Joeman

Yep, seriously considering leaving the country.. sell everything and just bugger off somewhere sunny!!

JB weld/Chemical metal would sort those holes out. Fill them up and drill them out. Easy.

Sorry Joe, sounds like bollocks to me. A trick? The guy says it, and takes a step back. The officer disregards this and steps forward. Like I said, both look like utter twats by the end of it. I've played with enough helmet cameras to know they give a distorted view of the world. They often make it appear like you're right on someones back bumper when infact youre a good distance away. There was nothing that police officer could have said to prevent the Cyclists being defensive, rude and arrogant. The Cyclist had already made up his mind to be an idiot before the officer opened his mouth. Clearly a very disturbed individual with massive insecurities and probably an inferiority complex which causes him to lash out at people in professional positions... The head mistress was great, shes used to dealing with stroppy children which is exactly how he was behaving.

He's not close at all. Its a camera trick. The masked Cyclist probably knows this which is why he deliberately draws attention to the distance. I actually wonder if the sound has been dubbed. Did the Cyclist really say all of that to the copper or has the audio been added on after to cause more controversy...

Or more commonly now is just simply a twat Seems to be a trend now of people that have nothing to hide and not doing anything wrong want to goad an argument especially to record and show how they are fighting for their freedom and have got one up on the police state authority's. I wonder if it gives them a warm fuzzy feeling at night. Would love to put him in a situation where he needed the help of the police, watch how polite he would be to the attending officer, then send the same copper from the video in to take over... Get that on camera and we'd all get a warm fuzzy feeling.

Exactly. Whereas the Cyclists guy is disrespectful and cocky from the moment he sees the police officer. He clearly has issues with authority and women so uses his powers of shoutyness to fight them. I bet he either has a criminal record already or has something to hide. No other reason to get that defensive.

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. 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.

Since when did we have to use TOR to access the forum? The dark web is coming...

The police have now been put into an impossible situation. It is wrong to approve the tactic and then charge someone with doing that very same tactic. If the charge related to a cop who had rammed a slow moped at 60 mph and then repeatedly driven over the youth, then I would understand a charge. But that did not happen. As Joe85 pointed out, the officer concerned had not been sufficiently trained / tested to go over 20mph above the speed limit, and over stepped the mark. All of us have to stick to rules in our working life and there can be dire consequences if we don’t, including the police. Don’t get me wrong. I have no sympathy for the skag involved, and the paltry size of the compensation is probably due to the officer acting outside of the law in the pursuit rather than the consequences of the actual stop. If the officer had been trained to perform this tactic then it wouldn’t have been an issue. Its a joke. The officer didn't force the criminal to drive at speed and attempt to evade the police. The lack of police training didn't contribute to the accident, the criminal would have taken exactly the same risks to evade a trained officer as he did an untrained officer. As for the idiot Cyclist. He needs a good kicking from the other parents. He's an angry bully who shouts at women and clearly has issues with the police as he's on the defensive as soon as the policeman arrives. He also seems to have read just enough "legal advice" to know how to cause the officer problems. He probably doesn't this on a regular basis. I feel sorry for the child who clearly has a bully for a father and who's been shown that it's acceptable to ignore authority and to bully women like the headmistress. Poor kid... The police officer is very restrained. The whole situation could have been avoided if the Cyclist hadn't gone on the defensive! He's got issues or someone to hide, or both

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. I'd happily knock him off his bike and reverse over him.

the judges are clearly taking brown envelopes from someone to make these decisions

Slow speed control is a bit counter intuitive. Set the engine speed a bit higher than ticket, hold the rear brake on, and use the clutch to control your speed. No need to pulse the clutch, just keep the revs up and slip the clutch. You won't let the clutch fully out. With your rear brake on the bike won't lunge forward, and as you pull in the clutch it will slow rapidly so you won't get the bike rolling away. Keep revs constant and rear brake on... Its all about the clutch!

Motorbikes are surprisingly stable which is why they can ride along no handed or with no rider in control. The bike is a stable system and will do what it can to return to equilibrium so when the back end steps out so long as you don't have a death grip on the handlebars the steering will automatically countersteer which has the effect of correcting the slide. You are not quick enough to do that subconsciously even if you think you are. "> ">

The instinctive part was not tensing up and fighting the bike. When the back wheel steps out of line the bike will attempt to correct it's self. If you had gripped the bars for dear life you would have prevented the bike countersteering and correcting it's self.

