ForumGarden

This is a subject that became a little close to my own heart just over a year ago.

Three killed in police chase after car crashes into garden wall | Mail Online

I was waiting on the corner of a main road for police and ambulance to attend another incident late one night. A Police car in persuit happened to be travelling at excess speed towards me. Yards from where i stood, the police car lost control on a bend, crossed the main road and dissapeared into a brick wall. As it was, i was showered with broken headlights. If it had been day time then i dread to think. If i had been just a few yards further down the road, i'd not be writing this.

http://www.forumgarden.com/forums/membe ... ol-uk.html

The two police officers were only saved by air-bags.

Our local police have already said that they no longer chase teenagers on motorcycles due to the high risk of injury to the public.

I was very lucky that night and managed to get the pic on my phone before 6 very embarressed units cleared away the debris as if nothing had happened.

So, what can be done. Tell the police not to pursue vehicles. Yet the driver of the Vectra had jumped a red light which could well have caused a major accident. Do you try and stop drivers that break the traffic law or let them carry on taking risks on the road? That's risking other road users and pedestrians.

OpenMind;1059876 wrote: So, what can be done. Tell the police not to pursue vehicles. Yet the driver of the Vectra had jumped a red light which could well have caused a major accident. Do you try and stop drivers that break the traffic law or let them carry on taking risks on the road? That's risking other road users and pedestrians.


It is a tough one that i don't have the answers for. I know that if our local police stopped persuit of the tenagers on motorcycles, there had to be a very good reason and an officer told my husband one day that they made the decision due to the teenagers being so inexperienced and reckless.

I wonder what would happen if police cars did not chase in persuit?

With today's technology, they can video cars jumping lights etc and find who the car is logged to within seconds. They can arresst them at a later time when it is not a danger.

There just seems to be a lot of 'persuit' death. If the police cars did not chase them, yes, it would mean they got away but surely it would take all risk out of the offender speeding up to max speed limit to get away?

It would seem with the communication equipment cops have these days high speed chases shouldn't be necessary. And they are dangerous to everyone in or around where they take place. As you have proven with the OP. I'm glad you were missed by the cop and it was the wall he hit.



I live in a ranching community where the town and surrounding country is very sparsely populated, less than 3000 people in a 100 mile radius of the town.



Two kids on two separate occasions have been killed due to police chases . about 15 years ago a girl 13 years old died when the car she was a passenger in rolled 3 times out on a dirt road 3 miles outside of the city limits while being chased by a city police officer .And about 8 years ago a 15 year old boy was killed while being chased by a city officer out side of the city limits.

In a community the size of ours every one knows every one in both wrecks , both cops knew exactly who it was driving and who the passengers were and where they lived ,in the first wreck the cop had graduated with the girls dad . Yes the kids were wrong for 'running' and yes they should of stopped when the cop flashed them in town . but as an adult and a trained law officer there should not have been a chase, in neither one of the sititutions were the kids drunk or doing drugs . The kid driving the car the girl was killed in had run a stop sign . And the other car the boy was killed in had raced down a street 10 miles over the limit. Now this town 'rolls up the sidewalks at dark' the one bar is closed by 10 pm most nites the one gas station shuts down at 8 pm and everything else is closed by 5 pm.

The cop could have been waiting in the front yard for either one of those cars or called the parents . I am not saying those kids were in any way in the right , but both cops were differently in the wrong first by being outside of the city limits and secondly by doing a high speed chase with young kids doing the driving. The county sheriffs office is in the next town over about 15 minutes away.

oscar;1059879 wrote: It is a tough one that i don't have the answers for. I know that if our local police stopped persuit of the tenagers on motorcycles, there had to be a very good reason and an officer told my husband one day that they made the decision due to the teenagers being so inexperienced and reckless.

I wonder what would happen if police cars did not chase in persuit?

With today's technology, they can video cars jumping lights etc and find who the car is logged to within seconds. They can arresst them at a later time when it is not a danger.

There just seems to be a lot of 'persuit' death. If the police cars did not chase them, yes, it would mean they got away but surely it would take all risk out of the offender speeding up to max speed limit to get away?


I thought of that idea of putting a camera up like a speed camera, but that is just one physical set of positions. The car, not this car necessarily, may be stolen also. I thought about having all cars fitted with a trackable sensor. But that would take considerable time to have done.

There's no easy, inexpensive, immediate answer to this. It's a 'damned if I do, damned if I don't' problem.

scholle-kid;1059903 wrote: It would seem with the communication equipment cops have these days high speed chases shouldn't be necessary. And they are dangerous to everyone in or around where they take place. As you have proven with the OP. I'm glad you were missed by the cop and it was the wall he hit.


