Photography on London Underground - yes, it's allowed
 

On Sat, 18 Apr 2009, John Rowland wrote:

Tom Anderson wrote:
On Fri, 17 Apr 2009, Mizter T wrote:

Whatever, the police really need to get their act in order.

Oh, you noticed that?

I am really utterly perplexed by how the police maange to get away
with being a bunch of incompetent thugs. Not that there aren't good
individual policemen, but there are certainly some very bad ones, and
the organisation as a whole is a disaster. It just seems that nobody
with the power to do anything about it gives a toss. Or has it just
not occurred to people that things could be any better?

The problem is that policemen who joined because they wish to uphold the
law feel outnumbered by policemen who joined because they wish to get
away with breaking the law - so outnumbered that they can't even enjoy
mixing in the staff canteen any more, and end up quitting the force.

I could well believe it, but do you have any specific reason to think
that?

tom

--
curry in a sack

Photography on London Underground - yes, it's allowed
 

Paul Corfield wrote:
redcat wrote:

I'm coming to London soon. Maybe I should just leave my camera at
home :-/

Change your plans and then write to Gordon and Boris and say that the
lack of proper control over the police and their treatment of
photographers has meant you have decided to spend your tourist pounds
elsewhere.

I read that as "terrorist pounds"!

Photography on London Underground - yes, it's allowed
 

rail wrote:
In message
"John Rowland"
wrote:

Mizter T wrote:

I don't actually think that basing a critique of the Met on that
event - the killing of de Menezes - is particularly effective at
all. Be in no doubt, it was an abhorrent screw up of the first
order, but to extrapolate from this one very unusual event ideas
about how other more regular day-to-day policing happens in the
capital is not a strong argument at all.

I believe that was a significant event. In particular, since the
Menezes whitewash I have frequently seen police vehicles pull up at
a red light, wait for ten seconds, get bored, put on the flashing
lights, drive through the junction and then put the lights off
again. I never saw this once in the years before the Menezes
whitewash. It might seem like a little thing, but it's highly
visible (unlike all the other things they might get up to) and it
suggests that the Menezes whitewash has changed the police's
mentality from "the law must be obeyed" to "*we* must be obeyed by
*you*". Once a police car even pulled up behind me in Greenwich
town centre and put the sirens on (at 3am!) causing me to drive
through the red light out of their way, and then they drove through
the lights and put the sirens off. They really couldn't care less,
since Menezes.

Are you aware why they switch the sirens off once they have crossed
the junction?

It could be that the emergency has been cancelled, but if you have an
explanation for why this started happening after the Menezes incident, I'd
like to hear it.

Photography on London Underground - yes, it's allowed
 

Tom Anderson wrote:
On Sat, 18 Apr 2009, John Rowland wrote:

Tom Anderson wrote:
On Fri, 17 Apr 2009, Mizter T wrote:

Whatever, the police really need to get their act in order.

Oh, you noticed that?

I am really utterly perplexed by how the police maange to get away
with being a bunch of incompetent thugs. Not that there aren't good
individual policemen, but there are certainly some very bad ones,
and the organisation as a whole is a disaster. It just seems that
nobody with the power to do anything about it gives a toss. Or has
it just not occurred to people that things could be any better?

The problem is that policemen who joined because they wish to uphold
the law feel outnumbered by policemen who joined because they wish
to get away with breaking the law - so outnumbered that they can't
even enjoy mixing in the staff canteen any more, and end up quitting
the force.

I could well believe it, but do you have any specific reason to think
that?

The silences and facial expressions on ex-coppers faces when they tell you
they are ex-coppers.

Photography on London Underground - yes, it's allowed
 

In message
"John Rowland" wrote:

rail wrote:
[snip]
Are you aware why they switch the sirens off once they have crossed
the junction?

It could be that the emergency has been cancelled, but if you have an
explanation for why this started happening after the Menezes incident, I'd
like to hear it.



It didn't start after the Menezes incident, it is to reduce the amount of
noise polution, which has the advantage of making the siren more noticeable
when it is used. If you here a siren going continuously for a while you tend
to blank it out. Fire engines and ambulances do the same thing.

--
Graeme Wall

This address not read, substitute trains for rail
Transport Miscellany at www.greywall.demon.co.uk/rail

Photography on London Underground - yes, it's allowed
 

On Apr 18, 4:37*pm, Tom Anderson wrote:

[snip]

I think the Bob Quick debacle, and the confusion over his accountability,
may be the final push that leads the government to set up a separate
police force to handle terrorism and so on. [...]

