Accident caused by driver on phone - police not interested!

Tilt

Spicy_McHaggis wrote: »

Can't comment whether you were fobbed off or not. They may have gone straight back to the nick and thrown your statement in the bin and blamed it on CPS or the offender could have been in the right lodge.

What you have to remember is CPS have target too, they want something like an 80% chance of a successful prosecution before taking it to court. Something a simple as a witness saying a midnight blue car is black when seen under artificial light at night is enough for then not to proceed

Your'e now on my wave length. :beer:

Spicy_McHaggis

Tilt wrote: »

Your'e now on my wave length. :beer:

The mysterious ways of the stone cutters were explained to me a long time ago.

brat

Tilt wrote: »

So was I fibbed to or not then?

Who knows. Actually, who cares.

Here are the possible options

1. The police officer could have told you the absolute truth. 'Dangerous' has to go through CPS
   
2. He may simply have binned your statement, a ploy that could have cost him dear.
   
3. He may also have told you that it was the CPS who made the decision not to prosecute, rather than the police CJU, because he might have felt it was easier for you to understand.
   
4. You may have made it all up

Tilt

brat wrote: »

Who knows. Actually, who cares.

Here are the possible options

1. The police officer could have told you the absolute truth. 'Dangerous' has to go through CPS
   
2. He may simply have binned your statement, a ploy that could have cost him dear.
   
3. He may also have told you that it was the CPS who made the decision not to prosecute, rather than the police CJU, because he might have felt it was easier for you to understand.
   
4. You may have made it all up

Hmm, beginning to detect a bit of patronising here. (goes with the job I suppose). And You missed out a 5th option. Maybe the driver was a friend of a friend who was a policeman? But hey ho, it was about 20 years ago and I got my car repaired and recovered all my losses.

Tilt

But getting back to the thread. I've actually noticed recently an increase in police "turning a blind eye" to some blatant traffic offences being committed. Only last week I followed a police car which drove past a driver parked on the zig zags of a pedestrian crossing without taking a second glance.

Spicy_McHaggis

Tilt wrote: »

But getting back to the thread. I've actually noticed recently an increase in police "turning a blind eye" to some blatant traffic offences being committed. Only last week I followed a police car which drove past a driver parked on the zig zags of a pedestrian crossing without taking a second glance.

The thing is it's not just a simple case of writing out a ticket these days.

Tilt

Spicy_McHaggis wrote: »

The thing is it's not just a simple case of writing out a ticket these days.

Maybe but isn't it what they get paid for? But this is one of my pet hates. I would of thought as the offence is sufficient enough to attract points, the police would of jumped on him/her.

brat

Tilt wrote: »

Hmm, beginning to detect a bit of patronising here. (goes with the job I suppose).

Not patronising, i occasionally get a bit irked by people who (through ignorance) question the integrity of my colleagues.

If the officer was considering dangerous driving, everything fits. He would have to take CPS advice. CPS would have decided that the evidence was not strong enough for any prosecution for the offences you mentioned. He would have explained that to you.

It's a simple, acceptable answer. So much so that I wonder why you have convinced yourself that lying (and putting his job at risk) was the most reasonable explanation.

Spicy_McHaggis

Tilt wrote: »

Maybe but isn't it what they get paid for? But this is one of my pet hates. I would of thought as the offence is sufficient enough to attract points, the police would of jumped on him/her.

Yes, it's three points but what you have to realise is many officers don't consider traffic to be real policing and the fact that messing about with TROs puts them off even more.
Then having completed and recommending proceeding, someone else decides they get a course as the will bring the best financial return for the force.

Spicy_McHaggis

brat wrote: »

Not patronising, i occasionally get a bit irked by people who (through ignorance) question the integrity of my colleagues.

If the officer was considering dangerous driving, everything fits. He would have to take CPS advice. CPS would have decided that the evidence was not strong enough for any prosecution for the offences you mentioned. He would have explained that to you.

It's a simple, acceptable answer. So much so that I wonder why you have convinced yourself that lying (and putting his job at risk) was the most reasonable explanation.

But be fair, some are of questionable integrity.