Joe85

Well that says more about you than this debate... Er, that’s why i said it...

Don’t confuse my lack of outrage as having sympathy. Absolutely not. But they are trained for these situations and either acted outside of the training, or acted negligently or both. It’s not really up for dispute to be fair. They did, it’s a fact. Is a compo claim legitimate? Legally yes. Morally, of course not. IMHO the police need to be given a little discretion, every kid on a bike now knows the chasing car is most likely to stop if he exceeds the speed limit by 20mph. So like the kids who ride the bikes round here, they open it up a bit bye bye police end of chase kids comes back next day... The traffic police who are qualified further probably have better and bigger fish to fry. I hope the the coppers involved where not charged and only had to reflect on their actions and how to do it better next time without breaking rules which should be more guidelines IMHO. If something goes wrong and they are exceeding them they should justify their actions, not punished unless required. Lots to reflect on Placement of car etc etc then the police live in a dynamic world and as such cannot expect things to go within training every time. As for the compensation given that's just crazy IMHO Then it just becomes an issue of training budgets and numbers of officers trained rather than a change in the rules to allow untrained officers to speculate on maneuvers and or policing tactics they are untrained to carry out. Should we really be relaxing the rules because of austerity? That would be outrageous, in my opinion. For waht? The Police can only caution you for a named offence. Once again, as much of a cock as this guy is, his only crime (pun intended) was wearing a mask that another member of the public didn't like. He only filmed when approached by the Officer (also filming) The officer tries to intimidate the cock by entering his personal space in an aggressive manner, rasining his voice and making unreasonable assumptions. It escalated a situation that wasn't present until the officer decided to force one. Maybe you are , or maybe i am being unreasonable, i don't know, but i trust the Police as much as i do any stranger. If you want my respect you need to earn it.

Sorry but that isn’t the case, as much as you want it to be. Sensationalising it doesn’t change the fact that the officer acted outside of what he was permitted to do in addition to failings that may have ended the chase. They know what they are and aren’t allowed to do. As a result the family are awarded damages. I don’t believe the officer has faced charges or been reprimanded. Seems the small outcome matches the small mistake by the police. “He chose to speed off, not to stop and to continue to drive as he did,” she said. “It also has to be remembered that he only held a provisional licence, did not wear a seat belt, and had traces of cocaine in his system.” But she ruled that Mrs Seddon and Ms Morgan — who was carrying her partner’s child at the time — were owed compensation due to the police force being “in breach of its operational duty”. The judge said the pursuing police driver was only trained for “standard responses”, and was not authorised to go more than 20mph above the speed limit but went as fast as 95mph during the pursuit. She ruled that the officer “failed to perform at the level required”, including failing to pass on key information to his control room which might have ended the chase. The judge also criticised another police driver who positioned his almost-stationary car in the nearside lane of the A33. “No one knew the vehicle was there so the control room could not factor in its presence when considering whether the pursuit should be continued,” said the judge. She found that the positioning of the police car was “foreseeably dangerous”, and there was “a realistic prospect” the fatal crash would have been avoided if it had not been there. When you read that, I find it hard to get annoyed at the outcome. Yes he was a twat, yes he killed himself and yes the Police dropped the ball. Ok so where do you draw the line?? Police aren't allowed to enter private property without permission, but they regularly do to catch criminals. Sign says "don't walk on the grass" so the police have to stay on the path as the criminals run away across the grass... If the police have to abide by the same rules as everyone else, then all a criminal has to do to evade capture is do something that an ordinary member of the public is not allowed to do. That's a stupid situation to be in. Remind me why are we drawing a line? The Police operated outside of the guidance, training and rules set for them as a force. That’s a well drawn line right there. Police aren't allowed to enter private property without permission, but they regularly do to catch criminals. Under a warrant or where the officers feel the is a threat to life or a crime in progress. Seems fair enough to me. Sign says "don't walk on the grass" so the police have to stay on the path as the criminals run away across the grass... Are you suggesting the Police just be able enter any property without any kind of controls or rules about and how? If the police have to abide by the same rules as everyone else, then all a criminal has to do to evade capture is do something that an ordinary member of the public is not allowed to do. That's a stupid situation to be in. But they don’t, they have rules that THEY have to operate within. Anything outside of that is illegal/negligent - which turned out to be the case here.

Don’t confuse my lack of outrage as having sympathy. Absolutely not. But they are trained for these situations and either acted outside of the training, or acted negligently or both. It’s not really up for dispute to be fair. They did, it’s a fact. Is a compo claim legitimate? Legally yes. Morally, of course not.

Agreed, but he didn’t approach the officer. The copper approached him cause the teacher had called him cause he was being gobby to her and scared some kids cause he had a mask on .... Thought the copper kept his cool and was doing his job , twat on bike just needed poking in the eye . Isn’t that what the UKIP brigade call a “snowflake”? “He said some less than nice words and is wearing a mask” (that no one complained about) The Officers unwarranted aggression and intimidation tactics backfired. The whole thing escalated in to an unnecessary back and forth and in the end they both just look like petulant twats.

