British Spies To Be Allowed To Break Speed Limit 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.'"
Now we're in trouble... (Score:5, Insightful)
... because we can be certain that intelligence agencies previously never broke the law.
Re:Now we're in trouble... (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Thanks Bruce, I'll do that. Do you have Germany's address handy?
It would seem an anonymous Bogan is trolling you...
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
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: (Score:2)
The first email to Germany was sent to rotert@germany. You can try that, maybe it is still valid. But that will probably land in some CS department of the Karlsruhe University.
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
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: (Score:2)
What war? Germany is a peace loving nation.
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
I don't think it's a trust thing, I believe it's to do with cost and danger self regulation. A car crash at 250 km/h doesn't need an ambulance, only a cleaning service and a token policeman to take a few photos. Also, it's like a sped up evolution: Idiots disappear rather quickly and permanently.
I for one, only pushed my car to its max once, got that urge out of my system and rarely exceeded 150 km/h after that.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
It depends how you crash. You can crash at 250kph and be fine as long as you don't hit any solid objects head on too early, ie pretty much only on the motorway, but yes your odds are not great. I've driven 250kph down the autobahn and it's quite comfortable if you have the right car. It's not at all dangerous in Germany as the drivers are so courteous. In residential areas, however, you never know when some idiot is going to step out between parked cars without looking.
Speed limits are now so low that few p
Re: (Score:3)
The trouble on the German Autobahn is not the speed, but the inhomogeneous traffic flow that results from the unlimited speed. For example on a three lane road the two left lanes the average driver goes around 150 km/h. A good number of drivers go around 130 km/h and there will always be a few that go or rather try to go a 180 km/h or above. The trouble comes when the car going something like 160 km/h is trying to pass the one going 130 km/h and a BMW comes along at 190 km/h. At low traffic density this can
Re: (Score:2)
well that and in Germany they enforce certain road regulations. like you must be in the right lane unless you are passing somebody.
That is a rule in most US states too. but it isn't enforced.
Re: (Score:3)
What was the normal motorway speed at that time? While they may technically of had no speed limit, I wonder what the actual top speed was?
Well an AC cobra doing 186 mph [wikipedia.org] is said to have been one of the causes for the introduction of speed limits.
Same trauma, more drama (Score:5, Interesting)
This is the crowd I grew up with, so I may be the unkowning carrier of disinformation, but here is my read:
All drove very fast. They did get ticketed frequently stateside, but the personnel office had resources. Justifications were welded onto all damage.
A small number drove mad fast because they couldn't pull out of some high-danger mentality even after the helicopter lift. They flouted the law like city kids who are "in the system", since they felt doomed anyway. You can see that kind of driving around the exits for military bases, where soldiers drive ninety to work because that is their permanent risk profile.
But most were just trying to feel the thrill, to act like the real thing. They had race-car training and cop evasion training and could surprize you when they decided to treat some ordinary sight as a threat. But they suffered that ordinary human pathetic weakness for emergency powers and a starring role.
Of course, the British are pioneering. Wait for the feedback effect, when someone challenges the phony backstory for a traffic death, and a file is opened on this new strain of domestic saboteur.
Re: Same trauma, more drama (Score:2)
90 km/h isn't that fast.
Re: (Score:2)
It is when the vehicle is a 42 ton lorry.
Plus you've obviously ignored that this is happening in the UK, where we still use mph for speed.
Re: (Score:3)
The post I replied to said that secret agents were driving at 90, implying it was very fast and dangerous. He very probably meant 90 mph, but didn't specify it. I said that 90 km/h isn't that fast, to show that not using units can lead to confusion.
I don't even understand why I need to explain this for you.
Re: (Score:2)
There are bicycles that have gone more than twice as fast as 90 km/h.
Re: (Score:2)
There are bicycles that have gone more than twice as fast as 90 km/h.
None that weren't downhill or drafting off of a motor vehicle of some sort. Except for absolute highest speed. That was done on a "rolling road", effectively a very large treadmill, and he was towed up to 100 mph before he even started pedaling. It's the fastest anyone has gone on a bicycle, but not completely under the riders power. 83 MPH (133.78Km/h) [telegraph.co.uk]is the current fastest on level ground. Most cars can't even do 180 MPH
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Now we're in trouble... (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
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.
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.
Unmarked police cars often speed without lights on. At least they used to 15 years ago when there was a police presence on the motorway.
