And you wonder why some think that there are issues with the Metropolitan Police and motorists...

[enfieldspares]

Click the two links below for the story:
 

MSN

 

 

Son of two retired police officers faces arrest for the eighth time

 

Quote:
 

But despite driving under the influence of cannabis, the then teenager was controversially not charged with dangerous driving, after a police investigation found he was not criminally liable for the deaths - which enabled him to avoid prison.

Just lucky really that he wasn't "driving while black" I suppose. Unlike Bianca Williams and her bloke. Still I guess, somewhat cynically, that the officers on the scene in his case probably just didn't smell any cannabis at all.

Cannabis? No. Just, in this case, involving the the son of two Metropolitan Police police officers, just not smelling it. How very lucky, how very fortunate. As clearly the subsequent police investigation found it played no part in any liability for dangerous driving.

Will there will be a crowd funded page for this young man also? You just can't have the son of two police officers being punished when inconsiderate pedestrians inconvenience him by getting themselves killed while he's out an about, half-stoned, on the highway in his mother's car.

[Scully]

Nothing has changed in my experience; simply strengthens what I have come to expect of the police. 
Mate and me were discussing similar matters on our way up to Westlands at the weekend. We both know well, and beat and sometimes shoot with many ex-cops, and both agreed we didn’t trust any of them. 
Sad state of affairs really, but that’s how it is. 

[GingerCat]

It's the cps that would decide on that, not the police. 

[Scully]

59 minutes ago, GingerCat said:

It's the cps that would decide on that, not the police. 

Don’t the CPS make a decision based on relevant information submitted to them by the police? 

[Flashman]

By coincidence, from today’s Telegraph:

A few years ago, when Left-wing activists started calling on the Government to “Defund the police”, I ridiculed them. Now, though, I wonder whether they might have had a point. It’s not that I think we shouldn’t have a police force. It’s just that it’s growing less and less clear what we’re getting for our money.

These days, the police hardly ever solve crimes such as burglary and theft. In 2021, a mere 5 per cent of burglaries in England and Wales were solved. And if your bicycle or laptop has been stolen, forget it. You won’t be seeing them again. (I’m referring to the bicycle or laptop, although I might as well be referring to the police, since you probably won’t be seeing them, either.)

Even if officers can’t track down our valuables, surely they can at least help us to feel reasonably safe when walking our streets. But apparently not. Look at the approach the police have taken to the anti-Israel mobs overrunning our cities. It hasn’t just been ineffectual. It’s been downright cowardly.

Take the tearing down of posters depicting Israelis taken hostage by Hamas terrorists. It was bad enough seeing members of the public do it. But it’s staggering to see police officers doing it, too. Yet that’s what happened this week in London – and reportedly also in Manchester. 

In response to the outcry from Londoners, the Met released a statement. Officers, it explained, had received “at least two calls” from residents in Edgware, objecting to the presence of the posters. And the Met, it went on, had a duty to take “reasonable steps” to “avoid any further increase in community tension”.

Note that phrase, “community tension”. It seems to be the police’s explanation for everything they’re currently doing – or not doing. There is, however, just one small problem with this excuse.

It makes absolutely no sense.

After all, doesn’t removing the posters risk inflaming “community tension”? And marching through cities, calling for “jihad”? And holding mass anti-Israel protests inside railway stations (as we’ve seen in London this week) while chanting, “From the river to the sea, Palestine will be free” – a slogan the Home Secretary has called “a staple of anti-Semitic discourse”? Do none of these activities cause “further increase in community tension”?I’m pretty sure they do. Obviously, they heighten tension among people who are Jewish. But they also heighten tension among those of us who aren’t. We too find these scenes disturbing and intimidating. Yet the police have done next to nothing to prevent such scenes recurring. So forget our communities. When the police say they want to avoid an increase in community tension, it feels as if there’s only one community they’re actually concerned about.

