Footage has been released of a car thief smashing through a level crossing seconds before a train passed through.
Terence Fowler, 20, has been jailed for three-and-a-half years for a variety of offences including dangerous driving.
Police in Peterborough went into pursuit when the Mercedes Fowler had stolen triggered an Automatic Number Plate Recognition camera in their vehicle.
www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-13094294
|
Good driver! ... perhaps he is ex class 1.
:}
|
|
The police are almost always impressive in these situations. I can imagine you'd have felt quite safe in the passenger seat of that police car, driver seemed to be anticipating well in advance, e.g. the traffic lights in the middle of the clip where he backs off momentarily.
|
>> I can imagine you'd have felt quite safe in the passenger seat of that police car
However... doing 80+ in an urban area - perhaps not 30mph limit, maybe 40? Just comparing with iffy's thread.
|
Ahh not sure i agree with the way t'other thread's going. The officer weighed up the risks, and unfortunately this time he got it wrong.
I see all the usual "lets sterilise the world" arguments coming out over there.
In my world, you make a decision, then you stand by it. Sometimes that means you need to apologise, sometimes you just grow a thicker layer of skin. Right or wrong, who knows. Not sterile though that's for sure.
|
...Just comparing with iffy's thread...
It's all consequences, isn't it?
The copper in Zero's thread hasn't hit anything, and a criminal has been put behind bars, even if it's no thanks to the chase.
So film of his driving is released for public consumption.
The copper in my thread smashed up the patrol car for no good reason.
So he winds up in the dock.
|
>> ...Just comparing with iffy's thread...
>>
>> It's all consequences, isn't it?
Yup, every time. Its all about the outcome, on both sides of the criminal fence.
Last edited by: Zero on Fri 15 Apr 11 at 14:10
|
|
There is no way the driver of the stolen car knew when that train was coming through the crossing!
|
|
The gates and flashing lights may have given it away.....
|
|
But there was a bit of time - the police car waited a fair few seconds before the train arrived. But a risky manoeuvre.
|
>> The gates and flashing lights may have given it away.....
I guess rtj means the driver didn't know how long the lihts had been on (though the length of the queue a while). Driver may have had some visibilty of the line in the fens but he'd had been in trouble very soon if he'd got stuck on the track.
|
|
Exactly Bromptonaut. The length of queue was a good sign that the train's arrival was imminent.
|
Amazing video but chilling too as I've been driving this local route to town several times a week for 30yrs.
Both thief and police took massive risks up to 80mph in the town 30 limit past a densely populated residential area with loads of old folks/kids, a shop and hotel. Similarly towards Whittlesey at 90mph in the residential 40 limit with several near blind house driveways.
Odd around 1 min the thief pulled over to the wrong side of the road at 90mph looking to avoid the speed camera on the left!
The angle of the railway would give a glimse down the line to the right but he had no real view up the line to the left.
Streetview of crossing... tinyurl.com/3jm5z87
Youtube of chase in colour... www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZJzZKzMtZeU
Last edited by: Fenlander on Fri 15 Apr 11 at 16:05
|
BTW here is a local paper report on the event... tinyurl.com/3fo2nzt
I see the guy comes from an area where rather a large proportion of houses have block paved drives/frontages and often cars that are really far too expensive for the area are parked up!
|
|
The damaged barrier flies away from the crossing at a fair old rate of knots when the train hits it, just as well it stays close to ground level, wouldn't like that through my windscreen.
|
I don't understand why there was a car chase in the first place. It was a stolen car which usually gives you a crime reference number if you're lucky. It seems bonkers to drive at those speeds (and indeed to "force" the thief to) in a residential area.
"Yes sir, we got your car back, but unfortunately the thief was killed in a high speed crash..." would be bad enough; worse still if "...and he killed two innocent bystanders at the same time."
|
Sorry...outragious speeds to push him to in that sort of area.
That chase should have been stopped at 50mph....blue mist, I suppose !
Ted
|
|
When the report said "seconds before a train passed through" I was expecting something similar to The Fast & The Furious whereby the train misses the rear bumper by millimeters. The pursuing cop car had plenty of time to go through.
|
>> The pursuing cop car had plenty of time to go through.
