Can someone explain the law to me

[weybourne]

It was from a police stastic,that up 1000 people are killed or seriously injured by speeding

That is actually incorrect, while inappropriate speed is a major problem, and causes around 500 killed in a year, speeding per se does not.

Doing 25mph in a 20 zone is unlikely to cause death or serious injury, but this is legally speediing.

Doing 50mph on a icy motorway in a blizzard is not speeding, but it is inappropriate speed which is very likely to cause death or serious injury.

Even ROSPA are beginning to see the difference between speeding (which is becoming a revenue generation exercise in many areas) and inappropriate speed (which can only be policed by humans, traffic cameras can't detect it).

Inappropriate speed contributes to around 14% of all injury collisions, 15% of crashes resulting in a serious injury and 24% of collisions which result in a death and are recorded by the police.1 This includes both 'excessive speed', when the speed limit is exceeded but also driving or riding within the speed limit when this is too fast for the conditions at the time (for example, in poor weather, poor visibility or high pedestrian activity).

In 2010, 241 people were killed in crashes involving someone exceeding the speed limit and a further 180 people died when someone was travelling too fast for the conditions.1

The RoSPA quote you make doesn't differentiate between 'inappropriate' and 'excessive' speeding in the way that you do but actually says that where the speed limit is exceeded (excessive) and also (but separately) where it is within the speed limit but where it is too fast for the conditions at the time, are both inappropriate speeding - so your assertion [that speeding per se does not cause injury & death but inappropriate speeding does] is unfounded by your argument - unless you're saying that breaking the speed limit is appropriate :shrug:

 

[simonblue]

That is actually incorrect, while inappropriate speed is a major problem, and causes around 500 killed in a year, speeding per se does not.

Doing 25mph in a 20 zone is unlikely to cause death or serious injury, but this is legally speediing.

Doing 50mph on a icy motorway in a blizzard is not speeding, but it is inappropriate speed which is very likely to cause death or serious injury.

Even ROSPA are beginning to see the difference between speeding (which is becoming a revenue generation exercise in many areas) and inappropriate speed (which can only be policed by humans, traffic cameras can't detect it).

Fair enought,but what i was trying to say was that sometime when people,on here complain about the treatment they get from police for just taking photos,and they are breaking no laws.

It was Jim who brought speeding into this :shrug:

(Red lights and speeding ARE minor offences)

When the OP,was just asking about his rights as a photographer,and i for one think running a red light and speeding are sometime not just minor offences,theses a can and do end up in deaths.

 

[odd jim]

Fair enought,but what i was trying to say was that sometime when people,on here complain about the treatment they get from police for just taking photos,and they are breaking no laws.

It was Jim who brought speeding into this :shrug:

(Red lights and speeding ARE minor offences)

When the OP,was just asking about his rights as a photographer,and i for one think running a red light and speeding are sometime not just minor offences,theses a can and do end up in deaths.

No I didn't "bring speeding into this", I was correcting the poor advice with reference to the NIP which was brought up by another poster, and I stated that no, NIPs are for minor traffic offences such as, for example, speeding, and are not relevant to this issue. YOU then created the argument that you thought speeding was a serious offence causing untold deaths and carried it on.... Which is why I then asked in the next post what your point was by going on about speeding!

 

[simonblue]

Ok fair enought,i am out of this one.

I just hope,things will get better,and we will reading less of theses stories.

For some of us its a hobby,for some its a passion,for some a job.

But i would say,i think most of us are law addbinding people,and we dont want to be thought of as terrorist' ect, for just what we do.

 

[big soft moose]

...he's already won the debate.
:

I wasnt aware that it was a contest - did he also get a lollipop from teacher ?

That aside I wasnt seriously suggesting that it was his dual account - but it was a strange choice of first post for 'sam brown' which smacked of trollhood from someone.( an impression reinforced as mr brown hasnt been back into this debate or indeed posted anywhere else on the forum since)

With regard to the OP I think we all agree that he didnt have the best experience ever, but I'd still take issue with some on this thread 'convicting' the officers concerned of over policing and wrong doings based only on one persons account of one side of the story.

(also I'm not aware of the OP being accused of being a terrorist or of anyone mentioning that he was detained under S43/44 - so all the guff about 'photographers not being terrorists' is on this thread at least so much hot air )

 

[simonblue]

I wasnt aware that it was a contest - did he also get a lollipop from teacher ?

That aside I wasnt seriously suggesting that it was his dual account - but it was a strange choice of first post for 'sam brown' which smacked of trollhood from someone.( an impression reinforced as mr brown hasnt been back into this debate or indeed posted anywhere else on the forum since)

With regard to the OP I think we all agree that he didnt have the best experience ever, but I'd still take issue with some on this thread 'convicting' the officers concerned of over policing and wrong doings based only on one persons account of one side of the story.

(also I'm not aware of the OP being accused of being a terrorist or of anyone mentioning that he was detained under S43/44 - so all the guff about 'photographers not being terrorists' is on this thread at least so much hot air )

(2 hours later I was interviewed under caution and after hearing everything from saying I could be a peodophile to terrorist scoping out the area I was made to delete all my photos and was let go with a warning)

The OP words..

 

[Dave *]

unless you're saying that breaking the speed limit is appropriate :shrug:

Maybe I'm saying sometimes the speed limit itself is inappropriate .

