Speeding - guilty as charged.

One of the boys in blue gets caught and sentenced.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/...al/7186940.stm

This is unusual, a police man getting caught and punished for speeding, normally they seem to get away with it.

"The former head of a police force driving school has been banned from driving after admitting speeding at 118mph on the M9 motorway near Falkirk.
Paul Gee, 48, who recently retired from Durham Constabulary,..."

I think the things I've highlighted in bold are key factors here.

Once again, they claim it's training/familiarisation, but they're unable to produce a paper trail showing a senior officer granting permission for the give driver/vehicle/time and hence it cannot reasonably be considered training at all. Do they really think the magistrates are dim enough to believe that whenever they speed off duty it's because they're actually concientious and working off the clock, or is it just that like most of us, they speed in their own time?

The last minute plea change (ostensibly to get leniency) smacks of guilt too.

I know its the "law" but does anyone else think this just seems backwards evolution and not forwards??????

" have sat here on many occasions saying to motorists that people who drive over 100 miles an hour cannot expect to keep their driving licences. "

Why? I've sat at much higher speeds, in comfort, with the car/bike under my complete control? Another (basically) desk monkey.....

If he's 48 then he's had a very very hard life!!!!

Originally Posted by Caddy2000

If he's 48 then he's had a very very hard life!!!!

He must have had a long paper round - It's grim oop north.

It appears that he was on duty in uniform in a marked vehicle en-route to pick up a colleague from a convenesant home.

He should NOT have been speeding in these circumstances and knowing this he tried avoid the camera by braking and changing lanes. He also tried to claim a legal exemption saying it was a 'risk assessment run'. This excuse was blown out of the water resulting in him changing his plea prior to the trial.

He has obviously retired between the incident and the court attendance. Was this planned or was he pushed?

In the circumstances he was lucky to get away with the light sentence he received.

[Luckypants]

The offence was committed in 2006 but has only just come to court. It says he is recently retired. My take is he did the offence while a serving officer but has 'retired' because he was about to be banned. There is a well known culture of retiring from civil service before the brown stuff hits the fan - being sacked loses you your pension, so retirement is a 'better' option.

He tried lying to the court that it was 'training' but had not been sanctioned. He was pretty screwed when the Scottish force decided to prosecute.

[Biker Biggles]

Dunno about the actual offense,but I too am interested in how he can retire between being caught and going to court

Can police really retire at 48?Nice work if you can get it.
Or has there been a bit of a scam here where senior officers look after one of their own and "sort" a retirement when any mere mortal would have been on a disciplinary for that?

Originally Posted by Daimo

I know its the "law" but does anyone else think this just seems backwards evolution and not forwards??????

" have sat here on many occasions saying to motorists that people who drive over 100 miles an hour cannot expect to keep their driving licences. "

Why? I've sat at much higher speeds, in comfort, with the car/bike under my complete control? Another (basically) desk monkey.....

Yep. I genuinely don't understand why more of the populace don't feel this way. Even quite intelligent people seem to unquestioningly believe, "well, it must be more dangerous", yet don't think twice about doing 70 in heavy traffic and appalling weather conditions. I don't for one moment approve of the people who do 3 figure speeds when it's not appropriate and certainly not when it impinges on other road users, but I really don't see why the motorway speed limit for cars and bikes couldn't be raised to 90, if not 100. A knock on effect might be decent lane discipline; an end to the sanctimonious ***t sitting at an indicated 69 (so, about 63-64) in the outside lane thinking, "well, I'm not pulling in, I'm already doing the limit".

The only argument against it I hear is: Blah, blah, environment, blah, blah, people who can't drive anyway would crash, blah, blah. Neither of which are sound reasonss- a vehicle with low emissions at 100 is still better than one with high emissions at 70. Most accidents occur at way below the speed limit, no one would be forced to drive at 100- the inside lane would still be full of lorries for those not comfortable at driving so fast and I dare say the middle lane would be full of people doing 70-80.

Originally Posted by Biker Biggles

Dunno about the actual offense,but I too am interested in how he can retire between being caught and going to court

Can police really retire at 48?Nice work if you can get it.
Or has there been a bit of a scam here where senior officers look after one of their own and "sort" a retirement when any mere mortal would have been on a disciplinary for that?

At 48 years old he had completed his full 30 years service and paid his pension contributions in full, so could retire or stay on as he chooses. The impending court case would only influence his decision to retire. No 'scam' involved.