>>
But its driver wasn't stupid enough to try it, even without the chance of becoming trapped on the wrecked gates.
Last edited by: Old Navy on Fri 15 Apr 11 at 18:12
|
|
I notice that the only reason why the criminal in the stolen car was caught was that he committed ANOTHER offence, and the routine DNA check after this arrest showed that he was the car thief.
|
...he committed ANOTHER offence, and the routine DNA check after this arrest showed that he was the car thief...
The other offence must have been more serious because the chase can only have been dangerous driving which has a maximum of two years.
He pleaded guilty, so that's down to 18 months or so.
Total sentence was three-and-a-half years, so the other offence must have been worth at least two years.
There's mention in one of the stories of an assault, which might have something to do with it.
|
>> I don't understand why there was a car chase in the first place.
....and the alternative?.....every time someone commits ANY crime, just hop in a car/ on a motorcycle, drive fast and you're away completely free.
Does society really want that?
|
>> Does society really want that?
>>
While working a quiet night shift with a couple of policemen and putting the world to rights, one of them said, "Mr average Joe public never has contact with the police except for the odd speeding ticket". (Before camera days). "We have our regular customers, we know them, they know us". Does that not apply to most petty crime? Or have times changed?
|
"We have our regular customers, we know them, they know us". Does that not apply to most petty crime? Or have times changed?
>>
That's still true..but....you have to prove whatever they've done...and produce evidence. More often than not you will achieve neither if you let them drive off into the sunset.
It's worse in cities as you're less likely to know which oik is which.
Imagine your well known oik in his well known car drives off at speed when a police car tries to stop him. What has he done this time?...No idea other than traffic offences of 'failing to stop'....was it indeed him driving..No idea... so you can't even prove the traffic offence.
If the crooks ever get to the stage where they know that getting in to a car or on a bike is a 'get out of jail free' card, then we're all in the mire...and we are very nearly there.
..as inconvenient that is to all the 'sandal wearers' out there.
|
|
My sandals would say lock them up every time they are caught, for a year, in a real prison where comforts like food, blankets and beds are all you get and they have to be earned. I was hoping there was a better way than car chases, but see your point.
Last edited by: Old Navy on Fri 15 Apr 11 at 19:45
|
|
I happen to basically agree with you but it must be a fine line as to whether it is safe to pursue or not. Labelling those who would err further on the side of caution as "sandal wearers" doesn't really help.
|
|
They were certainly wise to call it off when they did, his actions were a sure sign he was a complete nutter that would end up in someone's death if pursued to conclusion.
|
>>>..as inconvenient that is to all the 'sandal wearers' out there.
As CGN says.... You don't need to be a sandal wearer to have the right to question or debate this. As I said I know every inch of this road so know the huge risks taken at the speeds involved. On that route there was the potential for so many vunerable people to not expect 80mph traffic in the city 30 limit.... with fatal results a fair possibility.
Last edited by: Fenlander on Fri 15 Apr 11 at 20:51
|
>> On that route there was the potential for so many vunerable people to not expect >>80mph traffic in the city 30 limit.... with fatal results a fair possibility.
>>
Quite agree.
However, the 'hand wringers' or whatever you want to call them come up with the brilliant solution of not having high speed chases WITHOUT PROVIDING ANY ALTERNATIVE.
You could ban any high speed chases, ban the lot..in fact in this H&S infested world, why haven't they?...and the answer is....there is no real alternative in most cases.
I consider myself truly lucky that i'm coming to the end of my career and that I do not drive at speed any more at work...because....it's a witch hunt waiting to happen out there.
Who in their right mind, when employed in public service that is meant to support and help the public, would want the death of someone on their conscience, particularly a child...???? ....yet...to 'not bother at all' would mean a free for all crime wise.
We already have the situation where career crooks that specialise in some of the worst crimes already know that if they drive madly enough the pursuit will be called off. Some deliberately drive down the wrong carriageway of dual carriageways or m/ways EVERY TIME, because they know it'll be called off. Likewise some will use a motrocycle and take off their crash helmets...because likewise that'll be called off.
