OpenMind;1060678 wrote: If there's time to set it up, the system here in England allows the initial police car to back off and just simply follow. A helicopter can be employed to observe the rogue driver's progress. It's simply a case of manoeuvring the 'pieces on the board' until the rogue driver is forced into a block or trap. The police have special equipment for puncturing the rogue's tyres if needs be.
Simply taking the licence plate number is not sufficient evidence. If the vehicle is not observed constantly, there is no telling whether the driver switches with a passenger, or whether the person the car is licenced to had anything to do with the crime or even is aware the car has been stolen, if that is the case.
There is no doubt that good co-ordination can save lives in persuits. The British cops happen to be very good at it when they get it right. If a helicopter and 'stinger' are deployed, the car is halted often before any damage is done.
The incidents i speak of are personal experience where i know that a police car was in persuit for a car 5 miles away. On the day of Mr O's road rage assault, they did a ton past a school at 3.30 in the afternoon on a main road where children were crossing. I was absolutely horrified. The officers thought the fact that they had chance to put the blue lights and siren on, was funny. Would it have been so funny if that was your child they ploughed into???
As i said in a previous post, it's not the one's who are in persuit of an armed robber or the local physopath that are the real danger. It's the one's that do it because a car has jumped a light. They 'persuit' merely on the assumption that if the driver is fleeing, then he must have something else to flee for. Very often when they do catch up with them, the driver has fled because he has a gram of cannibis in the car.. certainly not worth putting people's lives at risk for. It can all be for the assumption that the cop is going to get further notches on his truncheon should a car flee. Often a fleeing car turns out to be a young teenager who hasn't got insurence. Is that worth burning to death 3 kids for? I don't think so not when most persuit cars have video equipment to follow up the reg no. at a later time.
I put a thread on a few weeks ago about a cop who delivered a birthday card to his sister with sirens blazing and lights flashing at 100 mph. When he got there he then took out a family member for a 'joy ride' at the same speede. As he was then late back to the nick, he did the same speed to the station. he mowed down and killed an innocent grandmother yards from her home. He is about to be charged with death by reckless driving.
Another problem in this country.... cops abusing their vehicles for the fun of it.
Should cops kill in the name of pursuit??
-
Oscar Namechange
- Posts: 31840
- Joined: Wed Jul 30, 2008 9:26 am
Should cops kill in the name of pursuit??
At the going down of the sun and in the morning, we will remember them. R.L. Binyon
-
Oscar Namechange
- Posts: 31840
- Joined: Wed Jul 30, 2008 9:26 am
Should cops kill in the name of pursuit??
If the Charles De Menezes corruption, The Guildford Four and The Birmingham Six being fitted up is not enough Fuzzy, here's another for you.
BBC News | UK | Hyde Park bomber case 'deeply flawed'
These are the IRA terrorists that are 'supposidly' guilty as hell.
BBC News | UK | Hyde Park bomber case 'deeply flawed'
These are the IRA terrorists that are 'supposidly' guilty as hell.
At the going down of the sun and in the morning, we will remember them. R.L. Binyon
Should cops kill in the name of pursuit??
oscar;1060785 wrote: There is no doubt that good co-ordination can save lives in persuits. The British cops happen to be very good at it when they get it right. If a helicopter and 'stinger' are deployed, the car is halted often before any damage is done.
The incidents i speak of are personal experience where i know that a police car was in persuit for a car 5 miles away. On the day of Mr O's road rage assault, they did a ton past a school at 3.30 in the afternoon on a main road where children were crossing. I was absolutely horrified. The officers thought the fact that they had chance to put the blue lights and siren on, was funny. Would it have been so funny if that was your child they ploughed into???
Sorry, Oscar, if you thought I was presenting an argument against what you said. I was simply informing along-for-the-ride what tactics can be deployed by our police force. I certainly wouldn't condone a police car driving at 100mph past a school with children crossing and as far as I am aware, there training does not allow this either. And thanks for the word I was looking for - stinger.:-6
The incidents i speak of are personal experience where i know that a police car was in persuit for a car 5 miles away. On the day of Mr O's road rage assault, they did a ton past a school at 3.30 in the afternoon on a main road where children were crossing. I was absolutely horrified. The officers thought the fact that they had chance to put the blue lights and siren on, was funny. Would it have been so funny if that was your child they ploughed into???
Sorry, Oscar, if you thought I was presenting an argument against what you said. I was simply informing along-for-the-ride what tactics can be deployed by our police force. I certainly wouldn't condone a police car driving at 100mph past a school with children crossing and as far as I am aware, there training does not allow this either. And thanks for the word I was looking for - stinger.:-6
-
Oscar Namechange
- Posts: 31840
- Joined: Wed Jul 30, 2008 9:26 am
Should cops kill in the name of pursuit??
OpenMind;1060813 wrote: Sorry, Oscar, if you thought I was presenting an argument against what you said. I was simply informing along-for-the-ride what tactics can be deployed by our police force. I certainly wouldn't condone a police car driving at 100mph past a school with children crossing and as far as I am aware, there training does not allow this either. And thanks for the word I was looking for - stinger.:-6
Sorry, i do sound harsh at times. The problem with the 'stinger' is there has been a number of injurie's to officers deploying them. It relie's totally on some poor sod of an officer (low rank of course) standing by the edge of a road or motorway ready to physically unroll the thing into the path of the oncoming fleeing car. They are highly effective if they work by spiking the tyres but often they don't work. The officer has to get it just so and i'm told it's some-thing of a knack. It's not something i'd want to be volunteered for.
Sorry, i do sound harsh at times. The problem with the 'stinger' is there has been a number of injurie's to officers deploying them. It relie's totally on some poor sod of an officer (low rank of course) standing by the edge of a road or motorway ready to physically unroll the thing into the path of the oncoming fleeing car. They are highly effective if they work by spiking the tyres but often they don't work. The officer has to get it just so and i'm told it's some-thing of a knack. It's not something i'd want to be volunteered for.
