I'm afraid this kind of chicanery has been going on for some time. Police avoiding disciplinary charges by resigning first. How very convenient eh ?
"Evening all (slight bend of the knee) I've been up to no good you know, kept all the fat brown envelopes given to me by wealthy local villains to turn a blind eye. Here's my face saving letter of resignation" ^_^
How has anyone got away with anything? The ultimate penalty for disciplinary hearings is the Officer losing their job, which has what has happened in these cases without wasting time and money.
It is also something that happens in many other jobs too, so how exactly is it chicanery?
Deep Purple, the problem is that many are too quick to read a press article and criticise without thinking. It's clearly not an issue when someone resigns instead of months on full pay but suspended to then be fired. Especially when you consider they can and often are still prosecuted if they've broken the law. However the press doesn't report this side of it because it doesn't rile up those who read, repeat and don't engage a thought process for themselves.
Deep Purple, the problem is that many are too quick to read a press article and criticise without thinking. It's clearly not an issue when someone resigns instead of months on full pay but suspended to then be fired. Especially when you consider they can and often are still prosecuted if they've broken the law. However the press doesn't report this side of it because it doesn't rile up those who read, repeat and don't engage a thought process for themselves.
You're right, and maybe people don't know, or ignore the fact that disciplinary procedures are different from criminal proceedings, and that any disciplinary action is left pending until a decision on criminal matters is out of the way.
Especially when you consider they can and often are still prosecuted if they've broken the law.
The IPCC have raised the issue of how few police get prosecuted,
The new head of the Independent Police Complaints Commission has questionned whether Forces should be allowed to self-investigate cases of corruption after it that just 0.2 per cent of allegations resulted in criminal convictions.
8,500 allegations made last year of crimes including rape, the misuse of corporate credit cards and perverting the course of justice, just 13 led to convictions
This situation of lack of prosecution holds true when the allegation is upheld.
Rhodri Glyn Thomas, Plaid Cymru’s spokesman on policing “It is deeply concerning that no Welsh officers have been prosecuted in a court of law after being found guilty of corrupt practice in the eyes of their employers"
Four years 2008-2012
Dyfed-Powys Police recorded 80 allegations of improper disclosure, 36 allegations of corrupt practice and 141 allegations of irregularity in evidence/perjury. 16 of these allegations were upheld. None of the upheld allegations resulted in any disciplinary action or criminal prosecutions
Gwent Police received 56 complaints which resulted in two being proven. Disiplinary action taken, no prosecution.
South Wales Police received 57 complaints of police corruption, one was substantiated. Disiplinary action taken, no prosecution
North Wales Police 14 allegations. None substantiated to date, three ongoing.
In terms of the IPCC quote, do you know how many allegations are made to the police each day about members of the public where prosecutions do not follow? An allegation doesn't mean that an offence has occurred. It would be unrealistic to expect a 100% prosecution to allegation ratio. In fact when you consider how many malicious complaints are made each day or how easy it is for people to not understand a situation and make a complaint I'd suggest it's not realistic to expect a high number of prosecutions at all.
Plenty of calls each day on 999 and 101 don't result in prosecutions when the matter is investigated. Often investigations can show there is no case to answer for.
Prosecution guidelines are applied to everyone. Without knowing the details of those offences, all it does is cause a little hysteria.
Those offences can be of a very low level, but still be classed as an offence technically. Whether a prosecution is justified is another matter, and disciplinary proceedings can often cover it.
As pointed out above, many people recorded as being guilty of an offences are dealt with by means other than prosecution.
If the offence is serious enough for prosecution, then that is what should happen.
I've had many cases of complaints against me that have immediately been resolved when my body-cam footage has been reviewed. You can't argue with a camera and within seconds the malicious complaint is gone. Sadly the fact the complaint was made in the first place still affects the stats and in addition to that the press when reporting that there have been X amount of complaints don't add to the story about how many were found to be malicious. So you end up with X amounts of complaints and only Y amounts of prosecutions in the press. This results in people being angry thinking the cops are getting away with everything when in reality if the press also included that vital data about how many were found to be untrue, malicious or similar you'd have a much more fair and accurate story. I dream of the day the press do fair, unbiased reporting
Example,
Officer approaches an offender on the street. Turns on body-cam. Offender swings at the officer, officer uses force to protect themselves and restrain the offender. Offender gets an injury during proportionate and lawful force being used. Offender doesn't realise the whole thing is on camera and when they get a chance makes a complaint that the officer was racist towards them, assaulted them and arrested them for no reason. They're reason for this complaint? Because if the cop gets in trouble for the made up allegations from the offender they know full well they stand little or no chance of being prosecuted themselves, they have a chance of compensation and it's also one up on the cop that put them in a cell for a few hours.
