Police Crackdown

UK PROFESSIONAL DRIVERS FORUMS THE UK PROFESSIONAL DRIVERS FORUM (INTERACTIVE)
281

bazza123:
I personall feel the resources (i.e officers) used in this operation could have been better employed elsewhere:

  • How many wives were battered today?
  • how many kids were abused today by perverted scumbags?
  • How many people were threatened with violence today when somone was robbing their home or shop?
  • etc etc

The officers involved in the operation were from the Roads Policing unit. The clue is in the name. :wink:

Wife beaters, child abusers/pedophiles and violent offenders aren’t exclusively the remit of RPU officers so I don’t get your (well made) point?

282

RoadsRat:

bazza123:
I personall feel the resources (i.e officers) used in this operation could have been better employed elsewhere:

  • How many wives were battered today?
  • how many kids were abused today by perverted scumbags?
  • How many people were threatened with violence today when somone was robbing their home or shop?
  • etc etc

The officers involved in the operation were from the Roads Policing unit. The clue is in the name. :wink:

Wife beaters, child abusers/pedophiles and violent offenders aren’t exclusively the remit of RPU officers so I don’t get your (well made) point?

It’s strange how every other road user will completely understands his point.
If it isn’t the remit of the RPU to deal with important crimes, Then reduce the number of officers in the RPU and put them on other duties rather than letting them deal with minor things like they are doing at the moment.
Would a traffic officer ignore the fact that there is an old women being attacked because he has other important duties like watching out for heanous crimes like: no seatbelt, untaxed car, man picking nose whilst driving?
If the answer is “yes he would it”, Then the system is a joke, and those that abide by the system are brainwashed morons for not having the balls to do the right thing.
If the answer is “no he wouldn’t it”, Then it is in the remit of the RPU to deal with other crimes.

283

I think his point is that it’s called policing by consent. Unless I’m very much mistaken I think that the consent must come from the general public. So we have the situation wherein the public perception is that whilst nicking motorists may very well be a laudable activity, we (the public) are more concerned about being murdered in our beds on a night. There can’t be many pensioners who lose sleep worrying about truck drivers not wearing seatbelts.

However in your defence Roadsrats you probably have no more say in where your skills are used than we do on a day to day basis. I don’t believe any anger here is directed at you personally, rather the system in place which fails the public on a daily basis. Again I’m not blaming the average copper on the front line who is against all odds doing the best he/ she can, rather our anger is aimed at the fast track pointy heads who preside over you, the unfit for purpose cps who will only pursue if they think they’ll 100% get a result, and liberal lawyers who place obviously guilty criminals back on the streets.

So to summarise, I understand that your remit is traffic and not thief taking as such, but it doesn’t and can’t alter the fact that people (rightly or wrongly) resent what they see as unwarranted intrusion over things which in the grand scheme of things are actually quite trivial whilst other far more serious crimes go unpunished.

284

the maoster:
I think his point is that it’s called policing by consent. Unless I’m very much mistaken I think that the consent must come from the general public. So we have the situation wherein the public perception is that whilst nicking motorists may very well be a laudable activity, we (the public) are more concerned about being murdered in our beds on a night. There can’t be many pensioners who lose sleep worrying about truck drivers not wearing seatbelts.

However in your defence Roadsrats you probably have no more say in where your skills are used than we do on a day to day basis. I don’t believe any anger here is directed at you personally, rather the system in place which fails the public on a daily basis. Again I’m not blaming the average copper on the front line who is against all odds doing the best he/ she can, rather our anger is aimed at the fast track pointy heads who preside over you, the unfit for purpose cps who will only pursue if they think they’ll 100% get a result, and liberal lawyers who place obviously guilty criminals back on the streets.

So to summarise, I understand that your remit is traffic and not thief taking as such, but it doesn’t and can’t alter the fact that people (rightly or wrongly) resent what they see as unwarranted intrusion over things which in the grand scheme of things are actually quite trivial whilst other far more serious crimes go unpunished.

Very fair post that, however the poster in question doesn’t need to be quite so sarcastic referring to lack of seat belt as serious offences.

This seat belt situation is only recent, many of us have carried on driving lorries without using a belt for many years, yes technically wrong but the many hundreds of decent common sense traffic officers out there have turned a blind eye to things as trivial as this.