The cops in England have a fairly effective system but it takes time to set up and the culprit driver is likely to take any route. The system involves a great deal of traffic control and purposefully guiding the rogue car into a 'safe' trap.

Here, the cops are unlikely to be working in an area where they know the locals.

scholle-kid;1059903 wrote: It would seem with the communication equipment cops have these days high speed chases shouldn't be necessary. And they are dangerous to everyone in or around where they take place. As you have proven with the OP. I'm glad you were missed by the cop and it was the wall he hit.



I live in a ranching community where the town and surrounding country is very sparsely populated, less than 3000 people in a 100 mile radius of the town.



Two kids on two separate occasions have been killed due to police chases . about 15 years ago a girl 13 years old died when the car she was a passenger in rolled 3 times out on a dirt road 3 miles outside of the city limits while being chased by a city police officer .And about 8 years ago a 15 year old boy was killed while being chased by a city officer out side of the city limits.

In a community the size of ours every one knows every one in both wrecks , both cops knew exactly who it was driving and who the passengers were and where they lived ,in the first wreck the cop had graduated with the girls dad . Yes the kids were wrong for 'running' and yes they should of stopped when the cop flashed them in town . but as an adult and a trained law officer there should not have been a chase, in neither one of the sititutions were the kids drunk or doing drugs . The kid driving the car the girl was killed in had run a stop sign . And the other car the boy was killed in had raced down a street 10 miles over the limit. Now this town 'rolls up the sidewalks at dark' the one bar is closed by 10 pm most nites the one gas station shuts down at 8 pm and everything else is closed by 5 pm.

The cop could have been waiting in the front yard for either one of those cars or called the parents . I am not saying those kids were in any way in the right , but both cops were differently in the wrong first by being outside of the city limits and secondly by doing a high speed chase with young kids doing the driving. The county sheriffs office is in the next town over about 15 minutes away.


That is just so awfull and should never have happened.

In the conversation my hubby had with a local officer, he said that the kids on motorcycles were guilty of speeding, no tax etc, and it was minor compared to what can happen should they give chase. They'd rather let them go and visit them later because the officers could give testimony as an eye witness to the speeding offence, than chase and have innocent people or the kids themselves hurt. All they do when an officer switches the blue light and sirens on, is to speed up. They then have to have a persuit.

I think if it's a minor offence such as jumping a light, lives could be saved.

However, obviousley if a bank raid has taken place or a serious crime where that person is likely to be a danger any way, the cops should and have no choice but to chase.

As students, we are told not to run in the hallways. As employees, it is strongly suggested not to run in the hallways. My point is with speed, there is a danger of injury. And the examples I have just mentioned did not even involve a motor vehicle at high speed.

As mentioned in previous posts here, advanced technology should make a high speed chase unnecessary. Officers could get the license plate number, identify the perpetrater, and pursue him/her stealthfully. Putting innocent bystanders in danger is irresponsible.

Makes you wonder if it's more "adrenoline pumping" than "serving and protecting."

along-for-the-ride;1059914 wrote: As students, we are told not to run in the hallways. As employees, it is strongly suggested not to run in the hallways. My point is with speed, there is a danger of injury. And the examples I have just mentioned did not even involve a motor vehicle at high speed.

As mentioned in previous posts here, advanced technology should make a high speed chase unnecessary. Officers could get the license plate number, identify the perpetrater, and pursue him/her stealthfully. Putting innocent persons in danger is irresponsible.

Makes you wonder if it's more "adrenoline pumping" than "serving and protecting."


I agree. Amazingly, in my own experience, i stood totally shocked for a few seconds at the sight of this car dissapearing into a wall. The pic i posted shows the car on the left hand side of the main road but we drive on the right. The pic shows the car after it had crossed the road, sailed through the air, into the wall and re-spun back the right way up. Nothing i have ever heard could discribed the bang as it hit the wall. I remember seeing the bits of coloured headlight in my clothes and just thinking that the cops had to be dead. When they got out, thanks to air bags, one had two broken wrists, that's all. However, they were laughing about it. Maybe relief, i don't know but i didn't think it was funny at the time.

The title of this thread makes it sound like the police officers set out to kill those people in the car. I very much doubt that they did.



Pursuit is not a weapon, it's not there to kill people who have perhaps jumped a red light, or haven't paid their road tax - it's to stop people who have committed an offence, often the most minor of offence leads to the detection of other more serious offences, or by detaining offenders prevents other more serious offences.



Fair enough that sometimes cameras will give evidence of crimes/criminals that lead to detection and conviction, but not every car is driven by the owner or by people who have registered the car in their name. Pool cars are often driven by a gang of offenders for the purpose of committing crime - not registered, not insured, not taxed.