If Miss Marple successfully argues that 60mph is automatically dangerous in a 30mph limit, then the whole lot will be binned...then watch your serious crime figures.
There has to be a balance...and that balance is not easy to achieve... and sweeping statements from the truly ignorant does not add to the debate.
|
|
Recently heard it said that if Brits had been first on the moon, it wouldn't have been a Union Jack or Cross they put up, but a sign saying Danger Uneven Surface.
|
I don't disagree with your general statement, Westpig. But the problem is a complete lack of common sense and consistency. How is this a rational policy:
>>Likewise some will use a motrocycle and take off their crash helmets...because likewise that'll be called off.
They're already:
1. Riding a motorcycle without a helmet
2. Resisting arrest/failing to stop on the orders of a police officer/whatever.
And yet they're getting off scot free because they might hurt themselves.
Meanwhile when it comes to doing multi-speed limit speeds in residential areas and risking the lives of third parties, it's "go for it boys".
|
>> Meanwhile when it comes to doing multi-speed limit speeds in residential areas and >>risking the lives of third parties, it's "go for it boys".
>>
...and the alternative?
Imagine you are on patrol, you wish to stop a car. It fails to stop and drives off at speed. Do you shrug your shoulders and think, better to let it go, it's far safer than chasing...or do you pursue it?
If it's Option 1..how long before everyone up to no good, just drives off at speed? Imagine the crime 'free for all' then.
My recommendation is considerably more helicopters..and I do mean considerable...combined with very long prison sentences, for what is a very, very dangerous activity.
Neither will happen, 1, through cost and 2, through liberalism.
Don't worry...before long it'll be deemed too dangerous and it'll get banned anyway, we're nearly there now....God knows what the crime figures will be like though.
Do you really want your ...(insert crime)...to be able to drive off into the sunset scot free. I don't.
|
Westpig
I could agree with everything you wrote, had you not completely ignored the point I was making.
Criminal with no helmet - evidently breaking several laws - is allowed to escape because we would be risking HIS life.
Criminal with helmet is chased, risking the lives of others.
It's pretty unclear to me that the lack of a helmet will make a material difference to his survival in a 100mph crash.
This is entirely back-to-front, protecting the guilty more than the innocent. Utterly indefensible. Until the police act rationally (including doing old-fashioned police-type work like jumping into ponds to rescue children) they cannot expect to have the backing of even the most right-wing of the public.
Last edited by: Mapmaker on Tue 19 Apr 11 at 11:02
|
>> This is entirely back-to-front, protecting the guilty more than the innocent. Utterly indefensible. Until the
>> police act rationally (including doing old-fashioned police-type work like jumping into ponds to rescue children)
>> they cannot expect to have the backing of even the most right-wing of the public.
If the public's entire perception is based, like the above, on the half truths in the popular press the police are stuffed either way.
|
>> If the public's entire perception is based, like the above, on the half truths in
>> the popular press
Sadly, this seems to be broadly the case, Bromptonaut.
|
I think Westpig is a service Police Officer. It is he who says he is not permitted to chase helmetless suspects. What is your point, Brompton/Alanovic?
This is not the Daily Mail. www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1564648/Police-to-think-twice-about-rescuing-drowning.html
|
The story you alluded regarding a drowning child did not involve Police Officers. You were telling a half truth at best.
That's the point.
That Telegraph article does not state that it is Polcie policy to stand by whilst people drown, as you are trying to imply.
Both the press and you are guilty of encouraging false beliefs, and I'd be amazed if Westpig does not think that the vast majority of Police Officers would attempt to save a drowning person if they could.
You are, yet again, deliberately being economical with the truth, and merely adding to the noise of misinformation irresponsibly propounded by the press.
|
>> The story you alluded regarding a drowning child did not involve Police Officers. You were
>> telling a half truth at best.
A Police Community Support Officer is not a non-warranted police officer? Not a Police Constable I will grant you, but definitely a Police Officer.
You'll be telling us that black is white next.
Last edited by: Mapmaker on Tue 19 Apr 11 at 13:32
|
PCSO's are not Police Officers.