Officers aren’t always reluctant to take a firm line over illicit mass gatherings. In 2021, they certainly didn’t hold back during the lockdown-breaking vigil for Sarah Everard – the 33-year-old who’d been murdered by one of their colleagues. But then, that particular mass gathering consisted almost solely of women. The police weren’t scared of them.

When it comes to the mobs swarming our streets today, however, it’s a different story. Plainly, the police are scared. Scared of upsetting them. True enough, upsetting the more radical elements might be dangerous. But letting them do as they please is even more dangerous. It will embolden them – while intensifying the fear and resentment felt by everyone else. 

In theory, tiptoeing around “community tension” may appear pragmatic. But in practice, it means caving in to bullies. This isn’t sensitivity. It’s appeasement.

[GingerCat]

3 hours ago, Scully said:

Don’t the CPS make a decision based on relevant information submitted to them by the police? 

To an extent. Attorney General guidelines (misnamed as they are not guidelines in any way) that came in Dec 2021 dictate to a very large extent the investigation. Add other relevant acts to this, cpia, pace etc etc,  If all viable lines of enquiry aren't followed the cps will reject it and request the rest is done. This can become tedious and sometimes results in a very simple anticipated guilty plea taking too long to charge. 

Should a victim disagree they can appeal, so should the police say we didn't send to the cps as the offence want made out this will be referred to a senior officer, if again rejected a judicial review can take place, add the ippc and local mp to this and matters get throughly reviewed many times. 

If the cps don't charge a similar process exists. The police often get the blame for someone else not charging. Often the police are just as frustrated. 

Unless summary only or if triable either way then with overwhelming evidence, the cps must decide.in their defence and along with a lot of public services they have been cut back and the result are predictable. 

 

Edited November 2, 2023 by GingerCat
Typo

[Bigbob]

A guy i used to work with when he finished work would go to the student bar have a few pints and drive home he crashed two cars got stopped a few time and was never charged His father was a police superintendent , After dad retired he gave up the drink and lost a few stone jogging i wonder why 

[Scully]

2 hours ago, GingerCat said:

To an extent. Attorney General guidelines (misnamed as they are not guidelines in any way) that came in Dec 2021 dictate to a very large extent the investigation. Add other relevant acts to this, cpia, pace etc etc,  If all viable lines of enquiry aren't followed the cps will reject it and request the rest is done. This can become tedious and sometimes results in a very simple anticipated guilty plea taking too long to charge. 

Should a victim disagree they can appeal, so should the police say we didn't send to the cps as the offence want made out this will be referred to a senior officer, if again rejected a judicial review can take place, add the ippc and local mp to this and matters get throughly reviewed many times. 

If the cps don't charge a similar process exists. The police often get the blame for someone else not charging. Often the police are just as frustrated. 

Unless summary only or if triable either way then with overwhelming evidence, the cps must decide.in their defence and along with a lot of public services they have been cut back and the result are predictable. 

 

In this case the article states ‘ a police investigation found he was not criminally liable’. 

3 minutes ago, Bigbob said:

A guy i used to work with when he finished work would go to the student bar have a few pints and drive home he crashed two cars got stopped a few time and was never charged His father was a police superintendent , After dad retired he gave up the drink and lost a few stone jogging i wonder why 

Many similar incidences such as this featured regularly throughout my youth and beyond. 

[Bigbob]

3 minutes ago, Scully said:

In this case the article states ‘ a police investigation found he was not criminally liable’. 

Many similar incidences such as this featured regularly throughout my youth and beyond. 

Yes and you wonder why it was reported that Police Scotland are not fit for purpose 

[GingerCat]

17 minutes ago, Scully said:

In this case the article states ‘ a police investigation found he was not criminally liable’. 

Newspapers state lots of things to sell copy. Some true, some less so.  pigeon watch is littered with examples of poor reporting from the press. 