Except there wasn't any confusion over his accountability. With
regards to counter-terrorism matters, the Met is essentially
answerable to the Home Office as opposed to the MPA. All that happened
was that Boris, as Chair of the MPA, got wind of Bob Quick's
resignation and announced it first ahead of the planned announcement
by the Home Secretary. It was basically nothing more than a little bit
of political point scoring - Boris didn't push Quick out, AIUI he had
nothing to do with it. And it wasn't like Quick was pushed out the
door screaming in protest - after discussions had taken place he
realised his position was more or less untenable.

I don't think the Bob Quick affair has any implications of the sort
you're imagining to be honest.

[...] The foundation for it is
already there in the shape of the Serious Organised Crime Agency, and it
wouldn't be too hard to transfer over the Met's national
counter-terrorism, diplomatic protection, etc units. And then it could
absorb the MoD police, the security-related activities of the BTP, the
Civil Nuclear Constabulary, etc. And then hey presto, we have a British
FBI. Optimists would say that this would put these important operations
under the control of a more professional and specialised leadership, where
they can be properly run and supervised, but pessimists would say the
exact opposite - we'd have a runaway national police force which would
inevitably not have proper scrutiny.


SOCA does however currently operate to a fairly tight remit and is
very secretive, so one could argue that it's far from the ideal
foundation for this.

Anyway I reckon the boat for significant structural police reform in
this country has already sailed, and it was missed. It'll be a while
until there's another sailing.

Photography on London Underground - yes, it's allowed
 

"rail" wrote in message
...
In message
"John Rowland" wrote:

Mizter T wrote:

I don't actually think that basing a critique of the Met on that event
- the killing of de Menezes - is particularly effective at all. Be in
no doubt, it was an abhorrent screw up of the first order, but to
extrapolate from this one very unusual event ideas about how other
more regular day-to-day policing happens in the capital is not a
strong argument at all.

I believe that was a significant event. In particular, since the Menezes
whitewash I have frequently seen police vehicles pull up at a red light,
wait for ten seconds, get bored, put on the flashing lights, drive
through
the junction and then put the lights off again. I never saw this once in
the years before the Menezes whitewash. It might seem like a little
thing,
but it's highly visible (unlike all the other things they might get up
to)
and it suggests that the Menezes whitewash has changed the police's
mentality from "the law must be obeyed" to "*we* must be obeyed by
*you*".
Once a police car even pulled up behind me in Greenwich town centre and
put the sirens on (at 3am!) causing me to drive through the red light
out
of their way, and then they drove through the lights and put the sirens
off. They really couldn't care less, since Menezes.



Are you aware why they switch the sirens off once they have crossed the
junction?




I am sure the official reason will be that it so they are not heard by the
criminals at the scene they are going to but we all know that they misuse
it all the time. Like the excuse for parking on double-yellow lines is
always that they are investigating a crime when we all know they are
regularly seen leaving the "scene of the crime" with takeaways, burgers,
chips etc presumably all very important evidence?

Photography on London Underground - yes, it's allowed
 

"Roland Perry" wrote in message
...
In message , at 15:20:08 on Sat, 18
Apr 2009, John Rowland remarked:
Once a police car even pulled up behind me in Greenwich town centre and
put the sirens on (at 3am!) causing me to drive through the red light out
of their way, and then they drove through the lights and put the sirens
off.

Sirens are not enough to allow someone to break the law by running a red
light. You need to be instructed to do so by a policeman in uniform,
which means you need to see that the people giving the instructions are
both police, and in uniform.


And even then you could be fined if there is a Red Light Camera and find it
very difficult to prove you moved out of the way of a police car. If you
write the police and ask should you through a red light in circumstances
like that then you will told that you should never go through a red light.

Photography on London Underground - yes, it's allowed
 

John Rowland wrote:
Paul Corfield wrote:
redcat wrote:
I'm coming to London soon. Maybe I should just leave my camera at
home :-/
Change your plans and then write to Gordon and Boris and say that the
lack of proper control over the police and their treatment of
photographers has meant you have decided to spend your tourist pounds
elsewhere.

I read that as "terrorist pounds"!


Ah! Subliminal brainwashing! :-)

Photography on London Underground - yes, it's allowed
 

In message t
"MB" wrote:


"rail" wrote in message
...

Are you aware why they switch the sirens off once they have crossed the
junction?




I am sure the official reason will be that it so they are not heard by the
criminals at the scene they are going to but we all know that they misuse
it all the time.

Well*you are totally wrong.

And no they don't*misuse it all the time, the sirens are connected to the
black box recorder on board the vehicle so that the use can be monitored.

Like the excuse for parking on double-yellow lines is
always that they are investigating a crime when we all know they are
regularly seen leaving the "scene of the crime" with takeaways, burgers,
chips etc presumably all very important evidence?


Cite?

