Urgent Help!!
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: UK
Age: 42
Posts: 304
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Looks like this guy is a wind-up.
http://www.pprune.org/forums/showthr...hreadid=179740
Has asked the same question using different aliases before. Why
http://www.pprune.org/forums/showthr...hreadid=179740
Has asked the same question using different aliases before. Why
Join Date: May 2001
Location: London
Posts: 500
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Speeding offence is likely to get you a hefty fine and a ban unless you can argue special reasons which is unlikely - you need to speak to a solicitor once you receive a summons.
As you were stopped at the time I expect that the officer warned you that you would be reported for summons in which case the police have up to 6 months to issue the summons.
The porkie to the officer could get you charged with obstruction or the more serious charge of attempting to pervert the course of justice. The latter could well end up in a short prison sentence as courts take a very dim view of people not playing the game.
That being said, if you came clean fairly quickly and weren't arrested at the time it's unlikely that they will charge you with perverting. Even if they do, on the facts you have stated your solicitor might get the prosecution to accept a plea to obstruction.
From my experience the forces are not particularly interested in motoring offences. Other convictions they will consider on their merits. Convictions for dishonesty etc might indicate that you are not officer material and could tell against you.
Reference has been made by some to the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act. The applicable periods will depend upon the penalty you receive. For example the rehabilitation period for an offence dealt with by way of a fine is 5 years. Prison or YOI up to 6 months is 7 years and over 6 months but under 30 months 10 years
As you were stopped at the time I expect that the officer warned you that you would be reported for summons in which case the police have up to 6 months to issue the summons.
The porkie to the officer could get you charged with obstruction or the more serious charge of attempting to pervert the course of justice. The latter could well end up in a short prison sentence as courts take a very dim view of people not playing the game.
That being said, if you came clean fairly quickly and weren't arrested at the time it's unlikely that they will charge you with perverting. Even if they do, on the facts you have stated your solicitor might get the prosecution to accept a plea to obstruction.
From my experience the forces are not particularly interested in motoring offences. Other convictions they will consider on their merits. Convictions for dishonesty etc might indicate that you are not officer material and could tell against you.
Reference has been made by some to the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act. The applicable periods will depend upon the penalty you receive. For example the rehabilitation period for an offence dealt with by way of a fine is 5 years. Prison or YOI up to 6 months is 7 years and over 6 months but under 30 months 10 years
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: England
Posts: 11
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Yes, I have posted the incident to a different forum as I am trying for to apply both Military Aviation and Commercial Aviation. There's no harm trying to obtain advice from both fields. Like I mentioned at the start of the thread:
"(by the way, I did create a similar post a while ago, but I didn't think it protrayed the full picture, so here it is)"
You have to understand....I am very concerned here and I am trying to obtain as much help and advice as I can get. I've never been in trouble before and this will be my first and last occasion.
I've learnt from mistake especially when you consider, I've been trying really hard for the last 5 years to get my qualifications and funding as well as supporting my family at the same time and don't want to blow my chances when I'm so close to applying for both Military and Commercial.
But please let advice come.....I've been checking this thread nearly 5 times a day....so I'll let you imagine how concerned I actually am.
BTW Thank you to all the people who gave me advice. Much appreciated
"(by the way, I did create a similar post a while ago, but I didn't think it protrayed the full picture, so here it is)"
You have to understand....I am very concerned here and I am trying to obtain as much help and advice as I can get. I've never been in trouble before and this will be my first and last occasion.
I've learnt from mistake especially when you consider, I've been trying really hard for the last 5 years to get my qualifications and funding as well as supporting my family at the same time and don't want to blow my chances when I'm so close to applying for both Military and Commercial.
But please let advice come.....I've been checking this thread nearly 5 times a day....so I'll let you imagine how concerned I actually am.
BTW Thank you to all the people who gave me advice. Much appreciated
Make your own assumptions!
POLICE helicopter pilot David banned from driving
POLICE helicopter pilot David Crisall has been banned from driving - after he was caught driving at nearly 120mph on the A1.
