alchresearch Posted August 23, 2012 Share Posted August 23, 2012 That'll be a nice £120 in the kitty for the police then. Glad to know that they've caught all of the murderers, rapists and drug dealers though. How do you know that cameras didn't catch the OP's mate? That way it keeps coppers free to catch "murderers, rapists and drug dealers". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stereolab Posted August 23, 2012 Share Posted August 23, 2012 That'll be a nice £120 in the kitty for the police then. Glad to know that they've caught all of the murderers, rapists and drug dealers though. So you are suggesting that no one should be punished for any other offence until every single murderer is caught? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
frededwards Posted August 23, 2012 Share Posted August 23, 2012 No. I was using satire to make a salient point. Sorry if this is a little sophisticated for you. In future I shall stick to being literal. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LeMaquis Posted August 23, 2012 Share Posted August 23, 2012 Hi my mates just recived 2 letter from the police sayin he's been caught speeding twices in the last week (bit unlucky) he got caught doing 37 in a 30 and 69 in a 60. Why unlucky? If your mate had been caught for murder and rape would you say he'd been unlucky? Why is speeding an acceptable offence in the opinion of a lot of drivers? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LeMaquis Posted August 23, 2012 Share Posted August 23, 2012 No. I was using satire to make a salient point. Can I guess what the salient point is? You think drivers should be free from prosecution no matter how fast they drive because there are worse crimes? Speeding cars do kill people. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
frededwards Posted August 23, 2012 Share Posted August 23, 2012 No. I was merely questioning the disproportionate allocating of police resources allocated to siting mobile "safety" cameras in inappropriate locations. If they want to police traffic issues, rather than locating cameras and officers on staright, relatively safe stretches of road, their time would be better employed using covert cars to combat genuine unsafe driving. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AF Removals Posted August 23, 2012 Author Share Posted August 23, 2012 Wel he shouldn't have been speeding and probably deserves them it's just unlucky to get 2 at once lol Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
the_rudeboy Posted August 23, 2012 Share Posted August 23, 2012 Wel he shouldn't have been speeding and probably deserves them it's just unlucky to get 2 at once lolMy step-mum got two in one day, from the same camera. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest sibon Posted August 23, 2012 Share Posted August 23, 2012 No. I was merely questioning the disproportionate allocating of police resources allocated to siting mobile "safety" cameras in inappropriate locations. If they want to police traffic issues, rather than locating cameras and officers on staright, relatively safe stretches of road, their time would be better employed using covert cars to combat genuine unsafe driving. 37 in a 30 zone is genuine unsafe driving. The laws of physics see to that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DT Ralge Posted August 23, 2012 Share Posted August 23, 2012 No. I was merely questioning the disproportionate allocating of police resources allocated to siting mobile "safety" cameras in inappropriate locations. If they want to police traffic issues, rather than locating cameras and officers on staright, relatively safe stretches of road, their time would be better employed using covert cars to combat genuine unsafe driving. Examining what you wrote - "disproportionate allocation of police resources", you have figures to substantiate this, I guess. Please share the figures with us so that we can take a view on the proportionality. I presume you have the figures on the use of S.Yorks mobile camera units in contrast with the number of operational unmarked cars in the county? You, no doubt, know how many drivers have picked up fines from a mobile camera unit relative to those handed tickets for being uninsured, unlicensed, without due care, TS10's ... etc? Or is what you write derived only from what you perceive to be the case? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.