--
Graeme Wall

This address not read, substitute trains for rail
Transport Miscellany at www.greywall.demon.co.uk/rail

Photography on London Underground - yes, it's allowed
 

In message t
"MB" wrote:


"Roland Perry" wrote in message
...
In message , at 15:20:08 on Sat, 18
Apr 2009, John Rowland remarked:
Once a police car even pulled up behind me in Greenwich town centre and
put the sirens on (at 3am!) causing me to drive through the red light out
of their way, and then they drove through the lights and put the sirens
off.

Sirens are not enough to allow someone to break the law by running a red
light. You need to be instructed to do so by a policeman in uniform,
which means you need to see that the people giving the instructions are
both police, and in uniform.


And even then you could be fined if there is a Red Light Camera and find it
very difficult to prove you moved out of the way of a police car. If you
write the police and ask should you through a red light in circumstances
like that then you will told that you should never go through a red light.


Rubbish

--
Graeme Wall

This address not read, substitute trains for rail
Transport Miscellany at www.greywall.demon.co.uk/rail

Photography on London Underground - yes, it's allowed
 

rail wrote:
In message
"John Rowland" wrote:

rail wrote:
[snip]
Are you aware why they switch the sirens off once they have crossed
the junction?
It could be that the emergency has been cancelled, but if you have an
explanation for why this started happening after the Menezes incident, I'd
like to hear it.



It didn't start after the Menezes incident, it is to reduce the amount of
noise polution, which has the advantage of making the siren more noticeable
when it is used. If you here a siren going continuously for a while you tend
to blank it out. Fire engines and ambulances do the same thing.


In NYC they've made all sirens even more ear-piercing. Of course, it is
*very* hard to move heavy traffic along down a street, since drivers,
rightfully, are afraid of going across the intersection against the
light, since they might get t-boned. The sirens, I suppose, help all
drivers in range hear that something's going on.

Trouble is, the sirens are so loud and so ubiquitous some days that it
becomes very confusing as to where the sound is coming from.

I have a few times stopped Lexington Avenue traffic by our local
hospital in order to let the ambulance cross the intersection.

signed,

Supergirl

Photography on London Underground - yes, it's allowed
 

wrote

often, and yet I understand it's far from common for them to pull a
weapon on anyone, and they hardly ever actually fire a shot.

Indeed. I forget exactly, but I recall reading that in the last 10
years or so they've (the Met) only shot 10 innocent people (or was it

20?). I never recall hearing, however, how many gun waving criminals
they
managed to shoot in the same timespan. It'd be an interesting
comparison -- anyone got any accurate data?

If you mean "shot and killed".

http://www.justice.gov.uk/docs/coron...d-reissued.pdf

Whole of E&W

England and Wales Number of verdicts {to 2007}
Verdict 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004
2005 2006 2007
Homicide, of which:
killed lawfully 1 4 6 1 2 3 2 4 2 6 1 5 4 2 2

Includes those killed by ordinary citizens of course.

In the US this is about 1/3 of the total, see the FBI uniform crime
reports http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/01cius.htm
spreadsheets showing (for 2001) a total of 472, 308 by police/LEOs and
164 of which 138 by firearm
"The killing of a felon, during the commission of a felony, by a
private citizen."

--
Mike D

Photography on London Underground - yes, it's allowed
 

On Sat, 18 Apr 2009, Mizter T wrote:

On Apr 18, 4:37*pm, Tom Anderson wrote:

I think the Bob Quick debacle, and the confusion over his
accountability, may be the final push that leads the government to set
up a separate police force to handle terrorism and so on. [...]

Except there wasn't any confusion over his accountability.

Evidently, there was. Even if only in the minds of the public!

With regards to counter-terrorism matters, the Met is essentially
answerable to the Home Office as opposed to the MPA. All that happened
was that Boris, as Chair of the MPA, got wind of Bob Quick's resignation
and announced it first ahead of the planned announcement by the Home
Secretary. It was basically nothing more than a little bit of political
point scoring - Boris didn't push Quick out, AIUI he had nothing to do
with it. And it wasn't like Quick was pushed out the door screaming in
protest - after discussions had taken place he realised his position was
more or less untenable.

I don't think the Bob Quick affair has any implications of the sort
you're imagining to be honest.

[...] The foundation for it is already there in the shape of the
Serious Organised Crime Agency, and it wouldn't be too hard to transfer
over the Met's national counter-terrorism, diplomatic protection, etc
units. And then it could absorb the MoD police, the security-related
activities of the BTP, the Civil Nuclear Constabulary, etc. And then
hey presto, we have a British FBI. Optimists would say that this would
put these important operations under the control of a more professional
and specialised leadership, where they can be properly run and
supervised, but pessimists would say the exact opposite - we'd have a
runaway national police force which would inevitably not have proper
scrutiny.