At the going down of the sun and in the morning, we will remember them. R.L. Binyon
Should cops kill in the name of pursuit??
oscar;1061163 wrote: Sorry, i do sound harsh at times. The problem with the 'stinger' is there has been a number of injurie's to officers deploying them. It relie's totally on some poor sod of an officer (low rank of course) standing by the edge of a road or motorway ready to physically unroll the thing into the path of the oncoming fleeing car. They are highly effective if they work by spiking the tyres but often they don't work. The officer has to get it just so and i'm told it's some-thing of a knack. It's not something i'd want to be volunteered for.
I thought they were easier than that to use. I'll have to learn more about them. Thanks for that info.:-6
PS. I didn't think you were harsh there. No this time anyway.
I thought they were easier than that to use. I'll have to learn more about them. Thanks for that info.:-6
PS. I didn't think you were harsh there. No this time anyway.
-
Oscar Namechange
- Posts: 31840
- Joined: Wed Jul 30, 2008 9:26 am
Should cops kill in the name of pursuit??
OpenMind;1061172 wrote: I thought they were easier than that to use. I'll have to learn more about them. Thanks for that info.:-6
PS. I didn't think you were harsh there. No this time anyway.
Me Harsh?????????? Noooooooo :wah:
One example of an officer being killed laying a 'stinger' trap. I just found a site with statistics of injurie's for officers but need to be a member to access it.
It's certainly a risky occupation, far worse than i thought.:-1
Compensation for death of hero officer who laid stinger device - Representation and Advice for Private Clients - Humphreys & Co. Solicitors
PS. I didn't think you were harsh there. No this time anyway.
Me Harsh?????????? Noooooooo :wah:
One example of an officer being killed laying a 'stinger' trap. I just found a site with statistics of injurie's for officers but need to be a member to access it.
It's certainly a risky occupation, far worse than i thought.:-1
Compensation for death of hero officer who laid stinger device - Representation and Advice for Private Clients - Humphreys & Co. Solicitors
At the going down of the sun and in the morning, we will remember them. R.L. Binyon
Should cops kill in the name of pursuit??
oscar;1061213 wrote: Me Harsh?????????? Noooooooo :wah:
One example of an officer being killed laying a 'stinger' trap. I just found a site with statistics of injurie's for officers but need to be a member to access it.
It's certainly a risky occupation, far worse than i thought.:-1
Compensation for death of hero officer who laid stinger device - Representation and Advice for Private Clients - Humphreys & Co. Solicitors
That, to me, appears to be murder, not dangerous driving. But I guess they were assured a conviction on dangerous driving. Still, the boy's comments makes me think he intended to swerve.
I'm off to bed now. I'm way past my bedtime.
One example of an officer being killed laying a 'stinger' trap. I just found a site with statistics of injurie's for officers but need to be a member to access it.
It's certainly a risky occupation, far worse than i thought.:-1
Compensation for death of hero officer who laid stinger device - Representation and Advice for Private Clients - Humphreys & Co. Solicitors
That, to me, appears to be murder, not dangerous driving. But I guess they were assured a conviction on dangerous driving. Still, the boy's comments makes me think he intended to swerve.
I'm off to bed now. I'm way past my bedtime.
-
Oscar Namechange
- Posts: 31840
- Joined: Wed Jul 30, 2008 9:26 am
Should cops kill in the name of pursuit??
OpenMind;1061219 wrote: That, to me, appears to be murder, not dangerous driving. But I guess they were assured a conviction on dangerous driving. Still, the boy's comments makes me think he intended to swerve.
I'm off to bed now. I'm way past my bedtime.
I've just been watching 'Joe Swash' eating kangaroo bolloxs in 'I'm a celeb.
Goodnight. Speak soon.
I'm off to bed now. I'm way past my bedtime.
I've just been watching 'Joe Swash' eating kangaroo bolloxs in 'I'm a celeb.
Goodnight. Speak soon.
At the going down of the sun and in the morning, we will remember them. R.L. Binyon
Should cops kill in the name of pursuit??
gmc;1060275 wrote:
posted by bryn mawr
As to the menezez case. the ones who should pay the price are the senior officers in charge not necessarily the shooters. The thing is if you know there have been suicide bomber attacks recently and are told that the man you are following is potentially one of them you can hardly ask him to stop while you check he doesn't have a bomb under his jacket you'd be dead two seconds later and so would anyone nearby. Those very same papers so ready to crucify the armed police officers who did the shooting were also very quick to gloat over the fact they had stopped one of the bombers-before the full story came out. Had he been one they would have been singing their praises and defending the need to shoot without warnings when you know they are carrying suicide bombs.
That's what I've said all along - Ian Blair who knew of and didn't stop the cover up (I stop short of saying he ordered the cover up because it could have started before he was informed, but he was the boss and he actively participated in it after knowing the facts) and that stupid woman who ordered shoot to kill knowing that the identification was uncertain.
posted by bryn mawr
As to the menezez case. the ones who should pay the price are the senior officers in charge not necessarily the shooters. The thing is if you know there have been suicide bomber attacks recently and are told that the man you are following is potentially one of them you can hardly ask him to stop while you check he doesn't have a bomb under his jacket you'd be dead two seconds later and so would anyone nearby. Those very same papers so ready to crucify the armed police officers who did the shooting were also very quick to gloat over the fact they had stopped one of the bombers-before the full story came out. Had he been one they would have been singing their praises and defending the need to shoot without warnings when you know they are carrying suicide bombs.
That's what I've said all along - Ian Blair who knew of and didn't stop the cover up (I stop short of saying he ordered the cover up because it could have started before he was informed, but he was the boss and he actively participated in it after knowing the facts) and that stupid woman who ordered shoot to kill knowing that the identification was uncertain.
