Jump to content

moped scum, gloves off?


guzzicat
 Share

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 204
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

4 hours ago, mel b3 said:

Carrying a card stating that you are unable to be searched at the roadside isn't that uncommon Lloyd,  think precious loads,  jewellery, booze, cigarettes, all have been targeted by criminals . You just show the card to the police officers , through the window , and you will be escorted to the nearest police station for the search to be carried out. 

Interesting that Mel, 

I just thought that once thieves / fake coppers have them stopped they’d be smashing the window and straight into the vehicle. 

Seen some interesting approaches by gangs where they just smash armoured money vans off the road, then go to work with huge power tools trying to blow them open before police arrive. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Rewulf said:

Ms Abbot , the gift that keeps on giving

It is in the Daily Fail as well https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-6437385/Police-hit-Diane-Abbott-criticises-ramming-moped-gangs.html

When she is Home Secretary, no doubt police will be instructed to stop the traffic of law abiding citizens going about their lawful business in case someone doing a runner on a scooter gets hurt - as it must be ever so dangerous riding off at speed after committing an offence.

Alternatively, the Police might be instructed to look the other way, so that the scooter can leave the scene of teh crime more safely?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Oldgun said:

Talking about scooters,i once picked a girl up at the Nottingham Palais and asked if i could take her home

she said sorry your wasting you time I'm on my menstrual cycle i said that's OK I'll follow you home on my Lambretta!!!!🤪

just reminiscing

I got told similar once - so I said I'd come next week instead.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 hours ago, Fuddster said:

 

just in case anyone's unsure what the police are trying to stop.

f.

Shocking ! Truely shocking 

Edit. Any ******* idiot who defends them getting rough justice is mad. Simply taking what they want with knives and hammers ... ***. They should be put down HARD. Makes my blood boil... scratch the rammimg, they should be head shot by the armed crew. They have no repect or regard for other people or what theyve worked and saved for 😤

And whats worse , one day theyll pick on the wrong person and itll be them who get done.

 

Edited by rich1984
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 27/11/2018 at 04:31, mel b3 said:

Carrying a card stating that you are unable to be searched at the roadside isn't that uncommon Lloyd,  think precious loads,  jewellery, booze, cigarettes, all have been targeted by criminals . You just show the card to the police officers , through the window , and you will be escorted to the nearest police station for the search to be carried out. 

I have never heard of this and I've been in the police for 13 years

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, storm in a teacup said:

I have never heard of this and I've been in the police for 13 years

 

Well that just goes to show that coppers don't know everything 😆.

These days it's something that wouldn't be needed very much at all , any valuable load (or even valueless loads )would be tracked , most sensible drivers would just hand over the keys.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 24/11/2018 at 21:33, Walker570 said:

If they didn't stop when asked and likely to cause injury to an innocent person or persons.  Fortunately it did not happen often because they knew we wouldn't mess about.  Now any action against anyone good or bad get reported almost as a crime to the Independant Police Investigators....one recently when a criminally driven car crashed and killed someone  when police were in pursuit.

Still ploughing through this and the first sentence here is the crux of the matter, to keep backing away from a problem just encourages more bad behavior. If the opportunity to stop is ignored robust action is required?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 26/11/2018 at 15:37, Rookandrabbit said:

As I stated in my previous posts my concern is for that of the Police driver who carry out this procedure not for the suspected perpetrators because after all its one thing suspecting somebody has or is about to commit a crime but it’s another thing proving it. 

When senior police officers and the Police Federation state that the police drivers are open to prosecution you are on a hiding to nothing. Please do not think for one moment that I in any way want robbers thieves and general scum to get away with their heinous crimes but my argument has been a police officer who does this needs to have the back up of the law on his side not to be hung out to dry!

Do I understand your point correctly here?

Not just suspected perpetrators surely?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes you do read this correctly a suspect is still a suspect even though the officer, police or otherwise, arresting then may have seen them commit or suspect  an arrestable offence has occurred. Once arrested the suspect is taken to lawful custody. Here a custody officer must firstly deem the arrest lawful and authorise detention for a myriad of reasons. Once procedures have been completed interview etc the evidence against the suspect is placed before the crown prosecution services and they examine it carefully advise the police on what else must be carried out and ultimately charge the suspect. It is at this point of charge a suspect changes in law from a suspect to a defendant. They will then either be bailed to surrender to a court, released on police bail or kept in custody depending on the severity of the charge and other legal reasons, the defendant is still innocent .......that is NOT PROVEN GUILTY...until FOUND GUILTY BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT IN COURT.

 

There May well be a prima facile case against the defendant but even in court the case against them can still fail when they walk away with their barrister smirking working out to see how much taxpayers money they will claim in civil litigation.

Which brings me to my next point civil litigation against the police hangs on THE BALLANCE OF PROBABILITY.......and not BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT.