Because? The the bloke on the bike is an obvious twat . Agreed, but he didn’t approach the officer.

The guy behind the camera is obviously a dick, but how aggressive is that officer? He is the one that escalated the situation by acting aggressive and petulant, follwoing this twerp around. And for what? Because someone said this nobhead said some mean words? Respect is earned. Bollox . Because?

Why? There were clear failings by the Police. Does the family deserve compensation? f**k no. But were the Police found to be acting outside of their training and standard procedures? Yes. The world is full of ifs and busts, the little shit shouldn't have been in that position in the first place, he paid the price of the decisions he took, if he had been left to carry on and taken our a family at a bus stop no doubt the officer would have been in the wrong then. Your asking officers to look back at decisions retrospectively it's an impossible task, ohhh no I'm ending pursuit cause I'm 7miles over my allowance, no licence, failing to stop, speeding, Un insured, drugs in system I have no sympathy. Sorry but that isn’t the case, as much as you want it to be. Sensationalising it doesn’t change the fact that the officer acted outside of what he was permitted to do in addition to failings that may have ended the chase. They know what they are and aren’t allowed to do. As a result the family are awarded damages. I don’t believe the officer has faced charges or been reprimanded. Seems the small outcome matches the small mistake by the police. “He chose to speed off, not to stop and to continue to drive as he did,” she said. “It also has to be remembered that he only held a provisional licence, did not wear a seat belt, and had traces of cocaine in his system.” But she ruled that Mrs Seddon and Ms Morgan — who was carrying her partner’s child at the time — were owed compensation due to the police force being “in breach of its operational duty”. The judge said the pursuing police driver was only trained for “standard responses”, and was not authorised to go more than 20mph above the speed limit but went as fast as 95mph during the pursuit. She ruled that the officer “failed to perform at the level required”, including failing to pass on key information to his control room which might have ended the chase. The judge also criticised another police driver who positioned his almost-stationary car in the nearside lane of the A33. “No one knew the vehicle was there so the control room could not factor in its presence when considering whether the pursuit should be continued,” said the judge. She found that the positioning of the police car was “foreseeably dangerous”, and there was “a realistic prospect” the fatal crash would have been avoided if it had not been there. When you read that, I find it hard to get annoyed at the outcome. Yes he was a twat, yes he killed himself and yes the Police dropped the ball.

Or is it just that even the judges are scared to do the right thing if there is no president. Some one makes a complaint or appeal and in todays world it must be investigated. Your dog bites Burgler (with hammer and crowbar and mask on face). in your unlocked back yard. Who's fault is it? Once upon a time the Burgler would not complain as he would of been fitted up for last 3 burglaries in area. Now your poor dog is on death Row. Some one give the police some respect, if this is how they are treated and people act outside a school. https://youtu.be/08j-e6hc3Vc This country is a sad place. The guy behind the camera is obviously a dick, but how aggressive is that officer? He is the one that escalated the situation by acting aggressive and petulant, follwoing this twerp around. And for what? Because someone said this nobhead said some mean words? Respect is earned.

And the world's gone mad Why? There were clear failings by the Police. Does the family deserve compensation? f**k no. But were the Police found to be acting outside of their training and standard procedures? Yes.

You're only putting forward the fact that the Officers were on restricted duties. Not why, or for what they were being investigated. So it make it difficult to judge whether the investigation was necessary or not. It's the length of time that's the issue, the investigation was necessary, but should not have taken the time it did. If I'd investigated and assault on a member of the public and took that long, I'd have been sacked. The CCTV was shown in the hearing and both officers from the one case were cleared straight away. It literally took minutes. Sounds to me like the process needs addressing rather then handing out immunity to investigation.

Good god do you really believe that I'm sorry no one is that stupid and in a job of power . As for that blonde fooking half wit .who only intelligent answer to date is diddbly doblly doo verrry nicccce wibble wibble . These are the ppl who are supoted to be in charge of this country . I hope humans are wiped out soon and the animals inherits the earth b4 we destroy it ... I dunno, i’m no fan and she does love a clanger but here she looked a bit of a mess.

By the sound of it it the accusations where serious enough and it has been investigated in greater depth by higher authorities than you, then you might know better? Our system is not perfect, but I have spent time in countries and places with systems far less perfect on many many levels. Let them get on with there job, but that is trust from the public and politicians, yes monitor and "police" but trust.... Eh? The original point was that Officers were being taken off the street to be investigated, I'm merely pointing out that we cannot judge whether the investigation (and the depth/length) merited what ever was alleged without knowing what was alleged. But as you say "higher authorities" decided the investigation and the length/depth of it was warranted so they must be right, in which case there's no argument or debate to be had about the subject at all... Our system is not perfect, but I have spent time in countries and places with systems far less perfect on many many levels. Let them get on with there job, but that is trust from the public and politicians, yes monitor and "police" but trust.... I'm not sure what point your tying to make with this? People should just trust the Police because people in less developed nations have it worse?? If so, why?