-
Oscar Namechange
- Posts: 31840
- Joined: Wed Jul 30, 2008 9:26 am
Should cops kill in the name of pursuit??
fuzzy butt;1061212 wrote: what I'm seeing here which makes me believe some of you have an Agenda is the way only terrorist related (injustices?) have been brought up.
That's it in a nutshell. The word... Terrorist. The linked cases were not, never had been terrorists.... they were fitted up by the police as terrorists. The word Terrorist should never be associated with their names. there has never been any proof that they were.
Do you have a link to connect them with being Terrorists?
That's it in a nutshell. The word... Terrorist. The linked cases were not, never had been terrorists.... they were fitted up by the police as terrorists. The word Terrorist should never be associated with their names. there has never been any proof that they were.
Do you have a link to connect them with being Terrorists?
At the going down of the sun and in the morning, we will remember them. R.L. Binyon
Should cops kill in the name of pursuit??
fuzzy butt;1061212 wrote: where have I been insulted ?
I think you'll find that You guys are calling these incidents cover ups. I wouldn't neccasarily call it a cover up .........Just an example of "heads have to fall " and go quietly . then the press takes over.
what I'm seeing here which makes me believe some of you have an Agenda is the way only terrorist related (injustices?) have been brought up.
From my way of looking at all of this, you guys seem to be going on about a political power play during a time of extreme high security levels and WAR. It seems to me reading through pages and pages of documented opinions all over the net that your government is just cleaning up after years of intimidation (and public pressure to do so I may add) of another country. You guys did this to yourselves.
You have been reacting as though you have been personally insulted even though no-one has done so.
I call it a cover-up when the Police, from the officers on the ground to the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis, repeatedly lie, both in the media and under oath, in order to hide their failings - what would you call it?
The cases highlighted are just the most obvious and well documented instances - the fact that they are terrorist related is a function of the media interest and therefore the availability of information rather than a deliberate selection policy.
I think you'll find that You guys are calling these incidents cover ups. I wouldn't neccasarily call it a cover up .........Just an example of "heads have to fall " and go quietly . then the press takes over.
what I'm seeing here which makes me believe some of you have an Agenda is the way only terrorist related (injustices?) have been brought up.
From my way of looking at all of this, you guys seem to be going on about a political power play during a time of extreme high security levels and WAR. It seems to me reading through pages and pages of documented opinions all over the net that your government is just cleaning up after years of intimidation (and public pressure to do so I may add) of another country. You guys did this to yourselves.
You have been reacting as though you have been personally insulted even though no-one has done so.
I call it a cover-up when the Police, from the officers on the ground to the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis, repeatedly lie, both in the media and under oath, in order to hide their failings - what would you call it?
The cases highlighted are just the most obvious and well documented instances - the fact that they are terrorist related is a function of the media interest and therefore the availability of information rather than a deliberate selection policy.
-
Oscar Namechange
- Posts: 31840
- Joined: Wed Jul 30, 2008 9:26 am
Should cops kill in the name of pursuit??
fuzzy butt;1061230 wrote: Oscar your veiled attempts at being supportive of your police force is so transparent it's not funny.
Your last example is a rather stupid one (not to say the whole post) so what your saying is.................Police have all the answers before they apprehend an offender.?????
A cop going against police procedure shouldn't be in the police force. Are you actually trying to say that this constables behaviour is actual accepted practice? that it is acceptable to your police force? Because that's how you've written it. You put up examples as if to say it's systemic throughout and these kind of behaviours are common and part and parcel of your force.
You have an agenda here and i dont' think it stems from a good hearted souls approach to the protection of the public. Something else is going on here.
do you have any good news stories about police? Or is even thinking about it distasteful for you?
If you read one of my previous posts, I spoke of the praise i had for our new beat manager and bobby. I have also spoken of the 'poor sod officers' of lower rank who get killed (see my link) or injured laying stinger traps.
I have just sponsered one of the local coppers on a tour of all police stations by bycycle to raise funds for dis-advantaged children.
I just spent Rememberence Sunday on a four mile march with not only war vets but all of my local police and stood next to them at the service.
I have been a victem of crime over the past year and i phoned my HQ to give the names of two officers to the Chief of Police that i believed deserved recognition.
I have also said not once but a few times in public interviews, some with the BBC, that i have had sympathy for our police and blame targets and under funding from our government.
I could go on but it'd be a little boring for other posters.
Your last example is a rather stupid one (not to say the whole post) so what your saying is.................Police have all the answers before they apprehend an offender.?????
A cop going against police procedure shouldn't be in the police force. Are you actually trying to say that this constables behaviour is actual accepted practice? that it is acceptable to your police force? Because that's how you've written it. You put up examples as if to say it's systemic throughout and these kind of behaviours are common and part and parcel of your force.
You have an agenda here and i dont' think it stems from a good hearted souls approach to the protection of the public. Something else is going on here.
do you have any good news stories about police? Or is even thinking about it distasteful for you?
If you read one of my previous posts, I spoke of the praise i had for our new beat manager and bobby. I have also spoken of the 'poor sod officers' of lower rank who get killed (see my link) or injured laying stinger traps.
I have just sponsered one of the local coppers on a tour of all police stations by bycycle to raise funds for dis-advantaged children.
I just spent Rememberence Sunday on a four mile march with not only war vets but all of my local police and stood next to them at the service.
I have been a victem of crime over the past year and i phoned my HQ to give the names of two officers to the Chief of Police that i believed deserved recognition.
I have also said not once but a few times in public interviews, some with the BBC, that i have had sympathy for our police and blame targets and under funding from our government.
I could go on but it'd be a little boring for other posters.
At the going down of the sun and in the morning, we will remember them. R.L. Binyon
Should cops kill in the name of pursuit??
fuzzy butt;1061301 wrote: Were any of them charged or convicted for lying under oath ?
