Brunstrom in hot water again over ‘offensive remarks’ made to member of the public
21 February 2008
North Wales chief constable Richard Brunstrom is in hot water with the Independent Police Complains Commission again – this time over ‘offensive remarks’ made to a member of the public.
The IPCC has instructed the North Wales Police Authority to take action over comments made by Brunstrom to Idris Francis, who spent years challenging a speeding case on a point of law.
Responding to a complaint from Francis that Brunstrom had used ‘misleading’ road casualty figures, the chief constable wrote: 'The world would be a much better place if people like you a) obeyed the law and b) owned up when caught breaking it. Your attempt to thwart justice is dishonourable and sets a pathetic example to younger drivers. You should be ashamed of yourself.
'Disappointingly I see no sign that you are. I do not intend to get into a pointless argument with you about collision and casualty statistics - your behaviour as a convicted offender, apparently in denial, renders you an irrelevance to serious debate on the issue.'
Francis complained to the IPCC that Brunstrom's reply was 'personally offensive and irrelevant'. The IPCC said Francis supplied supporting documents 'in order to demonstrate Mr Brunstrom's offensive remarks'.
The Commission ruled: ‘This complaint could be categorised as a complaint under the category “Incivility, impoliteness and intolerance”, whereby a person serving with the police should treat members of the public and colleagues with courtesy and respect, avoiding abusive or deriding attitudes or behaviour.
'In particular they must avoid: favouritism of an individual or group; all forms of victimisation or unreasonable discrimination. As a result I am of the opinion that this part of the complaint should be recorded as such and dealt with accordingly.'
Under ‘Actions required of the force/authority’ the ruling lists: ‘That the Police Authority records the complaint regarding “offensive remarks” as a complaint and that the matters are dealt with accordingly.’
Francis said: “I complained to Brunstrom last autumn. All I got back was abuse, with no comment whatever on the figures.”
North Wales Police made no immediate comment.
Brunstrom’s conduct was investigated by the IPCC last year after he used images of a decapitated motorcyclist to launch a road safety campaign without permission of the dead rider’s family. The chief constable was later cleared of misconduct.
well i must say....i'm with him on this one.It doesnt matter about statistics....you were speeding...shut up and pay the fine! All to many people try to wriggle out of it when they break the law,and that is a total waste of my tax money and police resources. The more Americanised this country gets,the more i despise it!
I agree with your point actionman, do the crime, pay the fine etc.
However, the Police are supposed to be courteous at all times, regardless of how annoying someone is. Rudeness simply leads to confrontation and a senior officer should know this.
Tell the man he got caught breaking the law so it's tough ..... but tell him politely ......
Further more, I am unsure of the exact details of the point of law that he is using as argument. I suspect his argument is that no speed limit was in force at that point for whatever reason, incorrect signage being the common one.
So who knows, maybe he's got a point about her speeding conviction?
Either way, Brunstrom shouldn't be rude towards him.
I'm no great admirer of Brunstrom, but I do have some sympathy fior him losing his patience with this one.
He's the guy down south whose vintage Alvis was clocked at 47mph in a 30 area. Trouble is, Mr Francis wouldn't cough to being the driver, nor would he say who was at the wheel.
He's been fighting a rearguard action ever since, invoking the human rights act and just about every bit of legislation he can think of. Why he just can't admit it's a fair cop guv and pay up his £60 and accept an SP30 like the rest of us I don't know.
Still, if it's another nail in Brunstrom's coffin that it can't be totally a bad thing. I just wish it didn't have to involve Mr Francis, that's all. - I don't suppose an old Alvis has anything like the crash protection a moden car has, and you'd have though he'd have driven his pride and joy with a bit of extra care both for his own safety and that of the other road users around him.
yea i agree with that, if you get caught pay up. It's his comments that were offensive and the way he behaved. A man in his position shouldn't be speaking in such a way
ok i agree that a man in his position should remain courteous at all times....but he is a human being....i,personally couldnt argue the toss with an obvious offender(for years) intent on nit picking..... our once proud country is going down hill fast....it takes someone in power to say enough is enough....OJ Simpson LIAR!..... "i didnt have sexual relations with that woman"LIAR! ......"but they have weapons of mass destruction"LIARS! oops got carried away then,come on people,when caught be honest....own up.
the person may have a point though - if the cameras were illegally placed. We all go fast when it's safe to do so, and slow when there's children around... but when a speeding camera is put on a big open road it really is totally unfair. I say fight the bar stewards until its not worth them bothering trying to prosecute for.
Just because there's a law, and it's broken, doesn't mean that the law was fair in the first place. There's no common-sense in the placing of some cameras. They're to save lives not make money, and if the person in question here can prove the camera is not saving lives then it simply shows the camera is to make money - hence, in most people's eyes, the camera/rules were unfair for the situtation. Of course place them near schools etc, i'm 110% in favour of this.