Let's be frank here, if you get in a car and drive like a pillock, fail to stop when asked to do so, drive more like a pillock, crash and die then you are no innocent. I'm not saying that these people deserved to die but there needs to be some acknowledgement that their actions were mainly the cause of their own demise.



The people who deserve most sympathy in my opinion are people like this poor woman and her family, truely innocent victims in car accidents.



Driver in death smash facing police questions

Imladris;1059922 wrote: The title of this thread makes it sound like the police officers set out to kill those people in the car. I very much doubt that they did.Maybe not but I note that they started straight in with a lie. They're professional liars.

1. We were nowhere near them when we crashed, they took off like bats out of hell and we were far slower, they were well away from us and we weren't what you'd call chasing in the slightest.

2. My wife and I were woken by the siren and then seconds later there was this huge crash outside our house.

The police would be an entirely different outfit if its officers invariably told the truth.

spot;1059932 wrote: Maybe not but I note that they started straight in with a lie. They're professional liars.

1. We were nowhere near them when we crashed, they took off like bats out of hell and we were far slower, they were well away from us and we weren't what you'd call chasing in the slightest.

2. My wife and I were woken by the siren and then seconds later there was this huge crash outside our house.

The police would be an entirely different outfit if its officers invariably told the truth.


As ever Spot, I'm with you on that one.

I mean..The question of a police officer lying in a court of law or an inquest indeed??

They are by the main, lying bastards.

I have news Spot. I will pm you with it.

You're entirely mistaken, Fuzzy. Both of us have first-hand experience and we know exactly what we're talking about.

A court requires proofs of guilt. Police officers know exactly what proofs are required. They lie on oath in order to obtain convictions. it's called "fitting up" - you see? There's even a word for it in the language, it's so commonplace. I've seen it, knowing for a fact that the evidence being given was untrue.

It's my belief that nobody can spend a career as a police officer and not fit into the culture which demands such lies, and consequently tell them rather than see someone get off in a case where the officer believes in the guilt of the accused.

fuzzy butt;1059956 wrote: So police are professional liars? So they lie about what exactly?

Considering my husband is a police officer. You're talking about the father of my children. so basically you're saying that my children are the prodgeny of a liar and killer? a person who has worked hard for the last 20 odd years trying to bring liars and killers before a court of law so you guys can bitch about how he hasn't and others like him done their job properly? You two obviously believe he should be there with them?

My eldest boy is going to join the force my nephew is in the proccess of joining ................so what you're saying is that i have brought Joel (tadpole) up to be a liar and a killer?

Neither of you would know Jack shet about it. :-5 :-5

Have either of you ever experienced a fatal accident? personally up close? Do either of you know the procedure of what happens before,during and after a pursuit or when driver comes to grief after being chased?

Only those trained for pursuits are allowed to persue a driver at high speed. And they only pursue if the driver causes a direct threat to other road uses and property.

Personally I couldn't care less if some mongrel who selfishly uses his car as a weapon causes his own death. As long as he doesn't take out anyone else (including police officers) with them.

Maybe you two are whingers who will soon find a way of stopping police pusuing someone on foot because the offender may trip and break his foot ..............and then he can sue the police for hurting him. And then you two can have a whinge about how police won't do their job properly becasue they won't pursue anyone anymore.


I have 5 police officers in my immediate family. I no more refer to their parents being lying bastards than yours. I do have a fair knowledge of how the police work in this country due to those officers in my family and 4 of them, the more seasoned one's will openly admit that there colleagues do lie and do get it wrong. Most of the time, including the descision to 'persuit', they are under orders from above. I also understand the restrainsts the average copper has in following proceedure and senior orders. My view is a balanced one on what happens in this country. I could also say that i greatly admire American cops but then i only know what i see on tv which is not the case in this country.

spot;1059965 wrote: You're entirely mistaken, Fuzzy. Both of us have first-hand experience and we know exactly what we're talking about.

A court requires proofs of guilt. Police officers know exactly what proofs are required. They lie on oath in order to obtain convictions. it's called "fitting up" - you see? There's even a word for it in the language, it's so commonplace. I've seen it, knowing for a fact that the evidence being given was untrue.

It's my belief that nobody can spend a career as a police officer and not fit into the culture which demands such lies, and consequently tell them rather than see someone get off in a case where the officer believes in the guilt of the accused.


Spot on again there Spot.

OpenMind;1059876 wrote: So, what can be done. Tell the police not to pursue vehicles. Yet the driver of the Vectra had jumped a red light which could well have caused a major accident. Do you try and stop drivers that break the traffic law or let them carry on taking risks on the road? That's risking other road users and pedestrians.