 

[big soft moose]

(2 hours later I was interviewed under caution and after hearing everything from saying I could be a peodophile to terrorist scoping out the area I was made to delete all my photos and was let go with a warning)

The OP words..

fair enough but theres a lot of hyperbole in the original account - I have a seriously hard time believing that the police accused him of being either a paedophile or a terrorist , as basis for accusation of one would kind of rule out the other, and the cops don't usually engage in random unsubstantiated allegation.

He later says that he was their voluntarily, volunteered to delete the photo's which doesnt really gibe with the 'being made to delete' bit of the original, and that he now realises he could have left at any time - so not under arrest then.

Which is my basic point - a lot of people seem to be safety wired to the "police are over zealous and regular abuse their powers " position with very little evidence to back this suposition up - in this case a number of posters have arrived at that conclusion based only on one confused and contradictory account of one persons side of the story

 

[gramps]

a lot of people seem to be safety wired to the "police are over zealous and regular abuse their powers " position with very little evidence to back this suposition up

and of course they never are/do, are/do they?
Been there, seen it, got the tee shirt - your complete faith and trust in the police is admirable but sadly naive. As I said before, the majority are top notch but there are those who will sail close to the wind rather than back off or admit to being wrong ... history is there, even up to the last few days with reports from the Met.

 

[weybourne]

and of course they never are/do, are/do they?
Been there, seen it, got the tee shirt - your complete faith and trust in the police is admirable but sadly naive. As I said before, the majority are top notch but there are those who will sail close to the wind rather than back off or admit to being wrong ... history is there, even up to the last few days with reports from the Met.

I'll second that. Many years ago in my past (when I had long hair and a pony-tail), I have been stopped by the police on a few occasions when I have been going about my lawful business - sometimes it has been straight-forward, other times it has felt like the officers involved were getting desperate to find something to incriminate me - even to the point where it felt like they were trying to wind me up for a response. Every time I was courteous and co-operative. I have had my wallet emptied and the contents examined (reason given - there has been a spate of house break-ins in the area), I have emptied my travel bag (at the officer's request) onto the pavement (including my toiletry bag), I have been asked to remove my shoes and have had my socks searched (again, the reason given was house break-ins) - all on the street in daylight - these were separate occasions. I've had the same policeman stop me twice down the same road on the same journey - the second time parking up on the other side of the road and beckoning me with his finger - just to confirm the address I had given him earlier (which he had used for a PNC check over the radio the first time) and tell me that he likes "to keep his address book up to date" - personally, I think he was trying to act big in front of the WPC in the passenger seat .

 

[odd jim]

and of course they never are/do, are/do they?
Been there, seen it, got the tee shirt - your complete faith and trust in the police is admirable but sadly naive. As I said before, the majority are top notch but there are those who will sail close to the wind rather than back off or admit to being wrong ... history is there, even up to the last few days with reports from the Met.

Which of course means all cops are racist going by the media slant.

 

[gramps]

Which of course means all cops are racist going by the media slant.

Well you are the one making that leap - perhaps that's been your experience and if it has I wouldn't be surprised.
Interesting that one of the members of the Stephen Lawrence equiry panel, Dr Richard Stone, states that racism in the police is now greater than at the time of the enquiry, 14 years ago ... who would have thought that a police officer in this day and age would be calling someone a n****r!

Report

Racism has always been a problem with the police, much as it has in the past been inherent in British Society ... only British Society has generally moved on.

 

[odd jim]

Well you are the one making that leap - perhaps that's been your experience and if it has I wouldn't be surprised.
Interesting that one of the members of the Stephen Lawrence equiry panel, Dr Richard Stone, states that racism in the police is now greater than at the time of the enquiry, 14 years ago ... who would have thought that a police officer in this day and age would be calling someone a n****r!

Report

Racism has always been a problem with the police, much as it has in the past been inherent in British Society ... only British Society has generally moved on.

I didn't say that, I said that's what the media would have you believe.

You're out of date and out of touch on this one. In over ten years I've not experienced an incident of racism by any of my colleges. Maybe in your day, but not really so now.

And why are we singling out the police here? The police simply represent society. I'm sure percentage wise there are just as many racists in other professions, it just doesn't get reported.

Have you spent much time around building sites?!

 

[gramps]

If I'm out of date and out of touch so is Dr Stone, the IPCC and many others including the Met itself ... one of us is but it isn't me.

10 complaints of alleged racism - relating to 18 officers and one member of police staff - were referred to the police watchdog.
The referrals came just days after Scotland Yard vowed to get to the bottom of "very damaging" footage of one officer apparently racially abusing a man and another allegedly assaulting a teenage boy last summer.
In total, eight officers and one member of staff at the Yard have been suspended. The Met is now working with the Independent Police Complaints Commission (IPCC) to investigate the string of allegations.
In a further damaging episode for the police service, it has emerged a British Transport Police officer faces the sack for gross misconduct after he was convicted of launching a foul-mouthed tirade at an Asian takeaway manager.

We are 'singling out police officers' as this is what this thread is about.

 

[Cobra]

This has gone way off the original topic.
And is just a police bashing thread.
So with that in mind,
have a Happy Easter everyone, and should you decide to visit out fair City,
over the Easter break,
You are more than welcome