The inquest is still going on and yes, they have admitted under questioning (at inquest rather than in a court of law but still under oath) that they doctored their notes and changed their evidence to try to hide what happened - prosecution might or might not follow those admissions.
The inquest is still going on and yes, they have admitted under questioning (at inquest rather than in a court of law but still under oath) that they doctored their notes and changed their evidence to try to hide what happened - prosecution might or might not follow those admissions.
-
Oscar Namechange
- Posts: 31840
- Joined: Wed Jul 30, 2008 9:26 am
Should cops kill in the name of pursuit??
fuzzy butt;1061296 wrote: I think you'll find that in the world of policing they are a very tight bunch and yes Australian police are very close to yours (yep even in Scotland)
99.9% of speed cops are let off - mirror.co.uk
The difference between Austalia and Britain as you yourself have said, your officers do not work to targets. Your guys fill in a piece of paper at the end of their shift. If they have arressted less, it's a good thing. If ours have arrested less, it's a bad thing.
Our government target system is the very root of it all. It matters not how much heart the officer has. At the end of his shift, he is performance rated and that has a direct impact on the way they deal with alleged offenders. The individual police station will have targets and that has a direct impact on how chiefs organise their troops and what they expect from them. It is why record numbers of officers are resigning in this country and recruitment into the police force is at an all time low.
99.9% of speed cops are let off - mirror.co.uk
The difference between Austalia and Britain as you yourself have said, your officers do not work to targets. Your guys fill in a piece of paper at the end of their shift. If they have arressted less, it's a good thing. If ours have arrested less, it's a bad thing.
Our government target system is the very root of it all. It matters not how much heart the officer has. At the end of his shift, he is performance rated and that has a direct impact on the way they deal with alleged offenders. The individual police station will have targets and that has a direct impact on how chiefs organise their troops and what they expect from them. It is why record numbers of officers are resigning in this country and recruitment into the police force is at an all time low.
At the going down of the sun and in the morning, we will remember them. R.L. Binyon
-
Oscar Namechange
- Posts: 31840
- Joined: Wed Jul 30, 2008 9:26 am
Should cops kill in the name of pursuit??
Are our police convicted criminals??? Interesting...
Police with criminal records serve in the Met | Mail Online
Police with criminal records serve in the Met | Mail Online
At the going down of the sun and in the morning, we will remember them. R.L. Binyon
Should cops kill in the name of pursuit??
fuzzy butt;1061345 wrote: Yep, The accusations of being terrorists (which is what England was dealing with at the time) but i got rid of the page and now i have to find it again.
You've brought up the guilford four like it happened yesterday. That was a long time ago and cannot be used today as an example of a modern day police force. those men were arrested a day after the implementation of the anti terrorist Act.
It was also done under presssure from the general populace and with the acceptance of the general populace. Brits didn't mind IRA suspects recieving a good beating back in the seventies. And you can't compare it with the menandez case either . For the time period of the guilford four, Australia was recieving many immigrants from Ireland and England with some pretty sever knee injuries.
I knew one personally in the late eighties who thought it better to be here rather than going back to his bombed out house. The Guilford four are colatoral damage from basically a Civil War.
Comparing it to the menendez case doesn't quite fit either, this time round you guys are at war, internationally. And his death is a result of that War. You guys are again living in a time of having bombs exploding around you. Accidents and misrepresentations happen. I think churchill said it best when he spoke about the truth being so valuable that it must be surrounded by a hundred lies to protect it.
When you find Utopia tell me.
Oscar you still havent answered my questions and you seem again as with other threads to change the whole OP into a accusation of corruption across the board of police. WHY?
So why not address the case that is still current - every time I bring up the Charles de Menezes case you drop it like a hot potato even though it is the perfect example of Police lies and cover-up.
You've brought up the guilford four like it happened yesterday. That was a long time ago and cannot be used today as an example of a modern day police force. those men were arrested a day after the implementation of the anti terrorist Act.
It was also done under presssure from the general populace and with the acceptance of the general populace. Brits didn't mind IRA suspects recieving a good beating back in the seventies. And you can't compare it with the menandez case either . For the time period of the guilford four, Australia was recieving many immigrants from Ireland and England with some pretty sever knee injuries.
I knew one personally in the late eighties who thought it better to be here rather than going back to his bombed out house. The Guilford four are colatoral damage from basically a Civil War.
Comparing it to the menendez case doesn't quite fit either, this time round you guys are at war, internationally. And his death is a result of that War. You guys are again living in a time of having bombs exploding around you. Accidents and misrepresentations happen. I think churchill said it best when he spoke about the truth being so valuable that it must be surrounded by a hundred lies to protect it.
When you find Utopia tell me.
Oscar you still havent answered my questions and you seem again as with other threads to change the whole OP into a accusation of corruption across the board of police. WHY?
So why not address the case that is still current - every time I bring up the Charles de Menezes case you drop it like a hot potato even though it is the perfect example of Police lies and cover-up.
Should cops kill in the name of pursuit??
fuzzy butt;1061361 wrote: Because I don't believe it is. Certain information was received and sent through the chain of command and statements were prepared much to early to the media ......................Unfortunetly they then had to back track. That's entirely different to a cover up.
Then you have not read any of the evidence presented to the inquest or any of the initial reporting of the case.
How do you square the statements to the inquest admitting doctoring of the evidence and records with your above statement for example?
What do you make of the Police claims that de Menezes was running through the station and vaulted the barriers with the subsequent CCTV footage as another example?
Then you have not read any of the evidence presented to the inquest or any of the initial reporting of the case.
How do you square the statements to the inquest admitting doctoring of the evidence and records with your above statement for example?
What do you make of the Police claims that de Menezes was running through the station and vaulted the barriers with the subsequent CCTV footage as another example?
