×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

British Spies To Be Allowed To Break Speed Limit

samzenpus posted about 3 months ago | from the live-and-let-speed dept.

United Kingdom 278

An anonymous reader writes "The Telegraph reports, 'Britain's spies are to be given a "licence to speed" for the first time, under changes to motoring laws. While James Bond would no doubt have scorned such niceties, officers in MI5 and MI6 are currently required to obey the rules of the road, even when national security is under threat. Now Robert Goodwill, the transport minister, intends to add the Security Service and the Secret Intelligence Service to the group of agencies with permission to break the speed limit.'"

cancel ×
This is a preview of your comment

No Comment Title Entered

Anonymous Coward 1 minute ago

No Comment Entered

278 comments

Now we're in trouble... (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#45936281)

... because we can be certain that intelligence agencies previously never broke the law.

Re:Now we're in trouble... (4, Funny)

ozmanjusri (601766) | about 3 months ago | (#45936619)

Well, now they're licensed to kill, though with a motor vehicle rather than a Walther or Beretta..

Don't be silly !! (0)

Taco Cowboy (5327) | about 3 months ago | (#45936767)

Well, now they're licensed to kill ...

If you think that the spooks needs to apply for that stinking license to do what they do, there is a bridge in Brooklyn is looking for a buyer.

Re:Don't be silly !! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#45937265)

How much for that bridge!

Re:Now we're in trouble... (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#45936783)

Well, now they're licensed to kill, though with a motor vehicle rather than a Walther or Beretta..

I guess you'd better tell the Germans they have got it wrong with the speed-unlimited
sections of the Autobahnen, hadn't ya, ya dumb drop-bear fucking ocker cunt.

Re:Now we're in trouble... (2)

ozmanjusri (601766) | about 3 months ago | (#45936801)

Thanks Bruce, I'll do that. Do you have Germany's address handy?

Re:Now we're in trouble... (1)

MrKaos (858439) | about 3 months ago | (#45936899)

Thanks Bruce, I'll do that. Do you have Germany's address handy?

It would seem an anonymous Bogan is trolling you...

Re:Now we're in trouble... (3, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#45937035)

Thanks Bruce, I'll do that. Do you have Germany's address handy?

I dunno where it is, but I found its email address for you: germany@deutschland.de

  —Bruce

Re:Now we're in trouble... (0)

Antonovich (1354565) | about 3 months ago | (#45937283)

It's the large black, red and yellow house on a cabbage farm just off the M20. You can't miss it. I'll tell Klaus you're coming.

Re:Now we're in trouble... (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#45937317)

Thanks Bruce, I'll do that. Do you have Germany's address handy?

Yes its somewhere in Western Europe. One thing though - make sure you don't mention the war.

Re:Now we're in trouble... (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#45937289)

I guess you'd better tell the Germans they have got it wrong with the speed-unlimited
sections of the Autobahnen

That's nice dear. The difference is that autobahn is built for those speeds.

Re:Now we're in trouble... (4, Insightful)

Z00L00K (682162) | about 3 months ago | (#45936711)

As long as they have emergency lights on the vehicle it should be OK.

Speeding without indication to other drivers would be to cause unnecessary danger, and it will of course cause someone to cut them off just because as well as some cops stopping them instead.

contradiction? (4, Funny)

bob_jenkins (144606) | about 3 months ago | (#45936323)

If the Secret Intelligence Service tries to get away with speeding, they have to reveal who they are, then they aren't secret anymore. In fact anyone speeding might be revealing they're in the Secret Intelligence Service.

Re:contradiction? (4, Funny)

c0lo (1497653) | about 3 months ago | (#45936383)

If the Secret Intelligence Service tries to get away with speeding, they have to reveal who they are, then they aren't secret anymore. In fact anyone speeding might be revealing they're in the Secret Intelligence Service.

Doh... spies nowadays.
I was told the KGB spies, under no matter the circumstances, were trained and able to break the speed limits in secret.

