Jump to content

Metropolitan Police - use of tactical contact on mopeds


Martyn850
 Share

Recommended Posts

I personally have no problem with it at all. There is little turds who rip up and down the road outside where I work in the middle of the day on crossers, no helmets on, just a balaclava to cover their face. Its a wonder no one has been injured on the crossing as they don't slow down at all, just swerve round people. There was also a young lad on an R6 with no plate riding down the pavement at a fair lick recently. I can't say Id be upset to see them flying over the bonnet of a police car.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Protection from prosecution perhaps when someone eventually falls badly and dies.. or they target the wrong bike.

 

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Protection from prosecution perhaps when someone eventually falls badly and dies.. or they target the wrong bike.

 

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Protection from prosecution perhaps when someone eventually falls badly and dies.. or they target the wrong bike.

 

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

 

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

 

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As someone:

1) Who can no longer ride his motorbike to work,

2) Who can no longer walk his dog round the local common, in the dark or at dusk.

Due to a certain type of "motorcyclist" remember to allot of the public we all get tarred with the same brush.


Let the police do there job ans stop this stuff going on:

https://emergency-services.news/?p=5251&fbclid=IwAR2H0Gd1s2PXmuXESUj8orOR0Nne2toPNXjgA8NEG4GYhTL2Tpy-2hWfXcg


PS I do not live in an inner city although one of my work sites is near one. Most people when I mention the town I live in say how nice an area it is, it just it seems a certain type of biking culture is taking over....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As someone:

1) Who can no longer ride his motorbike to work,

2) Who can no longer walk his dog round the local common, in the dark or at dusk.

Due to a certain type of "motorcyclist" remember to allot of the public we all get tarred with the same brush.


Let the police do there job ans stop this stuff going on:

https://emergency-services.news/?p=5251&fbclid=IwAR2H0Gd1s2PXmuXESUj8orOR0Nne2toPNXjgA8NEG4GYhTL2Tpy-2hWfXcg


PS I do not live in an inner city although one of my work sites is near one. Most people when I mention the town I live in say how nice an area it is, it just it seems a certain type of biking culture is taking over....

I find this really sad.

You can't ride your bike to work. Is this from the imminent threat of violence you perceive?


Do we think a media frenzy is also affecting perceptions of risk?

I live on a not too nice area. Ride my bike when I want and think nothing of taking into the city centre or the 2 nearby towns which are officially classed as deprived areas.

We have the same quad dickheads n moped riding buffoons but I cannot honestly say I've ever been threatened or felt intimidated.

The only conversation I have ever had with any of them was when I instigated the conversation and explained some of the highway code.....


The police. Yes some good some bad.

They simply don't have the resources now to tackle every crime.

They are not above the law though. We in west York's have an on going court case at present when an armed officer shot dead a driver on the M62.


It's all too easy to become a victim and maybe we don't help ourselves sometimes by in reality perpetrating a self fulfilling prophecy by not riding when we wish and when we do ride we ride scared?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Certainly police are not above the law, however there are extras laws that give them extra powers.


The problem lies in interpretation of the law and use of that power. The met has its own legal department which will interpret such laws, this is then filtered downwards with policies and training based on that interpretation which is occasionally wrong.


The requests for protection are not for the gun ho officers who have seen the news and decided they are now going to ram a motorcyclist themselves for fun with no training, those deserve everything they get. But those who have been trained and use that training in line with policy should be protected.


The law is not black and white and most court cases spend more time arguing over interpretation of a law than what the suspect did or didn't do. In the cases where the police (as in the legal department and policy makers) get it wrong this shouldn't end up the fault of the police officer doing what they were told to do.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I see that f**k wit I got this job cause I shaged jez corbyn diane Abbott going on about the police should not hit these nice lads of the stolen bikes as they only having bit fun and its dangerous to the lads nasty police ...


What a complete tool .. god help us if this dumb bitch is to have any power..

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't agree with Diane Abbot on many things, including this latest concern for moped muggers, but it's worth bearing in mind she has been elected with a huge majority for many years, it's not as though she has just been installed by Jeremey Corbyn.. and calling her a 'dumb bitch' just smacks of misogyny.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't agree with Diane Abbot on many things, including this latest concern for moped muggers, but it's worth bearing in mind she has been elected with a huge majority for many years, it's not as though she has just been installed by Jeremey Corbyn.. and calling her a 'dumb bitch' just smacks of misogyny.

 

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

Link to comment
Share on other sites

.The Shadow Home Secretary first said it would cost £300,000. Then it was £80 million. Then it was more than that


Diane Abbott got very confused about the cost of Labour's plan to put 10,000 more police on the streets in an excruciating live radio brain-fade.


In the course of a six minute interview, the Shadow Home Secretary said the policy would cost £300,000, then £80 million, then around £800 million over four years

And she said they would be recruiting 25,000 officers a year, then 250,000 a year, then 2,250 in the first year.


In an interview with LBC's Nick Ferrari, Abbott said: "Well, if we recruit the 10,000 police men and women over a four year period, we believe it will be about £300,000


Assuming this was for one year, that would mean each of the 10,000 officers would be paid £30 a year


Ferrari was taken aback: “Three hundred thousand pounds? For 10,000 police officers? What are you paying them?



I REST MY CASE .... this was a planned interview not a jump on her moment (that's Cornyn job ) :puke:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

.The Shadow Home Secretary first said it would cost £300,000. Then it was £80 million. Then it was more than that


Diane Abbott got very confused about the cost of Labour's plan to put 10,000 more police on the streets in an excruciating live radio brain-fade.


