Welcome Guest! The IOSH forums are a free resource to both members and non-members. Login or register to use them

Postings made by forum users are personal opinions. IOSH is not responsible for the content or accuracy of any of the information contained in forum postings. Please carefully consider any advice you receive.

Notification

Icon
Error

2 Pages12>
Options
Go to last post Go to first unread
MikeKelly  
#1 Posted : 05 December 2018 13:12:48(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
MikeKelly

It appears that the newest tactic undertaken by the Metropolitan Police in their bid to cut theft from scooter riders is to deliberately collide with the scooter and throw the rider to the ground. This apparently has been signed off at very high level. Who amongst my colleagues would go along with this? Someone will die or be seriously injured and prosecution will follow-as it should -but who will be in the dock? Guess! Regards Mike
Clark34486  
#2 Posted : 05 December 2018 13:34:33(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
Clark34486

This could get messy...

It's not as straightforward as the red tops have implied, nor as the wider hysterical media have painted it.

The police do not simply plough into cars/ pedestrians or motorcyles with aplomb at all opportunities. They are hugely skilled and every pursuit is subject to a running commentary and risk assessment (the decision is made by a senior officer as to wheter ANY pursuit is continued), a direct danger to life such as a vehicle being used for terrorist purposes (Rule of Engagement) is the only real exception to this.

The police are subject to the very same laws that we are, they have a warrant card but have to justify and account for their actions.

Now......my opinion....if a citizen decides to break the law and then make off using a vehicle they believe gives them the opportunity to evade apprehension I fully support a justified risk assessment being carried out by the pursuing officer which takes into consideration the wider public whose safety could be compromised by the miscreant as they tear around the streets and pathways of our cities and towns.

thanks 5 users thanked Clark34486 for this useful post.
paul.skyrme on 05/12/2018(UTC), UncleFester on 06/12/2018(UTC), webstar on 06/12/2018(UTC), hilary on 11/12/2018(UTC), A Kurdziel on 14/12/2018(UTC)
Mark-W  
#3 Posted : 05 December 2018 13:44:40(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
Mark-W

I agree withy the above post. Police chases are highly regulated and signed off by someone more important than the driver. A running commentary is given, stating road conditions, vloumne of traffice etc, weather conditions and level of road being traversed, side road, A road motorway etc.

I don't think the Met are just randomely crashing into moped riders. But stats released by the Met have shown a HUGE decrease in numbers of mopeds being used for crime.

Personal Opinion, If a scrote breaks the maw and thinks that using a moped as a getaway vehicle is going to save him/her then they deserve everything they get. This country is going soft of small crime. About time we as a nation took stock of the issues and develpoed a proportional measured response. In this caser, knocking scrotes off a moped with a car is the correct course of action.

The only downside is the possible damage to the Police car, which will be repaired from the public purse.

thanks 3 users thanked Mark-W for this useful post.
paul.skyrme on 05/12/2018(UTC), webstar on 06/12/2018(UTC), thunderchild on 10/12/2018(UTC)
paul.skyrme  
#4 Posted : 05 December 2018 15:02:03(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
paul.skyrme

I don't for a minute think that this is wrong.

If they think that they are immune they need to think again.

If they have nothing to hide, simple, stop when requested by the polce.

It's not like they are going to be in the middle of nowhere and get shot.

If they are on the run, stop them by whatever means is necessary to end the chase as quickly as possible, and give the officers immunity.

This country has gone soft on crime.

Things need to change, criminals need to be afriad of the law, and they are not, the public are becoing afraid in their homes, and workplaces because violent crime is on the increase, and it must stop, and stop now.

If the police knocking these idiots off their bikes cuts crime then I am all for it.

thanks 5 users thanked paul.skyrme for this useful post.
Mark-W on 05/12/2018(UTC), webstar on 06/12/2018(UTC), UncleFester on 06/12/2018(UTC), thunderchild on 10/12/2018(UTC), NickRoarty on 17/12/2018(UTC)
Mark-W  
#5 Posted : 05 December 2018 15:33:47(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
Mark-W

Not sure this is going in the direction the OP thought it would. The title of the tread for me gives an indication he doesn't agree with this policy

Andrew W Walker  
#6 Posted : 05 December 2018 15:44:44(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
Andrew W Walker

I personally think the police are doing the right thing- even when the criminal removes their helmet thinking that the police will give up the chase, and they still get knocked off.

