bing.com/videos/search?q=PI … ORM=VDQVAP
Maybe we should use this PIT maneuver as they call it on them middle lane hoggers 
jakethesnake:
There are words for people like you but I am too polite to use them on a public forum.Really, well don’t be shy. I can take it but you would get more respect if you backed up your comments instead of dishing out nothing but what’s in your head.
I did a job many years ago, what am I supposed to use as proof that I did it, bearing in mind that we were governed by the Official Secrets Act. 1911.?
waddy640:
jakethesnake:
There are words for people like you but I am too polite to use them on a public forum.Really, well don’t be shy. I can take it but you would get more respect if you backed up your comments instead of dishing out nothing but what’s in your head.
I did a job many years ago, what am I supposed to use as proof that I did it, bearing in mind that we were governed by the Official Secrets Act. 1911.?
Fair enough.
RoadsRat:
They aren’t “trousering” it. It’s used to cover costs. You give the impression it’s being spent on something other than policing. No police officer is spending it on personal things.It’s £200M spread across 43 police forces, if the figures are to be believed.
Spreading it across 43 forces is fair comment. But are you implying that it is spread evenly?
And I’m trying to give the impression that it’s either being spent in a horribly inefficient manner on admin - hence my comment of civil service or local government, neither of which seem overly concerned about giving value for money - or that a profit is being made on every item processed, said profit going into a forces budget. I’m inclined to believe the latter, especially as it’s a largely automated process for this particular offence (this last I got from a friend who is a serving police officer). In which case charging such an amount, and labelling it as admin fees is at the very least morally questionable.
At no time have I said that anyone is spending it on personal things. Those are entirely your words, not mine. Please do not attempt to put words into my mouth.
So seeing as I have been educated in statistics about the police, been reminded of the IRA and the job of our soldiers, I feel it would be nice to get back on the matter of diddly old ■■■■■ poodling along a motorway at 40 mph, in the middle lane, with not a care in the world. So I am an old ■■■■, with a great deal of experience of all types of roads, Motorways, Dual carriageways, A roads and B roads, and what I have noticed is speed signs for everyone of them, but never in my life have I thought of them as targets, common sense yes, and I use it all the time, I leave a distance between the vehicle in front, and I dont want to do 70 on a motorway not even in my car…but I average around 60, and stick to my lanes moving over after overtaking. In my truck its bloody annoying coming up to a slow vehicle, moving to the middle lane to overtake, only to have them speed up to prevent my manoeuvre…yes it does wind me up, and we`ve all been there …but as you young whippersnappers will find out, as you get older, it all goes over your head, you learn to handle situations without getting irate, or wanting to punch someones lights out, so my advice is, look after yourself, but do worry about whats happening around you, it will make you a better driver…trust me.
waddy640:
jakethesnake:
There are words for people like you but I am too polite to use them on a public forum.Really, well don’t be shy. I can take it but you would get more respect if you backed up your comments instead of dishing out nothing but what’s in your head.
I did a job many years ago, what am I supposed to use as proof that I did it, bearing in mind that we were governed by the Official Secrets Act. 1911.?
I suspect you mean the Official Secrets Act 1989 unless you worked for the security services.
WhiteTruckMan:
RoadsRat:
They aren’t “trousering” it. It’s used to cover costs. You give the impression it’s being spent on something other than policing. No police officer is spending it on personal things.It’s £200M spread across 43 police forces, if the figures are to be believed.
Spreading it across 43 forces is fair comment. But are you implying that it is spread evenly?
And I’m trying to give the impression that it’s either being spent in a horribly inefficient manner on admin - hence my comment of civil service or local government, neither of which seem overly concerned about giving value for money - or that a profit is being made on every item processed, said profit going into a forces budget. I’m inclined to believe the latter, especially as it’s a largely automated process for this particular offence (this last I got from a friend who is a serving police officer). In which case charging such an amount, and labelling it as admin fees is at the very least morally questionable.
At no time have I said that anyone is spending it on personal things. Those are entirely your words, not mine. Please do not attempt to put words into my mouth.
No it’s not spread evenly as police forces vary in size.
There can’t be much profit in it because it’s not supporting frontline services.
I never said you said any such thing. You were giving off the impression that there was some sort of financial shenanigans going on with the police somehow running a business from the money obtained through fines.
RoadsRat:
waddy640:
jakethesnake:
There are words for people like you but I am too polite to use them on a public forum.Really, well don’t be shy. I can take it but you would get more respect if you backed up your comments instead of dishing out nothing but what’s in your head.