Given that the Government want every vehicle fitted with controllers that will restrict then to the prevailing speed limit (whilst also tracking and reporting their position) it would be easy to add the ability to stop any specified vehicle in its tracks.

fuzzy butt;1059956 wrote: So police are professional liars? So they lie about what exactly?

Considering my husband is a police officer. You're talking about the father of my children. so basically you're saying that my children are the prodgeny of a liar and killer? a person who has worked hard for the last 20 odd years trying to bring liars and killers before a court of law so you guys can bitch about how he hasn't and others like him done their job properly? You two obviously believe he should be there with them?

My eldest boy is going to join the force my nephew is in the proccess of joining ................so what you're saying is that i have brought Joel (tadpole) up to be a liar and a killer?

Neither of you would know Jack shet about it. :-5 :-5

Have either of you ever experienced a fatal accident? personally up close? Do either of you know the procedure of what happens before,during and after a pursuit or when driver comes to grief after being chased?

Only those trained for pursuits are allowed to persue a driver at high speed. And they only pursue if the driver causes a direct threat to other road uses and property.

Personally I couldn't care less if some mongrel who selfishly uses his car as a weapon causes his own death. As long as he doesn't take out anyone else (including police officers) with them.

Maybe you two are whingers who will soon find a way of stopping police pusuing someone on foot because the offender may trip and break his foot ..............and then he can sue the police for hurting him. And then you two can have a whinge about how police won't do their job properly becasue they won't pursue anyone anymore.


Just review the Charles De Menendes case for proof positive that the UK Police lie under oath from the highest level down.

That is not a reflection on the families of those policemen and it is not suggesting that every policeman is a lier but it does, undeniably, happen far too frequently.

Bryn Mawr;1059996 wrote: Just review the Charles De Menendes case for proof positive that the UK Police lie under oath from the highest level down.

That is not a reflection on the families of those policemen and it is not suggesting that every policeman is a lier but it does, undeniably, happen far too frequently.


A good example and yes, Spot and i would say the same.. we are not attacking any family members here.

We also only have to look at the reasons the blonde bufoon (Boris) wanted Sir Iain Blair out of his job so badly.

oscar;1060005 wrote: A good example and yes, Spot and i would say the same.. we are not attacking any family members here.

We also only have to look at the reasons the blonde bufoon (Boris) wanted Sir Iain Blair out of his job so badly.


Ian Blair should have been out on his arse three years ago - the day after he so obviously instigated an official cover up to protect his gun happy troops.

Bryn Mawr;1060016 wrote: Ian Blair should have been out on his arse three years ago - the day after he so obviously instigated an official cover up to protect his gun happy troops.


Can we add rascism to Blair as well??

fuzzy butt;1060018 wrote: Everyone who comes out of a court room/coroners court when things don't go their way believes they have been fitted up, an injustice has occurred or everybody lied except them. That's just human nature.



No, proof comes down to "beyond reasonable doubt" in the criminal court system and "on the balance of probabilites" in the civil courts. You do not have to proove exact proof because that is impossible. And in the civil system you only need the 'probablility' to be 51 percent to be held accountable. This is based on the Westminster system of law.

Fitting up hey? ............Yep! because police and the justice system do not have enough people actually doing the wrong thing out there to keep themselves in a job.:rolleyes::rolleyes:

So you've both had experience of a fatal police car chase have you ? or were you just rubberneck wittnesses standing off to the side in the peanut gallery giving your professional opinions?

Sorry, but just saying you've both had experiences means nothing. What experiences exactly?

Oscar I wouldn't mind hearing from your relatives on this one since you use their "personal opinions" so much. From the way you've described them they don't like their jobs or believe in what they do . (you've mentioned them on other threads as well and used their so called opinions as examples)



You see this doesn't sit right with me, because this is not something police officers do . They don't give there opinions on an incident or make judgment calls on situations they are not involved in unless there has been proven a major miscarriage of justice

Only their "colleagues" huh? didn't you say that police as a group lie and kill? I don't remember reading about any individual named officers in this thread

I'd like to hear their opinions from their own mouths. i'm just wondering if they actually talk to you, and wondering what they think about the way you portray themselves and their colleagues on an open forum. I wonder how their colleagues will feel after reading what you've told us of what your relatives say about their colleagues.

Interesting

I shall wait for them to join the forum .
The sheer weight of the Police Complaints Commission in this country speaks volumes.

The sheer weight of re-trials and mis-trials speaks volumes.

The sheer weight of disciplined officers speak volumes.

Four of the police officers in my family are frankly sick to the back teeth of this countrie's police force and the government hard text book targets system. I will by all means ask them to register on this forum.

Most day's they are dis-allusioned at what they actually joined the police force for. To serve and protect the public. In this country, that is no longer the case. The CPS are in direct confliction with the police in targets.

