Filth by name. . .

[equationgirl]

Sir Ian Livingstone, Chief Constable of Police Scotland admits force is institutionally racist and discriminatory.

https//:www.uk.yahoo.com/news/police-scotland-institutionally-racist-discriminatory-123421865.html

But not the individual officers...

 

[Sasaferrato]

You must be watching a different video. Try this one.

Cardiff police refuse to apologise after saying van was following boys who died

CCTV footage of e-bike puts more pressure on South Wales police who originally said there was no pursuit

www.theguardian.com

View attachment 376084

A witness, whose CCTV captured the police van in Frank Road, said she and their four-year-old niece had had to jump out of the way of the bike and van.

“You could see the boys were panicking and trying to get away from the police,” she said. “The boys were petrified.”

If you want to do semantics (following/chasing) that's up to you. The end result is the same. Two petrified kids ended up dead after being 'followed' (and, according to some, regularly harassed) by the police.

And I don't think this is a thread to talk about regulation of e-bikes. Start your own, those of you who would rather deflect attention away from more obvious police lies.

Oh and add in Harry Stanley, the man with 'a gun' in Hackney that turned out to be a table leg.

There is of course the obvious question, did the police indicate that the bike should stop? If so, why didn't it?

 

[Sasaferrato]

But not the individual officers...

I read that three times, to ensure that I had read it correctly.

An organisation, comprising a number of individuals is sexist, racist and homophobic, but it is the organisation which is sexist, racist and homophobic, not the individuals who make up the organisation? Have I got that right?

 

[equationgirl]

I read that three times, to ensure that I had read it correctly.

An organisation, comprising a number of individuals is sexist, racist and homophobic, but it is the organisation which is sexist, racist and homophobic, not the individuals who make up the organisation? Have I got that right?

It's a complete mindboggle for sure - to my mind the institution IS the officers within, plus obviously systems and processes. So in effect is he saying the whole construct is racist but the individual officers are not?

I think it's an ineffectual stab at trying not to call the whole force a bunch of racist misogynist wankers which is failing to convince anybody.

 

[planetgeli]

There is of course the obvious question, did the police indicate that the bike should stop? If so, why didn't it?

The police say (it wasn't a chase because) the van that happened to be not chasing the bike never put its lights and siren on. So no, the bike wasn't 'asked' to stop.

 

[tony.c]

Detective Inspector sacked from Met after being found guilty by disciplinary board of gross misconduct for buying drugs and offering to provide them to a third party. No mention as to whether criminal charges were brought, but seems unlikely.
https//: www.uk.yahoo.com/news/met-inspector-fired-buying-drugs-111456816.html

 

[Sasaferrato]

Detective Inspector sacked from Met after being found guilty by disciplinary board of gross misconduct for buying drugs and offering to provide them to a third party. No mention as to whether criminal charges were brought, but seems unlikely.
https//: www.uk.yahoo.com/news/met-inspector-fired-buying-drugs-111456816.html

Well, he absolutely should have been fired. Buying drugs? Rather than confiscating them from dealers and selling on? Poor excuse for a policeman.

 

[Sasaferrato]

It's a complete mindboggle for sure - to my mind the institution IS the officers within, plus obviously systems and processes. So in effect is he saying the whole construct is racist but the individual officers are not?

I think it's an ineffectual stab at trying not to call the whole force a bunch of racist misogynist wankers which is failing to convince anybody.

And of course, he overlooks the fact that he was the head of the shitshow for half of its existence.

 

[ddraig]

Not on side of police, I think they’ve fucked up royally, I just don’t agree that it was a chase.

ok, why tho? you believe Alun Michael and SWP comms dept line?

 

[Ax^]

There is of course the obvious question, did the police indicate that the bike should stop? If so, why didn't it?

likes death in police custody

well you had not been nicked in the first place

 

[planetgeli]

The following is why, besides video showing the bleeding obvious, the police are...reluctant to admit it was a chase (pursuit).

Police pursuits | College of Policing

This page is from APP, the official source of professional practice for policing.

www.college.police.uk

And from that:

A police driver is deemed to be in pursuit when a driver/motorcyclist indicates by their actions or continuance of their manner of driving/riding that:

• they have no intention of stopping for the police, and
• the police driver believes that the driver of the subject vehicle is aware of the requirement to stop and decides to continue behind the subject vehicle with a view to either reporting its progress or stopping it

When a situation falls within the definition of a pursuit, officers need to decide whether a pursuit is justified, proportionate and conforms to the principle of least intrusion. Pursuits may be spontaneous or part of pre-planned operations.

............

So straightaway we can see, and know from the evidence, that the first bit in bold is true. Even if not asked to stop, it was obvious they drove towards the police van, saw it, shit themselves, and turned around at speed. This is what instigated the chase (pursuit).

...........