Already the ballance is stacked AGAINST the police officer. The police driver is being asked to drive at suspects on motorcycles and crash into them and knock them off. I have quoted three sources the Police federation,senior officers and the Metropolitan Police Professional Standards all stating the Police driver is risking their liberty and faces loosing their job by doing this. 

The House of Commons did not even give the time to debate legislation to protect emergency vehicle drivers....

I fail to see how as it stands would I want to risk my career pension and LIBERTY to carry out this procedure so a senior officer can say Yes Ma’am look at the figures and stats now.........cold comfort if you are the officer who is the test case or worse convicted.

I just can’t understand why people are unable to see the point I am trying to make. I am first in the queue for wanting thugs off the streets but the way the law currently stands police drivers will be leaving themselves open to being prosecuted or civil litigation with our taxpayers money paid out to the very thugs they have tried to bring to justice in the first place.

I apologise that this is war and peace but it’s important as I think some people have failed to grasp what I have to say.

 

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I haven’t failed to grasp what you’re saying at all, but if a suspect fails to stop when pursued by a police car with blues and twos going, and the driver of the police car is willing to knock him off, then good for him. I doubt anyone is forcing him to do so; it’s enrirely up to him and equally sonis the  choice not to. 

Edited by Scully
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I guess I must be naive to think a hoody on a scooter, or a motor cycle rider evading a blues and two's police cycle on pavements and not stopping to check for traffic at junctions, or riding the wrong direction in one way streets, and some discarding crash helmets are clearly video'd offenders, rather than mere suspects.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Rookandrabbit said:

Yes you do read this correctly a suspect is still a suspect even though the officer, police or otherwise, arresting then may have seen them commit or suspect  an arrestable offence has occurred. Once arrested the suspect is taken to lawful custody. Here a custody officer must firstly deem the arrest lawful and authorise detention for a myriad of reasons. Once procedures have been completed interview etc the evidence against the suspect is placed before the crown prosecution services and they examine it carefully advise the police on what else must be carried out and ultimately charge the suspect. It is at this point of charge a suspect changes in law from a suspect to a defendant. They will then either be bailed to surrender to a court, released on police bail or kept in custody depending on the severity of the charge and other legal reasons, the defendant is still innocent .......that is NOT PROVEN GUILTY...until FOUND GUILTY BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT IN COURT.

 

There May well be a prima facile case against the defendant but even in court the case against them can still fail when they walk away with their barrister smirking working out to see how much taxpayers money they will claim in civil litigation.

Which brings me to my next point civil litigation against the police hangs on THE BALLANCE OF PROBABILITY.......and not BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT.

Already the ballance is stacked AGAINST the police officer. The police driver is being asked to drive at suspects on motorcycles and crash into them and knock them off. I have quoted three sources the Police federation,senior officers and the Metropolitan Police Professional Standards all stating the Police driver is risking their liberty and faces loosing their job by doing this. 

The House of Commons did not even give the time to debate legislation to protect emergency vehicle drivers....

I fail to see how as it stands would I want to risk my career pension and LIBERTY to carry out this procedure so a senior officer can say Yes Ma’am look at the figures and stats now.........cold comfort if you are the officer who is the test case or worse convicted.

I just can’t understand why people are unable to see the point I am trying to make. I am first in the queue for wanting thugs off the streets but the way the law currently stands police drivers will be leaving themselves open to being prosecuted or civil litigation with our taxpayers money paid out to the very thugs they have tried to bring to justice in the first place.

I apologise that this is war and peace but it’s important as I think some people have failed to grasp what I have to say.

 

 

 

 

I should image as with any use of force, knocking a scooter driver off would require the police officer to have a "honestly held belief" that it was absaloutley necessary ect, which would cover them in law.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

AGAIN:::

To quote the Police Federation  Tim Rodgers has said” it is dangerous to drive a car deliberately at another road user. The law clearly classifies this as dangerous driving, and officers could be prosecuted. NO DEFENCE NO EXCEPTION”

originally posted Monday at 1415 hrs ........not my take on things but the police rank and file union. The police federation will represent police officers during civil and criminal proceedings. 

So despite what people want or what people imagine should be right unfortunately reality is a little different. The law is the law and it is not on the side of the police driver at this present time .Lets hope it changes in favour of decent law abiding people.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 minutes ago, Rookandrabbit said:

AGAIN:::

To quote the Police Federation  Tim Rodgers has said” it is dangerous to drive a car deliberately at another road user. The law clearly classifies this as dangerous driving, and officers could be prosecuted. NO DEFENCE NO EXCEPTION”

originally posted Monday at 1415 hrs ........not my take on things but the police rank and file union. The police federation will represent police officers during civil and criminal proceedings. 

So despite what people want or what people imagine should be right unfortunately reality is a little different. The law is the law and it is not on the side of the police driver at this present time .Lets hope it changes in favour of decent law abiding people.

I disagree! Pointing a gun and shooting someone is fairly dangerous, but it is still used and authorised, in certain conditions. I believe the same could be applied to using a car.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...