You just said it yourself - there were no circumstances in the article that you could use to justify their use of speed was excessive.

So we don't know what the call was the cop was responding to. But what if it was a call about a guy with explosives strapped to his body in a shopping centre or wherever? Or what if it turned out to be a guy holding your mother hostage with a knife to her throat? Would you rather the cop drive slower and get there later, when it might be too late?

I'm all against "beat bobby's" driving around in dinky Astra Diesels thinking they can speed whenever they want, but when it's justified, and lets face it, response police and trained drivers can driver better than you, and practically everyone else on this board, and can do 140mph SAFELY (I pressume we are talking safely and your article never mentioned anyone getting hurt/injured/killed) then I see no problem. Do you know what road it was? Was it a twisty turny B-road? Or a highroad through a town? Or might it have been a long, straight, two or three lane A road/dual carrigeway? It makes all the difference.....

As for the nonsense about coppers getting away with carrying guns, "just because" they are armed police? Never heard anything so ridiculous in my life! IN this day and age, where gun crime is becoming more and more common, then I welcome cops with guns. If I had to choose in a scenario where my wife and young son were being held by a bank robber holding a gun to their heads, and I had to choose to have a cop turn up with a notepad, or one turn up with automatic weapons? I'd opt for the latter.