I did a job many years ago, what am I supposed to use as proof that I did it, bearing in mind that we were governed by the Official Secrets Act. 1911.?
I suspect you mean the Official Secrets Act 1989 unless you worked for the security services.
Sorry, wrong on both counts.
DVSA vehicles crawling along at 52mph on motorways.
waddy640:
RoadsRat:
waddy640:
jakethesnake:
There are words for people like you but I am too polite to use them on a public forum.Really, well don’t be shy. I can take it but you would get more respect if you backed up your comments instead of dishing out nothing but what’s in your head.
I did a job many years ago, what am I supposed to use as proof that I did it, bearing in mind that we were governed by the Official Secrets Act. 1911.?
I suspect you mean the Official Secrets Act 1989 unless you worked for the security services.
Sorry, wrong on both counts.
Section 1 of the Official Secrets Act 1911 (as amended by the 1920 and 1939 Official Secrets Acts) sets out offences related to spying, sabotage and related crimes. The Official Secrets Act 1989 creates an offence for the unlawful disclosure of information in six specific categories by employees and former employees of the security and intelligence services, and for current and former Crown Servants and Government contractors.
From the article (first post)
‘I was in a queue of five cars joining the M3 recently when the lead driver was driving at approximately 25mph,’ he said. ‘It was incredibly dangerous.
They caused 175 injuries and two deaths on UK roads in 2017, Department for Transport figures show
No doubt about that then & often not unusual as nowadays many (if asked) do not really know the real purpose of the entry slip & will simply expect those already on the road to give way.
Further down …
The rise of slow drivers could be down to the record number of elderly drivers on Britain’s roads, according to the AA
But then go on to say …
AA spokesman Luke Bosdet told the Daily Telegraph: ‘The vast majority of elderly drivers drive locally and stick to set routes.
‘But if they are driving slowly on the motorways when they go on longer journeys to see a relative, than that becomes a problem.’
Maybe !, and not then becomes a problem.
We then read …
Mr Bosdet also said impatient motorists behind slow drivers can cause accidents, adding ‘some people are so keen to get ahead they will take risks’
Now that is what most of us see every day with aggresive undertaking almost becoming the norm (IMO)
IMO it is now rare to see marked police patrol vehicles on our major roads & this is not lost on most of those who drive in a reckless manner & to my mind its the older drivers who do know how to use the motorways entry & exit slips as this is what they were bought up on.
For sure there will be exceptions but from what I see its the impatience of so many drivers nowadays to blast straight on heading for the outside lane ASAP that need to be booked for careless driving and that of course cannot be done via more cameras.
Some years ago the firm I was driving for had “How’s my driving?” stickers put on trailers, the first complaint was because the driver (our assessor) didn’t pull out to let a car join the motorway.
Section 1 of the Official Secrets Act 1911 (as amended by the 1920 and 1939 Official Secrets Acts) sets out offences related to spying, sabotage and related crimes. The Official Secrets Act 1989 creates an offence for the unlawful disclosure of information in six specific categories by employees and former employees of the security and intelligence services, and for current and former Crown Servants and Government contractors.
[/quote]
No, still not there.
waddy640:
Some years ago the firm I was driving for had “How’s my driving?” stickers put on trailers, the first complaint was because the driver (our assessor) didn’t pull out to let a car join the motorway.
Who made the complaint though? Maybe the driver had a perfectly valid reason for not pulling over, Far too many think it is mandatory to move out and let others join when it is NOT.
Not a valid complaint I am afraid.
waddy640:
Section 1 of the Official Secrets Act 1911 (as amended by the 1920 and 1939 Official Secrets Acts) sets out offences related to spying, sabotage and related crimes. The Official Secrets Act 1989 creates an offence for the unlawful disclosure of information in six specific categories by employees and former employees of the security and intelligence services, and for current and former Crown Servants and Government contractors.
No, still not there.
[/quote]
Please educate me then. 
RoadsRat:
waddy640:
Section 1 of the Official Secrets Act 1911 (as amended by the 1920 and 1939 Official Secrets Acts) sets out offences related to spying, sabotage and related crimes. The Official Secrets Act 1989 creates an offence for the unlawful disclosure of information in six specific categories by employees and former employees of the security and intelligence services, and for current and former Crown Servants and Government contractors.No, still not there.
Please educate me then.
