Photography on London Underground - yes, it's allowed
 

Tom Anderson wrote:

On Sat, 18 Apr 2009, Tony Polson wrote:

Jeremy Double wrote:

Tony Polson 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?

The government is well aware of the problem. A couple of years ago it
tried to bounce police forces into merging into a much smaller number
of much larger forces. Unfortunately for the government, the police
rebelled, and so did the local councils whose ineffectual police
authorities may well be at the root of the problem.

I don't pretend to know whether bigger would be better, but the Home
Office seemed to be convinced that it was.

However, it's interesting that most of the complaints come from the
Metropolitan Police area, the same police force that shot an innocent
man on a tube train, and incidentally the biggest police force in the
UK.

True. It's also the force that leads nationally on anti-terror
operations. Worrying, isn't it?

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. 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.


I think a British FBI is essential. I would strongly prefer to have the
national anti-terrorism effort centralised and subject to the control of
parliament than scattered around many police forces and subject to the
control of thousands of amateurish local councillors.

But faced with the choice of competence and strength, and a disordered
muddle, Britain seems always to plump for the latter.

Photography on London Underground - yes, it's allowed
 

"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.


Wasn't there was a recent case where a motorist was prosecuted for
moving into a bus lane momentarily to allow an ambulance to pass?

Photography on London Underground - yes, it's allowed
 

"MB" wrote:

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


No, he is doing what he always does, and talking "rubbish".

Photography on London Underground - yes, it's allowed
 

"MB" wrote:

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?


Some or all of which are obtained at a "police discount". There's an
insidious practice of police asking business for, and being given, a
"police discount". There is no legal basis for this, and businesses
give it "voluntarily" for fear of what might happen (or not happen) if
they do not.

Photography on London Underground - yes, it's allowed
 

"John Rowland" wrote:

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?


Because politics goes in cycles. There are such things as "political
will", "political capital" and "political opportunity". They all work
on different cycles.

To get anything changed, you have to try to get your initiative to
coincide with as many of the three as possible. One is usually not
enough. Three is almost impossible. Two is the best you can hope for,
but timing is of the essence because you have to time it for when two of
the different cycles coincide.

The boat has sailed for, among other things, House Of Lords reform,
Regional Government and Police Reform. At some future point, the cycles
may coincide once more. Until then, these ideas are dead in the water.

Photography on London Underground - yes, it's allowed
 

Mark Goodge wrote:
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.



wall RUBBISH! /wall

;-)

Photography on London Underground - yes, it's allowed
 

On Sun, 19 Apr 2009 13:53:13 +0100, Tony Polson
wrote:

Some or all of which are obtained at a "police discount". There's an
insidious practice of police asking business for, and being given, a
"police discount". There is no legal basis for this, and businesses
give it "voluntarily" for fear of what might happen (or not happen) if
they do not.

Or because their own security benefits from police officers being
present?

Neil

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

Photography on London Underground - yes, it's allowed
 

Tony Polson wrote:
"John Rowland" wrote:

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?

Because politics goes in cycles. There are such things as "political
will", "political capital" and "political opportunity". They all work
on different cycles.

To get anything changed, you have to try to get your initiative to
coincide with as many of the three as possible. One is usually not
enough. Three is almost impossible. Two is the best you can hope
for, but timing is of the essence because you have to time it for
when two of the different cycles coincide.

The boat has sailed for, among other things, House Of Lords reform,
Regional Government and Police Reform. At some future point, the
cycles may coincide once more. Until then, these ideas are dead in
the water.

You've given a longer version of what Mizter T said, but you haven't really
said why.

Photography on London Underground - yes, it's allowed
 

rail wrote:
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.

Is your nickname "Brick Wall?"

Photography on London Underground - yes, it's allowed
 

"Mark Goodge" wrote in message
house.net...
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"

Usually there's a pedestrian crossing or other space you can move into
without coming into conflict with traffic cossing the junction - technically
you have broken the law by passing the red light but you've not put anyone
in danger by doing this.

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.

I'm struggling to think of a case where you could "make way" for an
emergency vehicle by moving into a bus lane. If the bus lane is clear the
emergency vehicle should be using it, not you ...

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.

If one had passed the red light in order to make way for an emergency
vehicle (see above) it would probably be fairly obvious from the pictures
what had happened.

D A Stocks