Pursuit prevention​

Pursuit activity and use of pursuit tactics are likely to place members of the public and police officers under a significant degree of risk. Wherever possible, trying to prevent a pursuit from taking place must be a primary consideration.

Officers authorised in pursuit and incident managers must give due regard to the purpose and justification of actions and decisions of a pursuit. The key consideration is to ask is this pursuit necessary, balanced against threat, risk and harm for which the subject driver is being (or about to be) pursued?

If the decision is made to engage in a pursuit because it is in the public interest to protect life, prevent or detect crime, or to apprehend an offender, then it must be conducted with proportionality and due regard for the circumstances. It is important that the risks, topography and continuing surroundings are calculated to justify legitimacy of actions. Officers should not place undue pressure on themselves or risk public safety beyond their capabilities or those of the vehicle they are driving.

To mitigate risk of engaging in, or continuing, a pursuit, officers and pursuit managers must continually ask themselves the following questions.

• What is the nature of the incident or circumstances to which I am now responding or authorising a pursuit response?
• Is a pursuit a proportionate action?
• Do my actions, purpose and objective to stop or prevent further or continuing criminal actions justify the potential risks to life or property?
• Do I have reasonable information or intelligence to indicate that using alternative tactics is preferable to a pursuit?
• Can I plan a different strategy to apprehend the subject driver in the future which is unlikely to compromise evidential requirements?
• Can resources and tactics be used in alternative, preventive ways, to avoid a pursuit taking place?

Before engaging in, or authorising, a pursuit, officers and managers must be familiar with pursuit considerations.
...............

I'd say this fails on nearly all counts. And, as the officers were obviously totally aware of the area (knowing to go the long way around, therefore knowing about the bollards and fence) It is important that the risks, topography and continuing surroundings are calculated to justify legitimacy of actions seems very relevant. As does the bit about not compromising evidential requirements.



..............

There's more.

Spontaneous pursuits​

These occur when the actions of the suspect driver in deciding to flee are triggered by the presence of a police vehicle, and there is no prior warning or sufficient time to develop a specific strategy and plans, regardless of whether or not the officer made an initial requirement for the vehicle to stop.

Initial phase​

This is the period of a spontaneous pursuit before tactical resolution can be considered and actioned. Pursuit trained standard/response drivers/motorcyclists with suitable vehicles may be authorised to continue by an appropriate member of staff from the control/communications room, but they have no authority to take an active part in tactical resolution. Tyre deflation systems may be used in the initial phase.

Tactical phase​

This is the phase of an authorised pursuit, for which appropriate resolution tactics are available. It is commenced by, or taken over by, a tactical phase trained advanced driver in a suitable vehicle, with a pursuit commander identified. Once the pursuit moves into the tactical phase, tactical options for bringing the pursuit to a conclusion will be directed by the pursuit commander.

Authorisation​

Officers should seek authorisation for their decision to engage in a pursuit from designated control/communications room staff. The time available between recognising the need for action and the deadline for taking action may be too short to acquire the control/communications room authorisation. In such cases officers may self-authorise and justify the decision at a later time in line with the NDM. No additional authority is required to move from the initial phase

Pursuit considerations​

The following should be taken into account, in accordance with the national decision model.

• The current level of risk posed by the pursued driver.
• Whether or not the suspect’s identity is known.
• The seriousness of any known offence committed or suspected.
• The weight of intelligence as to whether the suspects are, or are likely to be, armed (see Situational engagement of suspects).
• Whether the driver is, or appears to be, a juvenile or whether it appears that other vulnerable persons are in the vehicle.
• The type of vehicle being pursued, for example, car or motorcycle.
• The current/anticipated route in respect of the time of day, road, weather, traffic, specific considerations such as schools, licensed premises or off-road terrain.
• The availability of tactical options.

................

Admit it's a chase and you have all that shit (and more, I just got bored of quoting) to cover up.

 

[Sasaferrato]

likes death in police custody

well you had not been nicked in the first place

I've been a bolshie bastard all my days, but if the police ask me to stop, I stop. Failing to do so is compounding any offence that you have been committing. Traffic laws are the most black and white of all.

 

[planetgeli]

And as for the apparent angle from some on here prioritising nuisance e-bikes - these kids are dead. They weren't born a nuisance, and they come from a very deprived area with lots of negativity surrounding them. Adverse childhood experiences is the phrase these days. I work with kids exactly like this. In a different town in Wales these could have been kids I work with. They deserve a fucking chance, not to die.

 

[Ax^]

very much this

 

[equationgirl]

Great posts planetgeli

These were two kids, out on a bike. It's not their fault. I'm not saying they were as pure as the driven snow but equally they shouldn't be written off because of where they come from.

And of course they would shit themselves if there was a history of being harassed by local police and by a particular officer, allegedly.