[/quote]
You’re aware of a dilemma here?
Looking to publish a book a copy was submitted for pre-publication vetting. It was returned with a thumbs down.
“What should we cut?”
“Cant tell you, as that would reveal the secret were trying to hide”
RoadsRat:
WhiteTruckMan:
RoadsRat:
They aren’t “trousering” it. It’s used to cover costs. You give the impression it’s being spent on something other than policing. No police officer is spending it on personal things.It’s £200M spread across 43 police forces, if the figures are to be believed.
Spreading it across 43 forces is fair comment. But are you implying that it is spread evenly?
And I’m trying to give the impression that it’s either being spent in a horribly inefficient manner on admin - hence my comment of civil service or local government, neither of which seem overly concerned about giving value for money - or that a profit is being made on every item processed, said profit going into a forces budget. I’m inclined to believe the latter, especially as it’s a largely automated process for this particular offence (this last I got from a friend who is a serving police officer). In which case charging such an amount, and labelling it as admin fees is at the very least morally questionable.
At no time have I said that anyone is spending it on personal things. Those are entirely your words, not mine. Please do not attempt to put words into my mouth.
No it’s not spread evenly as police forces vary in size.
There can’t be much profit in it because it’s not supporting frontline services.
I never said you said any such thing. You were giving off the impression that there was some sort of financial shenanigans going on with the police somehow running a business from the money obtained through fines.
■■■■! I replied to this once already, but not sure what happened.
Not much profit is not the same as no profit. Are you catagorically denying that this is not generating a surplus?
I’m firmly of the belief that some creative accounting is going on here. somewhere a surplus is being generated, and it’s not being spent on the stated purpose.
For the record, I do not think that anything illegal of fraudulent is going on. Neither do I think that any funds are being allocated for personal gain.
But I DO think funds are going to purposes not officially stated. Camera operators overtime? Additional equipment? I don’t know.
There are also additional questions that need further explanation, namely senior officers (and former senior officers) involvement in these speed awareness course companies.
Again, conflict of interests.
And I do note with some amusement how much this one subject seems to be causing so much trouble while the rest of my original post has gone largely un noticed.
The thing about inconvenient truths is that you ignore them at your peril.
Oh, and in the subject of the original purpose of this thread, driving too slowly IS dangerous. But it’s not necessarily (and you wouldnt believe the number of attempts I had at spelling that last word lol)) the fault of the slower driver, IMHO.
Arguing with a copper on the internet…
What will they do when they don’t get their own way and can’t resort to slamming you to the ground and into the back of a van under the threat of electric shocks and a big stick?
Perhaps they would just end up coming across as pedantic and patronising while looking a bit of a ■■■?
idrive:
Arguing with a copper on the internet…
What will they do when they don’t get their own way and can’t resort to slamming you to the ground and into the back of a van under the threat of electric shocks and a big stick?
Perhaps they would just end up coming across as pedantic and patronising while looking a bit of a ■■■?
^^^^^^^^^^^
+1
two hours to go and looks like we have a strong candidate for accurate post of the year…will it be a winner■■? 
WhiteTruckMan:
■■■■! I replied to this once already, but not sure what happened.Not much profit is not the same as no profit. Are you catagorically denying that this is not generating a surplus?
I’m firmly of the belief that some creative accounting is going on here. somewhere a surplus is being generated, and it’s not being spent on the stated purpose.
For the record, I do not think that anything illegal of fraudulent is going on. Neither do I think that any funds are being allocated for personal gain.
But I DO think funds are going to purposes not officially stated. Camera operators overtime? Additional equipment? I don’t know.
There are also additional questions that need further explanation, namely senior officers (and former senior officers) involvement in these speed awareness course companies.
Again, conflict of interests.
And I do note with some amusement how much this one subject seems to be causing so much trouble while the rest of my original post has gone largely un noticed.
The thing about inconvenient truths is that you ignore them at your peril.
I honestly couldn’t tell you how much profit there is or what any profit is spent on.
What I will say though is that it doesn’t seem to filter down to the frontline and pay for additional police officers or vehicles.
Submit a FOI request to your local force and ask them?
WhiteTruckMan:
Oh, and in the subject of the original purpose of this thread, driving too slowly IS dangerous. But it’s not necessarily (and you wouldnt believe the number of attempts I had at spelling that last word lol)) the fault of the slower driver, IMHO.
Define driving too slowly. What sort of speeds are we talking about?