Warnings or Not?

[derek kelly]

But close enough for a slapheaded OHMS servant.

Tha's still a Twat :f

 

[bishbosh]

Ian ...

unfortuneately you missed my question; agreed that anyone who speeds outside schools deserves punishment, my point was to say that by not being allowed to warn someone who is overtly speeding means the police/courts are allowing the public to be put at risk in order of effect a prosecution. We are not talking about a one off incident where you could argue the risk potential is small, we are talking about 1000's of schools, 1000's of speed traps, 1000's of speeding motorists, it all adds up.

In a similar way; allowing an armed robbery of a PO to be carried out for the police to be waiting outside is not accepted (I think) (there was a big ho-ha about letting the Dome robbers to get to the vault). Again in this robbery situation the public are put at risk to effect a prosecution.

So to put the question plainly; is it right for the public to be put at risk for the Police to effect a prosecution?

 

[Duck n Dive]

unfortuneately you missed my question; agreed that anyone who speeds outside schools deserves punishment, my point was to say that by not being allowed to warn someone who is overtly speeding means the police/courts are allowing the public to be put at risk in order of effect a prosecution. We are not talking about a one off incident where you could argue the risk potential is small, we are talking about 1000's of schools, 1000's of speed traps, 1000's of speeding motorists, it all adds up.

In a similar way; allowing an armed robbery of a PO to be carried out for the police to be waiting outside is not accepted (I think) (there was a big ho-ha about letting the Dome robbers to get to the vault). Again in this robbery situation the public are put at risk to effect a prosecution.

So to put the question plainly; is it right for the public to be put at risk for the Police to effect a prosecution?

The answer surely has to be no...... however life is full of grey (or black!) and in this case the actual answer is: No the public should not be put at risk - unless doing so will raise revenue.

I believe there are actually quite a lot of examples where the authorities allow or encourage illegal activities to "get a result". It's just we rarely get to hear about them....customs and excise come to mind in some recent publicised events. On that point C&E seem to have greater powers than police - I believe they can enter without warrent etc etc in more cases.

Hmmmmmm.....as C&E are responsible for revenue collection why not hand over the cameras to them......... urghhhhhhhh

 

[derek kelly]

There are certain cases whereby the public have to be put at risk to protect the public,
As in the Dome robbery case, the police were well aware as to what was going to happen and when, they couldn't arrest them before hand as no offence had been committed, so they would have been free to carry out further robberies. the robbery would have gone ahead as planned whether the police knew about it or not and if they hadn't known then the consequences would have been far worse,


As regards warning motorists, yes I warn Bikes,cars (not taxis or Volvos)lorries, as I feel that I am helping the police in making traffic slow down.
how many times have you been travelling on the Motorway and a car/bike comes speeding past you gets a bit further down the road and slams on the brakes as he has just spotted the hidden cop car, is it safer that he sees it at the last minute or is it better that he is pre warned?

 

[Cyclops]

Always best to warn bikers........stuff the car drivers:neenaw:

It is illegal tho' so don't get caughtman8um

I take it you dont drive a car then ????


I take you have never been warned of a speed trap by a car driver then. :t

 

[Pugwash]

I passed an oncoming police car in Cornwall one year. I minute later I flashed the bike following him a few times, until I realised it was a police bike!!
c7u8 c7u8 c7u8

 

[Wolfie]

Quote:
Originally Posted by HiHoSilver
Always best to warn bikers........stuff the car drivers

It is illegal tho' so don't get caught




posted by eric

I take it you dont drive a car then ????


I take you have never been warned of a speed trap by a car driver then. :

agree with hiho feck the car drivers bunch of blind twats, trying to kill motorcyclists, anyways cars are always going so feckin slow, in the national speed limit areas that they ought to be banned and forced of the road.

cars should limited to 30mph top end within town limits and only be allowed to be used if there was at least two people in them.

yes i warn bikes but nobody else, and if it happens to be a biker driving the car, then tough shit should of stayed on the bike and i would of warned you.

 

[THETOMSK]

Sorry for sounding like a nerd but a warrior is an AFV (armoured fighting vehicule) as it has a main gun like a tank but can carry soldiers like an APC.



Tomsk

 

[Wolfie]

Warrior = Tracked Armoured Vehicles

http://www.army-technology.com/projects/warrior/

 

[THETOMSK]

I stand corrected :bow: .The yanks call their version ( the bradley ) an AFV.

Tomsk

 

[Wolfie]

http://www.army-technology.com/projects/#Armoured_Fighting_Vehicles

 

[THETOMSK]

oh ya bugger wolfie!,
I now had to waste time to prove to you/myself/anyone who cares that I'm right (or at least close)
.
A double whammie:
http://www.military-quotes.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=5037
:yo:

Tomsk