My only speeding conviction was for doing 42 in a 30 zone
The road in question is very wide, only built up on one side (the opposite side to which I was on) and is hard to travel along much under 40 for fear of being shunted by a tail-gater
There was a mobile camera out that day and they probably made a fortune
Bit of a ramble - but to get back to AM's point
I could whine about it but for all I've got away with over the years I haven't done badly on the whole
And to the original point of the thread - the police are public servants
Maybe sometimes they do need reminding of that...
did you know speed camras are only supose to be put in accident black spots . ie ( juctions , built up areas , ) not motorways dual carrigeways . the gov do these type of roads for one reason only its easy money ......
well im sitting in one of mr brunstroms speeding classes at a cost of £60 for doing 36 mph in a 30 mph speed limit n yes i am a carefull driver n yes ive been riding n driving all my adult life . ive been stopped several times since being in north wales spot checks ,n to be honest mr brunstrom is a very lucky man but one day his luck will run out .
I have only been flashed once by a camera....waited nervously for a ban(yes i was going FAST) but to my surprise nothing came of it.Have gotten away with it all my driving life...have had endorsments for no tax MOT and insurance,and put my hands up to it.I like to think i would'nt kick-up a fuss if i got caught breaking a law,i know what the laws are and if i get caught would ask the judge if he accepted cash or cheque....with a big smile... and yes i have been locked in the cells for contempt,ha ha.
Again guys I'm afraid I'm on both sides of the fence with this one really.
Firstly, firebladekid is partly right - cameras are supposed to be in accident "black spots" only. But the actual criteria for which a camera can be considered is so many accidents over a given period of time and a certain percentage of all traffic over the speed limit (re. the actual specs, 4 fatal/serious in 3 years or 8 injury accidents in 3 years and 20% of traffic over speed limit or 15% of traffic over speed limit by minimum of 10mph rings a bell).
However, these specs can occur on motorways/dual carriageways therefore justifying their use at these locations.
Secondly, my job as a highway engineer and road safety auditor puts me in a position of knowing all too well the impact on highway safety that excessive speed (rather, perhaps than speeding) has.
As such, you could well suggest that both professionally and morally I should never break the speed limits. However, this where my love of driving and riding fast is at serious odds with my profession. I certainly limit my speed in built up areas, but outside of these I will happily travel at whatever speed I feel is safe with frankly very little regard for speed limits at all.
Finally, I was once flashed by a speed camera, on the motorway whilst travelling over to North Wales early one morning, funnily enough for work. I was very, very late for a site meeting and was on my bike and was travelling very, very, very fast!
Anyway, I got my NIP which offered me a fixed penalty and 3 points and stated my recorded speed as being 90mph. This was before the days of the need for warning signs, digital cameras and automated ticket issue and was when a PC would inspect the actual picture and make a judgement call.
It was also very strange because I couldn't remember ever dropping below 100mph on that motorway that morning!!
Needless to say, I've never written a cheque as fast in my life lol!
Call me a hypocrite, you'd be right!
LOL at iggypup,and well done geoffb.....this has been my whole point...we know the laws...know the penalties...yet we still break them,imagine how boring life would be if we didnt take the occasional risk,that is what makes us bikers.yes,its dangerous... law breaking...but oh so much fun!
But shouldn't WE (Ok YOU cos i left crappy UK), the people of Britain, decide what the laws should be? The laws and rules of the road should represent what the public want.
If 99% of the public wanted alcohol to be banned - it would happen. Alcohol causes more deaths than speeding, so it's a fair comparisson.
If 99% of the public want speeding cameras ONLY in dangerous areas, then shouldn't the authorities act accordingly and prove an area is dangerous before putting a camera up?
Aaaaah i can't wait to get on the autobahns now - just 30 miles away :-)
Aaaaah i can't wait to get on the autobahns now - just 30 miles away :-)
Matt! stop stirring it lol
Enough already, kicking Britain! You are totally happy that you don't live here anymore but do you have to keep slagging off the UK?.
In a lot of cases the law (of England) is an ass but I'm still proud to be British and it's driving me mad that you keep dissing it.
Ive been on the autobahns...NICE!!!!....and although it might not be PC to say it....IM ENGLISH....NOT BRITISH,my point is...you can be Welsh,Scots,Irish....but if you say English,its somehow racially incorrect. Am glad you're happy where you are Matt,i would love to have the freedom to move away...but i have a family(although grown) that still rely on me being here.Maybe in the future i will consider it.
![Brunstrom offending again - Forums [Biker Match]](/images/backgrounds/strips/8mobileLQ.jpg)
![Brunstrom offending again - Forums [Biker Match]](/images/backgrounds/strips/8desktopLQ.jpg)