SOCA does however currently operate to a fairly tight remit and is very
secretive, so one could argue that it's far from the ideal foundation
for this.

Are counter-terror operations also not usually quite secretive?

I admit that the BTP, CNC etc might not be such appropriate elements of
this hypothetical force.

Anyway I reckon the boat for significant structural police reform in
this country has already sailed, and it was missed. It'll be a while
until there's another sailing.

I don't really see why that's the case. There'd be a lot of resistance to
another attempt at wholesale rejigging of forces, as was attempted with
the super-force idea, but that's not what would be happening here. This
would basically just be removing some bits from the Met.

tom

--
curry in a sack

Photography on London Underground - yes, it's allowed
 

"rail" wrote in message
...
In message t
"MB" wrote:


"rail" wrote in message
...

Are you aware why they switch the sirens off once they have crossed
the
junction?




I am sure the official reason will be that it so they are not heard by
the
criminals at the scene they are going to but we all know that they
misuse
it all the time.

Well you are totally wrong.

And no they don't misuse it all the time, the sirens are connected to the
black box recorder on board the vehicle so that the use can be monitored.

Like the excuse for parking on double-yellow lines is
always that they are investigating a crime when we all know they are
regularly seen leaving the "scene of the crime" with takeaways, burgers,
chips etc presumably all very important evidence?


Cite?



There have been lots of examples in the newspapers of police vehicles
parked on double-yellow lines, pavement, bus stops, disabled bays etc with
the plods in a takeaway or similar. It could of course be that there is a
crime wave at these types of premises.

I have seen it myself quite often.

If there is a query about use of sirens and blues to get through red lights
then they will just say that they saw a suspicious vehicle ahead and needed
to check but when they got closer they realised it was OK.

Photography on London Underground - yes, it's allowed
 

"rail" wrote in message
...
In message t
"MB" wrote:


"Roland Perry" wrote in message
...
In message , at 15:20:08 on Sat,
18
Apr 2009, John Rowland
remarked:
Once a police car even pulled up behind me in Greenwich town centre
and
put the sirens on (at 3am!) causing me to drive through the red light
out
of their way, and then they drove through the lights and put the
sirens
off.

Sirens are not enough to allow someone to break the law by running a
red
light. You need to be instructed to do so by a policeman in uniform,
which means you need to see that the people giving the instructions
are
both police, and in uniform.


And even then you could be fined if there is a Red Light Camera and find
it
very difficult to prove you moved out of the way of a police car. If
you
write the police and ask should you through a red light in circumstances
like that then you will told that you should never go through a red
light.


Rubbish




There is an example in the Motoring Telegraph of a driver booked by a RLC
camera because he moved out of the way for a police vehicle. It took him a
long time to be able to prove he was innocent.

There has been talk in the press about crossing a red light to allow an
emergency vehicle to get past but the police always give a blanket "thou
shalt not go through a red light".

Photography on London Underground - yes, it's allowed
 

In message t
"MB" wrote:


"rail" wrote in message
...
In message t
"MB" wrote:


"rail" wrote in message
...

Are you aware why they switch the sirens off once they have crossed
the junction?




I am sure the official reason will be that it so they are not heard by
the criminals at the scene they are going to but we all know that they
misuse it all the time.

Well you are totally wrong.

And no they don't misuse it all the time, the sirens are connected to the
black box recorder on board the vehicle so that the use can be monitored.

Like the excuse for parking on double-yellow lines is always that they
are investigating a crime when we all know they are regularly seen
leaving the "scene of the crime" with takeaways, burgers, chips etc
presumably all very important evidence?


Cite?



There have been lots of examples in the newspapers of police vehicles
parked on double-yellow lines, pavement, bus stops, disabled bays etc with
the plods in a takeaway or similar. It could of course be that there is a
crime wave at these types of premises.

I have seen it myself quite often.

Yeah right...


If there is a query about use of sirens and blues to get through red lights
then they will just say that they saw a suspicious vehicle ahead and needed
to check but when they got closer they realised it was OK.


Can I recommend Healey's law.

--
Graeme Wall

This address not read, substitute trains for rail
Transport Miscellany at www.greywall.demon.co.uk/rail

Photography on London Underground - yes, it's allowed
 

In message t
"MB" wrote:


"rail" wrote in message
...
In message t
"MB" wrote:


"Roland Perry" wrote in message
...
In message , at 15:20:08 on Sat,
18 Apr 2009, John Rowland
remarked:
Once a police car even pulled up behind me in Greenwich town centre
and put the sirens on (at 3am!) causing me to drive through the red
light out of their way, and then they drove through the lights and
put the sirens off.

