 You don't need to be an 'investor' to invest in Singletrack: 6 days left: 95% of target - Find out more
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-tayside-central-36316751
PC Denmore told the court: "I felt like we were going above 30mph - from my experience of driving that road it felt we were in excess of that."I was concerned when we approached the light but assumed PC Jones was aware of the situation.
"I had been called by my wife and was aware she had been on the phone to NHS 24 about our child, who was screaming in the background and had been for some time.
"I was going to assist when the crash occurred."
He added: "After the collision I was taken by a colleague in another car back to my car, and they also had the blue lights on.
"I asked them to put them off as I'd already been in one incident that day and didn't want another."
Cheers mate
I don't get your reference to gratitude. Are you saying that Denmore is being ungrateful that his colleague broke blue light regs, drove too fast, went through a red light and crashed the car he was travelling in?
I'm with hebden.
The vehicle was not traveling to an incident or emergency. It's caused a serious collision in the process.
I'm all for giving blue light drivers some additional legal protection when things go wrong but the basic premise had to be they are only used with just cause.
Had the passenger and driver been accountants and been doing the same journey they would have had to stop. There wouldn't have been much cause to blue light someone home to what appears to be a non critically ill child.
I've had to drive 10 miles to hospital while one of my children was being blue lighted there at the same time. He had his mum with him and I had to keep calm, legal and safe.
Yes, I'm saying they both she, & another colleague blue lighted because his baby was sick. He's has now, as the saying goes, dobbed them in. Not saying what they did was right, but even so.
[quote=imnotverygood ]Yes, I'm saying they both she, & another colleague blue lighted because his baby was sick. He's has now, as the saying goes, [s]dobbed them in.[/s] told the truth
...because I'm sure it wasn't him "dobbing them in" which resulted in the incident being investigated. Presumably you're in favour of [url= https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hillsborough_disaster ]police officers lying to protect their mates[/url]?
I'm not sure I'd call it dobbing them in - they did crash into another car after all, so it's not like he alerted the bosses to something they otherwise wouldn't know about.
Since the driver pled guilty I assume these comments were read out to the court by the PF from PC Denmore's witness statement, which he would be pretty much obliged to give following the crash. This what normally happens after a guilty plea - the Sheriff asks the PF for a narrative of what happened and they read out a summary of what they deem relevant.
And then it seems like PC Denmore gave an honest account of what happened, which surely is what we would want him to do?
I'm just surprised that they never colluded and blamed the victim for the crash.
Yes, I'm saying they both she, & another colleague blue lighted because his baby was sick.
Mate I'm not sure you've thought this through. I'm sure you don't really think it's OK for the police to speed, use their blue lights and go through red lights, for their personal business?
Sick baby, yeah. If it was a medical emergency, the mother would have called an ambulance. Otherwise, are you suggesting that the families of police officers should get preferential treatment from the emergency services? "Don't call 999 despatch - just call my personal mobile and I'll be straight round, having endangered lives by crashing red lights with the blue lights on".
Wasn't a totally serious post. It is just that what I get from his evidence is a sense that he is just trying to completely disassociate himself from the situation. Yet he is in the car & the offence is being committed on his behalf. It just reads like a sanctimonious 'well it was nothing to with [i]me[/i]. I just happened to be in the car.' The bloke comes across as a bit of a weasel. Maybe it's just me.
The bloke comes across as a bit of a weasel. Maybe it's just me.
He told the truth under oath. He states that the driver was giving him a lift because his baby was sick. He gave his impressions of the driving of the defendant.
What do you think he should have said?
Anyway I'm sorry - I didn't intend to get into an argument with you. We may have to agree to differ 🙂