Just like that the stats are now showing a complaint of racism and a complaint of assault.
You as the member of public will read in the press how there are X amounts of complaints of racism and X amounts of complaints of assault. The two above, where we can clearly see there was no racism or assault, also count in this tally obtained by the press and published. You as the reader now think 'Wow, that's not good'. But what you don't see is the following,
The complaint is taken seriously. It's recorded and looked at either by a supervisor or professional standards member. The whole process is recorded as today's police service is the most accountable this country has ever had. The officer is then asked for their account, they give it, either verbally or in a duty statement. Then the body-cam footage is viewed. It clearly shows that the offender's complaint is malicious. The officer receives no action against them because they've done nothing wrong.
Another problem now arrises. This as already covered was logged when it was recorded. The fact that no action has been taken is also logged. The press can see this when they get their freedom of information request answered. So here we go again. In addition to their report of X amount of racist complaints and X amount of assault complaints they also now have X amount of cases where no further action was taken against officers. You could of course include a line or two about how it was because the complaint was malicious, BUT that doesn't raise emotions, sell papers and make for good viewing on TV so hey, let's leave that vital bit out eh?
You may think this is stretched but it's not. There are malicious complaints made every day and sadly they count towards the information passed partially to the public by the press.
So when you see the number of complaints compared to the number of prosecutions, bear this in mind. Also consider that just as with complaints against members of the public, it's not always possible to get sufficient evidence to charge someone and that it's often the decision of the CPS not the police to charge a member of the public or a police officer if they feel wrong doing has occurred.
Things aren't as black and white as they seem and missing out vital bits of the story is often common place to present a damning picture to the public. It makes for more interesting reading or viewing but the downside is it can damage the trust by some in our country's fantastic police service. That's a shame and as of yet nothing seems to be done about it.
Last week I read on BBCi/text that 38 Police officers up and down the country have left the force before misconduct charges into them can take place, obviously a spokesman or woman has commented that it has saved money on them spending out on court cases but I feel it is totally wrong.
The Police want to be respected and keep on claiming they have changed in various ways but while criminals or those with disabilities end up with sentences, the Police in this case are clearly still above the law as those who leave before a misconduct hearing will not face any action against them.
Still one rule for those at the top while those at the bottom suffer, I say come on you out of touch Police Scum and if you really want to be respected then please do not get out of misconduct charges otherwise it will always be a case until you learn of them and us.
Par for the course
there's many such instances on record within the police force,..its their `Get Out of Jail` card
Indeed, but even when confronted with hard fact, the police contingent on here get all defensive. They never admit there is a problem, which makes the police look even more guilty.
Even when both the PM and the Home Secretary criticised the police, they still won't have it. Everybody is out of step except them - that's the way it comes across anyway.
The problem is that 'hard fact' is often anything but. My example above shows how 'hard fact' is often formed. Even the IPCC have a reason to want to step up their demand in the ever cutting world of shrinking budgets.
There's obviously going to be the odd officer who does wrong. Nobody is denying that. But cops are just as keen to see them off as the rest to stop them giving everyone else a bad name and stop fuelling the press and those who willingly believe all said to them.
As for the government, if you take the word of Camron and May seriously about how crime has fallen, they are fixing the police, there are no problems in the passport office and that their cuts aren't causing issues in public services likes NHS and fireservices then more fool you.
Of course not, what a ridiculous assumption. My point is that people ought to be wary of MP's acting like bastions of integrity because they're bringing in a new offence of police corruption (which in reality will be no different from what is currently in place anyway). It's nothing but diversionary tactics from their own troubles. Troubles that are far more abundant between the 650 of them, than they are in the police service. There are already sufficient criminal offences and sentencing in place to deal with police corruption.
It's undoubtedly true that if you put 650 random public sector workers side by side with 650 MP's, there'd be fewer criminals amongst the 650 random public sector workers. But that still doesn't excuse the police, nor does it mean that May and Cameron are wrong.
It sounds like deflection tactics on your part.
The bit where you assert that nothing the government do with regard to the police will be any different to what has gone previously, sounds like smug complacency.
That is not necessarily public perception.
