Quoted from the article…
‘At the end of the day, the camera doesn’t lie’. That infers that they do then right?
As usual, it’s all about prosecution. It’s never about prevention or education.
Just imagine
If they put all that effort into fighting crime!
They can probably spot a golliwog at 5 miles distance.
yourhavingalarf:
Quoted from the article…‘At the end of the day, the camera doesn’t lie’. That infers that they do then right?
As usual, it’s all about prosecution. It’s never about prevention or education.
They do lie.If the officer asks a motorist if he was speeding or not,of course the motorist will lie.He is hardly going to admit it if gets him into trouble.
We have to put up with idiots on the roads on a daily basis.They put our safety at risk.
Why would you be against bringing justice to these people?
Maybe they should start using some of this spare cash they have for new technology on their vetting process instead, then perhaps that 50% of the population who are vulnerable to the activities of dodgy coppers might feel a bit safer when they leave the house?
Zac_A:
Maybe they should start using some of this spare cash they have for new technology on their vetting process instead, then perhaps that 50% of the population who are vulnerable to the activities of dodgy coppers might feel a bit safer when they leave the house?
I dont think it should be spare cash].Ideally,the whole thing should be self financing.
The dodgy coppers is a seperate issue,I suggest
If you ask a lorry driver what he doesnt like about tge job,typically,he will say its the inconsiderate drivers on the road.But then,as soon as you talk about enforcement of the law,all of a sudden,the police are the bad guys.This is what I cant get my head round
Sploom:
Zac_A:
Maybe they should start using some of this spare cash they have for new technology on their vetting process instead, then perhaps that 50% of the population who are vulnerable to the activities of dodgy coppers might feel a bit safer when they leave the house?I don’t think it should be spare cash. Ideally,the whole thing should be self financing.
The dodgy coppers is a seperate issue,I suggest
Fixed your quotes for you
The demonstrable dodginess of today’s police is the whole issue - can they be trusted to stay within the laws of the country? Laws they are supposed to uphold and enforce on others? The multiple weekly reports in the press strongly suggest not. In my area (Teesside) even the local MPs have called for our police force to be disbanded (due to institutionalized corruption) and a new force set up.
Additionally, to the best of my knowledge, Police don’t operate with separate little budgets for every aspect of what they do; the money for their new toys will be allocated as a pseudo-budget from the central pot, so money spent on these electronics will cause there to be a lack of money elsewhere. Setting it up as self-financing simply brings in the issue of “hitting monthly sales targets”, who wants that?
Sploom:
If you ask a lorry driver what he doesnt like about tge job,typically,he will say its the inconsiderate drivers on the road.But then,as soon as you talk about enforcement of the law,all of a sudden,the police are the bad guys.This is what I cant get my head round
Probably because they tend to target truck drivers in preference to car drivers; why do you think they have specific Commercial Vehicle Units when HGVs make up such a relatively small proportion of road traffic? Road traffic is measured in BVM, billions of vehicle miles, the last figures I looked at showed 221 BVM for cars and 17.5BVM for trucks.
In that case,I dont kniw what the answer is,hopefully the poloticians will sort it out eventually
Sploom:
Why would you be against bringing justice to these people?
Ever noticed that the biggest injustices they want to fight and spend resources on are usually the ones with fines attached?
Yes,I mean,its like,if I go in a shop and the police are there targetting shoplifters.If they are only target the ones with blue eyes and blonde hair,then OK,its wrong to target those in particular,but because I paid for my shopping,its not really a big issue for me
If youve got camera footage then youre relying less on a cops judgmenty/honesty. Evidence is stronger than someones promise about what they saw.
.
Drones are cheaper than patrol cars. Both in purchase price and maintenance.
More policing for less money.
.
Publicising that they are being used should be a deterrent.
We are being told they are being used, if we still choose to speed etc, that is our free choice to risk a fine.
Franglais:
If youve got camera footage then youre relying less on a cops judgmenty/honesty. Evidence is stronger than someones promise about what they saw.
People who dont like police enforcement of traffic laws are a bit like those who dont like “grassers”.
They dont like them but at the same time,they cant really justify their position.If you ask them to explain,you hit a brick wall,they just say,yeah,whatever!
Negan:
Sploom:
Why would you be against bringing justice to these people?Ever noticed that the biggest injustices they want to fight and spend resources on are usually the ones with fines attached?
No, I havent. . I would have thought that proportionately more money would have been expended on a few murders, which dont have fines attached, than on the many speeding offences that do have fines attached?
Sploom:
People who dont like police enforcement of traffic laws are a bit like those who dont like “grassers”.