Re:contradiction? (1)

aviators99 (895782) | about 3 months ago | (#45937075)

Doh... spies nowadays.
I was told the KGB spies, under no matter the circumstances, were trained and able to break the speed limits in secret.

In Soviet Russia, speed limit must break you!

Re:contradiction? (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#45936419)

What do you expect from a government that is so behind the times that they think this is a relevant problem in today's society?

At this rate, by 2054, they'll be legally able to make calls from their cell phones in moments of national emergency even if they are out of daytime minutes.

On the Contrary (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#45936473)

Anyone speeding should be assumed to be a member of the Secret Intelligence Service and not deteained by the police.

Re:On the Contrary (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#45936953)

...And anyone pulled over for speeding should just say that they're an intelligence officer and exempt from the speeding laws but that they can't identify themselves due to national security.

Re:contradiction? (2)

Chrisq (894406) | about 3 months ago | (#45937325)

If the Secret Intelligence Service tries to get away with speeding, they have to reveal who they are, then they aren't secret anymore. In fact anyone speeding might be revealing they're in the Secret Intelligence Service.

don't worry this is a matter of national security .......Yes officer i could show you my license but then I'd have to kill you.

Sirens? (5, Interesting)

BringsApples (3418089) | about 3 months ago | (#45936327)

It compares the current list of public services that are allowed to speed (fire, police and ambulance) to the new list (Vehicles used to carry organs for transplant, bomb disposal units, mountain rescue teams and those engaged in “surveillance and covert operations”). But nowhere does it mention that they'll have a siren. If someone is driving really really fast where normally people aren't driving really really fast, and hits someone, killing one or more, I wonder how it'll play out on court.

Re:Sirens? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#45936359)

The person they hit were probably a terrorist anyway.

Re:Sirens? (2, Insightful)

Andy Prough (2730467) | about 3 months ago | (#45936415)

"Your honor, the deceased motorist was clearly a terrorist."
Judge - "Well, alright then. Dismissed! Anyone for a spot of tea?"

Re:Sirens? (2)

davester666 (731373) | about 3 months ago | (#45936627)

Judge: Do you have any evidence for this allegation?
Spy: Yes! We have lots of evidence, but you aren't cleared to see any of it. But trust us, we are absolutely certain the woman and her two children were actually a cell leader and two suicide bombers, and were about to attack the school they've been going to for 3 years.

Judge: Do you have any evidence for this allegati (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#45936715)

Judge: Do you have any evidence for this allegation?

1. Of course they are guilty. If they weren't, they wouldn't be suspects, would they?
2. Why would you ask such a question? Are you one of them?

Re:Sirens? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#45937275)

"Your honor, the deceased motorist was clearly a pirate."

FTFY.

Re:Sirens? (-1)

roman_mir (125474) | about 3 months ago | (#45936547)

Everybody should be able to drive at whatever speed they are comfortable with, the gov't taking over the rules of the road is a gigantic mistake that the society made, when it gave up its freedoms, allowed government to monopolise infrastructure etc.

On a lighter note, now the foreign spies have a good indicator on who is a British spy, just pay attention to the speeding vehicles ;)

Re:Sirens? (4, Insightful)

Cl1mh4224rd (265427) | about 3 months ago | (#45936669)

Everybody should be able to drive at whatever speed they are comfortable with...

You're piloting a vehicle weighing a ton or more that's capable of causing destruction and potentially ending lives in a fraction of a second. You really have to take driving much more seriously than that.

Re:Sirens? (0)

roman_mir (125474) | about 3 months ago | (#45936723)

When I talk about being comfortable in the vehicle you are in, driving at the speed you choose, I do mean taking it very seriously. I prefer driving in Germany, on the autobahn sections without speed limits, where everybody goes at their preferred speed they are comfortable with and it's very serious.

