[Desmondo]

Originally Posted by andymc0001

The facts are i was in my Thomas Cook uniform with a valid airside pass on my way to the airport.

Irrelevant really.

Originally Posted by andymc0001

I now have a screen print from LV showing they updated the NIB at 2300 on the previous night.

So you at least know they've done their bit.

To me, it looks like the system isn't really up to scratch but I'm not sure the blame can be laid entirely at the feet of the officers involved. You should be fully refunded of all costs by somebody though.

[Jon D]

Originally Posted by Desmondo

Not really, I think it's pretty standard procedure to stop a vehicle that's trying to get away isn't it? Change the pensioner for a 30 year old bloke and would you question it?

Of course it's standard procedure to apprehend a driver who refuses to stop. However, once the vehicle is stationary, do you think it's acceptable to jump on the bonnet, kick the windscreen, smash in the side window and drag the occupant out of the car?
I'm sure there are some who will agree with you, but evidently the Gwent police authorities don't as the officers in question were suspended.
I'm not condoning law-breaking, just the questionable manner in which it's sometimes prevented. I and many others would feel far safer if the visible police presence on our roads was balanced by an equal representation in our towns and residential areas.

[JaySTee]

I always thought it strange that we are not required to have in our cars our drivers licence (both parts) and insurance cert. Obviously these docs could always be fakes but in the OP's case it would have saved him having his car impounded...

[peterg1965]

Originally Posted by Jon D

Of course it's standard procedure to apprehend a driver who refuses to stop. However, once the vehicle is stationary, do you think it's acceptable to jump on the bonnet, kick the windscreen, smash in the side window and drag the occupant out of the car?
I'm sure there are some who will agree with you, but evidently the Gwent police authorities don't as the officers in question were suspended.
I'm not condoning law-breaking, just the questionable manner in which it's sometimes prevented. I and many others would feel far safer if the visible police presence on our roads was balanced by an equal representation in our towns and residential areas.

I think some of the law breaking in that clip is actually the police themselves - that is heavy handed, over the top and tantamount to criminal damage, seeing such footage makes me loose faith with the police, simply unnecessary behaviour. I suspect if they had knocked on the side of the window, been polite yet very firm, the old boy would have opened his window/door. I would most definitely be putting in a claim to repair all that damage caused, I don't understand Mr Plod climbing on the bonnet and trying to smash the windscreen in - disgraceful. If he hadn't stopped, follow him or simply wait outside his home address, he wasn't a terrorist or bankroller FFS!

I despair of the police sometimes, I want so much to be 100% behind them but, seeing stuff like this knocks my confidence in them.

[RagingKileak]

Police eh. Can't live with em - can't live without em.

Some, possibly like the ones that pulled you and definitely like the ones that pulled that old codger (who to be fair I bet was a right whinging, arsey old c**t) deserve to be called Pigs or scum and have all the usual abuses thrown at them. Many others though are capable of exercising a little bit of common sense and that (it seems) is what is so often sadly lacking. In your case, it sounds to me like a producer would have served its purpose - an Airport is one of my customers and I know an airside pass means that certain checks have been performed etc. Hardly LIKELY that a person holding one in a high value vehicle which is NOT reported stolen and is registered to the person who is sat in it is uninsured.... If it is, a producer will prove it and THEN charges can be brought against the driver (as the po po obviously know where you live based on the evidence they have just gathered.)

All this stupidity is because Police Officers are pulled from society and in general, society features a large demographic of barely literate, fuckwit little tossers who go crazy as soon as they get in uniform.

If they made them pass even basic competency tests, policing would be a lot more useful.

PS - I did pass the tests when I worked there and considered a career in WYP and it was almost comically easy to do the interview, the physical and the 'gauntlet' of social/real world examinations. Any halfwit could get a job for the Police under Labour, I pray that the tories make it more difficult!!

Matt

[kaishang]

It seems in this case that Whatley, the Range Rover driver drove off during the traffic stop. The police then persued him for 17 minutes with lights and sirens on - the persuit did however take place at the speed limit.

The two police officers were apparently suspended due to a complaint to the IPCC; the suspension appears to be SOP for a complaint of this type, rather than a finding of guilt against the officers. I can't find any references to what the conculusion to that IPCC complaint was. Or even if there has been a conclusion yet.