The ones that cause danger are the cars doing 40mph on the motorways you have a stream of traffic trying to merge doing 60, they encounter an idiot going dangerously slow in the inside lane, and a wall of lorries overtaking said idiot at 56mph.
Ui motorwys need a minimum speed, with the death penalty for those going slower.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
There are actually more reasons than are included in the summary. From TFA:
Vehicles used to carry organs for transplant, bomb disposal units, mountain rescue teams and those engaged in “surveillance and covert operations” are among the groups likely to be given the freedom to speed.
But I guess 'Organ Carriers to be given Permission to Speed' is much less of a headline. I do like the idea of speeding with a reason, but I don't know how viable that would be. How do you make sure every report is filed?
Re:Now we're in trouble... (Score:5, Insightful)
Serving members of the security services carry a warrant card. If they are speeding the police may well pull them over. Displaying the warrant card and explaining they are on a live op *may* get them let off, but there is no requirement for the police to treat them any differently to the general public. This changes that, and about time.
Posting AC for obvious reasons.
Utter BS. It's just people who enjoy being "above the law" wanting to be *more* above the law and feel important. Noone should be above the law. They are not an emergency service and they are not police. The only justification for speeding should be to get *to* an emergency situation as a first responder, ie paramedic or fire crew.
contradiction? (Score:5, Funny)
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? (Score:5, Funny)
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? (Score:5, Interesting)
I know you are joking, but here [joyreactor.cc] is a picture of a special Soviet driving license with the right to break the traffic code. Oh, and the car must not be searched.
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
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.
Re: contradiction? (Score:2)
What are those daytimes minutes you speak of? Is your country so behind the times that the amount of minutes you can speak with your cellphone isn't unlimited?
Re: (Score:3)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
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.
You missed the "intelligence" bit. Breaking speed limits is now _legal_ for them instead of illegal. If they are caught, they still get a speeding ticket and it gets paid, by the Secret Service if it was done on duty and by the agent if he had no excuse, so nobody knows that they are Secret Service. This isn't about not paying fines, it is about legality. Whether an agent is allowed legally to keep up with a speeding criminal or not.
Sirens? (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Judge - "Well, alright then. Dismissed! Anyone for a spot of tea?"
Re: (Score:2)
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 (Score:2, Funny)
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: (Score:2)
So all you need is to carry one of these in your car
http://www.amazon.com/Fred-Emergency-Meal-Transport/dp/B007M2OHEY/ [amazon.com]
Re: (Score:2)
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 exemp
Re: (Score:2)
Permission without responsibility.
Where do you get that from? What is legal for them is driving at higher speed than the speed limit. What is still not legal is dangerous driving, causing damage to others, or injuring or killing other people. In case of an accident, they will be just as much at fault as before, except they won't get a speeding ticket.
Just like an ambulance car is allowed to drive past a red traffic light: They don't have the right of way, and they are required to do this with all the necessary care to avoid accidents.
Re: (Score:2)
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: (Score:2)
It's the Queen's realm, and the rest of the British just live there?
Re: (Score:3)
British citizens are citizens, not subjects. It says so right on the passport [google.com].
In other British news, it's not foggy in London all the time, and no-one wears a bowler hat.
Re:Sirens? (Score:5, Insightful)
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? (Score:4, Informative)
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: (Score:2)
Re:Sirens? (Score:5, Informative)
...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: (Score:3)
British motoring laws are shit. In civilized countries the temporary bright function is actually known as "flash to pass". In civilized states of civilized countries, it's illegal to clog the passing lane. My understanding is that the Bretons have no such law, though that's true of most countries, including the USA; only a few states have one, and I've never even heard of it being enforced, and regularly see cops pass people on the right instead of citing them. It must only be used for selective enforcement
Re:Sirens? (Score:5, Informative)
It's legal to flash your headlights in Britain, except for purposes of 'intimidation' and 'alerting other motorists to police activity'. You also cannot clog the passing lane. Not only that you can get a fine for driving too slowly. Bretons are French people from the western region called "Brittany". Perhaps you mean the British? They are also one of the few countries where cars drive on the correct side of the road.
Phillip.
Re: (Score:2)
Er, I meant Britons. Sorry. Brain fart.
Oddly, the Germans created the car, I think they get to decide which side of the road cars drive on. And the Americans created their mass production, so we get to decide which side of the road most of them are driven on.