From the limited material I'd suggest the police would have to refer it to the cps. Dangerous, death by dangerous is not summary only. Careless is a rather trivial matter in comparison. If police charged careless and it was clearly not the  the indictment would change in court and the cps would create merry hell over it. 

[Dave-G]

4 hours ago, Flashman said:

By coincidence, from today’s Telegraph:

A few years ago, when Left-wing activists started calling on the Government to “Defund the police”, I ridiculed them. Now, though, I wonder whether they might have had a point. It’s not that I think we shouldn’t have a police force. It’s just that it’s growing less and less clear what we’re getting for our money.

These days, the police hardly ever solve crimes such as burglary and theft. In 2021, a mere 5 per cent of burglaries in England and Wales were solved. And if your bicycle or laptop has been stolen, forget it. You won’t be seeing them again. (I’m referring to the bicycle or laptop, although I might as well be referring to the police, since you probably won’t be seeing them, either.)

Even if officers can’t track down our valuables, surely they can at least help us to feel reasonably safe when walking our streets. But apparently not. Look at the approach the police have taken to the anti-Israel mobs overrunning our cities. It hasn’t just been ineffectual. It’s been downright cowardly.

Take the tearing down of posters depicting Israelis taken hostage by Hamas terrorists. It was bad enough seeing members of the public do it. But it’s staggering to see police officers doing it, too. Yet that’s what happened this week in London – and reportedly also in Manchester. 

In response to the outcry from Londoners, the Met released a statement. Officers, it explained, had received “at least two calls” from residents in Edgware, objecting to the presence of the posters. And the Met, it went on, had a duty to take “reasonable steps” to “avoid any further increase in community tension”.

Note that phrase, “community tension”. It seems to be the police’s explanation for everything they’re currently doing – or not doing. There is, however, just one small problem with this excuse.

It makes absolutely no sense.

After all, doesn’t removing the posters risk inflaming “community tension”? And marching through cities, calling for “jihad”? And holding mass anti-Israel protests inside railway stations (as we’ve seen in London this week) while chanting, “From the river to the sea, Palestine will be free” – a slogan the Home Secretary has called “a staple of anti-Semitic discourse”? Do none of these activities cause “further increase in community tension”?I’m pretty sure they do. Obviously, they heighten tension among people who are Jewish. But they also heighten tension among those of us who aren’t. We too find these scenes disturbing and intimidating. Yet the police have done next to nothing to prevent such scenes recurring. So forget our communities. When the police say they want to avoid an increase in community tension, it feels as if there’s only one community they’re actually concerned about.

Officers aren’t always reluctant to take a firm line over illicit mass gatherings. In 2021, they certainly didn’t hold back during the lockdown-breaking vigil for Sarah Everard – the 33-year-old who’d been murdered by one of their colleagues. But then, that particular mass gathering consisted almost solely of women. The police weren’t scared of them.

When it comes to the mobs swarming our streets today, however, it’s a different story. Plainly, the police are scared. Scared of upsetting them. True enough, upsetting the more radical elements might be dangerous. But letting them do as they please is even more dangerous. It will embolden them – while intensifying the fear and resentment felt by everyone else. 

In theory, tiptoeing around “community tension” may appear pragmatic. But in practice, it means caving in to bullies. This isn’t sensitivity. It’s appeasement.

There's been much more long term community tension regarding ULEZ camera's. :-)

Edited November 2, 2023 by Dave-G

[Scully]

24 minutes ago, GingerCat said:

Newspapers state lots of things to sell copy. Some true, some less so.  pigeon watch is littered with examples of poor reporting from the press. 

From the limited material I'd suggest the police would have to refer it to the cps. Dangerous, death by dangerous is not summary only. Careless is a rather trivial matter in comparison. If police charged careless and it was clearly not the  the indictment would change in court and the cps would create merry hell over it. 