Saying an OAPs windscreen was smashed for not wearing a seatbelt is not the case; the windscreen was smashed after Whatley drove off during a traffic stop and failed to stop when he was being persued.

[andymc0001]

I did get a producer as well as have my car seized. When the officers gave me a lift to work they were refused entry at the airside gates due to not having correct ID, their warrent card and police car was insufficient to get them through, that made me laugh!!

[Desmondo]

Originally Posted by Jon D

Of course it's standard procedure to apprehend a driver who refuses to stop.

I meant it's a fairly standard procedure to smash it's windows in a kind of "shock and awe" tactic meaning they actually stay stopped after they've tried to bugger off.

From the post above, rather unsurprisingly, there seems to be far more to the story.

[Desmondo]

Reading more on that story, he was also stopped by a stinger so didn't even pull over totally voluntarily either. Have to say, it's a shame to see the BBC reporting standards going the same way as the Sun, Mail, etc

[Jon D]

Originally Posted by Desmondo

I meant it's a fairly standard procedure to smash it's windows in a kind of "shock and awe" tactic meaning they actually stay stopped after they've tried to bugger off.

'Shock and awe', as defined by it's authors Harlan K. Ullman and James P. Wade: "Technically known as rapid dominance, it is a military doctrine based on the use of overwhelming power, dominant battlefield awareness, dominant maneuvers, and spectacular displays of force to paralyze an adversary's perception of the battlefield and destroy its will to fight."
If people find that an acceptable tenet of British policing - then I'm worried.

[RagingKileak]

Originally Posted by Jon D

'Shock and awe', as defined by it's authors Harlan K. Ullman and James P. Wade: "Technically known as rapid dominance, it is a military doctrine based on the use of overwhelming power, dominant battlefield awareness, dominant maneuvers, and spectacular displays of force to paralyze an adversary's perception of the battlefield and destroy its will to fight."
If people find that an acceptable tenet of British policing - then I'm worried.

Indeed.

If the Police think that escalating a standard arrest to this level is ok, then they will have nothing left when we REALLY see civil unrest.

Matt

[Desmondo]

Originally Posted by Jon D

'Shock and awe', as defined by it's authors Harlan K. Ullman and James P. Wade: "Technically known as rapid dominance, it is a military doctrine based on the use of overwhelming power, dominant battlefield awareness, dominant maneuvers, and spectacular displays of force to paralyze an adversary's perception of the battlefield and destroy its will to fight."
If people find that an acceptable tenet of British policing - then I'm worried.

So you picked up my throwaway description of "shock and awe" and turned it in to some military quote about battlefields as an argument against the police?

[RagingKileak]

Originally Posted by Desmondo

So you picked up my throwaway description of "shock and awe" and turned it in to some military quote about battlefields as an argument against the police?

Are you saying that Jon's description doesn't match the action portrayed by the comedy fat copper dropkicking the windscreen?

Matt

[Jon D]

Originally Posted by Desmondo

So you picked up my throwaway description of "shock and awe" and turned it in to some military quote about battlefields as an argument against the police?

If you meant it as a "throwaway" description I think you should either have indicated it as such or perhaps used a more measured term in, what appears to be, a serious discussion.
I didn't "turn it into some military quote", it is a horrifically violent military tactic and I am disturbed to see such terminology used in context with a discourse on civilian policing.

[Desmondo]

Originally Posted by RagingKileak

Are you saying that Jon's description doesn't match the action portrayed by the comedy fat copper dropkicking the windscreen?

No, I don't think it does.

Originally Posted by Jon D

If you meant it as a "throwaway" description I think you should either have indicated it as such or perhaps used a more measured term in, what appears to be, a serious discussion.
I didn't "turn it into some military quote", it is a horrifically violent military tactic and I am disturbed to see such terminology used in context with a discourse on civilian policing.

I agree I could have used a better term but it is what popped in to my head at the time. I think it is quite clear that what the police are doing in the video can in no way be compared to a military battlefield.

Let's just look at the facts. A person is stopped and being dealt with and then drives off, they fail to stop for 17 minutes of being followed by police with their sirens and lights on, they then only stop because they got hit with a stinger....and then you want the police to just walk up to the vehicle and ask the driver to not drive off again?