Sirens are not enough to allow someone to break the law by running a
red light. You need to be instructed to do so by a policeman in
uniform, which means you need to see that the people giving the
instructions are both police, and in uniform.


And even then you could be fined if there is a Red Light Camera and
find it very difficult to prove you moved out of the way of a police
car. If you write the police and ask should you through a red light
in circumstances like that then you will told that you should never go
through a red light.


Rubbish




There is an example in the Motoring Telegraph of a driver booked by a RLC
camera because he moved out of the way for a police vehicle. It took him a
long time to be able to prove he was innocent.

There has been talk in the press about crossing a red light to allow an
emergency vehicle to get past but the police always give a blanket "thou
shalt not go through a red light".


I repeat, rubbish.

--
Graeme Wall

This address not read, substitute trains for rail
Transport Miscellany at www.greywall.demon.co.uk/rail

Photography on London Underground - yes, it's allowed
 

"rail" wrote in message
...
In message t
"MB" wrote:


"rail" wrote in message
...
In message t
"MB" wrote:


"Roland Perry" wrote in message
...
In message , at 15:20:08 on
Sat,
18 Apr 2009, John Rowland
remarked:
Once a police car even pulled up behind me in Greenwich town
centre
and put the sirens on (at 3am!) causing me to drive through the
red
light out of their way, and then they drove through the lights
and
put the sirens off.

Sirens are not enough to allow someone to break the law by running
a
red light. You need to be instructed to do so by a policeman in
uniform, which means you need to see that the people giving the
instructions are both police, and in uniform.


And even then you could be fined if there is a Red Light Camera and
find it very difficult to prove you moved out of the way of a
police
car. If you write the police and ask should you through a red
light
in circumstances like that then you will told that you should never
go
through a red light.


Rubbish




There is an example in the Motoring Telegraph of a driver booked by a
RLC
camera because he moved out of the way for a police vehicle. It took
him a
long time to be able to prove he was innocent.

There has been talk in the press about crossing a red light to allow an
emergency vehicle to get past but the police always give a blanket "thou
shalt not go through a red light".


I repeat, rubbish.



Are you saying the letter in the Motoring Telegraph was lies?

Photography on London Underground - yes, it's allowed
 

On Sat, 18 Apr 2009 20:03:47 +0100, "MB" wrote:

There is an example in the Motoring Telegraph of a driver booked by a RLC
camera

Is that like a "PIN number" or an "ATM machine"?

:)

Neil

--
Neil Williams
Put my first name before the at to reply.

Photography on London Underground - yes, it's allowed
 

Upon the miasma of midnight, a darkling spirit identified as Neil
Williams gently breathed:
On Sat, 18 Apr 2009 20:03:47 +0100, "MB" wrote:

There is an example in the Motoring Telegraph of a driver booked by a RLC
camera

Is that like a "PIN number" or an "ATM machine"?

LOL! That battle appears to be well and truly lost - I've seen "PIN
Number" displayed on the screen of an ATM (RBS or Tesco one, I think).


--
- DJ Pyromancer, Black Sheep, Leeds. http://www.sheepish.net
- Wisefire Promotions, Goth & Metal. http://www.wise-fire.com
- http://www.inkubus-sukkubus.co.uk http://www.revival.stormshadow.com

Photography on London Underground - yes, it's allowed
 

rail wrote:
In message
"John Rowland"
wrote:

rail wrote:
[snip]
Are you aware why they switch the sirens off once they have crossed
the junction?

It could be that the emergency has been cancelled, but if you have an
explanation for why this started happening after the Menezes
incident, I'd like to hear it.



It didn't start after the Menezes incident, it is to reduce the
amount of noise polution, which has the advantage of making the siren
more noticeable when it is used. If you here a siren going
continuously for a while you tend to blank it out. Fire engines and
ambulances do the same thing.

You're talking about when they put the siren off and leave the lights
flashing. I said
"I have frequently seen police vehicles pull up at a red light, wait for ten
seconds, get bored, put on the flashing lights, drive through the junction
and then put the lights off again"
About the Greenwich incident I should have said "Once a police car even
pulled up behind me in Greenwich town centre and put the lights and sirens
on (at 3am!) causing me to drive through the red light out of their way, and
then they drove through the lights and put the lights and sirens off."

Photography on London Underground - yes, it's allowed
 

In message t
"MB" wrote:


"rail" wrote in message
...
[snip]
And even then you could be fined if there is a Red Light Camera and
find it very difficult to prove you moved out of the way of a
police car. If you write the police and ask should you through a
red light in circumstances like that then you will told that you
should never go through a red light.


Rubbish




There is an example in the Motoring Telegraph of a driver booked by a
RLC
camera because he moved out of the way for a police vehicle. It took
him a
long time to be able to prove he was innocent.