The case in question is repeatedly portrayed as though the two refused to help a child visibly struggling in water & watched him drown. That's not what happened, he'd already been underwater for some time, other adults including a group of fishermen were attempting to search the lake and it was not apparent that the PCSO's would add anything by joining in.
There may well have been a handful of cases with moc crims droping their helmets but is there evidence that the problem is widespread or that it's coppers on the ground, rather than their seniors or their seniors' insurers (or those managing the force's self insurance) that make these conditions.
|
>> You'll be telling us that black is white next.
>>
It is.
Bla- is an Indo European prefix describing something "shining" or "without colour" and has been adopted across modern Indo European languages as the colour white. For example, Blanc, Bianco, Blanco, Biyeli, etc.
In English however, the meaning of this became confused, and was applied to dark objects of no colour, i.e. Black. The sound is still used in English to denote a lack of colour in a White sense however, for example "Bleach".
Therefore, Black is White.
Now.
Your Telegraph article does not describe a Police Community Support Officer as a Police Officer, rather as "police staff". It is you who are (is??) being disingenuous in this thread.
I wonder, would Westpig describe a PCSO as a Police Officer? If so, I'll concede the point, but I will maintain that to do so is to be misleading.
|
I think Mapmaker is being his usual self ;-)
Not only were those involved in the story not police officers (PCSOs are not police officers) but the child was out of site and had been underwater. I am sure they would have waded in to help if they saw someone drowning. But they couldn't even see the child so didn't enter the water.
|
>> I think Mapmaker is being his usual self ;-)
Aye, shouldn't bite really. But them worms is just so juicy.
|
I think rtj70 is being his usual self ;-) What they could or could not see was irrelevant.
I fully accept that it was out of sight. And that there was no point in their going into the water. But multiple news sources (including the BBC) state The inquest into his death heard the PCSOs did not rescue him as they were not trained to deal with the incident. So their own position was that their standing by had nothing at all to do with what they could see (or think) and everything to do with their training (or lack of it).
They are designated officers s38 Police Reform Act 2002. They are employed by the Police and are under the command of the chief officer of police of the police force. They're certainly not police constables. And they're certainly not warranted.
I'm happy to be corrected by anybody who can point me to legislation that shows otherwise, but I do not believe that police officer is a term that really means much, save for under very specific circumstances, such as s6 Police Act 1997 (appointment of a director general of the NCIS) where it is specifically defined for the purposes of that section. PCSOs are officers and are employed by the police.
Last edited by: Mapmaker on Tue 19 Apr 11 at 17:03
|
Mapmaker,
I didn't deliberately ignore your point, but nevertheless missed it. I agree some clown who deliberately takes off a crash helmet in a pursuit should be 'on his own'..but Police guidelines (SOP's...Standard Operating Procedures) dictate otherwise. We as an organisation have a duty of care to all, inc the miscreant. I personally couldn't give two hoots about some thieving scumbag racing away in/on something stolen and having committed crime..but I wouldn't want to be the one to admit that at a Coroner's Hearing or in a Crown Court.
Police pursuits are controlled by Police control rooms, not left to the individual pursuing. If it gets too dangerous it's called off. Individuals are taught to call it off themselves as well, as happened in the video clip.
PCSO'S are 100% NOT police officers. They are civilian members of staff employed by the Police. You wouldn't say a civilian Scene of Crime Officer was a police officer just because they were employed by the Police and drove a van with the Force crest on it, Neither is a PCSO.
|
>> >> the
>> brilliant solution of not having high speed chases WITHOUT PROVIDING ANY ALTERNATIVE.
>>
>>
>>
1) tail the car at a distance, while radioing for help ahead, other cars, spikes or whatever they are called.
2) use one of the devices that can disable electronics at a distance, as suggested for pirates.
There must be more subtle ways of tracking suspects - I don't believe the police routinely blow their own low-key shadowing operations by forcing a car chase after the first suspect they see.
|
Police helicopter gunships.
Napalm.
|
Didn't one of those American boy race films have some sort of high voltage target guns that latches onto a car and shocks the car with high voltage thus resulting in the car driving more slowly.
