tinyurl.com/pjvq6e5
Whoever authorised the prosecution needs their backside kicked... there's an authority to do it FFS, in law.
If it breaches police standing orders, then use the police discipline code.
What a waste of time and money.
|
Agreed.
So who would have pursued / authorised the prosecution?
|
>> So who would have pursued / authorised the prosecution?
Anyone would. Serves the POS right, trying to do his duty on the road with people and babies waddling about and that...
You just can't let a copper in a nursery. It makes everyone cry especially if he smiles and takes his helmet off.
|
The fuzz should stick to the speed limit like everybuddy else have to.
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
:o}
|
>> The fuzz should stick to the speed limit like everybuddy else have to.
That's a rubbish idea Perro. They won't be able to chase actual bad guys and it will put them in an evil state of mind, ready to jump righteously on the tiniest imagined infraction of the made-up-on-the-spur-of-the-sodding-moment 'rules'. Do you want even more of that? Thought not.
:o}
|
|
well at least the Jury and the Judge had some common sense about them.
Last edited by: Zero on Fri 5 Jun 15 at 19:30
|
By the way, finicky I know, but the image in this thread title should really be 'using a sledgehammer to crack an egg'.
'Crack a nut' is slightly threatening somehow. Reminds me of our eyelevel cupboard doors when one is left open at the wrong moment. Floods of boringly unimaginative obscenity can follow.
Always a dull moment...
|
I am much more concerned that the theft of a tankfuel of fuel demands such a dangerous response as a full blown car chase.
Does the garage not have CCTV ?, does the police force no longer employ Detectives, and even if not, whose life is worth less than a tankfuel of fuel ?? - Maugh, - Steventon, - the young child crossing the road, cyclist, ? ... etc.
I confess that i read only the first couple of paragraphs, so may have missed something, but....
If Steventon was following correct "police procedure" he has been made a fall guy, and he wouldn't be the first one ever, would he ... !
Reassuring to find a judge with common sense
P.S. can garages get insurance for fuel theft ? ... no idea, - just wonderin'
|
>> I am much more concerned that the theft of a tankfuel of fuel demands such
>> a dangerous response as a full blown car chase.
I think the defence was that it wasn't a chase, or a pursuit, but a follow. I'm sure it felt like a pursuit to the thief.
On the face of it, words of advice might have been merited there, but a prosecution or even full disciplinary looks OTT when he was in contact with his controller, feeding information, and was not told to desist.
I might have got that wrong. Westpig will tell me.
|
It's difficult to get a clear picture as the T&A seem to be at least mildly on PC Steventon's side. Although I was brought up within half an hours drive of both Keighley and Skipton I don't know either that well and while I must have travelled occasionally on the linking road (A629) it was a long time ago and places like Silsden have been by-passed.
My guess though is that the theft and chase took place in, or close to, Skipton itself. Any normal motorist doing 50-80 and shooting a red light at 40 within the limits of a Dales market town would be well into DD territory.
In doing so in course of duty was PC Steventon responding proportionately to the (reletively minor) crime committed and any need for immediate apprehension of the offender?
I can understand why his bosses and the CPS might have thought he was not. It's not as if there have not been enough incidents in the past where red mist and ill advised chases have had tragic consequences.
I'm quite content that the jury got it right but I cannot get remotely outraged by the fact that he was prosecuted.
|
>> I can understand why his bosses and the CPS might have thought he was not.
>> It's not as if there have not been enough incidents in the past where red
>> mist and ill advised chases have had tragic consequences.
>>
>> I'm quite content that the jury got it right but I cannot get remotely outraged
>> by the fact that he was prosecuted.
"The force was criticised in court for its weak command from the control room during Pc Steventon’s pursuit. He was not once told to stop "
Off the hook, I would have said, beyond a bit of advice.
|
>> In doing so in course of duty was PC Steventon responding proportionately to the (reletively
>> minor) crime committed and any need for immediate apprehension of the offender?
Hindsight knowledge only.
>>
>> I can understand why his bosses and the CPS might have thought he was not.
>> It's not as if there have not been enough incidents in the past where red
>> mist and ill advised chases have had tragic consequences.
>>
>> I'm quite content that the jury got it right but I cannot get remotely outraged
>> by the fact that he was prosecuted.
What about the bit where police officers have exemptions to many traffic laws, so what's the point of trying to prosecute someone who is naturally going to use that defence, he was on duty, in a police car and trying to apprehend an offender, no one suggested anything else was untoward? The judge's damning comments cover this quite nicely.... and then there's the enormous cost of this trial to the public purse?
|
I can understand why his bosses and the CPS might have thought he was not. It's not as if there have not been enough incidents in the past where red mist and ill advised chases have had tragic consequences.