There has been talk in the press about crossing a red light to allow an
emergency vehicle to get past but the police always give a blanket "thou
shalt not go through a red light".


I repeat, rubbish.



Are you saying the letter in the Motoring Telegraph was lies?



Neat evasion.

--
Graeme Wall

This address not read, substitute trains for rail
Transport Miscellany at www.greywall.demon.co.uk/rail

Photography on London Underground - yes, it's allowed
 

In message
"John Rowland" wrote:

rail wrote:
In message
"John Rowland" wrote:

rail wrote:
[snip]
Are you aware why they switch the sirens off once they have crossed
the junction?

It could be that the emergency has been cancelled, but if you have an
explanation for why this started happening after the Menezes incident,
I'd like to hear it.



It didn't start after the Menezes incident, it is to reduce the amount of
noise polution, which has the advantage of making the siren more
noticeable when it is used. If you here a siren going continuously for a
while you tend to blank it out. Fire engines and ambulances do the same
thing.

You're talking about when they put the siren off and leave the lights
flashing. I said "I have frequently seen police vehicles pull up at a red
light, wait for ten seconds, get bored, put on the flashing lights, drive
through the junction and then put the lights off again"

I dispute that you have seen it frequently.

About the Greenwich incident I should have said "Once a police car even
pulled up behind me in Greenwich town centre and put the lights and sirens
on (at 3am!) causing me to drive through the red light out of their way,
and then they drove through the lights and put the lights and sirens off."



But you didn't say that. Looks like you are changing the story to fit your
prejudices.

--
Graeme Wall

This address not read, substitute trains for rail
Transport Miscellany at www.greywall.demon.co.uk/rail

Photography on London Underground - yes, it's allowed
 

On Sat, 18 Apr 2009 20:18:10 +0100, rail put finger to keyboard and
typed:

In message t
"MB" wrote:


There is an example in the Motoring Telegraph of a driver booked by a RLC
camera because he moved out of the way for a police vehicle. It took him a
long time to be able to prove he was innocent.

There has been talk in the press about crossing a red light to allow an
emergency vehicle to get past but the police always give a blanket "thou
shalt not go through a red light".


I repeat, rubbish.

Why do you think it's rubbish? Do you have counter-evidence?

Mark
--
Blog: http://mark.goodge.co.uk
Stuff: http://www.good-stuff.co.uk

Photography on London Underground - yes, it's allowed
 

In message , at 20:18:10 on Sat,
18 Apr 2009, rail remarked:
There is an example in the Motoring Telegraph of a driver booked by a RLC
camera because he moved out of the way for a police vehicle. It took him a
long time to be able to prove he was innocent.

There has been talk in the press about crossing a red light to allow an
emergency vehicle to get past but the police always give a blanket "thou
shalt not go through a red light".

I repeat, rubbish.

There are plenty of examples of people being fined for getting out of
the way of emergency vehicles.

As for police advice, it's very specific (as part of a long list of
things they don't expect you to do):

"We do NOT expect you to put yourself in danger by crossing red
traffic lights to make way for us."

http://www.met.police.uk/mpds/advice.htm
--
Roland Perry

Photography on London Underground - yes, it's allowed
 

"Roland Perry" wrote in message
...
In message , at 20:18:10 on Sat,
18 Apr 2009, rail remarked:
There is an example in the Motoring Telegraph of a driver booked by a
RLC
camera because he moved out of the way for a police vehicle. It took
him a
long time to be able to prove he was innocent.

There has been talk in the press about crossing a red light to allow an
emergency vehicle to get past but the police always give a blanket
"thou
shalt not go through a red light".

I repeat, rubbish.

There are plenty of examples of people being fined for getting out of
the way of emergency vehicles.

As for police advice, it's very specific (as part of a long list of
things they don't expect you to do):

"We do NOT expect you to put yourself in danger by crossing red
traffic lights to make way for us."

http://www.met.police.uk/mpds/advice.htm
--
Roland Perry


That sounds like a clever way of saying "we would like you get out of our
way at traffic lights if it is safe but if you have an accident we will not
accept any responsibility and probably charge you"

Photography on London Underground - yes, it's allowed
 

In message e.net
Mark Goodge wrote:

On Sat, 18 Apr 2009 20:18:10 +0100, rail put finger to keyboard and
typed:

In message t
"MB" wrote:


There is an example in the Motoring Telegraph of a driver booked by a
RLC camera because he moved out of the way for a police vehicle. It
took him a long time to be able to prove he was innocent.

There has been talk in the press about crossing a red light to allow an
emergency vehicle to get past but the police always give a blanket
"thou shalt not go through a red light"


I repeat, rubbish.