Car thieving will be a crime no more when (emphasis on when) the new road driving toll is introduced.
The police would just radio in the number plate of the offending car and the government owned GPS kit fitted to your car would either slow the engine revs down or enable the immobiliser.
Then there would be no point nicking any cars.
Big Brother controls you !
|
|
Predator. Or a smaller UAV. Being developed for the military/police even now. Land on the roof, drill through, insert thunderflash when cleared to detonate by controller:) If nothing else, the vehicle can be tracked. No need to hurry along behind.
Last edited by: NortonES2 on Mon 18 Apr 11 at 14:58
|
>> Predator. Or a smaller UAV. Being developed for the military/police even now. If >>nothing else, the vehicle can be tracked. No need to hurry along behind.
>>
Ideal. Helicopters work extremely well. They are also extremely expensive.
More powerful Police cars or more of the powerful Police cars would be better, you can then follow the training and back off at the really weary bits...and catch up again afterwards...try doing that in a bog standard diesel Astra/Focus.
Guess which vehicles are being dropped by many Police Forces to save money?
Last edited by: Westpig on Mon 18 Apr 11 at 17:39
|
>> 1) tail the car at a distance, while radioing for help ahead, other cars, spikes
>> or whatever they are called.
Stinger. Quite useful..however only if you can get someone ahead of the pursuit ...AND...the miscreant drives over it . In the meantime someone has to follow them giving a commentary...and if the bandit car does warp factor 5 down a high street, guess what speed the following Police car has to do at some point to catch up? The locations to deploy it are limited and have to be properly risk assesses in quick time. Then there's the lack of Traffic Police nowadays
>> 2) use one of the devices that can disable electronics at a distance, as suggested
>> for pirates.
>>
That would be handy, but doesn't exist yet.
>> There must be more subtle ways of tracking suspects - I don't believe the police
>> routinely blow their own low-key shadowing operations by forcing a car chase after the first suspect they see.
For spontaneous jobs, you don't know who you are dealing with, so how could you track them?
>>
>>
Last edited by: Westpig on Mon 18 Apr 11 at 17:33
|
>>
>>
>> >> 2) use one of the devices that can disable electronics at a distance, as
>> suggested
>> >> for pirates.
>> >>
>> That would be handy, but doesn't exist yet.
>>
A small nuclear weapon would produce the required EM pulse, and I suspect would have significant deterrent effect. :-)
|
|
Judging by the locals, I think the nuclear weapon was tried some years back.
|
One of the problems today is that every motor wot is nicked is capable of huge speeds.
In my days on the Road Patrol it was the police that had the fast cars, not the bandits. Apart from serious crims, bank/payroll robbers, etc who would pinch a car specifically for the job in hand...usually a Jag.
Those sorts of chases were few and most were just twockers, wanting to get home after the buses had finished. Easily hot-wired family saloons hadn't got a chance against our Jaguars, Mini Cooper S and Triumph TR4As. Although the Jags front wheels used to come off if you hit the kerb at speed. We also had 2 Humber Super Snipe estates, but these were very heavy with accident kit and, anyway, my pal wrote one off in Corporation Street in the City Centre on nights.
I remember a chase late at night down the A34 when the police overtook and stopped the stolen car.......The chase car was the Night Crime Patrol in a Morris 1100 !...I'd be ashamed to be a car thief in those circumstances !
Ted
|
Didn't the criminals also used to twoc Transits are they were faster than many cars at the time?
Not sure why they didn't just steal Jags full stop?
Mind you until recent years many joy riders would still 1 litre Metros just because they were so easy to steal.
|
>> >>
>>
>> For spontaneous jobs, you don't know who you are dealing with, so how could you
>> track them?
>> >>
>> >>
>>
A policeman sees something suspicious, the car or person matches a description of something he is meant to be looking out for. Does he rush in, or hang back and report in to a supervisor who can see the bigger picture?
Of course there will be life and death spontaneous situations, but the apparent current gung-ho culture of every cop being ready to burn off on a Hollywood-style road race seems oddly at variance with the contrasting H&S ethos that stops a policeman rescuing someone from a pond because he has not got the right certificate.
