simple Posted August 25, 2006 Posted August 25, 2006 QUOTE A police officer was convicted today of dangerous driving for reaching speeds of up to 159mph in an unmarked police car. PC Mark Milton, of Telford, Shropshire, was given an absolute discharge after he was told by District Judge Peter Wallis that he had suffered enough with two-and-a-half years of court proceedings. Milton was convicted at Ludlow Magistrates' Court following a second trial after he was acquitted of the same offence last year. I can't believe he didn't get any punishment at all despite being convicted. Doesn't send much of a road safety message does it? Cheers Rich Quote
Boomy Posted August 25, 2006 Posted August 25, 2006 -------------------------------------------------------------- A district judge who controversially cleared a speeding policeman has convicted a cyclist... for riding in the road. Bruce Morgan caused a furore last year when he ruled that PC Mark Milton had done nothing wrong by driving at an 'eye- watering' 159mph while trying out a new high-performance squad car. But when cyclist Daniel Cadden appeared before him last week, he threw the book at the 25-year-old software engineer for riding in the road instead of using a special path set aside for cyclists. He convicted Mr Cadden of failing to show 'reasonable consideration' - a clause in the 1988 Road Traffic Act normally used to prosecute cyclists who terrify pedestrians by riding on the pavement - and fined him £100 with £200 costs. PC Milton, 38, of West Mercia Police, drove a powerful unmarked 3.2-litre Vauxhall Vectra GSI at 84mph in a 30mph zone before reaching an 'eyewatering' 159mph on the M54. But in court, Judge Morgan described him as the 'creme de la creme' of police drivers and dismissed the charges - a ruling which was later overturned by the High Court, and a retrial ordered. ------------------------------------------------------------------- I can't see anything wrong there really. Conditions were right, he was a good driver, 84mph in a 30 zone, no big deal at all. The cyclist however, total idiot. Quote
Barry Ashcroft Posted August 25, 2006 Posted August 25, 2006 QUOTE But when cyclist Daniel Cadden appeared before him last week, he threw the book at the 25-year-old software engineer for riding in the road instead of using a special path set aside for cyclists. He convicted Mr Cadden of failing to show 'reasonable consideration' - a clause in the 1988 Road Traffic Act normally used to prosecute cyclists who terrify pedestrians by riding on the pavement - and fined him £100 with £200 costs. Unbelievable what the F@@k is this country coming to Where are those forms for emigration to New Zealand I can't hack this crap anymore Quote
pistonbroke Posted August 25, 2006 Posted August 25, 2006 A police officer was convicted today of dangerous driving for reaching speeds of up to 159mph in an unmarked police car. PC Mark Milton, of Telford, Shropshire, was given an absolute discharge after he was told by District Judge Peter Wallis that he had suffered enough with two-and-a-half years of court proceedings. Milton was convicted at Ludlow Magistrates' Court following a second trial after he was acquitted of the same offence last year. I can't believe he didn't get any punishment at all despite being convicted. Doesn't send much of a road safety message does it? Cheers Rich "was convicted " " given absolute discharge " which is it then yer honour Quote
ACW Posted August 25, 2006 Posted August 25, 2006 What do you lot expect. Next you'll be telling me the judiciary in this country is independant of the government. Barry can you get me the form for Canada whilst your there. Quote
Barry Ashcroft Posted August 25, 2006 Posted August 25, 2006 ACW there you go mate Canada Visa Request Quote
neilb Posted August 25, 2006 Posted August 25, 2006 Local news paper has a lad that has been given a driving ban for riding a motorised skate board - good to see balance Quote
scott beeland Posted August 25, 2006 Posted August 25, 2006 [Where are those forms for emigration to New Zealand I can't hack this crap anymore I think I'll come too Quote
nikpro Posted August 25, 2006 Posted August 25, 2006 What do you lot expect. Next you'll be telling me the judiciary in this country is independant of the government. Thats almost as believable as what you read in the press! Quote
Man On The Clapham Omnibus Posted August 25, 2006 Posted August 25, 2006 They are independent but they are certainly perverse as well. Why else would a member of said judiciary allow a group of known hijackers stay? Not biassed - not in the real world. On the same subject, the judge said the absolute discharge was justified because the offender had 'suffered enough with the two years of court proceedings'. So what does the brief for the accused say? He'll appeal! Is he a masochist? Can't have been very traumatic can it? Quote
steve_m Posted August 25, 2006 Posted August 25, 2006 It doesn't seem to matter what they do whilst driving, even killing people whilst driving far too fast for the conditions/view ahead (rememer the nurse in Cambs ?), they never seem to get done for it, it's always swept away. The rub is that the people who loose out most are the police who are made to appear at the very best to have a second set of laws applied to them, at worst it could be seen to be plain old corruption. The law works when there is one law for all, if that rule is broken then it all starts to fall apart. Quote
perksy Posted August 25, 2006 Posted August 25, 2006 The law works when there is one law for all, if that rule is broken then it all starts to fall apart. It All fell apart years ago Quote
MAT1800 Posted August 25, 2006 Posted August 25, 2006 On the same subject, the judge said the absolute discharge was justified because the offender had 'suffered enough with the two years of court proceedings'. So what does the brief for the accused say? He'll appeal! Is he a masochist? Can't have been very traumatic can it? He would have been suspended on full pay, wouldn't he? ? Hardly punishment... Quote
spence Posted August 25, 2006 Posted August 25, 2006 But when cyclist Daniel Cadden appeared before him last week, he threw the book at the 25-year-old software engineer for riding in the road instead of using a special path set aside for cyclists. He convicted Mr Cadden of failing to show 'reasonable consideration' - a clause in the 1988 Road Traffic Act normally used to prosecute cyclists who terrify pedestrians by riding on the pavement - and fined him £100 with £200 costs. This fine was probably handed out as the cyclist was causing a hazard for speeding coppers. Nothing surprises me anymore with the way this country is run at the moment. The things I read in the papers every day belongs in the 'BEANO' comic. I may wake up soon realising I've been sleeping in cloud cuckoo land for the past 15years and this country is something to be proud of. The sad thing is, when i pinch myself it hurts so maybe I'm awake and we are all living in S***. My soap box is starting to collapse so I'll get off it now before i get an ASBO. Quote
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.