feel they must misguidedly be on the side of the "nice policeman" because he wears a uniform, but if it was their neighbour that was in court for this offence they would all react in a totally different way.

[Gary L]

Originally Posted by Chris

You want to join the hang 'em high brigade, well fine, why don't you just grab yourself a pitchfork and go and yell at him outside the courthouse? It might make you feel better.

Makes you think if he'll get any cheerers outside the courthouse if he comes out of it at the end.

[SMG]

I have not yet seen any posts or links to show this PC was a class 1 driver, can anyone provide it?

Commenting only on the facts, that a car traveling at 90mph in a 30mph zone, knocked down & killed a pedestrian, irrespective of whatever reason, the driver should be prosecuted to the full extent of the law.

No pedestrian, young or old, expects a vehicle to be travelling at such a ridiculous speed, in a built up area.

There are no situations which merit such recklessness, from any driver.

[Gary L]

Originally Posted by SMG

I have not yet seen any posts or links to show this PC was a class 1 driver, can anyone provide it?

Advanced police driver training

Class 2 is advanced driver such as traffic
Class 1 is same as 2 with tactical pursuit and containment. armed police and such.

http://www.chroniclelive.co.uk/north...2703-23285471/

[piggy]

Originally Posted by Chris

Now, slowly, put down your false dilemma and step away from the thread ...

Seriously, you are so far from treating this objectively, there's not a lot of point discussing it, is there? How can you say 'he should be prosecuted and banned' in the same breath, when he is in the middle of a criminal trial and you haven't heard any of his evidence?

You want to join the hang 'em high brigade, well fine, why don't you just grab yourself a pitchfork and go and yell at him outside the courthouse? It might make you feel better.

there cannot and is not ANY circumstances that warrant doing 90mph in a 30 so why dont you get real and step down, and yes i say hang him high a child has lost her life because he was chasing a motoring offence, where is the logic?

Wherever the logic is, it's obviously not in this thread. Perhaps if you weren't so full of self-righteous fervour you would have noticed that nobody in this thread is arguing that this man must be innocent, or must be let off. Several people are simply pointing out that we haven't heard the defence case and it's unfair to judge until we have heard it.

[Gary L]

Originally Posted by piggy

there cannot and is not ANY circumstances that warrant doing 90mph in a 30 so why dont you get real and step down, and yes i say hang him high a child has lost her life because he was chasing a motoring offence, where is the logic?

It'll probably turn out to be an expired tax disc that flagged up. I doubt it was suspected stolen. I think they would have said.

from another link dunno how valid it is

And the way Dougal “hunted” the Megane even though he had no information about the reason it had triggered the computer system was out of proportion, Mr Dallas added.

All he knew was the “hit” had come from the police’s own database rather than the DVLA or insurance companies, the court heard.

http://www.chroniclelive.co.uk/north...03-23285471/2/

This makes it appear like he did not even know why the car was flagged so 90mph with no blues and twos is definately not warranted by any stretch of the imagination

Reasonable conclusions based on the information revealed in court so far Zing, but as I keep saying, you're only hearing the prosecution case at the moment. It is the job of the barrister acting for the CPS to paint a compelling picture of guilt.

It is far better to wait until the prosecution's arguments are balanced out by those of the defence. After that, this bloke may well be shown to be guilty as hell, but the fact is we just don't have all the facts yet.

[Gary L]

Originally Posted by zinglebarb

This makes it appear like he did not even know why the car was flagged so 90mph with no blues and twos is definately not warranted by any stretch of the imagination

That can't help his defence much.

---------- Post added at 10:59 ---------- Previous post was at 10:54 ----------

Originally Posted by Chris

Reasonable conclusions based on the information revealed in court so far Zing,

Where did you get the info that he was a class 1 driver? is he a class 1 driver?

Originally Posted by Chris

Reasonable conclusions based on the information revealed in court so far Zing, but as I keep saying, you're only hearing the prosecution case at the moment. It is the job of the barrister acting for the CPS to paint a compelling picture of guilt.

It is far better to wait until the prosecution's arguments are balanced out by those of the defence. After that, this bloke may well be shown to be guilty as hell, but the fact is we just don't have all the facts yet.

He does not contest the fact he left the blues and twos off as to not alert the megan. He does not contest that he was driving at 90 mph braked and still hit the girl at 80mph. So he was traveling a residential area at 90mph with no warning he was there . No contest to that. So we can all judge him on that information as he agrees yes?

I judge that even if he is not found guilty he was reckless driving at such speeds with no warning fair enough?