Take the negative publicity over the traffic police officer earlier this year speeding at 140 mph for no good reason. Decision not to prosecute because he was a highly skilled driver and not driving dangerously. If he had been a Formula one racing car drive, driving at 140 mph on a public road for no good reason, I doubt the decision would have been no action due to being a highly skilled driver and not driving dangerously.
The problem is as much as anything public trust in the police. Things like the Ellison Review which was pretty damning and the Home Secretary's statement on it, and historic alleged cover ups like Hillsborough and the more recent high profile allegations of lying like plebgate do not inspire confidence. And neither does the IPCC with its comments. To ensure public trust in the police, the police have to be seen as accountable, with misconduct and corruption properly investigated and prosecuted. According to our own government things have to change
Indeed, but even when confronted with hard fact, the police contingent on here get all defensive. They never admit there is a problem, which makes the police look even more guilty.
Even when both the PM and the Home Secretary criticised the police, they still won't have it. Everybody is out of step except them - that's the way it comes across anyway.
And here you go again with your agenda.
Which of these cases where people resigned should have been prosecuted?
Decisions on criminal action are taken before disciplinary action. Why should someone not be allowed to resign over a disciplinary matter? It happens everywhere, and what should the alternative be?
This Govt is after the Police, and they will use all the powers at their disposal to bring them under control, so using them as shining beacons is a bit much.
As said many times before, I'll condemn actions that deserve it, but which cases here were handled incorrectly. Which ones were the chicanery you talk of?
That is not necessarily public perception.
Take the negative publicity over the traffic police officer earlier this year speeding at 140 mph for no good reason. Decision not to prosecute because he was a highly skilled driver and not driving dangerously. If he had been a Formula one racing car drive, driving at 140 mph on a public road for no good reason, I doubt the decision would have been no action due to being a highly skilled driver and not driving dangerously.
The problem is as much as anything public trust in the police. Things like the Ellison Review which was pretty damning and the Home Secretary's statement on it, and historic alleged cover ups like Hillsborough and the more recent high profile allegations of lying like plebgate do not inspire confidence. And neither does the IPCC with its comments. To ensure public trust in the police, the police have to be seen as accountable, with misconduct and corruption properly investigated and prosecuted. According to our own government things have to change
There was no evidence of dangerous driving in that case. He was trained to drive at those speeds, and would be expected to at times. Speed alone does not equate to dangerous driving, especially to someone who will do such speeds lawfully.
He was a numpty for doing what he did, and was disciplined, having been reported by colleagues who didn't have to report him. Was there any physical evidence to prove speeding? The word of a prisoner would not be enough.
Police Officers do get prosecuted, but people have more interest in the perception you talk of.
It's par for the course that there will not always be prosecutions where somebody has been disciplined. For a start somebody can be disciplined for something that isn't a criminal offence. Secondly somebody can be disciplined if the evidence shows that they were in the wrong on the balance of probabilities, which basically means that they probably did it - that the disciplinary panel are 51% sure they did it. To be prosecuted (charged) there has to be a much higher threshold of evidence, and to actually be convicted it has to be proved that they committed a criminal offence beyond all reasonable doubt, which means that they definitely did it - that the Jury are 99% sure they did it.
That is not necessarily public perception.
Take the negative publicity over the traffic police officer earlier this year speeding at 140 mph for no good reason. Decision not to prosecute because he was a highly skilled driver and not driving dangerously. If he had been a Formula one racing car drive, driving at 140 mph on a public road for no good reason, I doubt the decision would have been no action due to being a highly skilled driver and not driving dangerously.
He wasn't prosecuted because there wasn't actually any evidence other than the say so of the arrested person sat in the back.
He was still disciplined because the threshold of evidence required to do so is far less.
The first citation in my post was the Home Secretary's speech where the need for a new offense, is outlined. The new offense according to the Home Secretary as I havae previously posted will be far broader than current law. The Home Secretary is also having a inquiry looking into the issue of Police misconduct and corruption so may act on any recommendations that gives.
The second citation and the quote in my post is from the IPCC about who investigates allegations. The Labour party want to create a new Police standards authority to oversee investigations into police misconduct and corruption. Which is why I used the IPCC quote.
I find it difficult to see how the new offence will be far broader than the current law. At present if an officer commits any criminal offence they an be prosecuted for it. They are also subject to the offence of Misconduct in a Public Office. What does the offence of 'Police Corruption' add that isn't already covered in Misconduct in a Public Office?
The new offence also carries a maximum sentence of 14 years, Misconduct carries a maximum sentence of life.
I expect we will end up not just with a new offense, but also some changes in how investigations into alleged misconduct and corruption are handled or how oversight of those investigations is done.