I personally have had debates with MP's, Councillors and Police Chiefs in this country because Policing is one big big issue that the oppossition to our government uses for votes. If we had a perfect system, the Police Complaints Commission would not be snowed under. There would be a fraction of civil law suits against police Divisions where most of the time, the police settle out of court or lose.

fuzzy butt;1060029 wrote: Can't find anything on him . do you have a link?

far to frequently? What? by the same officers all of the time?


Here's the link you need Fuzzy

Jean Charles de Menezes | UK news | guardian.co.uk

The Chief of police who was forced to resign for lying.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7082256.stm

fuzzy butt;1060029 wrote: Can't find anything on him . do you have a link?

far to frequently? What? by the same officers all of the time?


Try :-

Jean Charles de Menezes inquest: police were 'out of control' - Telegraph

(sadly, my spelling is not the greatest)

Everything from senior police officers admitting that they changed their records before giving evidence to CCTV proof that the police lied about the actions of the accused to make their actions less outrageous. (I have not read this specific article but I've followed this case since it happened because it was so obviously a cover-up)



Not the same officers all the time - far too often that later inquests / appeals / judicial reviews have proved that the original police evidence has been faked.

Bryn Mawr;1060046 wrote: Try :-

Jean Charles de Menezes inquest: police were 'out of control' - Telegraph

(sadly, my spelling is not the greatest)

Everything from senior police officers admitting that they changed their records before giving evidence to CCTV proof that the police lied about the actions of the accused to make their actions less outrageous. (I have not read this specific article but I've followed this case since it happened because it was so obviously a cover-up)



Not the same officers all the time - far too often that later inquests / appeals / judicial reviews have proved that the original police evidence has been faked.


Or the side of the coin Bryn, vital witnessess buried deliberately and crucial evidence deliberately supressed.

fuzzy butt;1060087 wrote: give me a breakdown of the stats and then tell me it speaks volumes.You don't see the humour of "give me a breakdown of the stats" followed by a stream of unverifiable mockery?

I'd as soon eat in a sewer as give the filth the time of day. A more corrupt politicized bunch of thugs never existed.

spot;1060095 wrote: You don't see the humour of "give me a breakdown of the stats" followed by a stream of unverifiable mockery?

I'd as soon eat in a sewer as give the filth the time of day. A more corrupt politicized bunch of thugs never existed.


Spot on again Spot.

I have just checked and it was indeed Fuzzy who posted the thread 'GRRRRR Can i hear from the Brits'. Fuzzy was critising a move by government and police in this country to have civilians doing the work of police officers answering phones and doin paperwork for example.

You can't mock the British Police system on one thread and then insist that the whole Uk justice system is a paragon of virtue surely?

fuzzy butt;1060106 wrote: bullshit!!!!!!!!! Defence lawyers jump on that so quick it's not funny and it's usually the conversation before court as to what is likely to be relevent and admissable in court that both the lawyer and prosecutor work out before walking into the court!!!!!

Prosecutors look for 'justice to be served' defence lawyers look to get people a 'fair trial' of course which is jusctice in itself. If the judge thinks missing evidence is not required or will not help either the law or the defence then it's agreed by both parties not to be submitted.

You'd be surprised how savvy a defence lawyer will be not to have items, evidence, or wittnesses turn up to court . Because they love to run the argument of "not enough evidence". If your lawyer has no problem with missing items then it's because it's going to help his client not because it's going to hinder him/her.


Do you have actual proof that in no case in the UK, has evidence and witnessess been deliberately surpressed or not revealed to the defendent or the defence lawyer. Any actual proof that this never evr happens?

fuzzy butt;1060130 wrote: It is the job of the prosecutor and solicitors to make sure this does not come about . You cannot blame one or other party. You would not know half of what is agreed on behind closed doors.

I love that!!! deliberately supressed OR NOT


I think I can speak for Spot as well on this one. We are very aware on what is agreed behind closed doors.

There have been many high profile cases in the Uk where senior police right down to P.C. have even been sent to prison in the past for fitting up suspects.

We had a thread recently about 'The Guildford Four' and IRA suspects. I could google cases but i'd be here all night and that is just the big one's where officers go to prison.

It is fact that in any organisation, any power that involves money and power.. there is corruption.

fuzzy butt;1060130 wrote: It is the job of the prosecutor and solicitors to make sure this does not come about . You cannot blame one or other party. You would not know half of what is agreed on behind closed doors.

I love that!!! deliberately supressed OR NOT


We have just heard in an enquirey about officers lying about the killing of Charles de Menezes.

Here's the Guildford Four for you.

As i said, i'd be here all night if i found every case where UK cops lied and went to prison for fitting up innocents.