I believe it's been widely accepted that she was suffering from complications related to her diabetes during this interview? Whether you believe it or not, it's interesting how Boris Johnson manages to escape similar vitriol. https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/jun/22/boris-johnson-interview-disaster-diane-abbott What about the million other gaffs she's made https://www.google.com/amp/s/news.sky.com/story/amp/diane-abbotts-history-of-gaffes-10482258 https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.express.co.uk/news/politics/942160/London-knife-crime-diane-abbott-gaffe-statistic-bogus-glasgow/amp https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.dailystar.co.uk/news/latest-news/704849/Diane-Abbott-politician-Labour-blunders/amp "> What about them?

I believe it's been widely accepted that she was suffering from complications related to her diabetes during this interview? Whether you believe it or not, it's interesting how Boris Johnson manages to escape similar vitriol. https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/jun/22/boris-johnson-interview-disaster-diane-abbott

Fair enough. IMO, If they’ve applied there training correctly then there’s no case to answer. We can’t make their decisions exempt from scrutiny, however. That’s the standard across the board, no matter what job you do. It's the length of time it takes to investigate. Our office had 4 officers on restricted duties not long ago, due to one or 2 incidents. Over a year they were office bound and the result in the end? Nothing. No learning and no prosecution, they were completely cleared of any wrong doing and allowed to go back to normal duties. The stress it put on them was enormous, as they all faced loosing their jobs and had to have solicitors represent them. It's had a massive effect on most of them and they aren't remotely interested in the job anymore You're only putting forward the fact that the Officers were on restricted duties. Not why, or for what they were being investigated. So it make it difficult to judge whether the investigation was necessary or not.

And the fact that he has completely misquoted her and added his own agenda.

That's my point though it does not matter if they have no case to answer as I understand, they can easily be taken off the job and lives put on hold during the scrutiny. Just because someone who was not doing legal things called the police into question. Sorry I have little sympathy for people run from the police or answer back to the police, they do a tough job and deserve our support. Not saying they dont get it wrong and there are not bad ones out there (both of which we should have be investigated) just if you don't give them the freedom to there job they quickly become ineffective. I too have little sympathy. I'm less concerned with their well being as i am giving the Police another layer of protection from public and judicial scrutiny. Tough as it may be, my support for the Police only goes so far as what is honest and legal. I think the Police Federation and the IPCC have given us enough ammunition down the years to view any attempt to block and smoother scrutiny with suspicion. Anyway, I think our points are kind of over-lapping into a back and forth. My point is due process is the only way it can be decided whether there is a case to be answered. If that means taking an officer off of the street then so be it. As for the other lot, they can bleed out on the road for all i care.

See i don't really agree with that. Nobody should be protected from prosecution. You make a mistake at work and somebody dies, 9/10 you're going to court. The Old Bill should not have an exemption from due process. Also, would be interested to know how many Officers have actually been convicted of wrongful death or unlawful death or even manslaughter in the last 20 years? That's not to say i don't think they should be knocking these little cockwombles off bikes used for crime. Probably not many charged but how many have had their lives and careers put on hold whilst acustations or accidents (there fault or not) have happened. If you knock enough scrotes of bikes one of them is going to get hurt and as the clips already shows they are not going to say OK fair cop mate. They are going to say what the fook where you doing that for, it was my mates bike, I was stopping, I did not see you, it was not me, you did it because I am poor/ rich black white/ yellow/ green/ rich ginger/ blond, I was not properly dressed you can't knock me off my bike. Here I am on the dole legal aid or some charity is going to pay my legal costs whilst for the next 2 years your integrity medical and family background and family life is interrogated. YOur career destroyed and no prosecution is actually made cause I drop the charges leaving said officer with career in taters without even a cleared name! That's why they need some protection IMHO. Fair enough. IMO, If they’ve applied there training correctly then there’s no case to answer. We can’t make their decisions exempt from scrutiny, however. That’s the standard across the board, no matter what job you do.

See i don't really agree with that. Nobody should be protected from prosecution. You make a mistake at work and somebody dies, 9/10 you're going to court. The Old Bill should not have an exemption from due process. Also, would be interested to know how many Officers have actually been convicted of wrongful death or unlawful death or even manslaughter in the last 20 years? That's not to say i don't think they should be knocking these little cockwombles off bikes used for crime.

What is meant by protection (in general, as an aside from your post)

Is your Native American name Grey Cloud by any chance?

I guess I always get sent extreme ones, like the kid trying to sneak past the lorry and ends up under the wheel but escapes because his helmet wasnt done up and that got squished but he wiggled free. Shouldnt need a video like that to tell you dont try and sneak down narrow gaps between large vehicles lol Shouldn't, and even though people watch it, many will still try to sneak down narrow gaps. People are essentially all idiots until they prove otherwise, and then that only lasts a few moments until they confirm they are idiots again. If your going to talk about me, atleast mention me by name...

Got a VIP box for Brands this weekend. Can’t wait.

Noted for next time glorious mathematician.