That is what will make the difference, if there is indeed a problem.
Which of these cases where people resigned should have been prosecuted?
Decisions on criminal action are taken before disciplinary action. Why should someone not be allowed to resign over a disciplinary matter? It happens everywhere, and what should the alternative be?
This Govt is after the Police, and they will use all the powers at their disposal to bring them under control, so using them as shining beacons is a bit much.
As said many times before, I'll condemn actions that deserve it, but which cases here were handled incorrectly. Which ones were the chicanery you talk of?
It's not my agenda, not my thread, and I'm not the IPCC, nor am I May or Cameron.
I'm simply agreeing with them. You as usual, are defending the status quo.
It's not my agenda, not my thread, and I'm not the IPCC, nor am I May or Cameron.
I'm simply agreeing with them. You as usual, are defending the status quo.
As far as chicanery - ask the IPCC.
You alleged it in these cases. It's been explained how disciplinary actions are nothing to do with criminal procedures. People cant resign to escape criminal prosecution if that course of action is deemed necessary.
Being allowed to resign rather than going through a full disciplinary hearing is common in all workplaces. Even you know that.
I'm not defending anything, which is your usual accusation. I'm explaining how procedures work in practice. Which cases am I defending?
Surely it is pretty standard for anyone to resign from their job before the brown stuff hits the fan? I've seen it happen loads of times and often the employer "invites" the miscreant to resign to save a lot of costs, time and bother in pursuing formal disciplinary action. Not sure why it should be different for the Police?
That said, I'm pretty sure it's open to employer to not accept a resignation and pursue disciplinary action but I'm not sure how this can be enforced in practice.
At the time you argued Section 19 of the Road Safety Act 2006 meant he was not guilty of speeding. When he had no good reason for driving at 140 mph. His reason by all accounts was to show off.
At the time you argued Section 19 of the Road Safety Act 2006 meant he was not guilty of speeding. When he had no good reason for driving at 140 mph. His reason by all accounts was to show off.
Where have I disputed that he was doing 140mph? Oh that's right, I haven't. I'm sure he was doing 140mph (he certainly doesn't appear to have argued otherwise) but that doesn't change the fact that there is insufficient evidence to proceed with a prosecution. Or is there something you're aware of that I'm not? Is there evidence that you're aware of, to proceed with a prosecution? If so what is it?
I mentioned the Road Safety Act because that is where the speeding exemption comes from; the exemption to speeding for a policing purpose where observance of the speed limit would hinder the use of the vehicle for the purpose of which it is being used. What is a 'policing purpose' is very wide open to interpretation, and without sufficient information to say otherwise it is perfectly reasonable to suggest that he may have been using his exemption.
that doesn't change the fact that there is insufficient evidence to proceed with a prosecution. Or is there something you're aware of that I'm not? Is there evidence that you're aware of, to proceed with a prosecution? If so what is it?.
I am aware of the reason given for not prosecuting and that reason was not insufficient evidence, it was that he was a very skilled driver.
Would the police not know when he left one police station and arrived at the other, do not high performance police cars have GPS or even on board camera that record the speed of the car.
Comments
How has anyone got away with anything? The ultimate penalty for disciplinary hearings is the Officer losing their job, which has what has happened in these cases without wasting time and money.
It is also something that happens in many other jobs too, so how exactly is it chicanery?
You're right, and maybe people don't know, or ignore the fact that disciplinary procedures are different from criminal proceedings, and that any disciplinary action is left pending until a decision on criminal matters is out of the way.
This situation of lack of prosecution holds true when the allegation is upheld. http://www.walesonline.co.uk/news/wales-news/no-welsh-police-corruption-prosecutions-2493963
Plenty of calls each day on 999 and 101 don't result in prosecutions when the matter is investigated. Often investigations can show there is no case to answer for.
Prosecution guidelines are applied to everyone. Without knowing the details of those offences, all it does is cause a little hysteria.
Those offences can be of a very low level, but still be classed as an offence technically. Whether a prosecution is justified is another matter, and disciplinary proceedings can often cover it.
As pointed out above, many people recorded as being guilty of an offences are dealt with by means other than prosecution.
If the offence is serious enough for prosecution, then that is what should happen.