Indeed i daresay an experienced traffic officer can tell within 2 minutes observation whether a competent driver driver is at the helm or a numpty, he won’t need to see a seat belt to know the difference.

Indeed i’ll qualify why i believe seat belts in lorries are not such a good idea as the robots may think.

Too many lorries have now been designed with frankly ludicrous mirrors, i’ll name two of the worse examples Volvo and MAN, did they leave the mirror design to the bog cleaner?

Volvo especially here the placing and size of the mirror housing on the drivers door leaves the biggest most dangerous restriction of vision i’ve ever known, quite how they got it through type approval i shall never know (same as that bloody awful auto bax in DAF MAN Iveco).

As you approach a roundabout or junction every driver will be planning their approach, wearing the seat belt means the driver is trapped in place instead of being able to duck and dive and see around that bloody wardrobe mirror attached to the window frame in order to check for hazards.

For crying out loud i’ve lost ■■■■■■! vans behind those mirrors, let alone small cars and cyclists motorised or otherwise.

Quite why Volvo mounted them so high and upside down is still a mystery, drive a Scania and you don’t get anything like the blind spot problem, even that small gap between the mirrors helps, plus the fact the mirrors are the right way up, the larger of the two lower down so you can see over them.

This reason won’t cut any ice with a team of traffic plod sent out to raid lorry drivers pockets and get the figures up, that can be seen from the retorts here already, its the law whoopee, but its the genuine reason why i dislike wearing the belt and only do so under protest to keep them from pilfering my pocket to keep their hit rate up, and to save me having to listen to someone who’s driven not a tiny fraction of the miles i have pontificating in sarky terms why i’m a danger on the road…

…indeed one of my old mates who’s now passed away got pulled near Jct9 MI for some reason, the young officer made a point of telling him how to get up to speed on the hard shoulder before pulling out when they parted, thank Christ for that Roger had only driven lorries accident free for 40 years he would never had known otherwise.

285

the maoster:
I think his point is that it’s called policing by consent. Unless I’m very much mistaken I think that the consent must come from the general public. So we have the situation wherein the public perception is that whilst nicking motorists may very well be a laudable activity, we (the public) are more concerned about being murdered in our beds on a night. There can’t be many pensioners who lose sleep worrying about truck drivers not wearing seatbelts.

However in your defence Roadsrats you probably have no more say in where your skills are used than we do on a day to day basis. I don’t believe any anger here is directed at you personally, rather the system in place which fails the public on a daily basis. Again I’m not blaming the average copper on the front line who is against all odds doing the best he/ she can, rather our anger is aimed at the fast track pointy heads who preside over you, the unfit for purpose cps who will only pursue if they think they’ll 100% get a result, and liberal lawyers who place obviously guilty criminals back on the streets.

So to summarise, I understand that your remit is traffic and not thief taking as such, but it doesn’t and can’t alter the fact that people (rightly or wrongly) resent what they see as unwarranted intrusion over things which in the grand scheme of things are actually quite trivial whilst other far more serious crimes go unpunished.

Yes, spot on. Pretty much sums it up to a degree.

A very sensible post and most welcome.

286

Juddian:
Very fair post that, however the poster in question doesn’t need to be quite so sarcastic referring to lack of seat belt as serious offences.

This seat belt situation is only recent, many of us have carried on driving lorries without using a belt for many years, yes technically wrong but the many hundreds of decent common sense traffic officers out there have turned a blind eye to things as trivial as this.

Indeed i daresay an experienced traffic officer can tell within 2 minutes observation whether a competent driver driver is at the helm or a numpty, he won’t need to see a seat belt to know the difference.

Indeed i’ll qualify why i believe seat belts in lorries are not such a good idea as the robots may think.

While some may have turned a blind eye to the enforcement of seatbelts, it’s not going to happen when a operation targeting such offences is launched. At the end of the day, officers are only following orders (which is part of the job) and enforcing the law however trivial it may be.

Re the law of wearing seatbelts, that came from the EU. :wink:

287

RoadsRat:

Juddian:

While some may have turned a blind eye to the enforcement of seatbelts, it’s not going to happen when a operation targeting such offences is launched. At the end of the day, officers are only following orders (which is part of the job) and enforcing the law however trivial it may be.