Should cops kill in the name of pursuit??
fuzzy butt;1061362 wrote: To continue with that thought I'm extremely pleased that the heirachy went out of their way to back this officer and his decision at the time. 
should be more of it
Backing an officer is one thing - out and out lies and suppression of evidence is a totally different kettle of oysters.
should be more of itBacking an officer is one thing - out and out lies and suppression of evidence is a totally different kettle of oysters.
Should cops kill in the name of pursuit??
fuzzy butt;1061364 wrote: hang on I didn't drop it..........
One mention out of many - you pointedly ignored the majority of the points I raised.
One mention out of many - you pointedly ignored the majority of the points I raised.
Should cops kill in the name of pursuit??
Bryn Mawr;1061370 wrote: One mention out of many - you pointedly ignored the majority of the points I raised.
ETA Accident it might have been (just) but misrepresentation? Lies at the highest level are never acceptable!
ETA Accident it might have been (just) but misrepresentation? Lies at the highest level are never acceptable!
-
Oscar Namechange
- Posts: 31840
- Joined: Wed Jul 30, 2008 9:26 am
Should cops kill in the name of pursuit??
fuzzy butt;1061345 wrote: Yep, The accusations of being terrorists (which is what England was dealing with at the time) but i got rid of the page and now i have to find it again.
You've brought up the guilford four like it happened yesterday. That was a long time ago and cannot be used today as an example of a modern day police force. those men were arrested a day after the implementation of the anti terrorist Act.
It was also done under presssure from the general populace and with the acceptance of the general populace. Brits didn't mind IRA suspects recieving a good beating back in the seventies. And you can't compare it with the menandez case either . For the time period of the guilford four, Australia was recieving many immigrants from Ireland and England with some pretty sever knee injuries.
I knew one personally in the late eighties who thought it better to be here rather than going back to his bombed out house. The Guilford four are colatoral damage from basically a Civil War.
Comparing it to the menendez case doesn't quite fit either, this time round you guys are at war, internationally. And his death is a result of that War. You guys are again living in a time of having bombs exploding around you. Accidents and misrepresentations happen. I think churchill said it best when he spoke about the truth being so valuable that it must be surrounded by a hundred lies to protect it.
When you find Utopia tell me.
Oscar you still havent answered my questions and you seem again as with other threads to change the whole OP into a accusation of corruption across the board of police. WHY?
The only reason i linked The Guildford Four, The Birmingham Six and the Hyde Park bombings along with Charles De Menezes was not to imply only terrorist suspects get fitted up.
They are all high profile cases that as i said earlier, show a line of corruption in the police force spanning nearly 40 yrs.
The Hyde Park bombings and other Ira bombings, one of which i happened to be 3 miles away when it went off, was in direct conflict of the Thatcher Government. I won't go there as the thread will go off onto a tangent of Thatcherism except Spot is correct, she sent her thug policer officers in to beat the miners in submission.
The high profile cases i have linked would show to anyone reading this thread that if these fit up's are of the highest profile, how many more do you think have gone through the system without press coverage in the past 40 years. Far too many for me to link, I'd be here a week and need a team of researchers.
The alleged terrorists who were fitted up or shot without warning were never terrorists. The police force was under massive public pressure and that from the media to detect and convict the bombers. They couldn't do the job.. That's all it came down to. They couldn't get the real bombers so police lied and fabricated evidence to convict innocent men under pressure from the public. How about they just did their job properly in the first place??
The Menezes shooting was not because WE are not at war as you put it. You are also at war with the same religeous fanatics that bombed London after 9/11. You yourself have just posted a thread on the Bali bombers execution. So, WE are not at war with anyone. There is a global war on terror or are you one of these people who think Al-Quaeda is an army?
Your country is as much directly affected by terrorism as any other in this world.
The moment cops pumped 7 bullets into an innocent young man, they knew they had got it wrong. What followed was the most shocking set of events from the Met that resorted to corruption and lying under oath to cover their arsses.
That's why Sir Iain Blair will always have the blood of Charles De Menezes on his hands and the reputation of his police force with it.
You've brought up the guilford four like it happened yesterday. That was a long time ago and cannot be used today as an example of a modern day police force. those men were arrested a day after the implementation of the anti terrorist Act.
It was also done under presssure from the general populace and with the acceptance of the general populace. Brits didn't mind IRA suspects recieving a good beating back in the seventies. And you can't compare it with the menandez case either . For the time period of the guilford four, Australia was recieving many immigrants from Ireland and England with some pretty sever knee injuries.
I knew one personally in the late eighties who thought it better to be here rather than going back to his bombed out house. The Guilford four are colatoral damage from basically a Civil War.
Comparing it to the menendez case doesn't quite fit either, this time round you guys are at war, internationally. And his death is a result of that War. You guys are again living in a time of having bombs exploding around you. Accidents and misrepresentations happen. I think churchill said it best when he spoke about the truth being so valuable that it must be surrounded by a hundred lies to protect it.
When you find Utopia tell me.
Oscar you still havent answered my questions and you seem again as with other threads to change the whole OP into a accusation of corruption across the board of police. WHY?
The only reason i linked The Guildford Four, The Birmingham Six and the Hyde Park bombings along with Charles De Menezes was not to imply only terrorist suspects get fitted up.
They are all high profile cases that as i said earlier, show a line of corruption in the police force spanning nearly 40 yrs.
The Hyde Park bombings and other Ira bombings, one of which i happened to be 3 miles away when it went off, was in direct conflict of the Thatcher Government. I won't go there as the thread will go off onto a tangent of Thatcherism except Spot is correct, she sent her thug policer officers in to beat the miners in submission.
The high profile cases i have linked would show to anyone reading this thread that if these fit up's are of the highest profile, how many more do you think have gone through the system without press coverage in the past 40 years. Far too many for me to link, I'd be here a week and need a team of researchers.