His driving was slammed as "appalling" by the national road safety charity Brake which said he had put lives at risk and that there was no excuse for travelling at such a high speed.
Crisall, 38, of Great Whyte, Ramsey, was clocked travelling at 118mph in his Alfa Romeo 166 on the A1M at Alconbury by colleagues from the Cambridgeshire force.
Magistrates at Huntingdon heard that the incident happened at about 2.30am on January 21.
Crisall said losing his licence would cause problems in getting to his job, which involved life or death operations. He admitted speeding and was banned from driving for 21 days, fined £400 and ordered to pay £35 costs.
Magistrates told him: "Speeding at 118mph is 48mph over the speed limit which is not acceptable. At the end of the day the law is the law."
Tracey Bellingham, prosecuting, said police at Alconbury saw the Alfa Romeo which they thought was speeding and recorded it at 118mph in the 70mph limit.
Crisall, a civilian who flies for the police, told the court: "It was excessive speed and was unacceptable."
He said he had just finished a flying shift at 2.15am and had been going to the 24-hour Tesco at Hampton Hargate.
He was alert from his shift and the road conditions were good, despite it being January.
Crisall said he worked shifts and had routine call-outs to deal with "life and death situations" which meant it would be difficult to get to RAF Wyton where the helicopter was based without a licence. It would also affect the flying rota.
He said a short ban would mean he could continue with the job.
A spokesman for Brake said: "It is obviously absolutely appalling that anybody associated with the police should be driving at this speed.
"There is absolutely no justification for it.
"This is a person who is likely to be dealing with serious road accidents and he ought to know better."
The spokesman said Crisall deserved to be made an example of because of his position.
She said: "Quite simply, he put lives at risk by doing that."
The spokesman said that driving at such a speed at night was wrong, even though the road may have been quiet and well lit, because other drivers could not anticipate what was happening and an error could lead to devastating results.
A Cambridgeshire police spokesman said: "If a member of staff employed by the Police Authority is convicted of any criminal offence, the circumstances are reviewed to assess whether there is a need for internal misconduct proceedings.
This assessment will be carried out by the constabulary's Professional Standards department."
After the court hearing, Crisall declined to comment.
Campaigner Criticises 'Inadequate' Punishment of Speeding Police Pilot
By Brian Farmer, PA
A road safety campaigner today condemned magistrates who imposed a three-week motoring ban on a police helicopter pilot caught driving his car at 118 mph in a 70mph zone.
Brigitte Chaudhry, founder of the charity RoadPeace, said David Crisall’s punishment was “totally inadequate“.
Ms Chaudhry said 38-year-old Crisall, a civilian who flies the Cambridgeshire Police helicopter, should have been banned from driving for “at least six months“.
And she said Cambridgeshire Police should “immediately” stop employing him as a pilot.
“The sentence is totally inadequate,” she said. “The magistrates are clearly unaware of the dangers by speeding or don’t care about it.
“I would have thought he should have got a six-month ban at least. They have the power to ban for three years.”
She added: “The fact that he is employed by the police as a pilot makes it even more serious. The police should immediately dismiss him. He is certainly no credit to them.
“If he had hit anyone at that speed they would have been smashed to smithereens. These kind of sentences send out the wrong message and it is so frustrating for organisations like ours.”
Police said Crisall’s position was being assessed and a spokeswoman added: “If a member of staff employed by the Police Authority is convicted of any criminal offence, the circumstances are reviewed to assess whether there is a need for internal misconduct proceedings. This assessment will be carried out by the constabulary’s Professional Standards department.”
Magistrates in Huntingdon, Cambs, heard on Friday how police clocked Crisall driving an Alfa Romeo 166 at 118 mph on the A1M at Alconbury, Cambs, in the early hours of January 21.
Crisall, of Ramsey, Cambs, admitted speeding. He was banned for 21 days and fined £400.
He told the court that losing his driving licence would make it hard for him to get to work.
POLICE helicopter pilot David banned from driving
POLICE helicopter pilot David Crisall has been banned from driving - after he was caught driving at nearly 120mph on the A1.
