I imagine that public opinion is very divided, in the case reported in this BBC story.

Sir Harry Djanogly (a millionaire, although I am not sure why the BBC deems that relevant) was pulled over by the police for speeding. He was speeding because he was rushing his wife to hospital, believing her life to be in danger. The report does not clarify what the hospital's diagnosis was, or whether her life was actually in danger, but legally, it is her husband's belief that her life was at risk that is relevant, not her actual state of health.

Sir Harry explained (twice) to the police officer the reason for him speeding, and invited the officer to follow him to the hospital. The policeman then ordered him out of the car, and when Sir Harry refused, lunged through the driver's window (apparently dislodging the driver's foot foot from the brake onto the accelerator and getting dragged down the road, for his trouble).

For me, the legal situation seems quite clear: the policeman, by preventing the wife reaching the hospital, is committing assault and actual bodily harm (potentially grievous bodily harm and even attempted murder) against her; his action in lunging through the car window adds assault against the driver to his count of offences. Sgt Robert McDonald should be charged for these offences.

The police are required to act within the law. They are also required to listen to and take into account the information provided by the members of the public whom they deal with. That doesn't seem to have happened in this case, and an example needs to be made; the alternative puts the UK on a slippery slope to becoming a police state.

Still, Sir Harry Djanogly should be thankful that he doesn't live in the USA. In this scenario, a US policeman would probably have shot him.