Re the law of wearing seatbelts, that came from the EU. :wink:

Its a pity its come to this, such divisive targetting has helped destroy the many years of mutual respect built up between the various full time road user groups and the old bill, there’s always been some snotty lorry drivers and some snotty officers but generally we got on fine, all rapidly vanishing like so much else.

The roads are no better for it, we’re no better for it and you’re no better for it, we’ve all lost.

288

Wish that Polish drunk in the Transit on Motorway Cops had crapped himself.

289

limeyphil:

RoadsRat:

bazza123:
I personall feel the resources (i.e officers) used in this operation could have been better employed elsewhere:

  • How many wives were battered today?
  • how many kids were abused today by perverted scumbags?
  • How many people were threatened with violence today when somone was robbing their home or shop?
  • etc etc

The officers involved in the operation were from the Roads Policing unit. The clue is in the name. :wink:

Wife beaters, child abusers/pedophiles and violent offenders aren’t exclusively the remit of RPU officers so I don’t get your (well made) point?

It’s strange how every other road user will completely understands his point.
If it isn’t the remit of the RPU to deal with important crimes, Then reduce the number of officers in the RPU and put them on other duties rather than letting them deal with minor things like they are doing at the moment.
Would a traffic officer ignore the fact that there is an old women being attacked because he has other important duties like watching out for heanous crimes like: no seatbelt, untaxed car, man picking nose whilst driving?
If the answer is “yes he would it”, Then the system is a joke, and those that abide by the system are brainwashed morons for not having the balls to do the right thing.
If the answer is “no he wouldn’t it”, Then it is in the remit of the RPU to deal with other crimes.

Phill. A copper is a copper at the end of the day, regardless of what role they carry out (Apart from CID who think they are gods gift :smiley: :smiley: ). No doubt if Roadsrat was to witness a old women being attacked no doubt he would arrest that person for doing that.

290

RoadsRat:
Not at all here to bait “professional” drivers. Just trying to clear up the “misunderstandings” which some fail to grasp.

By that, I take it you mean, some fail to agree with the “official” version of events?

RoadsRat:
Conspiracy theory wasn’t as “stock response” unlike the “we pay your wages” stock response you gave.

:confused: My comment is based in fact. Yours is mere opinion.

RoadsRat:
Fines have nothing to do with police remuneration.

:confused: I’m sure you personally don’t benefit from said income, just as i’m sure there are no “targets” set by the “superiors” for “TO’s” to attain. :unamused:

291

I’m not being personal, but in times of cut-backs you have to prioritise - its one thing a driver driving dangerously outside a school, but in the public’s eye targeting seatbelts isn’t a priority. EVERY single possible resource should be used in the detection and prevention of violent crime.

I can’t remember the last time I saw a foot patrol of police officers (Not PCSO’s). :confused:

292

The Police should protect citizens from the malevolent actions of others, not protect citizens from their own foolish choices. If somebody isn’t wearing a seatbelt then it is only themselves they are likely to harm (and for the record, I always wear a seatbelt and used to long before they were compulsory).

The filth may as well hide outside McDonalds and nick fatties for buying a cheeseburger, this is a revenue raising exercise and nothing more.

293

RoadsRat:
But the laws the law? Don’t break it and you’ll be left alone.

Break the law and you’ll be pulled up for it.

It’s all rather simple.

exacto :laughing: agree with them or not they is still laws :sunglasses:

294

limeyphil:

RoadsRat:

bazza123:
I personall feel the resources (i.e officers) used in this operation could have been better employed elsewhere:

  • How many wives were battered today?
  • how many kids were abused today by perverted scumbags?
  • How many people were threatened with violence today when somone was robbing their home or shop?
  • etc etc

The officers involved in the operation were from the Roads Policing unit. The clue is in the name. :wink:

Wife beaters, child abusers/pedophiles and violent offenders aren’t exclusively the remit of RPU officers so I don’t get your (well made) point?

It’s strange how every other road user will completely understands his point.
If it isn’t the remit of the RPU to deal with important crimes, Then reduce the number of officers in the RPU and put them on other duties rather than letting them deal with minor things like they are doing at the moment.
Would a traffic officer ignore the fact that there is an old women being attacked because he has other important duties like watching out for heanous crimes like: no seatbelt, untaxed car, man picking nose whilst driving?
If the answer is “yes he would it”, Then the system is a joke, and those that abide by the system are brainwashed morons for not having the balls to do the right thing.
If the answer is “no he wouldn’t it”, Then it is in the remit of the RPU to deal with other crimes.