It's only a car. It is replaceable. I don't see how risking the lives of innocent road users justifies taking such extreme steps. It would be comparable to armed police firing through a crowd in order to stop a bank robber or a drug dealer.
|
>> Does he rush in, or hang back and
>> report in to a supervisor who can see the bigger picture?
I think that's what they do anyway? I don't get the impression they stay silent and shoot after someone / something. I'm not a copper though so like most, i don't really know.
>> but the apparent current gung-ho culture of every cop being ready to burn off
That doesn't ring true to me, at any level. It's at odds with my encounters, understanding and experiences of the police.
>> oddly at variance with the contrasting H&S ethos that stops a policeman rescuing someone from
>> a pond because he has not got the right certificate.
Hmmm.
>> It's only a car.
Is it? Are you sure it's not a kidnap situation?
|
OK, we don't know the full inside story of this one. But the general scenario does seem to be a fairly common one, of police chasing a stolen car at speed, and bystanders being at risk or actually killed. So the question has to be asked, is the risk worthwhile?
Westpig asked, what else would you do? I'm suggesting that for for the sake of a mere car, the risk of speeding in urban streets does not justify the risk, so that, yes, it is possible that car thieves may escape. That also is a risk, but a lesser one.
It is a similar assessment to the situation where someone witnesses his own car being stolen. Do you run out waving your arms and risk being killed, or let it go and live to report it to your insurance company?
|
|
Westpig's point is that if the Police cannot chase cars, then criminals will just leave the scene at speed without fear of pursuit. He was not referring only to stolen cars.
|
The problem in any car chase is the criminal, not the police pursuing them. Failure to stop should get the driver jail time, and any passengers at least a criminal record , it is they who are risking other people not the police.
|
>> The problem in any car chase is the criminal, not the police pursuing them. Failure to stop should get the driver jail time, and any passengers at least a criminal record , it is they who are risking other people not the police.
Quite right cd, all the way. In addition, driving a car in a dangerous manner when pursued should get a lifetime driving ban backed up, in case of non-observance, by long stints on a chain gang or similar cleaning urban streets made filthy by council cuts and moronic, slobbish citizens, wearing a humiliating orange jump suit in front of sneering passers-by. Not to be sneered at for psychopathic behaviour is not a human right whatever Brussels may think in its confusion.
That, I feel, could concentrate the run-of-the-mill petty toerag mind if rigorously applied.
|
>> humiliating orange jump suit
Cool!! I is a one man crime wave! Innit!! Look at me, bro! Bo!
Etc.
Badge of honour.
|
>> Cool!! I is a one man crime wave! Innit!! Look at me, bro! Bo!
>>
>> Etc.
>>
>> Badge of honour.
>>
Ok then, Micky Mouse outfit worn with stockings and suspenders and fluffy pink slippers. Nothing cool there, bro.
|
>>> Cool!! I is a one man crime wave! Innit!! Look at me, bro! Bo!
>>> Etc.
>>> Badge of honour.
You are thinking of 'community service' here Alanovic.
I really meant something a lot dirtier and more brutal than that. Not so much standing about posing with a broom, in your own low-slung trousers, fluttering your eyelashes at passing doxies as they sashay past with your pit bull on a lead, more like being on hands and knees in the gutter, in a deeply soiled jump suit, with nasty Louisiana-style prison guards standing over you with electric cattle prods. And bread and water for supper if you shirk.
If only these youths had gone to decent public schools, where things can be quite like that sometimes, they would be far more sensible and well-behaved.
|
>> Westpig's point is that if the Police cannot chase cars, then criminals will just leave
>> the scene at speed without fear of pursuit.
>>
And it's spot on too.
Failure to pursue would mean a massive increase in car theft because all the thief would have to do is exceed the speed limit and there would be little danger of getting caught. And stolen cars are driven dangerously whether the police are behind then or not, so the number of fatalities would go up rather than down.
|
>> Westpig asked, what else would you do? I'm suggesting that for for the sake of
>> a mere car, the risk of speeding in urban streets does not justify the risk,
>> so that, yes, it is possible that car thieves may escape. That also is a
>> risk, but a lesser one.