As I said before, it's all very well sitting here with hindsight, but these guys have to deal with this each and every day and I'd bet 99% of people being pursued for 17 minutes and not stopping are not the type of people you or I want wandering around the country. On this occasion, the old guy wasn't a major threat but every time they stop somebody in a situation like this they have to assume it's a major threat.

It's not something I like or want to see, but I see it as a necessary evil.

[RagingKileak]

Originally Posted by Desmondo

No, I don't think it does.

I agree I could have used a better term but it is what popped in to my head at the time. I think it is quite clear that what the police are doing in the video can in no way be compared to a military battlefield.

Let's just look at the facts. A person is stopped and being dealt with and then drives off, they fail to stop for 17 minutes of being followed by police with their sirens and lights on, they then only stop because they got hit with a stinger....and then you want the police to just walk up to the vehicle and ask the driver to not drive off again?

As I said before, it's all very well sitting here with hindsight, but these guys have to deal with this each and every day and I'd bet 99% of people being pursued for 17 minutes and not stopping are not the type of people you or I want wandering around the country. On this occasion, the old guy wasn't a major threat but every time they stop somebody in a situation like this they have to assume it's a major threat.

It's not something I like or want to see, but I see it as a necessary evil.

Awww, poor little coppers....



Matt

[Desmondo]

Well informed and thought out response, almost as good as my "shock and awe" moment.

[RagingKileak]

Originally Posted by Desmondo

Well informed and thought out response, almost as good as my "shock and awe" moment.

It was as well thought out as it needed to be...

As said copper was 'weighing up' whether or not to drop kick the front window, he will clearly have seen who the occupant was and how old etc. He still did it.

Coppers all have procedures to follow, but they also have common sense. Simple as that.

Matt

[Desmondo]

Originally Posted by RagingKileak

...occupant was and how old etc.

You mean the one who failed to stop for 17 minutes?


Anyhow, we both clearly see this from opposite sides and we're not going to sway each other so may as well leave it there

[RagingKileak]

Originally Posted by Desmondo

You mean the one who failed to stop for 17 minutes?


Anyhow, we both clearly see this from opposite sides and we're not going to sway each other so may as well leave it there

Yeah sure. Then he stops and they see he is an old lodger - I 100% agree his only weapon is the car and therefore he should be removed ASAP, but the need to attack the front windscreen is just not there.

Give the old geezer a heart attack and you have another Ian tomlinson - another inexcusable abuse of power by pigs (in that case) who were deliberately obscuring their identity.

Ask anyone, I'm not a lefty - if you are causing civil unrest, you should be brought down immediately. But what I dislike is these fuckwit Coppers who aren't fit to break bread with those bobbies I used to see in my area as a kid. They had integrity and ability, they were in a career for life and not just uneducated scum looking for 25k and a cushy salary.

You're right though, we have polar views and you shouldn't take mine as an attack on you. I've never failed to make known my opinion on here whatever it may be.

Matt

[Desmondo]

Originally Posted by RagingKileak

You're right though, we have polar views and you shouldn't take mine as an attack on you.

None taken

[kaishang]

Originally Posted by Desmondo

No, I don't think it does.

I agree I could have used a better term but it is what popped in to my head at the time. I think it is quite clear that what the police are doing in the video can in no way be compared to a military battlefield.

Let's just look at the facts. A person is stopped and being dealt with and then drives off, they fail to stop for 17 minutes of being followed by police with their sirens and lights on, they then only stop because they got hit with a stinger....and then you want the police to just walk up to the vehicle and ask the driver to not drive off again?

As I said before, it's all very well sitting here with hindsight, but these guys have to deal with this each and every day and I'd bet 99% of people being pursued for 17 minutes and not stopping are not the type of people you or I want wandering around the country. On this occasion, the old guy wasn't a major threat but every time they stop somebody in a situation like this they have to assume it's a major threat.

It's not something I like or want to see, but I see it as a necessary evil.

+1

People who fail to stop for police may have their own agenda and may be prepared to do something unpredictable to be able to escape. So what if he is an OAP. He may be an OAP with a handgun. He may be prepared to use any means to continue to evade arrest.

I don't think the police response was OTT at all. Infact it is less than what you would get in other countries, where a similar situation would likely have resulted in persuit by multiple police units and the OAP being ordered out of the car by armed police at gunpoint.