Our system detected that your browser is blocking advertisements on our site. Please help support FoxesTalk by disabling any kind of ad blocker while browsing this site. Thank you.
Jump to content
 Share
Wymsey

Also in the News - Part 2

By Wymsey, in General Chat

Recommended Posts

  • Popular Post
Nalis

Nalis

Posted
  • Popular Post
Posted
1 hour ago, ozleicester said:

This topic title should be changed to "Also in the Daily Mail"

Ehh?? If you are talking about thw police chase/riots/death of the two teenagers, is it just because people have different viewpoints are having a civilised discussion on a controversial topic where people can see both sides to the debate?

 

Because people dont have the same point of view as you Its automatically 'Daily Mail'?

 

Cant stand the Daily Mail but we're hardly talking about agreeing with banning all immigration or something here.

  • Like 8
Link to comment
Share on other sites
nnfox

nnfox

Posted
Posted
2 hours ago, leicsmac said:

The police have the obligation to chase someone they think has committed a crime and if caught, arrest and subject them to full penalty of law. That's legit consequence.

 

What they do not have is the right to continue a chase where the life of either those chasing or being chased are being put in immediate danger. If they do so, then the responsibility for continuing the chase and all associated consequences of it is solely on them. (If, of course, the people being chased are themselves putting the lives of other people in direct danger, then it's a different matter entirely.)

 

Material property is not as valuable as anyone's life.

 

NB.This type of discussion pops up whenever some trigger-happy police over in the US kill someone who didn't present a capital threat to them, too. It isn't right there and it's isn't right in the UK, either.

There has to be a dynamic and ongoing risk assessment in a pursuit situation and police officers must always consider the safety of the public, themselves and the suspects.  The job is not to pursue at all costs, but we cannot have a situation where the slightest bit of danger automatically ends a pursuit. Look at the situation in London with moped mobile phone snatches before 'tactical contact' was made policy.  Pursuits are dangerous, but so are the consequences of not pursuing.  There's a delicate balance.

 

In this particular case, from my knowledge right now, there are a lot of unknowns.  There's little doubt from the one video I've seen that a police van was chasing the bike, but I don't know how long it had been going on before the clip and I don't know how long it continued after.  I don't know if the police were behind the bike when it crashed, or if the police made contact which caused the crash or if the bike was ridden dangerously even with no police behind them.

 

It might be that the officer saw the bike followed it, and 5 seconds later called on the radio to say a bike had got away from them and they are not pursuing.  From that, the official line could easily be honestly held that there was no pursuit.

 

What's needed is context and evidence.

 

And I would also argue that choosing to pull a trigger on a gun, intending for a bullet to strike another person, will always carry a much, much higher risk than embarking on a vehicular pursuit.  The two situations are not comparable.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites
leicsmac

leicsmac

Posted
Posted
3 minutes ago, nnfox said:

There has to be a dynamic and ongoing risk assessment in a pursuit situation and police officers must always consider the safety of the public, themselves and the suspects.  The job is not to pursue at all costs, but we cannot have a situation where the slightest bit of danger automatically ends a pursuit. Look at the situation in London with moped mobile phone snatches before 'tactical contact' was made policy.  Pursuits are dangerous, but so are the consequences of not pursuing.  There's a delicate balance.

 

In this particular case, from my knowledge right now, there are a lot of unknowns.  There's little doubt from the one video I've seen that a police van was chasing the bike, but I don't know how long it had been going on before the clip and I don't know how long it continued after.  I don't know if the police were behind the bike when it crashed, or if the police made contact which caused the crash or if the bike was ridden dangerously even with no police behind them.

 

It might be that the officer saw the bike followed it, and 5 seconds later called on the radio to say a bike had got away from them and they are not pursuing.  From that, the official line could easily be honestly held that there was no pursuit.

 

What's needed is context and evidence.

 

And I would also argue that choosing to pull a trigger on a gun, intending for a bullet to strike another person, will always carry a much, much higher risk than embarking on a vehicular pursuit.  The two situations are not comparable.

That's a fair and nuanced response. We need to know more, and my point is there needs to be a full and thorough investigation. Hopefully there will be.

 

On the last paragraph, you could substitute any case where US fuzz killed someone who didn't present a capital threat to them, it doesn't have to involve a gun. There are numerous examples of that, too. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Daggers

Daggers

Posted
Posted
8 minutes ago, weller54 said:

On a different subject.. 

I see The Lying King is back on the front pages!! 

The old lardie just loves to party and make babies doesn't he!! 

Going to buy Johnson At No.10 this week. The podcast I linked in the respective thread was really interesting. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
  • Popular Post
Daggers

Daggers

Posted
  • Popular Post
Posted
36 minutes ago, LiberalFox said:

I don't trust anything the police say..