Why do you think it's rubbish? Do you have counter-evidence?


As the police have the power to instruct a driver to pass a red light (but
not a flashing red light) then stating that 'police always give a blanket
"thou shalt not go through a red light' is patent rubbish.

--
Graeme Wall

This address not read, substitute trains for rail
Transport Miscellany at www.greywall.demon.co.uk/rail

Photography on London Underground - yes, it's allowed
 

In message
Roland Perry wrote:

In message , at 20:18:10 on Sat,
18 Apr 2009, rail remarked:
There is an example in the Motoring Telegraph of a driver booked by a RLC
camera because he moved out of the way for a police vehicle. It took
him a long time to be able to prove he was innocent.

There has been talk in the press about crossing a red light to allow an
emergency vehicle to get past but the police always give a blanket "thou
shalt not go through a red light".

I repeat, rubbish.

There are plenty of examples of people being fined for getting out of
the way of emergency vehicles.

Where are these 'plenty of examples'? My local paper is full of them, not.


As for police advice, it's very specific (as part of a long list of things
they don't expect you to do):

"We do NOT expect you to put yourself in danger by crossing red
traffic lights to make way for us."

http://www.met.police.uk/mpds/advice.htm

There are still circumstances where you can be instructed by a police officer
in uniform to pass a red light. eg when the lights have failed and the
crossing is being controlled manually.

--
Graeme Wall

This address not read, substitute trains for rail
Transport Miscellany at www.greywall.demon.co.uk/rail

Photography on London Underground - yes, it's allowed
 

In message , at
10:27:15 on Sun, 19 Apr 2009, MB remarked:
As for police advice, it's very specific (as part of a long list of
things they don't expect you to do):

"We do NOT expect you to put yourself in danger by crossing red
traffic lights to make way for us."

http://www.met.police.uk/mpds/advice.htm

That sounds like a clever way of saying "we would like you get out of our
way at traffic lights if it is safe but if you have an accident we will not
accept any responsibility and probably charge you"

Except when you look at the page as a whole, when it's clear that's not
the hidden meaning.
--
Roland Perry

Photography on London Underground - yes, it's allowed
 

In message , at 10:44:16 on Sun,
19 Apr 2009, rail remarked:
As the police have the power to instruct a driver to pass a red light (but
not a flashing red light) then stating that 'police always give a blanket
"thou shalt not go through a red light' is patent rubbish.

When the only "instruction" to do so is sirens and lights behind, the
police advise you don't run the red light. Obviously a quite separate
policemen (not inside the car in question) could instruct you to - but
that's a very different set of circumstances.
--
Roland Perry

Photography on London Underground - yes, it's allowed
 

In message , at 10:47:22 on Sun, 19
Apr 2009, rail remarked:

There are plenty of examples of people being fined for getting out of
the way of emergency vehicles.

Where are these 'plenty of examples'? My local paper is full of them, not.

Here are some that featured in a recent thread on this very same subject:

http://www.yorkshirepost.co.uk/news/...nting-cost-of-
good.1087412.jp

"A Department of Transport spokesman said: "The Highway Code
states that a vehicle should get out of the way of emergency
vehicles but not in a way that would endanger other road users.
Passing through a red light is illegal."

http://www.radar-detectors.co.uk/new...t_police_car_t
hrough.asp

South Wales police car - which nicked the bloke for getting out of the
way (rather than nicking him for *not* getting out of the way).

Second case, in Doncaster;

"The law does not make allowances for motorists breaking traffic
laws to let emergency vehicles through."

http://www.thisislancashire.co.uk/ne...for_red_light_
good_deed/

Police van with sirens in Manchester.

"Magistrates said they had sympathy with Whittam but saw no
special circumstances to excuse his offence."

As for police advice, it's very specific (as part of a long list of things
they don't expect you to do):

"We do NOT expect you to put yourself in danger by crossing red
traffic lights to make way for us."

http://www.met.police.uk/mpds/advice.htm

There are still circumstances where you can be instructed by a police officer
in uniform to pass a red light. eg when the lights have failed and the
crossing is being controlled manually.

Those are not the circumstances being advised upon when people are making
decisions to clear the road for a following police car.
--
Roland Perry

Photography on London Underground - yes, it's allowed
 

Roland Perry wrote:

There are plenty of examples of people being fined for getting out of
the way of emergency vehicles.

As for police advice, it's very specific (as part of a long list of
things they don't expect you to do):

"We do NOT expect you to put yourself in danger by crossing red
traffic lights to make way for us."

http://www.met.police.uk/mpds/advice.htm

Thank you, a very useful link.