The police don't get any criticism from me on this tactic.

thanks 2 users thanked Andrew W Walker for this useful post.
webstar on 06/12/2018(UTC), thunderchild on 10/12/2018(UTC)
Alabaster  
#7 Posted : 05 December 2018 15:56:19(UTC)
Rank: Forum user
Alabaster

Completely agree with the police, It's a step in the right direction for fighting serious crimes; theft, acid attacks etc. 

thanks 1 user thanked Alabaster for this useful post.
thunderchild on 10/12/2018(UTC)
Elfin Davy 09  
#8 Posted : 05 December 2018 16:01:15(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
Elfin Davy 09

Yip, another tick in the Police box from me too.

If you don't want to be knocked off your scooter, don't commit a crime while you're riding it... simples

thanks 2 users thanked Elfin Davy 09 for this useful post.
andrewcl on 07/12/2018(UTC), thunderchild on 10/12/2018(UTC)
A Kurdziel  
#9 Posted : 05 December 2018 16:07:14(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
A Kurdziel

I am not sure if this is something for us to be discussion on our forum since to be honest I don’t think that our opinions one way or another matter much. Someone somewhere (Commissioner Level?) has decided that catching people who use mopeds to commit crimes is a serious enough issue for the Police to use these tactics to catch these criminals. Some form of risk assessment has been carried out which balances the need to catch these individuals against the risk of them being seriously hurt or even killed.  The powers that be now need to live with whatever consequences arise from this.   Just note that in many countries police are allowed to use lethal force to stop escaping criminals or to arrest them.  Being nudged by a car is probably not as bad as being sprayed with machine gun fire.

The European Court of Human rights has ruled that any use of for by the police has to be ‘necessary and proportional’. I assume whoever wrote this policy consulted with some lawyers about this. There is a whole book about this available here-  https://www.echr.coe.int/Documents/Handbook_European_Convention_Police_ENG.pdf

 

Edited by user 06 December 2018 12:03:22(UTC)  | Reason: Missing word

thanks 1 user thanked A Kurdziel for this useful post.
watcher on 05/12/2018(UTC)
watcher  
#10 Posted : 05 December 2018 16:48:07(UTC)
Rank: Forum user
watcher

The whole tone of the OP seems very negative towards the police

Who do you think would be prosecuted?  I'm trying to guess, but not having much luck

Oh, and I think if you live by the sword, and all that!

Acorns  
#11 Posted : 05 December 2018 17:21:18(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
Acorns

Perhaps there is a perception that the driving and "nudging" can be done by anyone, in which case I can understand some concerns, but AFAIK, those who have been authorised to do so know who they are and the criteria under which it may be applied.  It's not withiout its challenges, but from the sample videos released so far, almost all show the riders pretty much stepping or rolling off the machines and either running or at least thinking of it - somewhat less than being run over by the police vehicle, which seems to be shown as stopping at or about the moment of contact.  As often as there will be headlines of ones that go wrong, little is said of those that get aborted or are successful.   ​​​​​​​There is no easy answer to a difficult question.

Roundtuit  
#12 Posted : 05 December 2018 20:36:41(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
Roundtuit

VERY surprised the moderators have not closed down what is a political debate

Lets be clear even when highly skilled officers engage in this new tactic the independent office for police conduct get involved - one of the recent reports: 

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2018/dec/04/met-police-driver-faces-criminal-investigation-after-ramming-moped

But back to the OP - society only functions when there are laws, society writes laws for the benefit of society as a whole. Unfortunately we are now in the situation where the "rights of the individual" are seemingly given greater precedence than the rights of society in general.