His driving was slammed as "appalling" by the national road safety charity Brake which said he had put lives at risk and that there was no excuse for travelling at such a high speed.
Crisall, 38, of Great Whyte, Ramsey, was clocked travelling at 118mph in his Alfa Romeo 166 on the A1M at Alconbury by colleagues from the Cambridgeshire force.
Magistrates at Huntingdon heard that the incident happened at about 2.30am on January 21.
Crisall said losing his licence would cause problems in getting to his job, which involved life or death operations. He admitted speeding and was banned from driving for 21 days, fined £400 and ordered to pay £35 costs.
Magistrates told him: "Speeding at 118mph is 48mph over the speed limit which is not acceptable. At the end of the day the law is the law."
Tracey Bellingham, prosecuting, said police at Alconbury saw the Alfa Romeo which they thought was speeding and recorded it at 118mph in the 70mph limit.
Crisall, a civilian who flies for the police, told the court: "It was excessive speed and was unacceptable."
He said he had just finished a flying shift at 2.15am and had been going to the 24-hour Tesco at Hampton Hargate.
He was alert from his shift and the road conditions were good, despite it being January.
Crisall said he worked shifts and had routine call-outs to deal with "life and death situations" which meant it would be difficult to get to RAF Wyton where the helicopter was based without a licence. It would also affect the flying rota.
He said a short ban would mean he could continue with the job.
A spokesman for Brake said: "It is obviously absolutely appalling that anybody associated with the police should be driving at this speed.
"There is absolutely no justification for it.
"This is a person who is likely to be dealing with serious road accidents and he ought to know better."
The spokesman said Crisall deserved to be made an example of because of his position.
She said: "Quite simply, he put lives at risk by doing that."
The spokesman said that driving at such a speed at night was wrong, even though the road may have been quiet and well lit, because other drivers could not anticipate what was happening and an error could lead to devastating results.
A Cambridgeshire police spokesman said: "If a member of staff employed by the Police Authority is convicted of any criminal offence, the circumstances are reviewed to assess whether there is a need for internal misconduct proceedings.
This assessment will be carried out by the constabulary's Professional Standards department."
After the court hearing, Crisall declined to comment.
Campaigner Criticises 'Inadequate' Punishment of Speeding Police Pilot
By Brian Farmer, PA
A road safety campaigner today condemned magistrates who imposed a three-week motoring ban on a police helicopter pilot caught driving his car at 118 mph in a 70mph zone.
Brigitte Chaudhry, founder of the charity RoadPeace, said David Crisall’s punishment was “totally inadequate“.
Ms Chaudhry said 38-year-old Crisall, a civilian who flies the Cambridgeshire Police helicopter, should have been banned from driving for “at least six months“.
And she said Cambridgeshire Police should “immediately” stop employing him as a pilot.
“The sentence is totally inadequate,” she said. “The magistrates are clearly unaware of the dangers by speeding or don’t care about it.
“I would have thought he should have got a six-month ban at least. They have the power to ban for three years.”
She added: “The fact that he is employed by the police as a pilot makes it even more serious. The police should immediately dismiss him. He is certainly no credit to them.
“If he had hit anyone at that speed they would have been smashed to smithereens. These kind of sentences send out the wrong message and it is so frustrating for organisations like ours.”
Police said Crisall’s position was being assessed and a spokeswoman added: “If a member of staff employed by the Police Authority is convicted of any criminal offence, the circumstances are reviewed to assess whether there is a need for internal misconduct proceedings. This assessment will be carried out by the constabulary’s Professional Standards department.”
Magistrates in Huntingdon, Cambs, heard on Friday how police clocked Crisall driving an Alfa Romeo 166 at 118 mph on the A1M at Alconbury, Cambs, in the early hours of January 21.
Crisall, of Ramsey, Cambs, admitted speeding. He was banned for 21 days and fined £400.
He told the court that losing his driving licence would make it hard for him to get to work.
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Red Red Back to Bed
Posts: 541
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Typical reaction from the do gooders.
Ok he was breaking the law and therefore should be punished however he's probably more capable of driving safely at 120 mph than these tree huggers are at 60 mph. Thats my assumption.