The alleged terrorists who were fitted up or shot without warning were never terrorists. The police force was under massive public pressure and that from the media to detect and convict the bombers. They couldn't do the job.. That's all it came down to. They couldn't get the real bombers so police lied and fabricated evidence to convict innocent men under pressure from the public. How about they just did their job properly in the first place??
The Menezes shooting was not because WE are not at war as you put it. You are also at war with the same religeous fanatics that bombed London after 9/11. You yourself have just posted a thread on the Bali bombers execution. So, WE are not at war with anyone. There is a global war on terror or are you one of these people who think Al-Quaeda is an army?
Your country is as much directly affected by terrorism as any other in this world.
The moment cops pumped 7 bullets into an innocent young man, they knew they had got it wrong. What followed was the most shocking set of events from the Met that resorted to corruption and lying under oath to cover their arsses.
That's why Sir Iain Blair will always have the blood of Charles De Menezes on his hands and the reputation of his police force with it.
At the going down of the sun and in the morning, we will remember them. R.L. Binyon
-
Oscar Namechange
- Posts: 31840
- Joined: Wed Jul 30, 2008 9:26 am
Should cops kill in the name of pursuit??
Bryn Mawr;1061367 wrote: Backing an officer is one thing - out and out lies and suppression of evidence is a totally different kettle of oysters.
If i go from only memory.. Wasn't the officers who shot him initially willing to accept their error?? I remember the initial press reports that officers had excepted they had the wrong man and even apologised publically to the family.
It was the result of the enquirie's and inquest that revealed who gave the order for 'Shoot to kill' on the day and it went back to Blair. That's when the covering up started.
I just don't want to trawl archives of press reports to find it.
If i go from only memory.. Wasn't the officers who shot him initially willing to accept their error?? I remember the initial press reports that officers had excepted they had the wrong man and even apologised publically to the family.
It was the result of the enquirie's and inquest that revealed who gave the order for 'Shoot to kill' on the day and it went back to Blair. That's when the covering up started.
I just don't want to trawl archives of press reports to find it.
At the going down of the sun and in the morning, we will remember them. R.L. Binyon
-
Oscar Namechange
- Posts: 31840
- Joined: Wed Jul 30, 2008 9:26 am
Should cops kill in the name of pursuit??
They were just kids
3 killed in cop chase car smash | The Sun |News
The poor girl just accepted a lift home
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... death.html
3 killed in cop chase car smash | The Sun |News
The poor girl just accepted a lift home
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... death.html
At the going down of the sun and in the morning, we will remember them. R.L. Binyon
-
Oscar Namechange
- Posts: 31840
- Joined: Wed Jul 30, 2008 9:26 am
Should cops kill in the name of pursuit??
fuzzy butt;1061355 wrote: We have targets set but not on the number of tickets issued . That was my point.
what you've just put here.... question: where is it written as policy? Is there a site I can read the official mission statments etc?
Persuit guidelines in this country are 'advisory' not 'compulsary'
Police traffic pursuits: 'A risky and dangerous exercise' | Politics | The Guardian
The public is left to the brains of the individual police driver.
what you've just put here.... question: where is it written as policy? Is there a site I can read the official mission statments etc?
Persuit guidelines in this country are 'advisory' not 'compulsary'
Police traffic pursuits: 'A risky and dangerous exercise' | Politics | The Guardian
The public is left to the brains of the individual police driver.
At the going down of the sun and in the morning, we will remember them. R.L. Binyon
Should cops kill in the name of pursuit??
fuzzy butt;1061419 wrote: No I havent and went to the exact sites and more links from those sites to other sites to read through the information that you guys so readily need me to see.
just don't agree with you . All up you call it corrupt ...I do not, and that's it as far as I see it.
I didn't ignore it but I had to read the info first to make the comment of not agreeing with you Sorry did I take my time?
Then we will have to disagree on the level of behaviour we expect from our Police - if you do not see lying under oath and releasing false evidence as corrupt then I wonder what it would take for you to class them as such.
just don't agree with you .
All up you call it corrupt ...I do not, and that's it as far as I see it. I didn't ignore it but I had to read the info first to make the comment of not agreeing with you
Sorry did I take my time?Then we will have to disagree on the level of behaviour we expect from our Police - if you do not see lying under oath and releasing false evidence as corrupt then I wonder what it would take for you to class them as such.
Should cops kill in the name of pursuit??
fuzzy butt;1061296 wrote: I agree with most of what you've said here and was going to post the same points as yourself today ................but you beat me to it.
I think you'll find that in the world of policing they are a very tight bunch and yes Australian police are very close to yours (yep even in Scotland)
Your (Scotland is a little different) police force is almost identical to ours (state of Victoria) being based on the exact same system of government law and policing strategies and procedure and rank structure. That's why NSW aquired one of your commissioners to be one of our commissioners .............Peter Ryan He was appointed after the Woods corruption enquiry.
As for our laws and procedures The only difference is the wording and naming of particular offences. You guys have the Anti social behaviour Act we call it the Summarys Act . it is essentially based on the same laws and principles. Even down to the points system of sentencing.
I'm not aware that we have politically elected prosecutors, I thought they were elected and appointed by the Criminal Bar Asso. of Victoria. ........I shall look into that.
I know many police officers in Britain (including Scotland ) and I condsider those people my good friends of myself and family. so I do take exception that you guys seem /are calling them filth, corrupt , liars, and basically all round criminals . Have you actually said the word criminal? No but you've all said as much.
In the last three decades there have been serious problems with police corruption in this country that in some cases went far beyond the odd fitting up of the occasional undesirable denizen to full scale bribery and basically being in the pockets of professional crooks. In London it took a special task force to make inroads but it was endemic in other parts of the country as well. That's one of the reasons we now have things like taped interviews and also why there have been so many cases where judicial reviews a have seen quite a number of convictions overturned successfully in recent years long after the event. Putting the wrong person in jail for a murder they did not commit is not justifiable. You cannot have a free country where the police are not open to scrutiny and answerable when they do things wrong. To have it any other way is to live in a police state. We are entitled to hold them to the highest standards, especially if they want our continued support. We can call them what we damn well like they answer to the public and no one else.