I am very old school and believe that having removed discipline at an early age we are now reaping what can be considered our just rewards - an ambivalent self centric society with no respect for authority who believe everything should be for their sole benefit and any law or norm they disagree with does not have to be complied with and if Mr Authority disagrees you start a blog, post or on-line petition.

The modus operandi changed and thieves took to scooters, then they realised the "elf & safety" brigade believe preservation of the pursudes life should take precedence over capture and conviction so take to dangerous driving etc. in the assumption police will terminate any pursuit.

Problem is we have now arrived at lowest common denominator with criminals taking absurd risks threatening the wider society so I personally applaud the brave soul who has determined it is time to redress the imbalance and start acting once again in the interests of us all.

Your human rights as enshrined in EU law for me cease when you decide to act against the laws of society - after all human rights are a law of society.

thanks 2 users thanked Roundtuit for this useful post.
andrewcl on 17/12/2018(UTC), andrewcl on 17/12/2018(UTC)
Roundtuit  
#13 Posted : 05 December 2018 20:36:41(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
Roundtuit

VERY surprised the moderators have not closed down what is a political debate

Lets be clear even when highly skilled officers engage in this new tactic the independent office for police conduct get involved - one of the recent reports: 

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2018/dec/04/met-police-driver-faces-criminal-investigation-after-ramming-moped

But back to the OP - society only functions when there are laws, society writes laws for the benefit of society as a whole. Unfortunately we are now in the situation where the "rights of the individual" are seemingly given greater precedence than the rights of society in general.

I am very old school and believe that having removed discipline at an early age we are now reaping what can be considered our just rewards - an ambivalent self centric society with no respect for authority who believe everything should be for their sole benefit and any law or norm they disagree with does not have to be complied with and if Mr Authority disagrees you start a blog, post or on-line petition.

The modus operandi changed and thieves took to scooters, then they realised the "elf & safety" brigade believe preservation of the pursudes life should take precedence over capture and conviction so take to dangerous driving etc. in the assumption police will terminate any pursuit.

Problem is we have now arrived at lowest common denominator with criminals taking absurd risks threatening the wider society so I personally applaud the brave soul who has determined it is time to redress the imbalance and start acting once again in the interests of us all.

Your human rights as enshrined in EU law for me cease when you decide to act against the laws of society - after all human rights are a law of society.

thanks 2 users thanked Roundtuit for this useful post.
andrewcl on 17/12/2018(UTC), andrewcl on 17/12/2018(UTC)
Acorns  
#14 Posted : 05 December 2018 22:02:19(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
Acorns

Ignoring politics. A task is planned to be done, now how is it risk assessed and managed to be completed as safely as possible. Surely that is the question. It’s taking a step beyond our typical response of installing a safety guard or a maintenance schedule etc. It’s no less real world H&S and perhaps a way of challenging some great H&S mind to seek the most appropriate solutions and still achieving the required outcome. It’s training, planning, safe systems of work, effective supervision, permits to work, using the correct equipment, being able to respond to the dynamic outcomes. The outcomes to the control measures may not always be green on the risk matrix, but that’s not unusual for many industries and tasks, yet they are still performed on a regular basis. So how can we do it as safely as possible? How would our forum go about it?

Edited by user 05 December 2018 22:04:51(UTC)  | Reason: Not specified

thanks 1 user thanked Acorns for this useful post.
A Kurdziel on 06/12/2018(UTC)
paul.skyrme  
#15 Posted : 05 December 2018 22:02:59(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
paul.skyrme

Roundtuit

I disagree about this being political, it is about criminal activity which is illegal, and must be stopped.

Why should the public be afraid in their homes, why should people be afriad of these people when at work, why should people be afraid to walk the streets for fear of knife or acid attacks.

They should not.