Ok he was breaking the law and therefore should be punished however he's probably more capable of driving safely at 120 mph than these tree huggers are at 60 mph. Thats my assumption.
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Red Red Back to Bed
Posts: 541
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
a) because he is a pilot. In his line of work he will be used to flying low level at relatively high speed and I would assume (here's the assumption) have the skills and reflexes to cope with this. These skills have a direct read across to driving. Thats why there are only a certain percentage of people who can physically become pilots, just like there is only a certain percentage of people who can physically become racing drivers. And I dont think that was arrogant (cos I'm not a pilot) but objective. 
to yourself.
to yourself.
As he is a pilot, he should respect limits.....
Unfortunately we are never likely to see more realistic limits on UK roads whilst so many people disrespect exisiting limits. I'd be very happy to see higher limits on motorways (90 mph) BUT with substantially increased penalties for those who don't observe them.
Wasn't that what the Dutch did when they raised their limits?
Unfortunately we are never likely to see more realistic limits on UK roads whilst so many people disrespect exisiting limits. I'd be very happy to see higher limits on motorways (90 mph) BUT with substantially increased penalties for those who don't observe them.
Wasn't that what the Dutch did when they raised their limits?
These skills have a direct read across to driving
edited to switch myself on
Last edited by ZH875; 26th Jun 2005 at 14:08.
Greetings From Hell's Dark Heart
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: The Emerald City
Age: 70
Posts: 121
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I would like to see anyone bank right by 90 Deg ... on any road
We did turn a bit, as I recall. Not sure if it was 6g though, I was too busy listening to the YoS dangling in the other seat, who seemed to be a bit upset about something.
He must have spilled his coffee
I would think if I was flying for the Plod....and got myself dinged for that kind of offense....I would have lowered me chin...rounded my shoulders, shuffled my feet, paid the fine....mumbled something along the lines of "what was I thinking....." , offered my most humble apologies to the senior Plod extant and made myself as nearly invisible as possible.
Pay the fine, hire a car for three weeks....and pray you don't get fired! I sure would not have been an embarrassment to the Plod....knowing they do not like to be embarrassed.
Pay the fine, hire a car for three weeks....and pray you don't get fired! I sure would not have been an embarrassment to the Plod....knowing they do not like to be embarrassed.
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: East Midlands
Age: 84
Posts: 1,511
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
My slim knowledge of the law in this area is:-
1. GATSO are fixed cameras and not operated by the police. They are fixed, on the roadside and automatic.
2. Did the officer say, at the time, that the facts would be reported with a view to considering prosecution? If he did then they have 6 months to issue a summons.
3. If he did not they have 14 days plus postage time to serve you with a NIP. In fact, as a hire car is involved, they have 14 days to get it to the hire car people and they can take as long as they like forwarding it to you. The NIP has to be served on the "Registered Keeper" within 14 days.
1. GATSO are fixed cameras and not operated by the police. They are fixed, on the roadside and automatic.
2. Did the officer say, at the time, that the facts would be reported with a view to considering prosecution? If he did then they have 6 months to issue a summons.
3. If he did not they have 14 days plus postage time to serve you with a NIP. In fact, as a hire car is involved, they have 14 days to get it to the hire car people and they can take as long as they like forwarding it to you. The NIP has to be served on the "Registered Keeper" within 14 days.
I don't own this space under my name. I should have leased it while I still could
1. Prat.
2. Prat squared for airing it here.
3. Still a prat.
4. Be honest for a change.
5. Plan a career elsewhere after your interview.
Now the good news.
We had a Nav Stude who was several £k in debt at IOT, and before, whom they theoretically sorted out. He then pranged a new car with mandatory comprehensive insurance. The car cost £9k when most of us could only afford £8k. He only had 3rd party insurance.
He lied, he was irresponsible, immature etc yet Cranditz still passed him. Took us ages to get rid of him.
Moral? Give it a go, be honest, if you have all the other attribiutes then you might get an offer.
2. Prat squared for airing it here.
3. Still a prat.
4. Be honest for a change.
5. Plan a career elsewhere after your interview.
Now the good news.