I'm quite content that the jury got it right but I cannot get remotely outraged by the fact that he was prosecuted.
Well it states in the article that they didn't tell him to stop or call it off at any point. So i find it hard to believe it was that dangerous, hindsight is a wonderful thing. But even after the event it seems ludicrous to prosecute him. Assuming he was relaying what was happening truthfully, perhaps those that allowed him to continue should have been stood next to him if it was so dangerous?
|
It's not the money, it's the principle. I'm entirely in favour of thieves being chased, caught and humiliated, although that's a tall order with a real toerag.
What's the point of giving the BiB nice motors and special hooligan training if they then can't chase people?
The traffic fuzz used to have black or white 3.8 litre Jaguars back in the day. Pulled by those more than once. YEEE-hah!
|
Just read it again. THREE DAY TRIAL! That is a sledgehammer in itself.
He was driving a 1.3 Astra. Not qualified for pursuit I inferred, hence the "following" defence.
|
>> Just read it again. THREE DAY TRIAL! That is a sledgehammer in itself.
That bit I do agree with. Good case management ought to have got a relatively open/shut case like this over in less than a day.
|
"3pm to 11pm shift in a 1.3 Astra"
Did well to hit 80mph then
|
I'm a fan of "zero tolerance", - there are different ways of achieving it.
" .. What's the point of giving the BiB nice motors and special hooligan training if they then can't chase people? .. "
That statement is a (valid) whole can of worms, (why give someone a gun if you don't want them to shoot somebody ?)
|
Once upon a time, long, long ago, I used to work in a petrol station on Brixton Hill in sowf lunden.
Geezer does a runner with a tank full of fuel, so I phoned the local police giving a description of the car, and they caught the perp at the bottom of said hill just by Brixton town hall.
I had to shut up shop and drive down to where they were. The Police asked me if I wanted him charged, so I said it's not up to me guvnor, I just work there, like. They said yes it is up to you, so I said no, and they let him go after he had coughed up the folding green stuff.
A few days later his mother came into the garage to thank me and give me a large box of goodies.
I've often wondered if he stayed on the straight and narrow after that, but I have my doubts.
|
|
Didn't I read a story a short while ago, that a certain police authority would consider petrol theft a civil offence?
|
|
Drive offs can be associated to more serious offences, the Officer acted correctly. His bosses and the CPS are a disgrace.
|
This country is becoming a place where everything was legal unless a law made it illegal to one where everything is illegal until a law is passed that makes it legal.
The office was morally right. Should have got a ticking off for pursuit driving without the correct training and perhaps offered a course on it because he clearly showed willing.
|
|
Whilst I totally agree with you, don't forget that if the officer had just been ticked off it would have been front page in the Daily Mail to the delight of the professionally offended.
|
>> I am much more concerned that the theft of a tankfuel of fuel demands such
>> a dangerous response as a full blown car chase.
>> Does the garage not have CCTV ?,
>>
>>
A tank of fuel can cost north of a hundred quid, depending on the motor. That money comes direct out of the owners pocket as he still has to pay the supplier. If someone snatched your wallet, jumped into a car and drove off what would you expect a passing police patrol to do, take a statement and say they'll pass it onto CID or set off in pursuit?
As for CCTV, not much good if the car's nicked, unregistered or on moody plates.
|
First I've heard about it, and Skipton is just down the road from me. A couple of my uniformed friends work out of Skipton sometimes so will get it from the horses mouth.
Plenty of drive offs from the petrol station in Xhills. Normally false plates.
|
>> I am much more concerned that the theft of a tankfuel of fuel demands such
>> a dangerous response as a full blown car chase.
>> Does the garage not have CCTV ?, does the police force no longer employ Detectives,
>> and even if not, whose life is worth less than a tankfuel of fuel ??
The trouble where crime is concerned, as the cop you don't always know what you're dealing with at the beginning of something like this.
Pursuits have been just for no MOT, (which is of course utterly ridiculous).. or.. there could and often is a helluva lot more to it, crooks use cars and crooks indulge in all sorts of anti-social or minor criminal activity, as well as the more major stuff.... so the small stuff can easily lead to something more worthwhile.
Then you have the principle of if you let something go as a matter of course, the crooks realise this and will continue to push the boundaries within that area you've decided to let go.
So for example the exceptionally dangerous driving (e.g. driving wrong way up a m/way or dual carriageway or riding a motorcycle with no helmet is) has now become the norm for the select band of in the know crooks who habitually get involved in pursuits... because they know the pursuit will get called off. They are virtually in the zone of being untouchable.
Modern police budgets are such that helicopters are fast becoming unavailable, traffic police in the most powerful police cars are most rare... so that only leaves the beat cops.