Knowing him he'll probably fix it himself!! Get well soon [mention]megawatt[/mention]

The reason I don't ride my bike to that site, not because I would feel intimidated riding it there. Its because there is a now a genuine chance as desirable tidy bike it would be there at the end of my shift. So I would rather take my car, even if it means an extra hour in traffic at the beginning or end of shift. If the bike gets stolen once it will cost much more time and effort than extra time pleasure than riding the bike. As for being intimidated, thank f**k I told my misses when I jumped a set of lights on a roundabout in the car leaving another site due to a un plated moped acting suspicious. A few weeks later there was a report of an attempted hi-jacking on that roundabout. https://www.dailyecho.co.uk/news/16246694.hampshire-police-investigate-after-masked-moped-gang-targeted-drivers-in-southampton/ It is nothing to do with perceived risk, when your dog is running round unlit on a common with a motorbike. If the dog gets run-over my misses will fooking kill me, that is a real risk, hence I dont walk the dog there... 9ish -5ish hours yup no problems I would ride in and out of my local city Southampton 2 in the morning I am sorry I am seeing risk. Routinely when working in the city day or night I would see 1 or 2 bikes a day with no plate and no lid, a good 70% of my job is spent on site. https://www.carolenash.com/insidebikes/news/uks-top-motorcycle-theft-hotspots-revealed/ I agree personal risk can easily be perceived. Its what efforts its worth to avoid it that matters.. For me an extra hour in the car, or a fine for jumping lights (possibly now legitimately) and the inconvenience of 20 minutes in the car to not walking the dog in that area are acceptable against the dangers. I was driving about Southampton Sunday night. Stopped at zorbas in Bedford place for a kebab at about midnight. I saw a few mopeds but didn't see any trouble.. Its my home town but I won't park my bike on the streets there anymore. Such a shame.

I'm really into Dead Pony and Punk IPA at the moment. Hope neither are vegan else I'd have to boycott them.

Probably the same guy who invented white shirts and washing machines. Great way to keep him in business!!

Use pension contributions to reduce corporation tax. Its very tax efficient way of saving. Fees don't have to be high. Where do you get that idea from? When I was running my own ltd company I was paying into the same personal pension I have now with low fees and about 12% return paid from pre-tax company money saving 20% corporation tax and getting topped up by the government. Nothing not to like about that!! I sat down with an IFA maybe a 2/3 years ago to go through everything, I don’t remember the exact figures but remember walking away from that meeting thinking that the fees are really high and everyone wants a slice of my cash and the returns in exchange weren’t to impressive. Doing some research and prepared to take some risks I decided I could do a better job myself so put half into property and the rest into a SIP. it’s not the most tax efficient set up but it gives me complete control and if I cock it up and ends up costing me then I know I only have myself to blame and It suits my control freak personality haha. Sorry mate but either you were given bad advice or you misunderstood. If you're a ltd company and not using pension contributions to reduce corporation tax you are over paying your company tax and missing out in 20% tax reduction. Ltd company or not, if you're not contributing to a pension you are missing out on the 25% government top up... And if youre managing your own investment portfolio, unless that's your line of work, you're probably wasting time you could be using to make your own business more successful and unlikely to have a well balanced resilient portfolio. Not wishing to preach, it's your money and your future, but you really should spend a bit of time researching. I can give you a referral to the company I use for my pension and other savings if you like. You'd get some freebies and so would I. In my case I have property, private pension and now a work pension as well as various other investments. Certainly worth diversifying your investment portfolio and in your case that means getting a personal pension.

Use pension contributions to reduce corporation tax. Its very tax efficient way of saving. Fees don't have to be high. Where do you get that idea from? When I was running my own ltd company I was paying into the same personal pension I have now with low fees and about 12% return paid from pre-tax company money saving 20% corporation tax and getting topped up by the government. Nothing not to like about that!!

Waste of time. You won't win. If you did win all you could hope to get back would be the fees, they are not qualified to overrule the decision of the examiner so can't change the results of the test.

Well, if you're putting in 4% and your company is putting in 4-8% as plenty do that's a pretty good return - 100-200%, right? (assuming it's not invested badly and lost, which any type of investment possibly can be). Also it's tax free savings (though I didn't know you had to pay to when you draw on it. Still better using my example than being taxed 40% and saving after that). What's a better alternative? Pensions are tax efficient yes and whilst you're still earning money it's well worth paying into a pension to get the "free" money from the government. However, they really don't offer great rates of return and the amount you need to save to continue living the same lifestyle is totally unrealistic for most people who have to pay everyday costs like mortgages and food. Despite the old saying "don't put all your eggs in one basket" most people only had one income and one retirement strategy and with the soaring costs of living that's no longer a viable way to retire comfortably.

I took some time a while ago to gather all my little pension pots up and join them together in one pot. I'm using Nutmeg as the returns looked good and the fees relatively low. I was seeing a 12% return until recently. Its now dropped to about 8%. Pensions are not a great way to save for retirement despite what we are all told. Last year i quit contracting to go into full time employment to ride out Brexit. The company in with now pay 7% and I pay 7%. The company pension gives pathetic returns of about 4%. But at least I've minimised my exposure to brexit by working for a company that won't be affected. Meanwhile thanks to a shortsighted government my buy to let portfolio is getting hammered for tax, so I'm starting to look at renting them out as AirBnB instead. Sorry tenants - blame your government for the lack of affordable rental properties. I pay less tax and make more money by renting them out as furnished holiday lets and's only going to get worse and the tax relief is cut further.

Terrorists don't exist. Certainly not on the scale the authorities would have us believe and certainly not as the professional organisations. The proof for this is that we don't have coordinated terrorists attacks happening every day, or when they do happen which is quite rare, they don't happen in multiple places at once.