We had a Nav Stude who was several £k in debt at IOT, and before, whom they theoretically sorted out. He then pranged a new car with mandatory comprehensive insurance. The car cost £9k when most of us could only afford £8k. He only had 3rd party insurance.
He lied, he was irresponsible, immature etc yet Cranditz still passed him. Took us ages to get rid of him.
Moral? Give it a go, be honest, if you have all the other attribiutes then you might get an offer.
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Neverland
Posts: 63
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Just don't be too surprised if they don't consider you - like what has been said, there are many other candidates that they can chose from who are completely honest.
It's that kind of mentality that kills other people as well as you - especially if you're in something a little more powerful and expensive.
You need to grow up before you should be considered in my opinion.
What has been said is correct, as long as the sentence/ban has been served that is fine.
God help us.
It's that kind of mentality that kills other people as well as you - especially if you're in something a little more powerful and expensive.
You need to grow up before you should be considered in my opinion.
What has been said is correct, as long as the sentence/ban has been served that is fine.
God help us.
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: earth
Posts: 92
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I have to agree with Pontious Nav
BE HONEST. Admit your crimes, take your punishment and then do not hide your CONVICTIONS (ie those done for). There are plenty of people who go through Cranwell with huge amounts of 'baggage' and a history of Police 'liaisons', so why not you?
Again be honest with yourself, 115 mph is grossly over the speed limit and probably extremely dangerous on our roads even at 0500 hrs on a Sunday. Would you recruit someone who disregards rules and endangers their pals' lives so easily?
If you fail, try again until age overtakes you, the more years of repentance you can show, the better.
Finally , cut the story about confusion with insurance documents, it makes your situation worse. You knew whether you were insured, and that fact remains wherever the documents were stored. In this country we have 7 days grace to prove we were driving legally. All this lying and bull**** storytelling will have only incensed the police to pursue you with a greater vigour.
If you were honest and convince me this was a momentary lapse, I might recruit you if all other things were equal. If I thought you were a liability who will do anything for an easy life or to impress your mates, you wouldn't get your bus fare home, never mind a responsible job. Your action of posting an honest pea for help on this forum suggests you might be genuinely remorseful.
Good Luck.
BE HONEST. Admit your crimes, take your punishment and then do not hide your CONVICTIONS (ie those done for). There are plenty of people who go through Cranwell with huge amounts of 'baggage' and a history of Police 'liaisons', so why not you?
Again be honest with yourself, 115 mph is grossly over the speed limit and probably extremely dangerous on our roads even at 0500 hrs on a Sunday. Would you recruit someone who disregards rules and endangers their pals' lives so easily?
If you fail, try again until age overtakes you, the more years of repentance you can show, the better.
Finally , cut the story about confusion with insurance documents, it makes your situation worse. You knew whether you were insured, and that fact remains wherever the documents were stored. In this country we have 7 days grace to prove we were driving legally. All this lying and bull**** storytelling will have only incensed the police to pursue you with a greater vigour.
If you were honest and convince me this was a momentary lapse, I might recruit you if all other things were equal. If I thought you were a liability who will do anything for an easy life or to impress your mates, you wouldn't get your bus fare home, never mind a responsible job. Your action of posting an honest pea for help on this forum suggests you might be genuinely remorseful.
Good Luck.
Fat Albert
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Wilts, UK
Age: 63
Posts: 287
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Skills and reflexes to drive at those sorts of speeds??
What about the rest of the non superhuman common road users, myself included, who perhaps don't have those sort of "skills" and may chance to encounter him driving at 120 mph.
It's got nothing to do with being a pilot or a policeman.
It's got everything to do with consideration for other road users.
What about the rest of the non superhuman common road users, myself included, who perhaps don't have those sort of "skills" and may chance to encounter him driving at 120 mph.
It's got nothing to do with being a pilot or a policeman.
It's got everything to do with consideration for other road users.
So on a lightly used bit of motorway on a Sunday night, you can't handle a fast car zooming past you? How about if there was a whole lane's separation between you? Still quick to judge?