We’ll just have to assume it’s poor reporting then. 🤷‍♂️

[Rem260]

On 02/11/2023 at 10:31, enfieldspares said:

Click the two links below for the story:
 

MSN

 

 

Son of two retired police officers faces arrest for the eighth time

 

Quote:
 

But despite driving under the influence of cannabis, the then teenager was controversially not charged with dangerous driving, after a police investigation found he was not criminally liable for the deaths - which enabled him to avoid prison.

Just lucky really that he wasn't "driving while black" I suppose. Unlike Bianca Williams and her bloke. Still I guess, somewhat cynically, that the officers on the scene in his case probably just didn't smell any cannabis at all.

Cannabis? No. Just, in this case, involving the the son of two Metropolitan Police police officers, just not smelling it. How very lucky, how very fortunate. As clearly the subsequent police investigation found it played no part in any liability for dangerous driving.

Will there will be a crowd funded page for this young man also? You just can't have the son of two police officers being punished when inconsiderate pedestrians inconvenience him by getting themselves killed while he's out an about, half-stoned, on the highway in his mother's car.

A quick search of the internet and you can find hundreds of incidents where drivers have killed or seriously injured people that have been spared jail or being charged. Are we trying to say that they all had police officers as parents. If not I can't see the relevance between this lad having parents who happened to be police officers.

[shaun4860]

7 hours ago, Rem260 said:

A quick search of the internet and you can find hundreds of incidents where drivers have killed or seriously injured people that have been spared jail or being charged. Are we trying to say that they all had police officers as parents. If not I can't see the relevance between this lad having parents who happened to be police officers.

Me neither.

You can’t tar everyone with the same brush.

If we all did that then after any incidents where legally held firearms and shotguns were used then we are all guilty by association.

[Jonty]

On 02/11/2023 at 10:31, enfieldspares said:

Click the two links below for the story:
 

MSN

 

 

Son of two retired police officers faces arrest for the eighth time

 

Quote:
 

But despite driving under the influence of cannabis, the then teenager was controversially not charged with dangerous driving, after a police investigation found he was not criminally liable for the deaths - which enabled him to avoid prison.

Just lucky really that he wasn't "driving while black" I suppose. Unlike Bianca Williams and her bloke. Still I guess, somewhat cynically, that the officers on the scene in his case probably just didn't smell any cannabis at all.

Cannabis? No. Just, in this case, involving the the son of two Metropolitan Police police officers, just not smelling it. How very lucky, how very fortunate. As clearly the subsequent police investigation found it played no part in any liability for dangerous driving.

Will there will be a crowd funded page for this young man also? You just can't have the son of two police officers being punished when inconsiderate pedestrians inconvenience him by getting themselves killed while he's out an about, half-stoned, on the highway in his mother's car.

The two men, Jason Imi and John Shackley, that this piece of scum killed were both work colleagues and friends of mine. To attend two funerals in the same week was something I would have never imagined I would ever do.  We’ve followed the absolute travesty of justice as this kid has managed to evade prison and continually reoffend time after time.  I really hope he gets locked up this time, and in big boys prison, I’m sure that his parents occupations wouldn’t help him out quite as much on the inside as they have so far on the outside.  

[Scully]

21 hours ago, shaun4860 said:

Me neither.

You can’t tar everyone with the same brush.

If we all did that then after any incidents where legally held firearms and shotguns were used then we are all guilty by association.

You mean like when all law abiding handgun owners had their lawfully owned firearms banned following Dunblane? 🤔

[shaun4860]

1 hour ago, Scully said:

You mean like when all law abiding handgun owners had their lawfully owned firearms banned following Dunblane? 🤔

That’s what the Govt did.

Tarred everyone with the same brush.

So if I’m reading the posts above correctly then you all think ALL the police are rotten to the core?

[Scully]

1 hour ago, shaun4860 said:

That’s what the Govt did.

Tarred everyone with the same brush.

So if I’m reading the posts above correctly then you all think ALL the police are rotten to the core?