You can’t have it both ways.

Reduce the (already low) numbers of RPU officers, and there will be no one left to police our roads. There will no one to stop drink drivers, no one to deal with suicidal car drivers, no one to stop stolen vehicles, no one to stop foreign vehicles and no one to attend RTC’s.

To answer your question, no they wouldn’t ignore a call for an old lady being attacked. But the fact of the matter is that you’ll not get passed those jobs very often. There are beat officers who deal with these types of jobs.

295

Harry Monk:
The Police should protect citizens from the malevolent actions of others, not protect citizens from their own foolish choices. If somebody isn’t wearing a seatbelt then it is only themselves they are likely to harm (and for the record, I always wear a seatbelt and used to long before they were compulsory).

The filth may as well hide outside McDonalds and nick fatties for buying a cheeseburger, this is a revenue raising exercise and nothing more.

You’re entitled to your opinion, however unrealistic and laughable it is.

296

RoadsRat:

Harry Monk:
The Police should protect citizens from the malevolent actions of others, not protect citizens from their own foolish choices. If somebody isn’t wearing a seatbelt then it is only themselves they are likely to harm (and for the record, I always wear a seatbelt and used to long before they were compulsory).

The filth may as well hide outside McDonalds and nick fatties for buying a cheeseburger, this is a revenue raising exercise and nothing more.

You’re entitled to your opinion, however unrealistic and laughable it is.

Alternatively, you could have posted a considered response rather than an ad hominem attack.

But then why would go go to the trouble of doing that for a “steering wheel attendant”?

Is it any wonder that the majority of citizens hold you in such low regard?

297

harry you realy are a pain, you always have to go one better and think you are always rite such sad life

298

Harry Monk:

RoadsRat:

Harry Monk:
The Police should protect citizens from the malevolent actions of others, not protect citizens from their own foolish choices. If somebody isn’t wearing a seatbelt then it is only themselves they are likely to harm (and for the record, I always wear a seatbelt and used to long before they were compulsory).

The filth may as well hide outside McDonalds and nick fatties for buying a cheeseburger, this is a revenue raising exercise and nothing more.

You’re entitled to your opinion, however unrealistic and laughable it is.

Alternatively, you could have posted a considered response rather than an ad hominem attack.

But then why would go go to the trouble of doing that for a “steering wheel attendant”?

Is it any wonder that the majority of citizens hold you in such low regard?

Why? I’m wasting my time with you. It’s Harry’s way and no one can challenge it.

Using the term “filth” repeatedly is hardly respectful, is it?

Take a closer look at yourself.

299

eezeer:
harry you realy are a pain, you always have to go one better and think you are always rite such sad life

Christ, you sound like a “Mini-me” of Roadrat.

300

RoadsRat:

Harry Monk:

RoadsRat:

Harry Monk:
The Police should protect citizens from the malevolent actions of others, not protect citizens from their own foolish choices. If somebody isn’t wearing a seatbelt then it is only themselves they are likely to harm (and for the record, I always wear a seatbelt and used to long before they were compulsory).

The filth may as well hide outside McDonalds and nick fatties for buying a cheeseburger, this is a revenue raising exercise and nothing more.

You’re entitled to your opinion, however unrealistic and laughable it is.

Alternatively, you could have posted a considered response rather than an ad hominem attack.

But then why would go go to the trouble of doing that for a “steering wheel attendant”?

Is it any wonder that the majority of citizens hold you in such low regard?

Why? I’m wasting my time with you. It’s Harry’s way and no one can challenge it.

Using the term “filth” repeatedly is hardly respectful, is it?

Take a closer look at yourself.

Tbh, I’d say Mr Monk is a more useful and productive member of society than a left brain imprisoned, parrot of the system. His bottle and drive in setting up a new business in this ailing and corrupt climate are, imo, something we need more of, in some vain attempt at trading our way out of this financial ■■■■, instead of Prima Donna civil servants, castrating our freedoms at every turn. Imho of course.