A criminal is a criminal-a liar is a liar no matter what uniform they wear and if your friends are honest cops then they are the very ones who probably most want to see crooked cops put away. i doubt very much they think they should have special dispensation to break the law. That you have relatives who are in the police is interesting but nobody knew until you brought it up so you are trying to take offence when none was given either intentionally or unintentionally.
Filth incidentally is an old name for the police.
From the oxford english dictionary
filth
• noun 1 disgusting dirt. 2 obscene and offensive language or printed material. 3 the filth Brit. informal, derogatory the police.
— ORIGIN Old English, related to FOUL.
There are a whole raft of such sobriquets from the mildly affectionate term-such as you might use when you realise you have just gone belting past a stationary radar equipped jam jar while exceeding the speed limit- to the vaguely obscene.
He was appointed after the Woods corruption enquiry.
Clearly you have corrupt police in NSW as well. What do you call them if not criminals, liars etc etc or do you just pretend there is no such thing as a crooked cop.
I think you'll find that in the world of policing they are a very tight bunch and yes Australian police are very close to yours (yep even in Scotland)
Your (Scotland is a little different) police force is almost identical to ours (state of Victoria) being based on the exact same system of government law and policing strategies and procedure and rank structure. That's why NSW aquired one of your commissioners to be one of our commissioners .............Peter Ryan
He was appointed after the Woods corruption enquiry. As for our laws and procedures The only difference is the wording and naming of particular offences. You guys have the Anti social behaviour Act we call it the Summarys Act . it is essentially based on the same laws and principles. Even down to the points system of sentencing.
I'm not aware that we have politically elected prosecutors, I thought they were elected and appointed by the Criminal Bar Asso. of Victoria. ........I shall look into that.
I know many police officers in Britain (including Scotland ) and I condsider those people my good friends of myself and family. so I do take exception that you guys seem /are calling them filth, corrupt , liars, and basically all round criminals . Have you actually said the word criminal? No but you've all said as much.
In the last three decades there have been serious problems with police corruption in this country that in some cases went far beyond the odd fitting up of the occasional undesirable denizen to full scale bribery and basically being in the pockets of professional crooks. In London it took a special task force to make inroads but it was endemic in other parts of the country as well. That's one of the reasons we now have things like taped interviews and also why there have been so many cases where judicial reviews a have seen quite a number of convictions overturned successfully in recent years long after the event. Putting the wrong person in jail for a murder they did not commit is not justifiable. You cannot have a free country where the police are not open to scrutiny and answerable when they do things wrong. To have it any other way is to live in a police state. We are entitled to hold them to the highest standards, especially if they want our continued support. We can call them what we damn well like they answer to the public and no one else.
A criminal is a criminal-a liar is a liar no matter what uniform they wear and if your friends are honest cops then they are the very ones who probably most want to see crooked cops put away. i doubt very much they think they should have special dispensation to break the law. That you have relatives who are in the police is interesting but nobody knew until you brought it up so you are trying to take offence when none was given either intentionally or unintentionally.
Filth incidentally is an old name for the police.
From the oxford english dictionary
filth
• noun 1 disgusting dirt. 2 obscene and offensive language or printed material. 3 the filth Brit. informal, derogatory the police.
— ORIGIN Old English, related to FOUL.
There are a whole raft of such sobriquets from the mildly affectionate term-such as you might use when you realise you have just gone belting past a stationary radar equipped jam jar while exceeding the speed limit- to the vaguely obscene.
He was appointed after the Woods corruption enquiry.
Clearly you have corrupt police in NSW as well. What do you call them if not criminals, liars etc etc or do you just pretend there is no such thing as a crooked cop.
-
Oscar Namechange
- Posts: 31840
- Joined: Wed Jul 30, 2008 9:26 am
Should cops kill in the name of pursuit??
fuzzy butt;1061296 wrote: That's why NSW aquired one of your commissioners to be one of our commissioners .............Peter Ryan He was appointed after the Woods corruption enquiry.
Why on earth would NSW or indeed Australia pick the man who leads investigations into corruption?
What is the point of appointing him over any other good Police Senior in the world?
He was appointed after the Woods corruption enquiry. Why on earth would NSW or indeed Australia pick the man who leads investigations into corruption?
What is the point of appointing him over any other good Police Senior in the world?
At the going down of the sun and in the morning, we will remember them. R.L. Binyon
Should cops kill in the name of pursuit??
Imladris;1060344 wrote: Thanks for that Spot - I'm sure that you knew of the years I spent as a Special Constable before you offered me hospitality for the FG meet.
Perhaps you didn't.
Do you consider me to be a corrupt politicized thug?
Did you see the Wigan incident?
Essentially, anyone who gets beaten up by the police also gets convicted of assaulting a police officer unless there just happens to be someone nearby who captures the incident on video, in which case he gets off eventually on appeal.
What proportion of police beatings do you suppose get videoed?
BBC NEWS | England | Manchester | Police assault allegation probed
I do hope people outside the UK can play the clip.
"The spokesman confirmed a man had been charged and convicted of assaulting a police officer and had later successfully appealed against the conviction, on 13 November at Liverpool Crown Court".
I regard what happened as absolutely typical of policing in this country.
What happens afterwards? "One officer had had his duties restricted"? Those three are considered fit material to be members of the police force, evidently. Once things quieten down they'll all be out in uniform again. The bastards should be thrashed as the scoundrels they are and pummelled senseless daily for a twelvemonth, they and the large number like them are the reason we don't have a respected police force in this country. What they're guilty of is a betrayal of trust, what their management is guilty of is allowing it.