Which, given the volume of complaints about institutional bias, racism, homophobia, ableism & despicable WhatsApp chats, texts, abductions, assaults, rapes and murders, is the most sensible course of action.

  • Like 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites
bmt

bmt

Posted
Posted
10 hours ago, nnfox said:

Rrright.

 

So I can steal your motorbike, ride it without a helmet and doff my hat at the police without consequence?  What happens when I run a kid over and kill them?  No doubt you'd blame the police for not intervening?

No and we don't know that they'd stole a motorbike. I just said if chasing people, particularly kids, gets to a position where the likelihood of someone dying is much higher than the likelihood of a good outcome, the police are meant to stop the chase. They can get helicopters up or use cctv.

 

The fact of the matter is the police chased them, they died, AND THEN THE POLICE LIED ABOUT IT. The main problem is the end. I am from a police family but there has been constant undermining of public trust in the police. If they were just doing their jobs as has been said they didn't have to lie about it.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites
bmt

bmt

Posted
Posted
Just now, bmt said:

No and we don't know that they'd stole a motorbike. I just said if chasing people, particularly kids, gets to a position where the likelihood of someone dying is much higher than the likelihood of a good outcome, the police are meant to stop the chase. They can get helicopters up or use cctv.

 

The fact of the matter is the police chased them, they died, AND THEN THE POLICE LIED ABOUT IT. The main problem is the end. I am from a police family but there has been constant undermining of public trust in the police. If they were just doing their jobs as has been said they didn't have to lie about it.

& it's taken what looks like someone's private cctv which they didn't know was there for them to get caught out and change their tune. How people don't see that as the major problem in this case is beyond me.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
bmt

bmt

Posted
Posted
7 hours ago, leicsmac said:

The police have the obligation to chase someone they think has committed a crime and if caught, arrest and subject them to full penalty of law. That's legit consequence.

 

What they do not have is the right to continue a chase where the life of either those chasing or being chased are being put in immediate danger. If they do so, then the responsibility for continuing the chase and all associated consequences of it is solely on them. (If, of course, the people being chased are themselves putting the lives of other people in direct danger, then it's a different matter entirely.)

 

Material property is not as valuable as anyone's life.

 

NB.This type of discussion pops up whenever some trigger-happy police over in the US kill someone who didn't present a capital threat to them, too. It isn't right there and it's isn't right in the UK, either.

This. I didn't realise it was even up for debate lol.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites
bmt

bmt

Posted
Posted
9 hours ago, Daggers said:

 

Anyone who has been terrorised in public parks while walking dogs/children by these ‘teenage boys being idiots’, having to grab as many of your charges as you can and throw them to safety as the complete fukwads scream about putting their lives at risk or threatening a very large vet bill - or anyone who has had their pride and joy nicked and joyriders about until they trash it, leaving you to be reamed by the insurance company - might think differently to bmt.

 

I fall into both brackets on more than one occasion. Two bikes stolen and written off, full value not refunded, all no claims lost. Three times in parks in Brum I feared for my kids and dog.

 

We live in the country, but oiks from Rothwell have discovered my dog walking airfield and regularly bring their twoc of choice up. I always carry a weighty walking stick now with the express intention of jousting a fukwad off their ride so I can personally deliver my feelings on the matter.

 

I was delighted when the police adopted their policy of ‘tactical contact’. I don’t shed a tear when they get injured or die.

 

The solution is really simple: don’t steal people’s stuff, buy your own bike, tax and insure it, pass your test, and fvcking ride legally.

I think this is fair in terms of experience but i also feel sorry for you that that's how you've been made to look at things (not in a patronising way just your experience sounds shit). 

 

We don't know the ins and outs of this case except the police lying about it because they didn't think they'd get caught. That's what annoyed me yesterday but I thought that the police were meant to protect life first and foremost wasn't up for debate.

 

Interestingly when I spoke about arresting campaigners at the coronation being wrong people argued with me that the police arrested them to protect their lives and safety.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Daggers

Daggers

Posted
Posted
13 minutes ago, bmt said:

I think this is fair in terms of experience but i also feel sorry for you that that's how you've been made to look at things (not in a patronising way just your experience sounds shit). 

 

We don't know the ins and outs of this case except the police lying about it because they didn't think they'd get caught. That's what annoyed me yesterday but I thought that the police were meant to protect life first and foremost wasn't up for debate.

 

Interestingly when I spoke about arresting campaigners at the coronation being wrong people argued with me that the police arrested them to protect their lives and safety.

I think you'll struggle to find a single biker who doesn't feel the same as I do towards feral bike thieves and those who scream about off public highways. Bike related crime is intrinsically linked to other criminal activities to boot.