K-Zone law -- Guildford: 4, Justice: nil

This is just one example of British Police lying and deliberately surpressing vital evidence to the defence team.

fuzzy butt;1060233 wrote: and just to go back to this comment



Do you know what an appeal is? Appeals are based on different criteria......your above statment is one of those criteria.

NEXT!!!!!!


Never mind NEXT, would you care to comment on the actions of the police in the Charles de Menezes case?

Not the shooting of an innocent victim, not even the fact that standard procedures like identification and warning were not followed - just the lying and manipulation of evidence that took place in the cover-up will do.

This is NOT an isolated case - just a recent and well publicized one.



Two other points, Fuzzy. Firstly, comments have been made about the British Police, not the Australian force - suggesting the one is corrupt says nothing about the other and, secondly, no one is attacking you personally so why respond to a personal insult?

fuzzy butt;1060232 wrote: You see the problem with your argument here is that decades later people are writing books and wittnesses are again wanting to tell everything they know and the links between the IRA and the guilford four is slowly coming out. You're claiming the Guildford Four had links with the IRA? After all this time you're accusing the four in public of involvement in terrorism? What possible evidence have you for that?

Suggestion.

Ban all car chases ect now. The car will turn up sooner or later and if the owners were stupid enough to let it get nicked tough t1its, that will stop anyone getting killed in police pursuits.. end of that problem.

Terror suspects, well lets just stop that nonsense,, unless said person is found with bomb in hand or actually seen firing the weapon of their choice they cannot be arrested or detained.. That stops any fitting up theories.

As and when police officers appear in court they will be given such drugs/testing as is necessary for them to be unable to lie.



Don't like that idea? No thought not, problem is while the bad guys play fast and loose with our lives the police have to play by the rules and get lynched by the public and media if they don't.:-5

posted by fuzzy butt

Considering my husband is a police officer. You're talking about the father of my children. so basically you're saying that my children are the prodgeny of a liar and killer? a person who has worked hard for the last 20 odd years trying to bring liars and killers before a court of law so you guys can bitch about how he hasn't and others like him done their job properly? You two obviously believe he should be there with them?

My eldest boy is going to join the force my nephew is in the proccess of joining ................so what you're saying is that i have brought Joel (tadpole) up to be a liar and a killer?

Neither of you would know Jack shet about it.


It as a general comment, no one knew you had police as family so why on earth would you take it so personally? it quite clearly was not directed at you.

I also object to the title of the thread. Quite clearly the police were not out to kill the people in the car. The driver lost control and killed himself and his passengers it was his fault and nobody else's. That they ran would rather suggest they were up to a bit more than jumping a red light. Why would you assume the police were lying about being close to the car they were following? Some police lie but not all of them and yes I have met a few that I wouldn't trust so far as I could throw them but also many that are doing a tough job to the best of their ability. Crooks also tell lies.

Yes there have been instances where police chasing have aggravated a situation and police tactics changed as a result but I have zero sympathy for some twit that wraps a car round a lamppost or in to a wall running away from the police. The passengers I do feel sorry for since they would have been helpless at the hands of the idiot driving. They probably also had time to realise they were going to die. If they're joyriders they are going to be driving like idiots anyway and quite likely to have a smash regardless of whether the police are following or not.

You don't see headlines "Three people killed when police were not following because the moron driving tried to take a bend too fast and lost control. Most fatalities occur on minor B roads usually caused by bad driving and guess what most of the time the police weren't there until it was time to clean up the mess.

posted by bryn mawr

Never mind NEXT, would you care to comment on the actions of the police in the Charles de Menezes case?

Not the shooting of an innocent victim, not even the fact that standard procedures like identification and warning were not followed - just the lying and manipulation of evidence that took place in the cover-up will do.

This is NOT an isolated case - just a recent and well publicized one.


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.

posted by fuzzy butt

You see the problem with your argument here is that decades later people are writing books and wittnesses are again wanting to tell everything they know and the links between the IRA and the guilford four is slowly coming out.

Now lets see who do I want to **** off the British police force or the IRA? hmmm .let me think about that for a minute


The Guildford four were fitted up by the police. Their action mean the real bombers got away with it. Every time the police set someone up for a crime they didn't commit means the real perpetrators gets away with it. The justification that it takes a know bad guy off he streets doesn't stand up to more than two minutes consideration to see what's wrong with that idea.

posted by fuzzy butt

bullshit!!!!!!!!! Defence lawyers jump on that so quick it's not funny and it's usually the conversation before court as to what is likely to be relevent and admissable in court that both the lawyer and prosecutor work out before walking into the court!!!!!

Prosecutors look for 'justice to be served' defence lawyers look to get people a 'fair trial' of course which is jusctice in itself. If the judge thinks missing evidence is not required or will not help either the law or the defence then it's agreed by both parties not to be submitted.