I've had many cases of complaints against me that have immediately been resolved when my body-cam footage has been reviewed. You can't argue with a camera and within seconds the malicious complaint is gone. Sadly the fact the complaint was made in the first place still affects the stats and in addition to that the press when reporting that there have been X amount of complaints don't add to the story about how many were found to be malicious. So you end up with X amounts of complaints and only Y amounts of prosecutions in the press. This results in people being angry thinking the cops are getting away with everything when in reality if the press also included that vital data about how many were found to be untrue, malicious or similar you'd have a much more fair and accurate story. I dream of the day the press do fair, unbiased reporting
Example,
Officer approaches an offender on the street. Turns on body-cam. Offender swings at the officer, officer uses force to protect themselves and restrain the offender. Offender gets an injury during proportionate and lawful force being used. Offender doesn't realise the whole thing is on camera and when they get a chance makes a complaint that the officer was racist towards them, assaulted them and arrested them for no reason. They're reason for this complaint? Because if the cop gets in trouble for the made up allegations from the offender they know full well they stand little or no chance of being prosecuted themselves, they have a chance of compensation and it's also one up on the cop that put them in a cell for a few hours.
Just like that the stats are now showing a complaint of racism and a complaint of assault.
You as the member of public will read in the press how there are X amounts of complaints of racism and X amounts of complaints of assault. The two above, where we can clearly see there was no racism or assault, also count in this tally obtained by the press and published. You as the reader now think 'Wow, that's not good'. But what you don't see is the following,
The complaint is taken seriously. It's recorded and looked at either by a supervisor or professional standards member. The whole process is recorded as today's police service is the most accountable this country has ever had. The officer is then asked for their account, they give it, either verbally or in a duty statement. Then the body-cam footage is viewed. It clearly shows that the offender's complaint is malicious. The officer receives no action against them because they've done nothing wrong.
Another problem now arrises. This as already covered was logged when it was recorded. The fact that no action has been taken is also logged. The press can see this when they get their freedom of information request answered. So here we go again. In addition to their report of X amount of racist complaints and X amount of assault complaints they also now have X amount of cases where no further action was taken against officers. You could of course include a line or two about how it was because the complaint was malicious, BUT that doesn't raise emotions, sell papers and make for good viewing on TV so hey, let's leave that vital bit out eh?
You may think this is stretched but it's not. There are malicious complaints made every day and sadly they count towards the information passed partially to the public by the press.
So when you see the number of complaints compared to the number of prosecutions, bear this in mind. Also consider that just as with complaints against members of the public, it's not always possible to get sufficient evidence to charge someone and that it's often the decision of the CPS not the police to charge a member of the public or a police officer if they feel wrong doing has occurred.
Things aren't as black and white as they seem and missing out vital bits of the story is often common place to present a damning picture to the public. It makes for more interesting reading or viewing but the downside is it can damage the trust by some in our country's fantastic police service. That's a shame and as of yet nothing seems to be done about it.
Par for the course
there's many such instances on record within the police force,..its their `Get Out of Jail` card
I guess you haven't read the explanations for this, or have failed to understand that it is nothing of the sort.
Indeed, but even when confronted with hard fact, the police contingent on here get all defensive. They never admit there is a problem, which makes the police look even more guilty.
Even when both the PM and the Home Secretary criticised the police, they still won't have it. Everybody is out of step except them - that's the way it comes across anyway.
There's obviously going to be the odd officer who does wrong. Nobody is denying that. But cops are just as keen to see them off as the rest to stop them giving everyone else a bad name and stop fuelling the press and those who willingly believe all said to them.
As for the government, if you take the word of Camron and May seriously about how crime has fallen, they are fixing the police, there are no problems in the passport office and that their cuts aren't causing issues in public services likes NHS and fireservices then more fool you.
It's undoubtedly true that if you put 650 random public sector workers side by side with 650 MP's, there'd be fewer criminals amongst the 650 random public sector workers. But that still doesn't excuse the police, nor does it mean that May and Cameron are wrong.
It sounds like deflection tactics on your part.
The bit where you assert that nothing the government do with regard to the police will be any different to what has gone previously, sounds like smug complacency.
Take the negative publicity over the traffic police officer earlier this year speeding at 140 mph for no good reason. Decision not to prosecute because he was a highly skilled driver and not driving dangerously. If he had been a Formula one racing car drive, driving at 140 mph on a public road for no good reason, I doubt the decision would have been no action due to being a highly skilled driver and not driving dangerously.
The problem is as much as anything public trust in the police. Things like the Ellison Review which was pretty damning and the Home Secretary's statement on it, and historic alleged cover ups like Hillsborough and the more recent high profile allegations of lying like plebgate do not inspire confidence. And neither does the IPCC with its comments. To ensure public trust in the police, the police have to be seen as accountable, with misconduct and corruption properly investigated and prosecuted. According to our own government things have to change
And here you go again with your agenda.