If this tactic stops these crimes, and makes people feel safe, then it is worthwhile and that is NOT political.

thanks 2 users thanked paul.skyrme for this useful post.
webstar on 06/12/2018(UTC), Derham900500 on 17/12/2018(UTC)
johnmurray  
#16 Posted : 06 December 2018 05:44:15(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
johnmurray

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-46344278

Moped crime: Police chasing suspects 'risk their own liberty'

A Kurdziel  
#17 Posted : 06 December 2018 09:32:03(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
A Kurdziel

Sorry but it is political but then so is just about everything we do, from deciding what newspaper to read to whether you need  a separate EU directive for every possible hazard to what level of fine is appropriate for an employer who kills (or is responsible for) an employee it all, when you get down to it, politics.

The original post seems a bit 1) anti-police and 2) assumes that anything we can say makes a difference.

We all admit that H&S is a wide remit but there is a limit to what we as H&S professionals get involved in. For example as a H&S professional I occasionally point out to the powers that be, that there is a significant risk to the Health, Safety and Wellbeing of staff due to a rolling programme of redundancies.   Has this had any effect at all on the ‘leaning’ programme? No, it continues, and we pick up the pieces.

Decisions have been made and the consequences will have to be lived with.

score  
#18 Posted : 06 December 2018 10:06:40(UTC)
Rank: Forum user
score

Originally Posted by: Roundtuit Go to Quoted Post

VERY surprised the moderators have not closed down what is a political debate

Lets be clear even when highly skilled officers engage in this new tactic the independent office for police conduct get involved - one of the recent reports: 

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2018/dec/04/met-police-driver-faces-criminal-investigation-after-ramming-moped

But back to the OP - society only functions when there are laws, society writes laws for the benefit of society as a whole. Unfortunately we are now in the situation where the "rights of the individual" are seemingly given greater precedence than the rights of society in general.

I am very old school and believe that having removed discipline at an early age we are now reaping what can be considered our just rewards - an ambivalent self centric society with no respect for authority who believe everything should be for their sole benefit and any law or norm they disagree with does not have to be complied with and if Mr Authority disagrees you start a blog, post or on-line petition.

The modus operandi changed and thieves took to scooters, then they realised the "elf & safety" brigade believe preservation of the pursudes life should take precedence over capture and conviction so take to dangerous driving etc. in the assumption police will terminate any pursuit.

Problem is we have now arrived at lowest common denominator with criminals taking absurd risks threatening the wider society so I personally applaud the brave soul who has determined it is time to redress the imbalance and start acting once again in the interests of us all.

Your human rights as enshrined in EU law for me cease when you decide to act against the laws of society - after all human rights are a law of society.

I dont think IOSH have any Moderators now?
grim72  
#19 Posted : 06 December 2018 10:23:46(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
grim72

For me it's a little akin to having razor wire on top of a high wall surrounding your property and a thief injuring themsleves when trying to gain unauthorised access. From my point of view the injured party shouldn't have a leg to stand on in the court of law. If they weren't intentionally putting themselves in a dangerous situation then they wouldn't get injured. Unfortunately there are too many people preparted to offer support to the aggressor tather than the victim in today's society. Just my own personal point of view.

thanks 1 user thanked grim72 for this useful post.
Elfin Davy 09 on 06/12/2018(UTC)
Curious1  
#20 Posted : 06 December 2018 11:23:19(UTC)
Rank: Forum user
Curious1

The manor in which some of these moped drivers attempt o escape is comparable with somebody running around with a loaded gun.

They give no consideration to other road users, pedestrians or police in their attempt to remain at large. Mounting kerbs, going the wrong way down 1 way streets, speeding and dangerous driving. The use of illegal off road scrambler bikes is far worse. Doing wheelies down the wrong side of the road in gangs of 5 or more. Terrorising other road users and taking red lights.

If an officer was to face trial for their actions, any right minded jury would give a not guilty verdict.

WatsonD  
#21 Posted : 06 December 2018 13:41:38(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
WatsonD

It is by no accident that this has become a hot news topic. Crime prevention is a top priority and one of the best ways to prevent crime is to increase the risk to the perpetrator (be it increased likelihood of capture, harm, or in this case: both) which in turn decreases the attraction to the crime .

The reason for the rise in moped crime, particularly on the narrow, labrythine streets of the UKs overcrowded cities was due to the ease with which a moped could evade police pursuit by squeesing down narrow alleys and through gates (onto parkland etc.) and get away.