>>
Cliff,
Your point comes up a lot, so forgive me if i'm a tad direct.
How would one know whether this is a simple speeding matter...or something else altogther untoward?
If the Police allow car drivers/motorcycle riders to speed off in to the sunset, then everyone up to no good will do it, won't they?...from simple speeders to murderers... and everything in between.
THAT'S THE POINT. Who on earth knows what they're up to in the first instance. Without stopping them you won't know???? So how can the Police let the simple speeders get on with it and not risk anyone's lives, if they don't know which is which?
|
|
To add to Wespig's point, it isn't "simple speeders" who are involved in police pursuits, but those who fail to stop and take off into the night. Even the most trusting soul must come to the conclusion that it is not only the 3 points on their licence these types are trying to avoid.
|
The Yorkshire Ripper was caught by a simple traffic stop and some damned good simple basic police work (there were missed opportunities before that). How many more people would have been murdered if he hadn't been stopped then.
I appreciate there wasn't a pursuit in his case....I emphasise it, because you just don't know what you're going to stop next. If you start to let people drive off, then we as an organisation and the country as a whole really has lost the plot.
One from my past (the cars will give away my age)...Muggins driving a Rover 2600 SD1 in Central London tried to stop a Rover P6 3500 with two oiks in it. The pursuit went on for ages...eventually they kerbed it and ruined the tyre, so gave up...turned out they'd screwed a petrol station (at night) and nicked all the fags.
Do you folk who don't like the thought of pursuits really think people like that should have a free for all?
Can you imagine having your car nicked from a burglary at your home..and the local Police saying "Oh yes we've seen it several times, but have a non pursuit policy, so we've let them get on with it". You'd be livid, wouldn't you?
I said earlier, there has to be a balance, backed up by the judiciary. The way things have gone, the balance is skewed..and getting worse, far worse.
|
>>Can you imagine having your car nicked from a burglary at your home..and the local
>>Police saying "Oh yes we've seen it several times, but have a non pursuit policy, so
>>we've let them get on with it". You'd be livid, wouldn't you?
BUT, if it were a motorcycle that had been pinched the police say "Oh yes, we've seen it several times on an empty motorway, but the rider was breaking the law by not wearing a helmet so we have a non-pursuit policy so we've let him get on with it". That would make me far more unhappy than "We saw your car in the middle of Wittlesea and it shot off through a crowded shopping precinct so I'm afraid we couldn't pursue it owing to the risk posed to passers by."
The former is wholly unreasonable, the latter wholly reasonable.
And TBH the police reaction when faced with pretty much any crime is to present you with a crime number. Recently I was involved with a case where some graffitti was scrawled on the outside of several buildings, commemorating the death of an unsavoury character in an RTA. Clearly done by his fellow gang members, no doubt all well known to plod. Recorded by CCTV. Yet the police couldn't be bothered to turn up to collect the footage despite being reminded several times.
|
...the police reaction when faced with pretty much any crime is to present you with a crime number...
Get burgled and the first question seems to be: "Are you insured?"
Doling out crime numbers is easier than catching criminals.
|
Ah, now then, you see, in Cambridge, we have a much more leisurely approach to police chases.
tinyurl.com/3wgsh4e
|
>> Doling out crime numbers is easier than catching criminals.
>>
Very good. Ask your local Police if you can turn up and join them for a shift or shifts. Many will facilitate it. Then you will KNOW what the issues are and can make an informed decision.
|
i go to the community police meeting every month now
they helped me with a problem and are still on the case
i find it very reasuring that our local police are meeting local citizens and acting on the local problems we have
|
>> i find it very reasuring that our local police are meeting local citizens and acting
>> on the local problems we have
>>
Safer Neighbourhood Teams. You can get some damned good service out of some of them. Trouble is there's nothing in the middle.
Yobs on the street corner, ongoing local problem, highlighted at local meetings = SNT to assist.
Burglary...priority crime = team of officers to investigate/deal
Get your car screwed/garden shed theft etc..no one to deal....(because there isn't anyone).
|
...Then you will KNOW what the issues are and can make an informed decision...