In the course of a six minute interview, the Shadow Home Secretary said the policy would cost £300,000, then £80 million, then around £800 million over four years

And she said they would be recruiting 25,000 officers a year, then 250,000 a year, then 2,250 in the first year.


In an interview with LBC's Nick Ferrari, Abbott said: "Well, if we recruit the 10,000 police men and women over a four year period, we believe it will be about £300,000


Assuming this was for one year, that would mean each of the 10,000 officers would be paid £30 a year


Ferrari was taken aback: “Three hundred thousand pounds? For 10,000 police officers? What are you paying them?



I REST MY CASE .... this was a planned interview not a jump on her moment (that's Cornyn job ) :puke:

 



The woman's a fooking idiot .

Link to comment
Share on other sites



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.

 

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

Link to comment
Share on other sites

.The Shadow Home Secretary first said it would cost £300,000. Then it was £80 million. Then it was more than that


Diane Abbott got very confused about the cost of Labour's plan to put 10,000 more police on the streets in an excruciating live radio brain-fade.


In the course of a six minute interview, the Shadow Home Secretary said the policy would cost £300,000, then £80 million, then around £800 million over four years

And she said they would be recruiting 25,000 officers a year, then 250,000 a year, then 2,250 in the first year.


In an interview with LBC's Nick Ferrari, Abbott said: "Well, if we recruit the 10,000 police men and women over a four year period, we believe it will be about £300,000


Assuming this was for one year, that would mean each of the 10,000 officers would be paid £30 a year


Ferrari was taken aback: “Three hundred thousand pounds? For 10,000 police officers? What are you paying them?



I REST MY CASE .... this was a planned interview not a jump on her moment (that's Cornyn job ) :puke:

 

Gammon alert.

Link to comment
Share on other sites



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.

 

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

.The Shadow Home Secretary first said it would cost £300,000. Then it was £80 million. Then it was more than that


Diane Abbott got very confused about the cost of Labour's plan to put 10,000 more police on the streets in an excruciating live radio brain-fade.


In the course of a six minute interview, the Shadow Home Secretary said the policy would cost £300,000, then £80 million, then around £800 million over four years

And she said they would be recruiting 25,000 officers a year, then 250,000 a year, then 2,250 in the first year.


In an interview with LBC's Nick Ferrari, Abbott said: "Well, if we recruit the 10,000 police men and women over a four year period, we believe it will be about £300,000


Assuming this was for one year, that would mean each of the 10,000 officers would be paid £30 a year


Ferrari was taken aback: “Three hundred thousand pounds? For 10,000 police officers? What are you paying them?



I REST MY CASE .... this was a planned interview not a jump on her moment (that's Cornyn job ) :puke:

 

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

Link to comment
Share on other sites

.The Shadow Home Secretary first said it would cost £300,000. Then it was £80 million. Then it was more than that


Diane Abbott got very confused about the cost of Labour's plan to put 10,000 more police on the streets in an excruciating live radio brain-fade.


In the course of a six minute interview, the Shadow Home Secretary said the policy would cost £300,000, then £80 million, then around £800 million over four years

And she said they would be recruiting 25,000 officers a year, then 250,000 a year, then 2,250 in the first year.


In an interview with LBC's Nick Ferrari, Abbott said: "Well, if we recruit the 10,000 police men and women over a four year period, we believe it will be about £300,000


Assuming this was for one year, that would mean each of the 10,000 officers would be paid £30 a year


Ferrari was taken aback: “Three hundred thousand pounds? For 10,000 police officers? What are you paying them?



I REST MY CASE .... this was a planned interview not a jump on her moment (that's Cornyn job ) :puke:

 

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


">
Link to comment
Share on other sites

.The Shadow Home Secretary first said it would cost £300,000. Then it was £80 million. Then it was more than that


Diane Abbott got very confused about the cost of Labour's plan to put 10,000 more police on the streets in an excruciating live radio brain-fade.


In the course of a six minute interview, the Shadow Home Secretary said the policy would cost £300,000, then £80 million, then around £800 million over four years

And she said they would be recruiting 25,000 officers a year, then 250,000 a year, then 2,250 in the first year.


In an interview with LBC's Nick Ferrari, Abbott said: "Well, if we recruit the 10,000 police men and women over a four year period, we believe it will be about £300,000


Assuming this was for one year, that would mean each of the 10,000 officers would be paid £30 a year


Ferrari was taken aback: “Three hundred thousand pounds? For 10,000 police officers? What are you paying them?



I REST MY CASE .... this was a planned interview not a jump on her moment (that's Cornyn job ) :puke:

 

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?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I find this really sad.

You can't ride your bike to work. Is this from the imminent threat of violence you perceive?


Do we think a media frenzy is also affecting perceptions of risk?

I live on a not too nice area. Ride my bike when I want and think nothing of taking into the city centre or the 2 nearby towns which are officially classed as deprived areas.

We have the same quad dickheads n moped riding buffoons but I cannot honestly say I've ever been threatened or felt intimidated.

The only conversation I have ever had with any of them was when I instigated the conversation and explained some of the highway code.....

 

 

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

 

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....

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.

 Share

  • Welcome to The Motorbike Forum.

    Sign in or register an account to join in.

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

Terms of Use Privacy Policy Guidelines We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.

Please Sign In or Sign Up