With this new measure being loudly touted by police, it is likely the fad for Moped crime will quickly loose its shine. And with a bit of luck, without the need for one single rider to be unseated.

Although, I fear the reality is that a few cases will have to make the news first!

PeterP  
#22 Posted : 06 December 2018 15:34:05(UTC)
Rank: Forum user
PeterP

Where I live there has been a 4 year old girl killed by thieves in a stolen car (who then ran from the scene), a teenage girl left with brain injuries after being mowed down by a stolen motor bike and more recently a 3 year old boy with serious injuries after being hit by a stolen van.

I think its about time the police had the power to stop this and maybe if this deters even one thief  and saves an innocent life its worth it!

Messey  
#23 Posted : 06 December 2018 19:16:37(UTC)
Rank: Forum user
Messey

This is the Met's senior management getting maxium positive publicity, but at what cost? I, like the OP, I am not convinced its the proper way for the Police in a civilised society to behave.

For the record, I am not anti Police. I worked in the fire service alongside the Police for 32 years and have nothing but admiration for their crews. And neither am I a weak 'snowflake'. I despise the idiots that are committing scooter related crimes as many change people's lives forever and they derve a good hiding - but by the courts with due process, and not the law of the jungle.

But we have the rule of law with set penalties on the statue book. This means (in theory) if two identical crimes are committed by someone with an identical background 100miles from each other, they will get similar punishments. Sounds reasonable 

But if as a 16 year old yoof,  you rob a scooter in Bristol, you may get a conviction, whereas in London you risk an amputated leg and/or a permanent disability. I cannot support that sort of barberous state act. I will leave that to the Saudis

Roundtuit  
#24 Posted : 06 December 2018 20:56:02(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
Roundtuit

Love the idea of "identical backgrounds" - so I am a rich footballer exceeding the speed limit by 20mph compared to joe public exceeding the speed limit by 20mph, both get their paperwork one day late according to statute - the only difference is one can afford to engage Mr Loophole arguing the paperwork arrived late. BOTH comitted the same offence but only one gets a conviction!

Roundtuit  
#25 Posted : 06 December 2018 20:56:02(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
Roundtuit

Love the idea of "identical backgrounds" - so I am a rich footballer exceeding the speed limit by 20mph compared to joe public exceeding the speed limit by 20mph, both get their paperwork one day late according to statute - the only difference is one can afford to engage Mr Loophole arguing the paperwork arrived late. BOTH comitted the same offence but only one gets a conviction!

matelot1965  
#26 Posted : 06 December 2018 22:13:33(UTC)
Rank: Forum user
matelot1965

Originally Posted by: grim72 Go to Quoted Post
For me it's a little akin to having razor wire ontop of a high wall surrounding your property and a thief injuring themsleves when trying to gain unauthorised access. From my point of view the injured party shouldn't have a leg to stand on in the court of law. If they weren't intentionally putting themselves in a dangerous situation then they wouldn't get injured. Unfortunately there are too manypeople preparted to offer support to the aggressor tather than the victim in today's society. Just my own personal point of view.
Whilst on principle I agree OLA 1984 takes a different standpoint
SNS  
#27 Posted : 07 December 2018 08:51:44(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
SNS

Originally Posted by: Messey Go to Quoted Post

But we have the rule of law with set penalties on the statue book. This means (in theory) if two identical crimes are committed by someone with an identical background 100miles from each other, they will get similar punishments. Sounds reasonable 

But if as a 16 year old yoof,  you rob a scooter in Bristol, you may get a conviction, whereas in London you risk an amputated leg and/or a permanent disability. I cannot support that sort of barberous state act. I will leave that to the Saudis

I think that we should bring back the principle of 'outlawry'. If carrying out acts outside the law you get no defence of the law from other agencies taking action.

WatsonD  
#28 Posted : 07 December 2018 09:06:45(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
WatsonD

Originally Posted by: Messey Go to Quoted Post

This is the Met's senior management getting maxium positive publicity, but at what cost? I, like the OP, I am not convinced its the proper way for the Police in a civilised society to behave.