You'd be surprised how savvy a defence lawyer will be not to have items, evidence, or wittnesses turn up to court . Because they love to run the argument of "not enough evidence". If your lawyer has no problem with missing items then it's because it's going to help his client not because it's going to hinder him/her.




We have a different legal system from you. Come to that Scotland has a different system from England. Your particular gripes are not particularly relevant to the UK. Nor do we have politically elected prosecutors keen to make themselves look good and therefore also reluctant to admit to mistakes. The burden of proof is on the accuser in a criminal case for very good reasons and while not perfect it's still the best way to have it. We did have a serious problem with the police falsifying evidence and making up confessions in the past and it's very easy for that kind of culture to take root.

posted by fuzzy butt

You see the problem with your argument here is that decades later people are writing books and wittnesses are again wanting to tell everything they know and the links between the IRA and the guilford four is slowly coming out.




You see the problem don't you? They were accused therefore they must be guilty any evidence to the contrary must be falsified.

It would be kind of hard to live in parts of northern ireland and not know a member of the IRA or the UDA depending on which foot you kicked with. I don't assume every orangeman I know is a member of the UDA any more than I assume any catholic from northern ireland was a IRA member. So what books have been written about the Guildford four confirming their guilt?

Scotland was amongst the first to tape police interviews as a matter of course-the police weren't too keen at first but it works both ways-people can't turn round and deny saying something because it is only their word against the interviewer.

spot;1060095 wrote: You don't see the humour of "give me a breakdown of the stats" followed by a stream of unverifiable mockery?



I'd as soon eat in a sewer as give the filth the time of day. A more corrupt politicized bunch of thugs never existed.


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?

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?


I'm talking about career coppers. I thought that was clear in what I'd said. The ones who can only stay in their chosen career if they do what they're told, who are told that if they don't conform to the court's requirements the lag will get off and that the system demands he says what's needed. That's where the necessity to lie originates.

I spent quite a while trying to talk my younger lad into joining the police as a career but sadly I couldn't get him to go for it. I've nothing against the idea of policing, I'm all for it, I'm just sickened by the self-selecting system that only allows lying shits, prepared to perjure themselves in order to get a conviction, to stay in the service.

The consequence of seeing a career copper lie on oath in court, knowing from direct experience that what he was saying was untrue and that it was what the court needed to be told in order to convict - and him even knowing I knew it was a lie and evidently not being deterred by that knowledge - is what's led me to my conclusion that it's endemic and required. I could, of course, be mistaken about its frequency. I'm bloody well not though, for all that. I defy any career copper to tell me otherwise.

Did Thatcher ever get you out in riot gear to club the miners into submission? if not then no, you're not a politicized thug. I thought it was just the career police who did those things, not the specials. I do note, though, that the specials had a vile name for brutality in Northern Ireland, so it's not as though it can't ever happen.

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?


We had a big shake up in my local police and one of the reasons was exactly what Spot is talking about, career minded thugs who went for a conviction whatever the cost, including lying under oath in court. Without going into details, i was and still am, close enough to those at the top to know that it existed, still exists, heads have rolled due to it and heads will continue to roll for a long time to come. A can of worms has been opened, and the it's all coming out of the woodwork. I am also delighted that i played some very small part in exposing these career minded thugs and contributed to their removal. I will continue, until every one of the rotton to the core lot has gone.

If anyone on this forum is an officer or like me, has family in the police force, you should want the likes of these removed because it is exactly them that gives our police the worst reputation in the world.

Having said that, i will always give credit where credit is due.

Bryn was correct when he said, this is not a personal attack on anyone.

We have a new beat manager in our area and frankly, i can't praise him enough. He invests a huge amount of time going into schools to talk to kids to DETER a future generation instead of nicking them when they mess up. He spends a huge amount of time in plain clothes in trouble spots catching them in the act and warning them off. That's what i define as policing or a part of it.

I also praise the Specials. We don't have too many of them around here, we have 'Blunkett's' army of PCSO's who in my most citizens opinion around here, are not worth the wages and the sooner they go, the better. We need them replaced with decent coppers like my beat Manager and the local beat bobby. However, these two are relatively new to the job. My last beat bobby and beat manager were magically swept away to other area's including two Sgt's and the Inspector.

When my new keen Beat Manager and beat bobby have found that their brilliant policing skills mean diddly squat in this area that is dominated by targets what ever the cost, they will no doubt end up the same as the rest of them. I'll give them a year max and I'll enjoy their policing while it lasts.

The reason i gave Fuzzy the Guildford Four link was to show her that even if you just take from the 70's to present day and Charles De Menezes, there has been corruption, lying and fitting up for time immorial. Anyone who truely believes this does not happen, is deluded.