Re:Sirens? (4, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#45936849)

The Germans have rules even on the \\\ sections. You may not undertake (pass on the right). It's not just a custom. It's a rule and it's my understanding you can actually get a ticket for that. It's also against the law to run out of gas on the Autobahn. I'm sure there are a lot of other rules on the Autobahn that you're ignoring just to beat your Libertarian drum. Face it. The German freeways don't work without rules, and people that actually follow them. When you see videos of people running at speed there, it's a thing of beauty. People actually get out of the way when you flash your headlights at them in the left lane. In the States, you've got all kinds of wankers driving 4-abreast and not passing, with 1/4 mile of clear road in front of them. You have to tailgate and honk to break of those stupid formations sometimes. Idiots.

Re:Sirens? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#45937033)

So you're getting angry at people and breaking the law while they don't? Sure is nice of you to live on your high horse.

Re:Sirens? (1)

maharvey (785540) | about 3 months ago | (#45937171)

Driving four abreast at the speed limit.

Re:Sirens? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#45937295)

Or, more likely, 5-10% under it (as their speedometer is deliberately inaccurate).

Re:Sirens? (4, Informative)

ACE209 (1067276) | about 3 months ago | (#45937327)

...when you flash your headlights at them in the left lane.

Which isn't allowed btw.
But that's one of the rules which is often ignored.

Re:Sirens? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#45937117)

Yes and driving in the autobahn in those sections is stressful and risky for everyone who doesn't enjoy driving like an asshole, flashing headlights from behind because you are passing a truck at 140 kmh but the guy in the BMW feels like driving at 200

There is a reason why every country has speed limits : safety. And there's a reason why in Germany there isn't: economical interest and lobbying from their big auto makers. I so don't believe that the lack of speed limit has anything to do with it being safe or Germans driving better.

Re:Sirens? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#45936957)

Don't worry mum, I'm from MiB, you probably haven't heard of us. Now if you'll just look at this little light here...

Re:Sirens? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#45937083)

Europeans have common sense tho, Americans need a babysitter to tell them not to do stupid things.

Re:Sirens? (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#45937341)

Fap fap fap. DAE think that Americans are stupid and Le Elite Europeans are the superior people? Fap fap fap.

Re: Sirens? (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#45936835)

I gladly give up my right to go whatever speed I want, if it means 17 year olds are discouraged from driving 60mph through an elementary school crossing zone in the afternoon.

I don't care how comfortable that kid is... If you let every 17 year old do whatever is 'comfortable', a lot of innocent people will end up hurt... Limits make them think about consequences for actions.

Re: Sirens? (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#45936581)

Subjects have no real rights. They are merely property of the state.

Re: Sirens? (1)

colinrichardday (768814) | about 3 months ago | (#45936649)

It's the Queen's realm, and the rest of the British just live there?

Re: Sirens? (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#45937097)

Dont sweat it, he's just a little buthurt his constitution is meaningless nowadays.

Re:Sirens? (1)

WinstonWolfIT (1550079) | about 3 months ago | (#45936793)

They don't need sirens, only lights. Police under certain circumstances also travel silent when approaching a situation, and use lights and caution to navigate through traffic.

Re:Sirens? (1)

Bite The Pillow (3087109) | about 3 months ago | (#45936937)

Permission without responsibility.

As much as I encourage erring on the cautious side as opposed to assumptions, no good has ever come from permission without responsibility.

Some, of course, but overall we are still negative on balance. A siren would be the minimal responsibility, since others already have that requirement

The survey was intentionally vague, that is a sure warning sign. Be wary.

Sources said that 93 per cent of people who responded to the proposal backed the idea of extending speed limit exemptions to those involved in âoethe protection of life and limb or national securityâ.

Re:Sirens? (1)

MrKaos (858439) | about 3 months ago | (#45936949)

It compares the current list of public services that are allowed to speed (fire, police and ambulance) to the new list (Vehicles used to carry organs for transplant, bomb disposal units, mountain rescue teams and those engaged in “surveillance and covert operations”). But nowhere does it mention that they'll have a siren. If someone is driving really really fast where normally people aren't driving really really fast, and hits someone, killing one or more, I wonder how it'll play out on court.