For the record, I am not anti Police. I worked in the fire service alongside the Police for 32 years and have nothing but admiration for their crews. And neither am I a weak 'snowflake'. I despise the idiots that are committing scooter related crimes as many change people's lives forever and they derve a good hiding - but by the courts with due process, and not the law of the jungle.

But we have the rule of law with set penalties on the statue book. This means (in theory) if two identical crimes are committed by someone with an identical background 100miles from each other, they will get similar punishments. Sounds reasonable 

But if as a 16 year old yoof,  you rob a scooter in Bristol, you may get a conviction, whereas in London you risk an amputated leg and/or a permanent disability. I cannot support that sort of barberous state act. I will leave that to the Saudis

No-one gets punished unless they get caught.

thanks 1 user thanked WatsonD for this useful post.
Elfin Davy 09 on 07/12/2018(UTC)
biker1  
#29 Posted : 07 December 2018 12:09:14(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
biker1

As a biker, when I saw the title of this thread, I thought 'quite right, too'. Only joking.

A point to consider is if the miscreant was driving a car, commited a crime, and drove dangerously to avoid capture, the police might well bring the pursuit to a close by ramming the car to stop it, to avoid any further risk to the public, assuming that the boxing in tactic could not be employed. If the miscreant chooses to commit their felonies on two wheels rather than four, I struggle to see why they should receive any special consideration for this. That was their choice, and they must accept the consequences. That might include physical injury, as they would be far more vulnerable on a two wheeled machine, but again that was their choice.

I do get tired of hearing society bending over backwards to protect criminals; can we not get the emphasis back on to the victims of crime? On a related note, there is unlikely to be any reduction in deaths caused by dangerous driving until this is treated in the same way as any other form of murder/manslaughter as regards to the seriousness of the crime and the punishment for it. For some reason, killing someone with a vehicle is viewed as a much lesser offence, and it is time this was addressed.

thanks 3 users thanked biker1 for this useful post.
Andrew W Walker on 07/12/2018(UTC), nic168 on 07/12/2018(UTC), paul.skyrme on 11/12/2018(UTC)
A Kurdziel  
#30 Posted : 10 December 2018 11:11:38(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
A Kurdziel

This whole thread is suffering from a case of “print the legend” as opposed to something relating to an objective truth. A lot of people have an agenda with this and looking at from our point of view it is like looking at the wrong end of telescope and trying to working out what is actually going on.  

Firstly the Police are under pressure to be seen to be “doing something about crime”. Although there have been in real terms cuts in Police budgets, they are still a significant cost to the tax payer and need to justify this money  which is why they often release images of themselves catching  crims like this. In law the police are allowed to use reasonable force to catch a culprit and someone, somewhere has decided that this tactic is appropriate and worth the risks.

Then we have the media, in that particular portion of the media that panders to a certain middle aged, middle class demographic that thinks it owns the country and finds the idea of young scrotes being kicked off mopeds rather appealing. Most have never been the victims of crime but they have been disturbed by youths riding up and down quiet suburban streets in their pointless noise machines. They see all moped riders as potential criminals and the media do their best to reinforce this idea. This sells newspapers and advertising to a wealthy demographic.

Of coursed for every action there is an opposite reaction and so in wade the bleeding hearts who are determined to “fight the system” and  like to show off their ‘right on’ credentials by going on about human rights ,“police brutality” and the “violence inherit in the system” etc. They tend to live in suburbs where the locals ride nice quiet electric bikes!

In the modern world nothing is ever simple: two sides (at least) form around every topic. H&S is no different. There are people who want more Health and Safety regulation and tougher criminal sanctions, who are opposed by those who want us to be liberated from “red tape” and “pointless elf n’safety”. In some case these people want both. The guy working in the city office wants Health and Safety off his back: he does not care much, about risks to his employees, all he wants is to run his business. Conversely when he gets on his train home he expects, the highest standards to apply.