 

[DaveCinzano]

I mean, I'm not wishing harm on anyone, and on one level it's great that no one has been injured, but seriously - there are dudes there whose job is literally to put holes in people threatening the security of that building, and yet not a shot fired; whereas someone suffering a mental health crisis on the street, or becoming confused in their own home, or being in a car, or just walking along - first instinct is to taze or gas or shoot or beat them.

 

[teqniq]

Could this be the reason why?

 

[equationgirl]

The picture was so tiny at first glance I thought it was actually Bojo after he forgot he moved house.

 

[DaveCinzano]

Could this be the reason why?

Gammon feel the boyz

 

[equationgirl]

DaveCinzano yeah it's all a bit double standards isn't it, given recent events

PS you're on fire with the punnage the last couple of days, bravo

 

[tony.c]

Retired Met police officers plead guilty to conspiracy to share child sexual abuse images at Southwark Crown Court. To be sentenced at later date.

Retired Met Police officers admit child sex abuse image plot

They plotted to share child sex abuse images with a Met chief inspector, who was later found dead.

www.bbc.co.uk

 

[equationgirl]

The only comfort there is that one of them is already banged up at HMP Dumfries.

 

[agricola]

Admit it's a chase and you have all that shit (and more, I just got bored of quoting) to cover up.

Not sure about there necessarily being a cover-up - at least from the top of force itself; if the pursuit policy was followed (and it is a national policy so it should have been) then the senior leadership would have known that there was a pursuit or a "follow" straight away thanks to radio traffic, an incident being generated and so on. Fatalities during pursuits are very rare but not unknown, and when they happen there is a load of actions that take place - automatic referral to the IOPC, high level involvement from Complaints, specialist Road Traffic collision investigators etc.

A non-reported pursuit however might not come until after the officers had been spoken to, relevant vehicle telemetry systems downloaded and studied, other evidence (like witness statements, video footage) gathered and viewed.

 

[equationgirl]

I'm adding this article to this thread because the juror, Jason Carr, had spent over two decades working for the police, lied on the jury form about his reason for leaving (gross misconduct , not retirement as he claimed) and deliberately went against the judge's instructions not to look up the defendant on Google.

Juror jailed for causing rape trial to collapse by researching defendant online

Jason Carr, who had worked for the police, looked up details of the man on trial despite judge telling jurors it was illegal to do so

www.theguardian.com

His solicitor said 'It is easy to form an impression of an arrogant man with a sense of entitlement … nothing could be further from the truth,”

Ironic LOL.

 

[equationgirl]

Further to the chief of Police Scotland describing the force as institutionall discriminatory, the staff themselves are quite cross:

Police Scotland officers offended at chief's racism remarks

Police Scotland officers say their job will be harder after their chief constable said the force is institutionally racist.

www.bbc.co.uk

 

[Pickman's model]

Further to the chief of Police Scotland describing the force as institutionall discriminatory, the staff themselves are quite cross:

Police Scotland officers offended at chief's racism remarks

Police Scotland officers say their job will be harder after their chief constable said the force is institutionally racist.

www.bbc.co.uk

Easy done, they shouldn't be racist or sexist then

 

[tony.c]

Former police officer arrested as part of investigation into sexual exploitation of vulnerable young girls in Bury.

Former police officer arrested in Bury child sex inquiry

Four men are arrested in connection with the sexual exploitation of young girls between 2006 and 2009.

www.bbc.co.uk

 

[equationgirl]

The rape trial that collapsed was a retrial by the way, his actions caused the victim to have to give evidence for a third time, and caused the defendant to be incarcerated for longer he was eventually found not guilty. No repentance or remorse from Jason Carr, who has now been jailed at least.

 

[Wilf]

I'm adding this article to this thread because the juror, Jason Carr, had spent over two decades working for the police, lied on the jury form about his reason for leaving (gross misconduct , not retirement as he claimed) and deliberately went against the judge's instructions not to look up the defendant on Google.

Juror jailed for causing rape trial to collapse by researching defendant online

Jason Carr, who had worked for the police, looked up details of the man on trial despite judge telling jurors it was illegal to do so

www.theguardian.com

His solicitor said 'It is easy to form an impression of an arrogant man with a sense of entitlement … nothing could be further from the truth,”

Ironic LOL.

I read that yesterday, the guy must have been thinking... 'hmmm, that thing that is likely to lead to a prison cell, shall I do it? Yes, I will! Okay now, I've done it, shall I tell people? Yes! Right, who to tell? I know, I'll tell the people who have also been told not to do it and threatened with prison and are perfectly placed to tell the person who will put me in prison'.

 

[Orang Utan]

I’d have to have my phone taken off me and would have to be locked into a hotel room for the duration of the trial for me not to look up stuff on the internet. Fortunately I won’t have to do any jury duty and even if I had to, I’d keep my googling to myself