Barrister; Your Worship, you will note that my client is in possession of a licence to Kill and a license to speed. Clearly any evidence pertaining to matters of motivation for my client use of these licences is a matter of National Security. As you are aware you worship that under the law no offence has been commited and I would ask for a summary dismissal of all charges.

Re:Sirens? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#45936961)

It won't, the government will pay out the victim and that'll be the end of it - shit happens, it's not the drivers fault if they have a higher directive and make a mistake, the government allowed it, the government takes responsibility.

Predicting the Slashdot article 3 years from now.. (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#45936337)

"New study shows traffic accidents and speed related injuries have increased 50% since the law excusing government agents from the speed limit was enacted. GCHQ responded by saying the law is essential to thwart terrorist activities."

Re:Predicting the Slashdot article 3 years from no (1)

c0lo (1497653) | about 3 months ago | (#45936405)

"New study shows traffic accidents and speed related injuries have increased 50% since the law excusing government agents from the speed limit was enacted. GCHQ responded by saying the law is essential to thwart terrorist activities."

Wrong. Statistics of traffic speed incidents will be classified to maintain the antiterrorist operational integrity.

Stupid interlligence (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#45936355)

Ok, so your average police officer is going to know and/or be able to find out that some specific vehicle belongs to an "intelligence" agency? What sort of "intelligence" are these agencies responsible for? Clearly they are becoming particularly dense if they have decided to get some kind of exemption. Such an exemption implies identification and trackability. What a pack of idiots!

Re:Stupid interlligence (4, Insightful)

mark-t (151149) | about 3 months ago | (#45936417)

Unlikely... they'd get stopped and pulled over just like anyone else. Under this law, however, I do not think they would be ticketed... after showing their credentials, presumably they would just be sent on their way. Failing to pull over and stop for a police car that is on your tail is also a crime... one that is entirely independent of speeding. If the officer did give them a speeding ticket, it would not have to be paid.(although the person would probably still have to make a report that they were given a ticket).

Re:Stupid interlligence (5, Informative)

0123456 (636235) | about 3 months ago | (#45936559)

Unlikely... they'd get stopped and pulled over just like anyone else.

Pulled over for speeding? In the UK? Since when?

There were hardly any traffic cops remaining on the roads when I left the UK some years ago. Instead, they'll get a photo in the mail, and will presumably write back to say that actually they were a spy on important National Security business, and the police will just forget about it.

Re:Stupid interlligence (4)

Fluffeh (1273756) | about 3 months ago | (#45936681)

Wouldn't it take longer to be pulled over, explain that you are in the secret service. Wait for the officer to stop laughing, then PROVE that you are in the secret service, then get back on the road?

I mean if something is "National Security" type stuff - where apparently seconds matter, it's so important that you can put your countrymen in the line of danger by whizzing past them at dizzying speeds, surely an interuption of at least five minutes (at the utter least) is going to be much much worse than simply doing the speed limit in the first place....

Oh, snap, I forgot I shouldn't have brought my logic and common sense into this conversation....

*sips coffee*

Re:Stupid interlligence (1)

yamum (893083) | about 3 months ago | (#45936971)

Wouldn't it take longer to be pulled over, explain that you are in the secret service. Wait for the officer to stop laughing, then PROVE that you are in the secret service, then get back on the road?

Solution: IdentiEeze

What about other people? (4, Interesting)

mark-t (151149) | about 3 months ago | (#45936361)

Sure, the spy may have a license to speed, but if he doesn't have to follow the speed limit, another driver on the same road is going to be correspondingly less able to anticipate how to react safely to another driver who may be cruising at over double the speed limit.

What about construction zones? What about school zones?