I don't think there's a clear argument for which side of the road people should drive on, but if there is, it is that everything else is done on the right, probably because the right hand is primary in the majority of people. You need more dexterity for
Re: (Score:2)
New Jersey is one of the states where that is the law and, oddly enough, it is enforced pretty regularly.
Finally we find a way in which NJ is superior to CA. Not enough to make me move, though :)
Re: (Score:2)
In Texas the law is on the books but nobody, including the police follows it. Trying to follow it is a safety hazard.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
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.
Even worse are the assholes who think you're not passing someone fast enough, tailgate you and honk, so they can rush up behind the guy in front of you and do the same thing, all the way to their destination.
Re:Sirens? (Score:4, Insightful)
The difference is the Germans actually obey that law.
Re: (Score:2)
Unless you count the 60 km/h limit on constructions zones, yes. In construction zones you have absolutely no compliance, they all drive at 80 km/h.
Re: (Score:2)
Britain has significantly fewer fatalities per billion miles driven than Germany. This may partly result from the difficulty of finding a lane fast enough to kill. There was a point when New Jersey had the highest automobile insurance rates in the United States and the fewest deaths per billion car-miles, because everyone was stuck in bumper-car traffic.
Re: (Score:3)
Britain has significantly fewer fatalities per billion miles driven than Germany.
This is only because Britain drives on the left. The one true side of the road.
Re: (Score:2)
How about this: You can drive as fast as you like, but you get the death penalty if you kill anyone.
so now they can keep up with other traffic (Score:5, Funny)
so now they can keep up with other traffic
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
You jest, but in Belgium we actually had a lawsuit a few weeks ago where police officers were accused of speeding through a red light while chasing gangsters after a robbery. They are legally allowed to go through red lights, but only after having stopped first to make sure it's safe to cross. The criminals, of course, tend to just keep going at the same speed.
Fortunately for all of us, the judge applied some common sense and let them off the hook. Otherwise you could forget about police ever chasing a crim
Re:so now they can keep up with other traffic (Score:4, Interesting)
What about other people? (Score:5, Interesting)
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: (Score:2)
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: (Score:2)
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: (Score:2)
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: (Score:2)
In all honesty I don't think it'll make the slightest bit of difference.
Really, the number of agents in the UK, and the number who are in a situation where they need to use their power to speed is so vanishingly small they'll be completely lost amongst the general public who speed.
They're not common enough that the majority of the population will ever even see an MI5 or MI6 agent, let alone see one speeding.
Re: (Score:2)
I don't know about MI6 because it's kept under tighter wraps, but MI5 agents aren't that different to undercover police in the way they work and so forth.
MI6 is external security, so their agents shouldn't really be operating in the UK anyway as they'd then be stepping into MI5's domain.
So this will apply to agents more than any other as they're the ones in the field doing the undercover work that will have any kind of need for speeding, and those agents most definitely are employees of MI5. You can go to t
Re: (Score:2)
What about construction zones? What about school zones? It's not the movie Speed where if the car goes below a certain speed it explodes. It's about well trained operatives driving as appropriate to the situation. The limits are so ridiculously low in the UK the population could drive 2x the speed limit without problem.
If an MI5 agent is following a suspect, it seems a bit absurd that the suspect could get away because they were driving 35mph.
Phillip.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
So in other words, it covers murder but not manslaughter?
Re: (Score:2)
I don't think you quite understand government mentality around espionage, 'national security', etc.
Casualties are acceptable, if it gets the job done.
And that mentality isn't necessarily wrong, given that you accept the premises they're working under.
Imagine you know that if you don't make it to a place in the next 5 minutes that a man will gun down a room full of schoolchildren. In order to get there, you have to speed and in doing so greatly increase the risk of killing a single innocent pedestrian. Even if that happens, it is a better outcome than the children being gunned down.
Now, that scenario is dramatically oversimplified. Decisions about nati
Moving surveillance (Score:5, Interesting)
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: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
...using an Aston Martin to chase an assassin motorcyclist through a built-in-middle-ages town on market day.
When will unlicenced use of a gyrocopter be permitted?
Not exactly... (Score:2)
Sweet (Score:2)
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: (Score:3, Funny)
If I tell you why I'm speeding, I'd have to kill you.
Brits obey speed limits? (Score:5, Interesting)
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: (Score:2, Insightful)
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: (Score:2)
And British motorways are among the safest roads on the planet, thereby demonstrating that speed limits have little to do with safety.