I have always been suspicious of anyone who seeks a position of authority over others, and can only go on my experience, and while I can’t say ‘to the core’, I’m afraid I don’t have a good word to say about any of them. 
I really must write that book! 🙂
 

[enfieldspares]

I used to have a girlfriend in the late 1990s who worked for the US Embassy and lived in London. African-American as they called themselves. Black as we called them. She liked cars and had from new a BMW Z3 in red. As you do. LOL! All legal, all lawful, registered in the UK and taxed and all of it. And, yes, she drove within the speed limit. She was usually stopped at least once a week and usually, if driving with the top down twice a week. With oftentimes quite blunt questions about "How do you earn the money to drive that?" She usually answered with a "That's my business, Wouldn't you like to know." At which point oftentimes the officer asking the question would seek to importune her. So yes I can quite see that such attitudes to people "driving while black" in new and supposedly higher value cars haven't gone away. And when I created the original post was at the back of my mind.

Edited November 4, 2023 by enfieldspares

[ph5172]

12 hours ago, Scully said:

I have always been suspicious of anyone who seeks a position of authority over others, and can only go on my experience, and while I can’t say ‘to the core’, I’m afraid I don’t have a good word to say about any of them. 
I really must write that book! 🙂
 

Would that include military officers, the doctor who decides that they are not going to treat

[old man]

12 hours ago, Scully said:

I have always been suspicious of anyone who seeks a position of authority over others, and can only go on my experience, and while I can’t say ‘to the core’, I’m afraid I don’t have a good word to say about any of them. 
I really must write that book! 🙂
 

I have seemingly acquired that same suspicion, driven by life experience. Good and not so?

Sadly, once in a position of superiority, something seems to turn quickly into the desire for ever increasing power for the joy of it?

Human nature?

Edited November 5, 2023 by old man

[Scully]

1 hour ago, ph5172 said:

Would that include military officers, the doctor who decides that they are not going to treat

Officers most certainly, doctors no. The latter have no authority over anyone. 

[Rem260]

14 hours ago, Scully said:

I have always been suspicious of anyone who seeks a position of authority over others, and can only go on my experience, and while I can’t say ‘to the core’, I’m afraid I don’t have a good word to say about any of them. 
I really must write that book! 🙂
 

Does that include people who move up the chain. Supervisors, bosses, managers,union reps, nursing sisters ect . All to be treated with suspicion ?

 

15 minutes ago, Scully said:

Officers most certainly, doctors no. The latter have no authority over anyone. 

Do Doctors not hold authority over nurses ?

[Rem260]

14 hours ago, enfieldspares said:

I used to have a girlfriend in the late 1990s who worked for the US Embassy and lived in London. African-American as they called themselves. Black as we called them. She liked cars and had from new a BMW Z3 in red. As you do. LOL! All legal, all lawful, registered in the UK and taxed and all of it. And, yes, she drove within the speed limit. She was usually stopped at least once a week and usually, if driving with the top down twice a week. With oftentimes quite blunt questions about "How do you earn the money to drive that?" She usually answered with a "That's my business, Wouldn't you like to know." At which point oftentimes the officer asking the question would seek to importune her. So yes I can quite see that such attitudes to people "driving while black" in new and supposedly higher value cars haven't gone away. And when I created the original post was at the back of my mind.

So what has that got to do with the lad having police officers as parents ?

[Scully]

27 minutes ago, Rem260 said:

Does that include people who move up the chain. Supervisors, bosses, managers,union reps, nursing sisters ect . All to be treated with suspicion ?

 

Do Doctors not hold authority over nurses ?

No, because they have no authority over me; whether the authority they wield over others in their occupation is resented, is a question you would need to ask them. 
The reasons most seek promotion within the occupations you state, is one of money. 
I dare say the reason most join the police is the prospect of an early retirement with a good pension, but in my experience the authority over others that occupation entitles in the interim, is not only relished but often abused.