Driving offence -no ticket

452

Hermione_Granger said:

452 said:

AdrianC said:

Three in an unmarked suggests they weren't traffic, and just thought your driving was too stupid to ignore - but they wanted to get back to the real, far more important, reason they were there.

The amount of officers in a car is not indication of what area of policing they work in. The only thing you could conclude is if they were crewed that way in the Met it would most likely be an ARV.

452, do you like to argue simply for the sake of arguing?
AdrianC simply said that 3 officers in an unmarked vehicle suggests that they were not traffic police. You then stated the number of officers in a car doesn't point to their duties and you then you go on and say exactly what AdrianC said in the first place.

No, what I said I standby. How can you tell from what's been posted they weren't traffic officers just because there was three of them. There's any number of reasons why there could be three in a car.

Car_54

452 said:

AdrianC said:

Three in an unmarked suggests they weren't traffic, and just thought your driving was too stupid to ignore - but they wanted to get back to the real, far more important, reason they were there.

The amount of officers in a car is not indication of what area of policing they work in. The only thing you could conclude is if they were crewed that way in the Met it would most likely be an ARV.

Any police officer can deal with traffic offences.

No-one is "concluding" anything. Adrian said "suggests".

452

Car_54 said:

452 said:

AdrianC said:

Three in an unmarked suggests they weren't traffic, and just thought your driving was too stupid to ignore - but they wanted to get back to the real, far more important, reason they were there.

The amount of officers in a car is not indication of what area of policing they work in. The only thing you could conclude is if they were crewed that way in the Met it would most likely be an ARV.

Any police officer can deal with traffic offences.

No-one is "concluding" anything. Adrian said "suggests".

Based on what?

Dr_Crypto

Fair enough. I'm only familiar with practice in my part of the country where copies are provided. 

shaun_from_Africa

452 said:

Car_54 said:

No-one is "concluding" anything. Adrian said "suggests".

Based on what?

452, am I missing something here or have you totally lost the plot?
Adrian "suggested" that 3 officers in an unmarked vehicle were unlikely to be traffic police, something that you agreed with:

452 said:
The only thing you could conclude is if they were crewed that way in the Met it would most likely be an ARV.

So, if Adrian thinks that it's a possibility that they weren't traffic plod and you think it likely that they were an armed response vehicle, what exactly is your bone of contention with what is being stated?

Scrapit

Hermione_Granger said:

452 said:

AdrianC said:

Three in an unmarked suggests they weren't traffic, and just thought your driving was too stupid to ignore - but they wanted to get back to the real, far more important, reason they were there.

The amount of officers in a car is not indication of what area of policing they work in. The only thing you could conclude is if they were crewed that way in the Met it would most likely be an ARV.

452, do you like to argue simply for the sake of arguing?
AdrianC simply said that 3 officers in an unmarked vehicle suggests that they were not traffic police. You then stated the number of officers in a car doesn't point to their duties and you then you go on and say exactly what AdrianC said in the first place.

Hmm, sounds familiar...

452

shaun_from_Africa said:

452 said:

Car_54 said:

No-one is "concluding" anything. Adrian said "suggests".

Based on what?

452, am I missing something here or have you totally lost the plot?
Adrian "suggested" that 3 officers in an unmarked vehicle were unlikely to be traffic police, something that you agreed with:

452 said:
The only thing you could conclude is if they were crewed that way in the Met it would most likely be an ARV.

So, if Adrian thinks that it's a possibility that they weren't traffic plod and you think it likely that they were an armed response vehicle, what exactly is your bone of contention with what is being stated?

No what I'm saying is as a routine crewing the Met have three in an ARV.

Just because there were three in the car that stopped the OP doesn't mean they weren't traffic. The number of officers gives no indication of their role.

For all we know they may have been Traffic Officer and for some reason there were three of them. There's a number of simple explanations why there would be three in a car.

Car_54

452 said:

Just because there were three in the car that stopped the OP doesn't mean they weren't traffic. The number of officers gives no indication of their role.

For all we know they may have been Traffic Officer and for some reason there were three of them. There's a number of simple explanations why there would be three in a car.

Quite. And nothing Adrian wrote contradicted that.

Mercdriver

Personally if there were three traffic officers in the car I am sure that one of them would have had a TOR pad and the OP would have got a ticket.  My betting is that they were in the area for other reasons and the OP's driving warranted a tug, but he passed the attitude test meant they are likely not motivated to follow it up.  The difference not saying "why aren't you out catching real criminals" can make. 

kam1186

this is quite old, but can confirm I was prosecuted. no further prosecutions since. being a good boy