It has more to do with the reality that on the M25, you are glad if you can go 50mph. You don't need speed limits if you have traffic jams.
Re: (Score:3)
"You don't need speed limits if you have traffic jams."
Actually, you may need speed limits, not for safety but for reducing the traffic jam. Traffic jams are caused by sudden stops on the motorway and the fact that acceleration is not instant. This causes a shock wave propagating backwards throughout the motorway becoming much worse as it travels backwards.
They've found that if they can manage to reduce the speed of traffic at peak hours everyone gets into London quicker. It's much better everyone travels a
Re: (Score:2)
* Cars are loud, especially when going fast. People generally don't appreciate the sound of a freight train constantly driving through the middle of their living room.
I think many folks don't realize this in particular. In my perfect dream state there would be noise limits along with speed limits.
Re:Brits obey speed limits? (Score:5, Funny)
And all of them driving in the wrong lane!
Re:Brits obey speed limits? (Score:4, Informative)
Few people genuinely obey the speed limit but 100mph is pushing it, I rarely ever see people go that speed on UK motorways and for good reason - you'll receive an instant ban from driving for doing so.
Motorway speed limit is 70mph, speed cameras (fixed and in police vehicles) normally have a leeway of 10% + 2mph, so 79mph on a 70mph road before you get caught. If it's your first time getting caught you can in most places go on a speed awareness course and avoid points on your license if you were only speeding within an additional 5mph on top. Speedometers almost always overestimate by a few mph at that speed, so when people are going 80mph on their speedometers the chances are they're under the actual limit that speed cameras are calibrated to catch them at. Some will push it up to 85mph if they've never been caught before and risk a mere course if they did get caught on the off-chance (but frankly from what I've seen even at 85mph as long as the conditions are good and the road is clear the cops wont pull you anyway). A few people push it up to 90mph and chance it, and at that speed the cops will pull you, but 100mph is uncommon, you'll see it maybe what, once per hundred miles on a motorway if that? Most people just aren't willing to risk the chance of an instant ban from driving to go that fast.
Re: (Score:2)
Speed limit is 70mph on motorways. I read somewhere, a few years ago mind, that the _average_ non-HGV (Heavy Goods Vehicle) speed was around 80mph. It's not a rule that is particularly vigorously enforced. Over 100mph may get more attention and generally results in loss of licence for a period if prosecuted.
A few years ago, fuel was a lot cheaper. Lots of people are now going at lower speed than 10 years ago. There are also certain areas where driving 71mph _can_ and driving 80mph _will_ get you a speeding ticket, so if you are visiting the UK and don't know where these areas are, maybe you should slow down.
I can see it now (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
If they're just lumping them into the same category as police etc. then they wont be able to speed just because they want to get home faster. They still have to be able to provide justification.
IIRC even ambulance drivers aren't actually even supposed to speed unnecessarily and possibly even without police permission so it may well be the same for the security services (which will also avoid the embarrassment of a cop pulling a spy over). This is why you often see ambulances only going 70mph even with their
Backwards Logic... (Score:3)
How many people die in traffic accidents compared to terrorist attacks?
Re:Backwards Logic... (Score:5, Informative)
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.
So ... (Score:2)
Should be given a card... (Score:2)
...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 (Score:2)
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 alw
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Special services officer: I can prove I'm secret services - I'll tell you the code word its "Guinness"
Police constable Paddy: very good sir - be on your way
Police constable Mick: wait a minute - how do we know that this is the secret word?
Police constable Paddy: good point mick - hey wait fella, how do we know that's the secret wordPolice constable Paddy: Special services officer: its nice to see you guys are so smart. I'll tell you what Paddy. I'll tell Mick the secret word then you can check with him
Re: (Score:2)
I am pretty sure they have always been doing this. Also that they have "no stop" plates, and high performance cars, cars that are armoured and probably have strange buttons you shouldn't' press unless you know exactly what they do... I suspect they don't bother with blue lights / sirens unless they particularly want to pretend to be police, in which case they probably can do that too.
All allegedly, of course.
Bigger question is why formalise it now ? Maybe Snowden has material to embarrass the UK govt by
Re: (Score:2)
Bill Murray & cigarette case (Score:2)
If you're Bill Murray, all you need is a cigarette case
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hP-u6XWclKQ [youtube.com]
Re: (Score:2)
"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.
Re:Stupid interlligence (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Stupid interlligence (Score:5, Informative)
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 (Score:5)
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: (Score:2)