Photography on London Underground - yes, it's allowed
 

In message
Roland Perry wrote:

In message , at 10:44:16 on Sun,
19 Apr 2009, rail remarked:
As the police have the power to instruct a driver to pass a red light (but
not a flashing red light) then stating that 'police always give a blanket
"thou shalt not go through a red light' is patent rubbish.

When the only "instruction" to do so is sirens and lights behind, the
police advise you don't run the red light. Obviously a quite separate
policemen (not inside the car in question) could instruct you to - but
that's a very different set of circumstances.

I would take a police car behind me blipping his siren as an instruction to
move aside. Note that doesn't necessarily mean running the red light as in
crossing the junction, but, as in the two times I've done it (and not been
prosecuted) crossing the white stop line and moving in front of the car in
the next lane. Admittedly neither time was the Met involved.

--
Graeme Wall

This address not read, substitute trains for rail
Transport Miscellany at www.greywall.demon.co.uk/rail

Photography on London Underground - yes, it's allowed
 

In message , at 11:24:48 on Sun,
19 Apr 2009, rail remarked:
I would take a police car behind me blipping his siren as an instruction to
move aside.

The Met advice makes it quite clear what their expectations are.

Note that doesn't necessarily mean running the red light as in
crossing the junction, but, as in the two times I've done it (and not been
prosecuted) crossing the white stop line

The offence is crossing the white line, not literally passing the red
light.

and moving in front of the car in the next lane.

--
Roland Perry

Photography on London Underground - yes, it's allowed
 

In message
Roland Perry wrote:

In message , at 11:24:48 on Sun,
19 Apr 2009, rail remarked:
I would take a police car behind me blipping his siren as an instruction
to move aside.

The Met advice makes it quite clear what their expectations are.

I did point out that specifically the Met were not involved.


Note that doesn't necessarily mean running the red light as in
crossing the junction, but, as in the two times I've done it (and not been
prosecuted) crossing the white stop line

The offence is crossing the white line, not literally passing the red
light.

Hence why I said that, your point is?


and moving in front of the car in the next lane.


--
Graeme Wall

This address not read, substitute trains for rail
Transport Miscellany at www.greywall.demon.co.uk/rail

Photography on London Underground - yes, it's allowed
 

In message , at 11:56:31 on Sun,
19 Apr 2009, rail remarked:

I would take a police car behind me blipping his siren as an instruction
to move aside.

The Met advice makes it quite clear what their expectations are.

I did point out that specifically the Met were not involved.

I would not expect other forces to have different advice, particularly
when it comes to running red lights.

Note that doesn't necessarily mean running the red light as in
crossing the junction, but, as in the two times I've done it (and not been
prosecuted) crossing the white stop line

The offence is crossing the white line, not literally passing the red
light.

Hence why I said that, your point is?

That you were leaving yourself open to prosecution, especially if there
had been a camera.
--
Roland Perry

Photography on London Underground - yes, it's allowed
 

Mizter T wrote:

Anyway I reckon the boat for significant structural police reform in
this country has already sailed, and it was missed. It'll be a while
until there's another sailing.

Why?

Photography on London Underground - yes, it's allowed
 

"John Rowland" wrote:

Paul Corfield wrote:
redcat wrote:

I'm coming to London soon. Maybe I should just leave my camera at
home :-/

Change your plans and then write to Gordon and Boris and say that the
lack of proper control over the police and their treatment of
photographers has meant you have decided to spend your tourist pounds
elsewhere.

I read that as "terrorist pounds"!


They've managed to get inside your head, you see.

[for any value of "They"]

Photography on London Underground - yes, it's allowed
 

On Sun, 19 Apr 2009 10:57:32 +0100, Roland Perry put finger to
keyboard and typed:

In message , at
10:27:15 on Sun, 19 Apr 2009, MB remarked:
As for police advice, it's very specific (as part of a long list of
things they don't expect you to do):

"We do NOT expect you to put yourself in danger by crossing red
traffic lights to make way for us."

http://www.met.police.uk/mpds/advice.htm

That sounds like a clever way of saying "we would like you get out of our
way at traffic lights if it is safe but if you have an accident we will not
accept any responsibility and probably charge you"

Except when you look at the page as a whole, when it's clear that's not
the hidden meaning.

I think the last one on that page is the most telling:

We do NOT expect you to risk road camera fines by, for example,
moving in to bus lanes during hours of operation to make way for us.

That is, effectively, saying that making way for an emergency vehicle
is not considered sufficient grounds to challenge an automatically
issued fixed penalty notice from a camera monitored location. Bus
lanes are one common example of such locations, others would be
light-controlled junctions that have red light cameras.

Mark
--
Blog: http://mark.goodge.co.uk
Stuff: http://www.good-stuff.co.uk