As a tax payer, do you want your police to try to stop/ detain crooks or let them get on with it?
|
|
Break their wrists. That should stop them for a while. Gnash away Fido.
|
|
Couldn't agree more westpig, what a waste of time and money all round. I can't believe it's been going on for so long. 15 months of restricted duties but the article doesn't day when it took place.
|
>> Couldn't agree more westpig, what a waste of time and money all round. I can't believe it's been going on for so long. 15 months of restricted duties but the article doesn't day when it took place.
Yes it does....
'Judge Paul Watson QC told him: “Adam Steventon you are a police officer of 20 years standing. You are a highly-regarded professional officer. On March 12 last year you had to make a judgment call '
Not quite sure how that works out to 15 months of restricted duties, unless that's what he was given, not what he has suffered?
|
|
Fair enough i couldn't find it when reading it through. Maybe 15 months from the event and was on restictive duties since then?
|
>> Maybe 15 months from the
>> event and was on restictive duties since then?
>>
That's what it will have been.
|
I find it most frustrating that you want committed, hard working cops to be out there in the faces of the bad guys, disrupting their activities.
You don't want the lazy, work shy, always looking for the easy option. Yet cases like this encourage the latter, not the former.
These sorts of cases are a disaster for motivation and morale.
|
And of course not all police officers are professional....
tinyurl.com/p3x9gy8 (Daily Wail)
|
What is concerning is:
"Four days before the hearing, a judge backed Blackwood’s plea to overrule a bid by police to stop a recording of the crucial call, obtained by the journalist’s lawyer Paul McGee, being played in court."
Where is the justice in the State trying to hide evidence!? People responsible should be sacked.
|
>> And of course not all police officers are professional....
>>
>> tinyurl.com/p3x9gy8 (Daily Wail)
>>
Wouldn't read too much into it.
He got nicked for a reason, then refused to give a DNA sample, which everyone arrested has to comply with... and if you don't, it is taken forcibly.
There have been many cases like that and there will be many more. It's how it is.
|
|
What reason? Seemed to fail to convince the court!
|
The comments provide a nice example of the general prejudice against people on bicycles.
"Blackwood was later charged with assaulting Mr Walker and ‘threatening behaviour likely to cause harassment’ – swearing at police.
PC Grieves told the court he did not know swearing in front of a policeman is only an offence if it causes ‘harassment, alarm or distress’. Asked why he didn’t know, he said: ‘I haven’t been on a refresher course for three years.’"
The police declined to respond to the cyclist's call saying he had been assaulted, but when the motorist reported it the cyclist was arrested.
There is a reason for everything I'm sure.
|
>>There is a reason for everything I'm sure.
Yep, the cyclist was a well known critic of the police.
|
|
Whilst I am sure the police behaved incorrectly, the cyclist sounds like a total git.
|
>> Whilst I am sure the police behaved incorrectly, the cyclist sounds like a total git.
Why? Independent witnesses supported his version of the altercation with the motorist.
Refusing the DNA test was probably stupid, though I can see why he did so bearing in mind the petty nature of the offence for which he was arrested. His long standing belief the force was corrupt might also lead him to consider that a sample might be misused on some way.
|
What on earth would be the point of discussing the attitude of the cyclist with you?
You will *always* find a justification, you will *always* find something the motorist/police/lorry driver did that was worse and you will *always* find a reason why what the cyclist did was perfectly acceptable.
Of course, that does mean that I *never* listen to anything you have to say on the subject, which might defeat your purpose.Worth thinking about, I should have thought.
Insofar as normal behaviour from a normal human beings might be considered, the cyclist was, and probably is, a total t***.
Far more likely that the defence should run the other way;
Officer: "I know I was wrong, m'lud, but he was a total a***".
Judge: "Fair enough".
Last edited by: No FM2R on Sun 7 Jun 15 at 18:25
|
I'm genuinely puzzled as to what you think he did wrong. What I said in the debate about 'dismount signs' was engaged with those who seem to think all cyclists have an 'attitude'.
I suspect that's what you're saying here too.
|
>>I suspect that's what you're saying here too.
No, I am not. I am not even referring to the cyclist's attitude, as before, I am referring to yours.
If you told me to buy caravan a) rather than b), I would give it serious consideration. Ditto many other subjects, because your assessments seem to be knowledgeable, sensible, fair and logical.
But on the subject of cyclists your bias is quite silly. Try and read back some of your stuff, you are most certainly smart enough to see it if you wish to.
It devalues your good opinions on the subject.
|
.....................It devalues your good opinions on the subject.
Why do you think that I wind him up? I am just not as eloquent as you. :-)
Last edited by: Old Navy on Sun 7 Jun 15 at 18:50
|
Sledgehammer cracks nut (police driver prosecuted) - No FM2R