Which of these cases where people resigned should have been prosecuted?
Decisions on criminal action are taken before disciplinary action. Why should someone not be allowed to resign over a disciplinary matter? It happens everywhere, and what should the alternative be?
This Govt is after the Police, and they will use all the powers at their disposal to bring them under control, so using them as shining beacons is a bit much.
As said many times before, I'll condemn actions that deserve it, but which cases here were handled incorrectly. Which ones were the chicanery you talk of?
There was no evidence of dangerous driving in that case. He was trained to drive at those speeds, and would be expected to at times. Speed alone does not equate to dangerous driving, especially to someone who will do such speeds lawfully.
He was a numpty for doing what he did, and was disciplined, having been reported by colleagues who didn't have to report him. Was there any physical evidence to prove speeding? The word of a prisoner would not be enough.
Police Officers do get prosecuted, but people have more interest in the perception you talk of.
It's par for the course that there will not always be prosecutions where somebody has been disciplined. For a start somebody can be disciplined for something that isn't a criminal offence. Secondly somebody can be disciplined if the evidence shows that they were in the wrong on the balance of probabilities, which basically means that they probably did it - that the disciplinary panel are 51% sure they did it. To be prosecuted (charged) there has to be a much higher threshold of evidence, and to actually be convicted it has to be proved that they committed a criminal offence beyond all reasonable doubt, which means that they definitely did it - that the Jury are 99% sure they did it.
He wasn't prosecuted because there wasn't actually any evidence other than the say so of the arrested person sat in the back.
He was still disciplined because the threshold of evidence required to do so is far less.
I find it difficult to see how the new offence will be far broader than the current law. At present if an officer commits any criminal offence they an be prosecuted for it. They are also subject to the offence of Misconduct in a Public Office. What does the offence of 'Police Corruption' add that isn't already covered in Misconduct in a Public Office?
The new offence also carries a maximum sentence of 14 years, Misconduct carries a maximum sentence of life.
That is what will make the difference, if there is indeed a problem.
It's not my agenda, not my thread, and I'm not the IPCC, nor am I May or Cameron.
I'm simply agreeing with them. You as usual, are defending the status quo.
As far as chicanery - ask the IPCC.
You alleged it in these cases. It's been explained how disciplinary actions are nothing to do with criminal procedures. People cant resign to escape criminal prosecution if that course of action is deemed necessary.
Being allowed to resign rather than going through a full disciplinary hearing is common in all workplaces. Even you know that.
I'm not defending anything, which is your usual accusation. I'm explaining how procedures work in practice. Which cases am I defending?
That said, I'm pretty sure it's open to employer to not accept a resignation and pursue disciplinary action but I'm not sure how this can be enforced in practice.
In a statement, Durham Police said the officer was driving a marked BMW 330 diesel police car, which reached 140mph for “a short period of time”. http://www.thetelegraphandargus.co.uk/news/10963071.print/
Supt Darren Ellis, head of professional standards at Durham Police, said the officer had been removed from road policing. He added: ‘After a thorough internal investigation the force has taken appropriate action.
‘The officer was an advanced and highly skilled police driver and there was no suggestion the vehicle was driven dangerously at any time. The officer’s conduct prior to the incident had been exemplary.’
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2545273/Faster-faster-Police-officer-suspended-prisoner-driving-goaded-drive-police-car-149mph-reported-him.html
At the time you argued Section 19 of the Road Safety Act 2006 meant he was not guilty of speeding. When he had no good reason for driving at 140 mph. His reason by all accounts was to show off.
Where have I disputed that he was doing 140mph? Oh that's right, I haven't. I'm sure he was doing 140mph (he certainly doesn't appear to have argued otherwise) but that doesn't change the fact that there is insufficient evidence to proceed with a prosecution. Or is there something you're aware of that I'm not? Is there evidence that you're aware of, to proceed with a prosecution? If so what is it?
I mentioned the Road Safety Act because that is where the speeding exemption comes from; the exemption to speeding for a policing purpose where observance of the speed limit would hinder the use of the vehicle for the purpose of which it is being used. What is a 'policing purpose' is very wide open to interpretation, and without sufficient information to say otherwise it is perfectly reasonable to suggest that he may have been using his exemption.
Would the police not know when he left one police station and arrived at the other, do not high performance police cars have GPS or even on board camera that record the speed of the car.