Do you all think that Sir Iain Blair went because 'Boris' got a bit sniffy with him???

Gmc quite rightly spoke of interview under caution while taped. What he didn't add is that the defendent (In Britain, not America or Australia) then also has to rely on the CPS (Crown Prosecution Service) translating the tape into transcript to be read in court. Very often, huge amounts on interview on tape are left out in translation. If it is crucial to the defendent, the defence then has to produce the duplicate tape to be played in court. This is to show the judge that chunks are missed out and even re-arranged or described as 'Inaudible' when the truth is, it can be heard perfectly.

Not all lawyers double deal with the prosecution behind closed doors as Fuzzy suggested in one of her posts. Even the smarmiest of defence lawyers often come across a true injustice and will fight to expose the one's who made it so.

Gmc also mentioned the press when reporting on high profile cases such as De Menezes. Even the most infamous Fleet Street gutter press hacks can not print anything without imformation. Where do you think this imformation comes from??

It comes from police spokespersons and them alone. Think about it? De Menezes hardly went to Fleet Street and said 'It's okay chaps, they thought i was a terrorist, Fair play'. Of course he bloody didn't. The reason you get a national paper report one way and weeks later swing it around the other way, is due to evidence coming out in court that the policespokesperson 'chose' not to tell the press in the first place. Or the policespokesperson deliberately putting in cause, to save their force the embarressment.

In this country, it is only the guts and dertermination of people like De Menezes family who are willing to take them on and expose them whatever the cost, that we even get to hear about such cases. Otherwise, they are buried along with as much evidence as possible. If there were more people like them, the true picture of corruption would be exposed right down to the lowest rank.

Incidentally, the police car in persuit that 'lost it' on the bend yards from where i was standing was chasing a car that they knew was at least 5 miles away. I know that because they told me.

A year later, Mr O happened to be a victem of road rage assault. He didn't even get out of the car, the other driver got out, leant in through our driver's window and grabbed him. I controlled my urge to kick seven bells of shyte out of him and called 999. They arrived in 4 minutes. I remarked to them that they usually take 3 hours and they were laughing when they told me where they had been when they got the call and had done a ton all the way. They drove past a school turning out 1,000 kids doing a ton at 3.30 in the afternoon. When they did that, i decided i wasn't going to give them the satisfaction of a collar and i made Mr O shake the hand of his attacker who had by then calmed down and apologised.

along-for-the-ride;1059914 wrote: As students, we are told not to run in the hallways. As employees, it is strongly suggested not to run in the hallways. My point is with speed, there is a danger of injury. And the examples I have just mentioned did not even involve a motor vehicle at high speed.



As mentioned in previous posts here, advanced technology should make a high speed chase unnecessary. Officers could get the license plate number, identify the perpetrater, and pursue him/her stealthfully. Putting innocent bystanders in danger is irresponsible.



Makes you wonder if it's more "adrenoline pumping" than "serving and protecting."


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.

Thanks for the reply Spot.

I will not say that some police officers do a good job when I know for a fact that they don't, I'm talking specifics here not generalisations, I've known lazy coppers, lying coppers, adulterous coppers, two that have gone to prison, some that got caught drink-driving (many years ago).



But, and it's a big but, I've known many, many more that are just good coppers trying to do a hard job, facing the daily threat of a good kicking or stabbing just for being there in a uniform.



I've known two that killed themselves - not because they were crap officers, but because they were two of the best in the force and they couldn't cope with the pressure put upon them to progress through promotion when they just wanted to do the job.



I think I may bow out of the discussion here though. Obviously I find this a difficult subject to stay impartial and unemotional on, so I think it best to drift away and remain friends with those I disagree with and accept that I won't change anyone's mind nor will I change my own.



Enjoy the debate!!:D

Bryn Mawr;1059983 wrote: Given that the Government want every vehicle fitted with controllers that will restrict then to the prevailing speed limit (whilst also tracking and reporting their position) it would be easy to add the ability to stop any specified vehicle in its tracks.


Indeed, it would and this will be aided by satellite tracking.

I confess that I enjoy driving (except for commuting purposes). I generally relax behind the 'wheel'. Even so, after a long journey, I'm mentally knackered and phsically drained despite stopping en route.

Nonetheless, I'm looking forward with interest to the project being developed by Mercedes to create a car that drives itself. Loads of people I know or have met have told me at one time or another that they hate, or at least, do not enjoy driving.

If any of you are still making excuses foir police corruption after De Menezes and The Guildford Four links... here's another one for you.

BBC ON THIS DAY | 14 | 1991: Birmingham Six freed after 16 years

Imladris;1060730 wrote: Enjoy the debate!!:DDiscussion.