Police who harbour or Support Anti Driver Sentiments.
Our Hall of Shame.
Lincs. RPU
Supt. Aubrey Smith
Now to their shame, Lincolnshire Road Policing Unit have very churlishly stopped us from following their public funded Twitter account. These accounts are not private property & we all pay for them so apart from the principle that they cannot be selective like private accounts, what is it that we say or do that is so offensive to them?
Shouldn't they be willing to engage on principles of good genuine road safety policy without unnecessary prosecutions? So don't be childish LRPU, work with us and tell us if we get things wrong.
To North Yorkshire Police 25th May 2013
I am an ex police officer and dedicate most of my life to the local community but also, on a national basis, to genuine altruistic road safety.
I am a cyclist but am also very pro driver. This however means that the road safety profiteers are not pleased with my work and neither are the cyclist lobby who see anything pro driver as anti cyclist.
I am able to cope with the very hostile ridicule, dishonesty and vicious comment and lies but I do draw the line at officials supporting and patronising this in an official capacity. In effect they’re supporting anti driver venom and indeed anti road safety common sense too. In police officers, this is particularly bad. The vicious lobby have set up an imaginary dog twitter account, @KeithPeatsDog the owner of which is not beyond posting libellous tweets about me and my work.
PC Ed Rogerson who claims to be of your force is one such follower. I have asked him several times to desist in his official capacity but he seems to think it’s his duty to take a ‘modern’ view of all aspects. However the fact is that he is patronising an anti driver, anti road safety, imaginary dog who’s objective is to denounce, ridicule and even lie & misquote on road safety. That I can say that about one of your officers brings your force into ridicule too.
I am a regular broadcaster on both TV & Radio on road safety and driving matters and am now including in my comments that I now know and can show that there are anti driver police officers just by their attitude on social networks.
Perhaps it may be wise for police officers not to patronise ridicule accounts in their official capacity. What I am doing with such officials is drawing attention to their activity. Genuine satire can only be based on truth and fact but road safety is a life and death matter where dishonesty isn’t satire and funny but very dangerous.
It’s up to you if you wish to make this a disciplinary matter or, as I would ask, just order him to remove any reference to his official role if engaging in public interest issues in a way that may bring discredit to The Force.
Whilst you may not agree with my approach to road safety, so far, none of my conclusions have been challenged, disproved or denied by officials and it would do police no harm at all to study them with respect for the amount of non vested interest voluntary effort behind them.
Wishes
Keith Peat
Classification: NOT PROTECTIVELY MARKED
Dear Mr Peat,
In response to your email to our Professional Standards Dept. I can now advice (sic) you that I have looked in to the issues you have raised and spoken to PC Rogerson about it.
I am satisfied that PC Rogerson is not breaching the Force Social Networking procedure and has in fact done nothing wrong by his use of Twitter.
All social networking sites are a source of information for the Police Service and I am satisfied with PC Rogerson’s explanation around his use of Twitter and his use of it to listen to, and engage with, the local community.
PC Rogerson is not committing any disciplinary offences in his use of Twitter.
Regards
Aubrey Smith
Superintendent
Collar Number 1231
Harrogate District Safer Neighbourhood Commander
Noted.
In which case your force supports anti road safety anti driver & libellous ridicule tweets in an official capacity.
I will take this up with media and MPs. Your excuse is feeble to be quite frank. I will publish your response on the website as evidence of your force’s anti driver attitude.
Wishes
Keith Peat
Speed facts - Road safety profiteers - Charity amateurs & free loaders - Road tips - Regulations -Useful links - Politics - News
Dear Mr Hardwick,
I wrote to you a while back about the Lincs. Roads Policing Unit, blocking me from their publicly paid for Twitter Account.
I have never been insulting or impolite and my only interest is expert driving & genuine expert road safety dialogue. Yes I do disagree with some of their methods but they should be willing to address those without putting their paws over their ears in a life and death issue. To block me from their activity is not only churlish but I cannot see how a public body can stop access to a public funded account.
You agreed with me and said you will look into it but since then I have heard nothing nor has the situation changed.
Please do see the Police Hall of Shame here: http://bit.ly/17h7Xbe in which I have now included the Lincs RPU but I think we need to establish a principle that, if The Force is to run an account, we must all be able to follow what they are saying and comment. We cannot have a situation where their output cannot be examined by their peers surely?
So North Yorkshire Police think an imaginary dog is part of their community! Surely they can gather information without officially giving tacit support to anti driver anti road safety sentiments cant they?
Any driver prosecuted by this North Yorks PC should mention this to the courts.
This matter has now been resolved in an amicable way and we look forward to a better understanding with this unit.
