So wrong!

skellyjohn · Post by **skellyjohn** » Fri Aug 25, 2006 1:33 pm

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/shro ... 284962.stm

Should have been locked up.

tut · Post by **tut** » Fri Aug 25, 2006 1:52 pm

Just had a difference of opinion with the wife over this.

My initial reaction months ago was what a twat, lock him up. However there are always two sides to a story, and now i am not so sure. Police drivers at that level may be called on to try and stop some drugged up low life who has stolen a car, and then is driving through traffic not caring whether he kills himself and anybody who gets in the way.

A patrol car has to decide whether to try and stop him before he kills anybody, or decide it is to dangerous to pursue. However if the police driver has never driven at 160 on a Motorway, or silly speeds on restricted roads full of traffic, how can he be capable or even confident that he can tail or stop someone who does not give a fcuk?

It seems he was doing the speeds in the early hours on mainly deserted roads, and the Judge decided that he needed to practice this to carry out his job. On the other hand, from the cars own video evidence, he also decided that the driver was doing so dangerously, so it seems that you just end up with a chicken and egg situation.

Biggest laugh is that the PC is now appealing against the Judges verdict, even though he got off completely.

tut

skellyjohn · Post by **skellyjohn** » Fri Aug 25, 2006 2:10 pm

I think the whole policy of chasing car thieves, drug dealers etc. needs looked at.

I'm NOT a do-good liberal, BUT... I can't see the benefit of chasing a 14 year old in a stolen car at 80 miles an hour through towns and villages. The harder the cops chase, the more likely the kid will loose control by pushing the car too far.

The number of accidents involving police cars has been on the rise for years and I think until they review their policy, this will remain to be the case.

There surely must be proper supervised training for this sort of thing. Close a section of motorway at 3 in the morning if needs be. This has just given the cops a green light to go as fast as they like, where they like and when they like.

tut · Post by **tut** » Fri Aug 25, 2006 2:23 pm

That is the problem, every real life situation is going to be different, but probably have to be assessed and acted on immediately.

Not sure that I would like to make the decision, for as you say, if the low life is chased, he will take even more gambles and thus be even more dangerous.

I preferred my situation in the early '80s when I was attached to the Thames Valley Police Force as a pilot when they got their first helicopter.

I was training their PC Observers, but at least I could sit safely at 1,000 ft and watch it all happening below me.

tut

MacK · Post by **MacK** » Fri Aug 25, 2006 2:23 pm

skellyjohn wrote: The number of accidents involving police cars has been on the rise for years and I think until they review their policy, this will remain to be the case.

Has the number of car crimes or reasons for 'chases' risen at the same or a lower rate? Or maybe a higher rate?
If lower, then I would agree with you on looking at changing the policy, if the same, then nothing has changed.
If higher then the police traing etc is obviouslly working. Just need to 'train' the criminals not to steal cars etc

Stephen · Post by **Stephen** » Fri Aug 25, 2006 4:08 pm

Surely most if not all of the training could be done on the track or on a closed section of road which is properly supervised.
I think the issue here is that there could have been a pedestrian or other driver who could have suffered due to the ad hoc speeding of the police driver.
Lets face it while the skills he gained are valid he was having some fun in exactly the same way that a joyrider does.

tut · Post by **tut** » Fri Aug 25, 2006 5:16 pm

I think that it is a no win situation on both sides Stephen.

Untill a way is found of putting down the low lifes at birth, which is not likely in the foreseeable future, we have to find a way of controlling them.

A 9mm bullet through the head is my preffered choice the first time that they are caught, but somehow I do not think that would get an overwhelming vote.

tut

Stephen · Post by **Stephen** » Fri Aug 25, 2006 5:19 pm

Sweden had a good idea, see here
http://www.independentliving.org/docs5/ ... ation.html

tut · Post by **tut** » Fri Aug 25, 2006 5:34 pm

If that had been implemented in this country Stephen, then half of our members would not be posting on here. <BG>

tut

Post by **pete** » Fri Aug 25, 2006 5:36 pm

Stephen wrote:Surely most if not all of the training could be done on the track or on a closed section of road which is properly supervised.
I think the issue here is that there could have been a pedestrian or other driver who could have suffered due to the ad hoc speeding of the police driver.
Lets face it while the skills he gained are valid he was having some fun in exactly the same way that a joyrider does.

If you accept the need for the Police to have high powered cars, which I do, then you accept the need for them to practice. I haven't seen genuine stats for police accidents, I'm guessing any increase discussed in the papers could be down to better recording of events (increased H&S awareness these days) rather than more crashes.

I have seen video of cops taking organs through London in a fantastic display of driving, at high speed, without incident through a city. I'm guesing they need to do it more than once to do it that well.

The guy was practicing his job within existing guidelines and got prosecuted - that's sh*t. The Dangerous driving charge could have just been the speed. Normal folk do more than a ton and you get a dangerous automatically (nonsense IMHO). It doesn't mean he was driving dangerously.

As for him enjoying it - so what!! I enjoy my job sometimes, I bet Tut enjoyed flying choppers once. I just don't think it is relevant.

My two penneth.

Pete

(I'm not a natural defender of the cops by the way, I just have difficulties sometimes when people are prosecuted for doing their job.)

tut · Post by **tut** » Fri Aug 25, 2006 5:39 pm

By the By, was he not driving a VX?

Which model hits a genuine 159 tuts, which equates to a brochure speed of 170?

tut

Post by **pete** » Fri Aug 25, 2006 5:55 pm

The article queries the speed recorded. Kind of ballpark. Maybe 145- 150 tuts. Which I bet people on here have done.

pete

(Not me obviously. But I've heard stories.

)

Rich H · Post by **Rich H** » Fri Aug 25, 2006 5:58 pm

My car won't go that fast, even when dropped from height....

mckeann · Post by **mckeann** » Fri Aug 25, 2006 6:01 pm

erm, mines does. i like to check.....................most days.

Rich H · Post by **Rich H** » Fri Aug 25, 2006 6:06 pm