This kind of thing is so utterly likely to get completely innocent people killed that I expect to see it being discontinued within a week of implementation.

Re:What about other people? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#45936403)

Well, if they have a license to kill already, then there's no problem, right?

Re:What about other people? (2)

mark-t (151149) | about 3 months ago | (#45936469)

Under the general concept of license to kill, it only immunizes a possessor from prosecution for manslaughter if such action was intentionally deemed as necessary for the agent to complete their mission. It does not offer the same level of protection from prosecution for killing someone who they did not have any prior intention of killing.

Re:What about other people? (1)

c0lo (1497653) | about 3 months ago | (#45936423)

Sure, the spy may have a license to speed, but if he doesn't have to follow the speed limit, another driver on the same road is going to be correspondingly less able to anticipate how to react safely to another driver who may be cruising at over double the speed limit.

And this is a good thing, citizen: the terrorists won't be able to anticipate it either.
Don't you feel safer already?

Re:What about other people? (1)

cheater512 (783349) | about 3 months ago | (#45936479)

Well depends if it is with a siren or not.
It works pretty well for emergency vehicles currently who do use sirens and lights.

Kinda defeats the point of being an intelligence agent though.

Re:What about other people? (1)

cyn1c77 (928549) | about 3 months ago | (#45936753)

Sure, the spy may have a license to speed, but if he doesn't have to follow the speed limit, another driver on the same road is going to be correspondingly less able to anticipate how to react safely to another driver who may be cruising at over double the speed limit.

What about construction zones? What about school zones?

This kind of thing is so utterly likely to get completely innocent people killed that I expect to see it being discontinued within a week of implementation.

Last I checked (in the US), most civilians don't follow the speed limit in construction or school zones. So I think this will play out just fine.

In fact, I usually assume that anyone driving under the speed limit is either drunk or has warrants out on them.

Re:What about other people? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#45936967)

I don't think you quite understand government mentality around espionage, 'national security', etc.

Casualties are acceptable, if it gets the job done.

Moving surveillance (5, Interesting)

Michael Woodhams (112247) | about 3 months ago | (#45936377)

I had a house-mate once who was a (non-UK) law enforcement officer, and he talked about "moving surveillance" (i.e. trailing suspects in a car.) They'd typically have three cars in such an operation, so that they could take turns being close to the suspect without arousing suspicion.

He said that according to the law, officers fully obeyed road laws during such an operation, but unofficially, it was impossible to do so. Once he got pulled over by a traffic cop, who, seeing his radio, maps etc. and badge, profusely apologized and sent him back on his way.

I imagine that moving surveillance is what they are envisioning 'spies' using this power for, rather than using an Aston Martin to chase an assassin motorcyclist through a built-in-middle-ages town on market day.

I do think it is better to recognize the reality of the situation, then you can put regulations and guidelines around what is and is not acceptable. You can't issue guidelines on how to handle a situation you pretend doesn't exist.

Re:Moving surveillance (1)

whoever57 (658626) | about 3 months ago | (#45936591)

Since MI6 is supposed to be responsible for foreign intelligence and foreign operations, the justification for MI6 to be able to break speed limits seems rather poor.

Re:Moving surveillance (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#45936713)

Since MI6 is supposed to be responsible for foreign intelligence and foreign operations, the justification for MI6 to be able to break speed limits seems rather poor.

If you RTFA, it refers to MI5 as well, which is perfectly reasonable. Also, TFS and the title both use the colloquial version of "spies" for some reason, when they clearly refer to officers of the intelligence services.

Re:Moving surveillance (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#45936913)

Gosh you're clever, noticing that the GP clearly recognised that it also applies to MI5 yet completely ignoring the question he asked.

Re:Moving surveillance (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#45937347)

There was a question? I can't see any question.

Re:Moving surveillance (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#45936795)

I imagine that moving surveillance is what they are envisioning 'spies' using this power for, rather than using an Aston Martin to chase an assassin motorcyclist through a built-in-middle-ages town on market day.