Westpig,
You speak of it from your side, I will speak of it from mine.
All I ever hear on this topic is coppers bleating about shortage of manpower.
The list of responsibilities that has been taken away from the police over the years is long.
To name but a few: Parking, very low-level street offences such as littering, running the front desk, answering emergency telephone calls, prosecuting cases in court, investigating credit and debit card crime, some road policing (HATOs), law and order on licensed premises, security in shops and shopping centres, security at public events, football matches etc.
A police officer can deal with any of the offences in the above list, but realistically responsibility has been surrendered, or in the case of security and event policing, drastically reduced.
Add in all the other civilianised jobs, scenes of crime investigation for example, and the jobs done by PCSOs, and one wonders what coppers find to do all day.
Last edited by: Iffy on Thu 21 Apr 11 at 07:38
|
and one wonders what coppers find to do all day.
>>
Iffy,
Come and join us for a day...and find out yourself. If you can make North London, ask a Mod for my e-mail address and i'll personally arrange it.
|
...Come and join us for a day...and find out yourself...
Westpig,
Thanks for the offer - I've ridden shotgun with several coppers over the years.
To be serious, I don't doubt most officers put in a decent shift.
But I've seen too many backsliders and skivers to have much sympathy overall.
As one officer put it to me: "In most nicks, they need to spend less time worrying about who is over the side with who, and more time getting on with the job."
|
Iffy,
Have a read of Inspector Gadget. Either his blog or one of his books.
The bloke has it 100% spot on. He is Counties based and the only real difference to a major city is we have a few more cops to play with, but even then run out.
You cannot get any more accurate than his pen. That is the truth.
|
Mapmaker,
Join the real world. If your building is graffiti'd and you ring it in..you get your crime number and that's it...because there IS NO ONE AVAILABLE TO INVESTIAGTE IT.
That's the way it is. If you disagree..then write to your MP asking for more Police. Good Luck if you do..we've all been told there will be considerably less.
|
>> Join the real world. If your building is graffiti'd and you ring it in..you get
>> your crime number and that's it...because there IS NO ONE AVAILABLE TO INVESTIAGTE IT.
Fine. If that's the decision we as a society have made then that's it.
But why did the police keep telling stories that they would be investigating it/they had closed the file owing to a lack of evidence/they wanted somebody to arrange for the crucial CCTV tape to be saved etc. etc.? Expectation management is the critical skill to have. And they failed completely on that front and ended up looking deeply incompetant.
It is the police force members who need to join the real world. Nobody in the private sector delivering the level of service described in the previous paragraph would survive.
Last edited by: Mapmaker on Thu 21 Apr 11 at 10:17
|
>> It is the police force members who need to join the real world. Nobody in
>> the private sector delivering the level of service described in the previous paragraph would survive.
Banks & telecoms providers (clutching two at random) seem to manage the combo of profit & lamentable service.
|
>> Banks & telecoms providers (clutching two at random) seem to manage the combo of profit
>> & lamentable service.
Collusive oligopolies, I'd wager.
|
Curiously, Brompton, when I worked for a large bank - now coincidentally largely nationalised - it felt like working for a state-funded institution. Paid overtime for working weekensd (at twice par); empty office at 17.05 - and sarcastic comments if you were still there etc. etc.
I'd suggest that banks do struggle in the real world; and telecoms providers haven't exactly covered themselves in glory (or their investors in cash) over the last few years.
Last edited by: Mapmaker on Thu 21 Apr 11 at 11:34
|
>> But why did the police keep telling stories that they would be investigating it/they >>had closed the file owing to a lack of evidence/they wanted somebody to arrange for >>the crucial CCTV tape to be saved etc. etc.? Expectation management is the critical >>skill to have. And they failed completely on that front and ended up looking deeply >>incompetant.
Quite agree with you...it's called trying to achieve too much.
>> It is the police force members who need to join the real world. Nobody in
>> the private sector delivering the level of service described in the previous >>paragraph would survive.
>>
We are not a business and never will be.
|
Car chase crashes through level crossing. - Dog