 

There were some enterprising projects set up during the Labour years where volunteers would run workshops for young'uns teaching them about how to prep, repair and customise bikes using stolen-recoverds. I volunteered with one in Essex. Rather than riding about illegally, they were encouraged to enter shows and develop riding skills on tracks and off-road centres. It was working fabulously. I believe all of these have now been lost due to funding cuts over the last thirteen years, our folded for that reason.

 

Clearly, it's a separate issue to Cardiff - not least being the absence of a motorbike and tactical contact. The issue of police behaviour transcends all of these points and is a far larger question as their probity is being called into question daily and can't be separated from the chronic serial underfunding and mismanagement by successive Home Secretaries. More than ever, Forces are struggling to cope with the demands of a modern age and being placed under ever greater scrutiny. The solution appears obvious to me, but the voting public persist in returning duff governments and corrupt Police and Crime Commissioners.

 

I'm not even going to begin on them arresting peaceful protestors! :D

 

 

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Captain...

Captain...

Posted
Posted
1 hour ago, bmt said:

No and we don't know that they'd stole a motorbike. I just said if chasing people, particularly kids, gets to a position where the likelihood of someone dying is much higher than the likelihood of a good outcome, the police are meant to stop the chase. They can get helicopters up or use cctv.

 

The fact of the matter is the police chased them, they died, AND THEN THE POLICE LIED ABOUT IT. The main problem is the end. I am from a police family but there has been constant undermining of public trust in the police. If they were just doing their jobs as has been said they didn't have to lie about it.

Did they lie about?

 

According to the latest article that CCTV clip was before the incident and at the time of the incident there was no police cars chasing those boys. I think it even said that that police car was responding to a different incident.

 

We don't know yet what actually happened, and yes that footage looks bad, but we shouldn't be condemning anybody without the facts.

 

One theory, as yet unproven, is that the boys were messing about, possibly on a stolen bike, they either panicked at the sound of a police car or were deliberately riding in front of/racing the police car. This was seen by others thinking the boys were being chased. The boys were involved in a fatal accident shortly after and the residents put 2 and 2 together and came up with riot.

 

Either that or the police are going to ridiculous lengths to cover it up, which will be easy to prove because all police cars have tracking devices which is why they said initially no police cars were present at the scene. 

 

It just makes no sense for the police to lie.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Nalis

Nalis

Posted
Posted (edited)

Cant help but feel this Braverman speeding malarkey is straight out of ths Malcolm Tucker playbook of putting a minor issue in the headlines to deflect from real issues like the govt putting fvck all pressure on supermarkets on food prices.

Edited by Nalis
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Dunge

Dunge

Posted
Posted
55 minutes ago, Nalis said:

Cant help but feel this Braverman speeding malarkey is straight out of ths Malcolm Tucker playbook of putting a minor issue in the headlines to deflect from real issues like the govt putting fvck all pressure on supermarkets on food prices.

Feels to me more like civil war in the Conservative Party.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
leicsmac

leicsmac

Posted
Posted
1 hour ago, Daggers said:

 

....wait, there's some people in the UK who actually view Wonny deSantis and what he's up to as a positive? Good grief, break out the "I like restricting equal rights to women and minority groups" T-shirts and make it obvious!

 

Well, takes all kinds, I guess.

 

Also shows how screwed the Overton Window is over there when in the UK a column like this is (rightly) treated with mostly derision, but over there it wins the bloke a landslide.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
leicsmac

leicsmac

Posted
Posted

On topic:

 

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-65692233

 

"US retailer Target is removing some items from its LGBTQ Pride Collection after threats and confrontations in certain stores.

The company said on Tuesday the move would protect employees after what it described as "volatile circumstances" in some of its 2,000 shops."

 

Feel free to join the rest of the "first world" in somewhere approaching the 21st Century any time, guys.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
RobHawk

RobHawk

Posted
Posted
3 hours ago, leicsmac said:

....wait, there's some people in the UK who actually view Wonny deSantis and what he's up to as a positive? Good grief, break out the "I like restricting equal rights to women and minority groups" T-shirts and make it obvious!

 

Well, takes all kinds, I guess.

 

Also shows how screwed the Overton Window is over there when in the UK a column like this is (rightly) treated with mostly derision, but over there it wins the bloke a landslide.

I don't think 99% of people in the UK even know who desantis even is. 

 

There's probably a very small handful of people in the UK who are batshit crazy enough to agree with what he is doing. Just like there's a handful of people who agree with what Hitler did. 

 

In fact, this may be the same handful of people. 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites
leicsmac

leicsmac

Posted
Posted
10 minutes ago, RobHawk said:

I don't think 99% of people in the UK even know who desantis even is. 

 

There's probably a very small handful of people in the UK who are batshit crazy enough to agree with what he is doing. Just like there's a handful of people who agree with what Hitler did. 

 

In fact, this may be the same handful of people. 

Yup, I would agree entirely there.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share
Go to topic listing

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...