Any law, once passed, CAN and WILL be abused to the fullest, regardless of how it was envisioned when it was passed. You have to be hiding in a cave for the pass decade to NOT see how all the anti-terrorism laws are being used for non-terrorism related cases.

If moving surveillance is what this law is for, then it better be stated clearly. Otherwise, chasing *alleged* "assassin" motorcyclist through town on market day is EXACTLY what this law will be used to get a free pass for.

Re:Moving surveillance (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#45936829)

Ah yes, the old waving the radio ploy.
Let's say that in some countries, the police has a special radio and it is not illegal to own such a radio, although it is useless unless you have the decryption key.

Not exactly... (1)

MasseKid (1294554) | about 3 months ago | (#45936409)

Just because there isn't a current exemption from law for them, does not mean the law applies to them. When you are above the law, you do not need an exemption from laws that do not apply to you.

Sweet (2)

Scott Ragen (3378093) | about 3 months ago | (#45936445)

Yes, Officer I was speeding.
Why was I speeding, well you see, I'm an agent of MI6.
No I cannot give you credentials as I am currently on a covert op.
Kindly let me go or I will have my superior contact your superior and have you demoted to foot patrol!

Re:Sweet (3, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#45936509)

If I tell you why I'm speeding, I'd have to kill you.

Brits obey speed limits? (5, Interesting)

mendax (114116) | about 3 months ago | (#45936467)

When I last visited the UK drivers drove like maniacs on the motorway. Speed limits seemed to be universally ignored. 100 miles per hour seemed to be typical.

Re:Brits obey speed limits? (1, Insightful)

0123456 (636235) | about 3 months ago | (#45936565)

When I last visited the UK drivers drove like maniacs on the motorway. Speed limits seemed to be universally ignored. 100 miles per hour seemed to be typical.

And British motorways are among the safest roads on the planet, thereby demonstrating that speed limits have little to do with safety.

Re:Brits obey speed limits? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#45936921)

Is that why ambulances park 100 metres away from an accident scene on the motorway?

Apparently, a big brightly coloured vehicle with very bright flashing lights that happens to be parked on the shoulder isn't something the typical British driver could be expected to notice.

Re:Brits obey speed limits? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#45937133)

They do this (partly) because the most dangerous vehicles on the motorway are those that (pretty much) always travel in the slowest lane - lorries are giant motorised battering rams whose drivers are far too frequently, if not actually asleep, too tired or distracted to drive safely (or at least in a straight line)

This is why if you're always advised that if you ever stop on the hard shoulder, you should get out of your car and sit behind it on the grass verge.

Toilet Paper Anyone? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#45936487)

Next MI5 and 6 will be removed from being required to use toilet paper to wipe their ass after a shit fit!

Should save the ExChecker a billion pounds sterling a year in management costs alone.

GOOD now we can point themout (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#45936501)

ya very stupid ....

ya know what i got a real sweet idea

everyone not a spy ..drive real slow

haha

I can see it now (1)

Ralph Spoilsport (673134) | about 3 months ago | (#45936523)

Some dumb shit in the MI5 who does nothing but read Iranian Porn all day gets to drive like a maniac all they way back to their stupid hole in Brentwood. Because he needs that level of Freedom to protect the Queen. Assholes.

Backwards Logic... (2)

Kaenneth (82978) | about 3 months ago | (#45936533)

How many people die in traffic accidents compared to terrorist attacks?

Re:Backwards Logic... (5, Informative)

0123456 (636235) | about 3 months ago | (#45936567)

How many people die in traffic accidents compared to terrorist attacks?

If I remember correctly, far more people have been killed by police cars driving at high speed than by terrorists. I was almost hit by one myself some years ago while walking along a country road.

Nice to see... (-1, Troll)

aaronb1138 (2035478) | about 3 months ago | (#45936569)

It is nice to see in the current anti-security services obsession that has gripped the U.S. that other countries appreciate their security services and aren't on a massive witch hunt.