They dont like them but at the same time,they cant really justify their position.If you ask them to explain,you hit a brick wall,they just say,yeah,whatever!
People who don’t see the real picture and the real reason and hidden priority agenda, but instead always blindly believe the official line are somewhere between naive, gullible…and brainwashed, not to mention non ‘streetwise’. 
Franglais:
I would have thought that proportionately more money would have been expended on a few murders, which don`t have fines attached, than on the many speeding offences that do have fines attached?
The word “usually” changes the context 
Spending money investigating a murder is great but its being spent after the fact and im guessing that doesn’t bring as much comfort to the victim’s families as you might think.
You’ve gone for the biggie for sensationalist purposes but there are other crimes out there that are basically treated as an inconvenience. They rarely come to your house if you get burgled and wont even bother if your car gets stolen or your property gets vandalised. You’ll get a reference number for your insurance company and good luck trying to speak to anyone about the incident later on for a follow up after the phone goes down that first time. Ever had experience of how difficult it is to get them to do anything if you’re being stalked? Women in particular get a raw deal and are advised “Stay inside, dont go out alone and call us if he does anything”.
Point is the big drives and crackdowns are usually ones that don’t involve them actually doing anything and a letter goes through the offenders letterbox to pay money weeks after the event and personally id rather they spent their (allegedly limited) resources better
If this were used solely to catch excessive speeders (over 100mph on m/ways, 50 is a 30 etc) who would get caught at the time and end up with suspension of license etc then I could maybe get on board with it but lets be honest, the majority are going to be on average 10mph over the limit and a letter through the door and a demand to pay £60 (or whatever it is) a month and a half later isnt solving the problem of speeding one little bit
robroy:
Sploom:
People who dont like police enforcement of traffic laws are a bit like those who dont like “grassers”.
They dont like them but at the same time,they cant really justify their position.If you ask them to explain,you hit a brick wall,they just say,yeah,whatever!People who don’t see the real picture and the real reason and hidden priority agenda, but instead always blindly believe the official line are somewhere between naive, gullible…and brainwashed, not to mention non ‘streetwise’.
Ah, of course.
Just another facet of the great coordinated plot against a few knowledgeable “special” people.
I am so unhappy that I am not one of chosen ones, clever enough to be able to see this happening. Is there anywhere I can look to see proof of this?
Negan:
Franglais:
I would have thought that proportionately more money would have been expended on a few murders, which don`t have fines attached, than on the many speeding offences that do have fines attached?The word “usually” changes the context
Spending money investigating a murder is great but its being spent after the fact and im guessing that doesn’t bring as much comfort to the victim’s families as you might think.You’ve gone for the biggie for sensationalist purposes but there are other crimes out there that are basically treated as an inconvenience. They rarely come to your house if you get burgled and wont even bother if your car gets stolen. You’ll get a reference number for your insurance company and good luck trying to speak to anyone about the incident later on for a follow up after the phone goes down that first time. Ever had experience of how difficult it is to get them to do anything if you’re being stalked? Women in particular get a raw deal and are advised “Stay inside, dont go out alone and call us if he does anything”.
Point is the big drives and crackdowns are usually ones that don’t involve them actually doing anything and a letter goes through the offenders letterbox to pay money weeks after the event and personally id rather they spent their (allegedly limited) resources better
If this were used solely to catch excessive speeders (over 100mph on m/ways, 50 is a 30 etc) who would get caught at the time and end up with suspension of license etc then I could maybe get on board with it but lets be honest, the majority are going to be on average 10mph over the limit and a letter through the door and a demand to pay £60 (or whatever it is) a month and a half later isnt solving the problem of speeding one little bit
I saw the word “usually”.
How does it change any context?
Stopping and searching youths for knives etc might be viewed as low level stuff, but that might be stopping murders etc.
Investigating serious offences properly isn`t only about making victims or their families feel better.
It is also about letting possible criminals know that they will likely be caught and so act as a deterrent. Society also wants retribution. A price should be paid.
“allegedly limited” police resources?
What? Are they really unlimited? Do tell.
Of course there are limited resources for the police. (Unless you have just proved otherwise)
I would like to see more resources given to prevention and solving of car and domestic theft. If that costs a few more quid on my taxes, fine.
If only those doing 100mph on the m-way were targeted then wouldnt there be vast numbers driving at 99mph all the time? They would then moan and whinge for getting fined for doing 1mph more than someone doing 99. Youre effectively changing the speed limit by selective enforcement.
Easy to cut down the 10mph over the top small fines: make them £1,000 fine and a year ban. Bet they would decrease a lot.
We know that 10 over the top is a smaller penalty so maybe are careless. Anyone who gets caught can only blame one person.