Perhaps you didn't.
Do you consider me to be a corrupt politicized thug?
Did you see the Wigan incident?
Essentially, anyone who gets beaten up by the police also gets convicted of assaulting a police officer unless there just happens to be someone nearby who captures the incident on video, in which case he gets off eventually on appeal.
What proportion of police beatings do you suppose get videoed?
BBC NEWS | England | Manchester | Police assault allegation probed
I do hope people outside the UK can play the clip.
"The spokesman confirmed a man had been charged and convicted of assaulting a police officer and had later successfully appealed against the conviction, on 13 November at Liverpool Crown Court".
I regard what happened as absolutely typical of policing in this country.
What happens afterwards? "One officer had had his duties restricted"? Those three are considered fit material to be members of the police force, evidently. Once things quieten down they'll all be out in uniform again. The bastards should be thrashed as the scoundrels they are and pummelled senseless daily for a twelvemonth, they and the large number like them are the reason we don't have a respected police force in this country. What they're guilty of is a betrayal of trust, what their management is guilty of is allowing it.
Nullius in verba ... ☎||||||||||| ... To Fate I sue, of other means bereft, the only refuge for the wretched left.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
-
Oscar Namechange
- Posts: 31840
- Joined: Wed Jul 30, 2008 9:26 am
Should cops kill in the name of pursuit??
spot;1072904 wrote: Did you see the Wigan incident?
Essentially, anyone who gets beaten up by the police also gets convicted of assaulting a police officer unless there just happens to be someone nearby who captures the incident on video, in which case he gets off eventually on appeal.
What proportion of police beatings do you suppose get videoed?
BBC NEWS | England | Manchester | Police assault allegation probed
I do hope people outside the UK can play the clip.
"The spokesman confirmed a man had been charged and convicted of assaulting a police officer and had later successfully appealed against the conviction, on 13 November at Liverpool Crown Court".
I regard what happened as absolutely typical of policing in this country.
What happens afterwards? "One officer had had his duties restricted"? Those three are considered fit material to be members of the police force, evidently. Once things quieten down they'll all be out in uniform again. The bastards should be thrashed as the scoundrels they are and pummelled senseless daily for a twelvemonth, they and the large number like them are the reason we don't have a respected police force in this country. What they're guilty of is a betrayal of trust, what their management is guilty of is allowing it.
This does not surprise me in the slightest and i know that it's not an isolated case.
It goes on far more than people realise but as you say, How many get video'd.
The outrage here is that they charge the man with assaulting a police officer.
What exactly does an officer have to do today to actually get slung out of the force?
It seems they become more untouchable by the day.
We are becoming nothing short of 'Mugabe's secret police'.
This is something Brown has to deal with on the home front.
Let's remember the definition of a police officer... 'A civilian in uniform to serve and protect the public'. Charge them as civilians and jail them.
If this was a video of yobs rounding on one man, they would be before a court and possibly prison.
It's about time this country admited that by large our police are uniformed thug mavericks who think they are beyond the law.
Essentially, anyone who gets beaten up by the police also gets convicted of assaulting a police officer unless there just happens to be someone nearby who captures the incident on video, in which case he gets off eventually on appeal.
What proportion of police beatings do you suppose get videoed?
BBC NEWS | England | Manchester | Police assault allegation probed
I do hope people outside the UK can play the clip.
"The spokesman confirmed a man had been charged and convicted of assaulting a police officer and had later successfully appealed against the conviction, on 13 November at Liverpool Crown Court".
I regard what happened as absolutely typical of policing in this country.
What happens afterwards? "One officer had had his duties restricted"? Those three are considered fit material to be members of the police force, evidently. Once things quieten down they'll all be out in uniform again. The bastards should be thrashed as the scoundrels they are and pummelled senseless daily for a twelvemonth, they and the large number like them are the reason we don't have a respected police force in this country. What they're guilty of is a betrayal of trust, what their management is guilty of is allowing it.
This does not surprise me in the slightest and i know that it's not an isolated case.
It goes on far more than people realise but as you say, How many get video'd.
The outrage here is that they charge the man with assaulting a police officer.
What exactly does an officer have to do today to actually get slung out of the force?
It seems they become more untouchable by the day.
We are becoming nothing short of 'Mugabe's secret police'.
This is something Brown has to deal with on the home front.
Let's remember the definition of a police officer... 'A civilian in uniform to serve and protect the public'. Charge them as civilians and jail them.
If this was a video of yobs rounding on one man, they would be before a court and possibly prison.
It's about time this country admited that by large our police are uniformed thug mavericks who think they are beyond the law.
At the going down of the sun and in the morning, we will remember them. R.L. Binyon
Should cops kill in the name of pursuit??
In California we have gone to less aggressive Police Pursuits especially in residential areas. California is unique as a pursuit can last for hours covering most of the state till they get to the Mexican Border so its difficult to stop them. They now use advance stop methods by getting ahead of them. 1. Spike strips, 2. following but not speeding, 3. blocking them off, 4. Using Helicopters instead of cruisers. In all it has worked and saved lives on many pursuits. :driving: Out here its not unusual for the car being pursued to stop, the driver get out at an intersection and tries to jack another car.
ALOHA!!
MOTTO TO LIVE BY:
"Life should NOT be a journey to the grave with the intention of arriving safely in an attractive and well preserved body, but rather to skid in sideways, chocolate in one hand, champagne in the other, body thoroughly used up, totally worn out and screaming.
WOO HOO!!, what a ride!!!"
MOTTO TO LIVE BY:
"Life should NOT be a journey to the grave with the intention of arriving safely in an attractive and well preserved body, but rather to skid in sideways, chocolate in one hand, champagne in the other, body thoroughly used up, totally worn out and screaming.
WOO HOO!!, what a ride!!!"