A bit of context on the "licence to speed" (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#45936573)

Here's a bit of context on what you're allowed to do re: the "licence to speed" in a police car from Matt Delito, who is a pseudonym for a Metropolitan Police officer somewhere in London:

I am facing a choice: I can drive down the alley and get to the kid quickly, but if I do that, I don't have my car to block traffic. I decide to drive around. Blues on, sirens on their most hectic, feverish pitch. The sound reflects my mental state well: I'm hungry, I'm tired, I'm fuelled only by adrenaline, and I'm pissed off. I'm meant to go home after a long and shitty day in only 20 minutes.

When on blues and twos, there are some things you can do, and there are some things you can't. Technically, you're not allowed to speed or run red lights; the blue lights don't mean that you're not breaking the law - they just mean that the police commissioner has given you a promise: They won't prosecute you for breaking traffic laws, as long as you do so safely and within the parameters of your training. It also means that when I drive out of the Metropolitan Police area, I'm not technically supposed to use my blue lights at all: The police force hasn't granted me, personally, a promise they won't prosecute me.

http://www.gizmodo.co.uk/2011/12/jog-on-douchebag/ [gizmodo.co.uk]

one law for both rich and poor (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#45936587)

From wikiquote:

Anatole France, Le Lys Rouge [The Red Lily] (1894), ch. 7: La majestueuse égalité des lois, qui interdit au riche comme au pauvre de coucher sous les ponts, de mendier dans les rues et de voler du pain.

The law, in its majestic equality, forbids the rich as well as the poor to sleep under bridges, to beg in the streets, and to steal bread.

In this case it prevents the powerful and the weak, equally, from breaking the law that only the weak may be pulled over for speeding.

Actually James Bond isn't allowed to speed. (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#45936623)

GoldenEye (1995)
Q: Now, this I'm particularly proud of - behind the headlights, stinger missiles!
James Bond: Excellent, just the thing for unwinding after a rough day at the office.
Q: Need I remind you, 007, that you have a license to kill, not to break the traffic laws.

I think there was also some admonishment in View to a Kill after the Paris driving.

NATIONAL SECURITY!!!1! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#45936725)

Terrorism terrorism terrorism! National Security! Terrorism! National Security!!

Give us all the powers, we promise we'll never misuse them.

Thanks or else,

AC

It's an island! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#45936805)

They haven't realzed yet that they are on an island, so there's actually nowhere to run.

O_O (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#45937057)

I wish my GF would say that.

Q: (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#45937131)

Need I remind you, 007, that you have a license to kill, not to break the traffic laws.

This pertains to my interests. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#45937175)

This pertains to my interests.

Roads? Where we're going we don't need... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#45937199)

alien/human hybrids should be rejected in society.

Should be given a card... (1)

MichaelSmith (789609) | about 3 months ago | (#45937321)

...which would get you into the houses of parliament even if the name says G Fawkes and you have a barrel of gunpowder under your arm.

They've already been doing it anyway (1)

jregel (39009) | about 3 months ago | (#45937353)

A couple of decades ago there was a special forces unit, 14 Intelligence Company, who did undercover operations, primarily in Northern Ireland. I've read a couple of books about it (this is a good one: http://www.amazon.co.uk/The-Operators-Inside-Intelligence-Company/dp/0099728710 [amazon.co.uk]) and they all mention how operatives were given training in advanced driving.

In one instance, they were pulled over by police during training, but when they provided a code word they were allowed to continue.

So I guess they've always been doing this, but now it's just been formalised.

Spy Hunter (1)

gijoel (628142) | about 3 months ago | (#45937367)

They're not only allowed to speed, but they can now legally deploy oil slicks, and smoke exhausts against other motorists. But only if they're playing the theme to Peter Gunn really loudly.
Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Sign up for Slashdot Newsletters
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...