Essentially we want to have out cake and to eat it. 

chris42  
#31 Posted : 10 December 2018 15:15:47(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
chris42

We are a little way from “Mad Max” with pointy bits coming out of the police car and the offender being tied to the bonnet spread eagled for the rest of the day (actually I seem to recall he was hand cuffed to the car an given a hacksaw with not enough time to cut the chain). I don’t disagree with the idea as in my view they are not thieves, they are terrorists and so have little or no rights. These gangs / individuals are terrorising the community and can’t be allowed to continue. Pick pockets are thieves these are more.

The first time one of them is in a newspaper with a missing finger or hand etc as the moped lands on them badly I would like to think it would deter the others. However, there is a flaw, it’s a moped and so can easily go off the road between parked cars and onto the pavement, cycle paths and pedestrian areas including parks and playgrounds. So, will this tactic make things worse?

They go into a housing estate hop off the moped, report it stolen (if theirs), hide loot, and they are away.

thanks 1 user thanked chris42 for this useful post.
paul.skyrme on 11/12/2018(UTC)
hilary  
#32 Posted : 11 December 2018 08:47:27(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
hilary

I think the time has come for society to take a stand in general.  We need to say that crime, anti-social behaviour, harassment, bullying, etc is not right.  We live in a namby pamby society where everyone is afraid to chastise their children, put criminals at risk of injury and take some responsbility for themselves and their actions.  While I don't believe that bringing back the cane or, indeed, hanging is the answer, there needs to be a proper deterrent because we are breeding a nation of violent thugs who think everything is theirs for the taking and everyone is afraid to stand up and say "no, this is not right".

thanks 4 users thanked hilary for this useful post.
Andy123 on 11/12/2018(UTC), RayRapp on 11/12/2018(UTC), biker1 on 11/12/2018(UTC), paul.skyrme on 11/12/2018(UTC)
RayRapp  
#33 Posted : 11 December 2018 09:34:58(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
RayRapp

Totally agree with most of the comments. Crime has gone mad in recent years with theft, muggings, stabbings, shootings, etc becoming common place. Some of these criminals on bikes do not wear a crash helmet which is in itself against the law, believing the police will not chase them...better think again my old son.

There will enivitably be a case where the officer was overzealous in his pursuit. The police are not themselves above the law. I just hope the officer(s) is treated with some sympathy for the difficult choices they have to make.  

thanks 1 user thanked RayRapp for this useful post.
paul.skyrme on 11/12/2018(UTC)
paul.skyrme  
#34 Posted : 11 December 2018 17:10:52(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
paul.skyrme

The scooter riders do not have to risk injury.

If they stop when requested by police then the persuit ends and they are safe, then they have to face up to the crime that they have committed.

They choose, not to comply with the reasonable requests of the officers and decide to cause greater risk to others and themselves, they can avoid this simply and easily so they can then be treated equally and fairly as per all other crimes of the same nature as has been suggested.

If they stopped when asked, none of this would be necessary, they don't they make a concious decision to commit more crime and endanger others, their choice they took that decision, they took the risk, they chose, not to stop, they chose to risk injury, they could have chosen to stop, then they would not have put anyone else, nor themselves at greater risk.

They made their choice, let them live with it.

thanks 1 user thanked paul.skyrme for this useful post.
PH2 on 12/12/2018(UTC)
MikeKelly  
#35 Posted : 12 December 2018 11:17:48(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
MikeKelly

Hi folks

Well, what interesting responses!

You probably won't be surprised that I completely disagree with the majority of the posts.

However, to dispel a few assumptions, I am not anti-police per se, but certainly I am anti bad policing e.g. Pursuits which give rise to serious injuries or deaths-latest info is that 28 people died as a result of these; unethical undercover infiltration of innocent protest groups; undermining people like Steven Lawrence's family because they are embarrassed by their valid comments/criticism; unexplained deaths in custody; a Brazilian electrician's death; Hillsboro; Kettling innocent people caught up in protest ;  institutional racism. etc. etc.

Plenty of good stuff too! When we were burgled the police were brilliant in their support, much better than the insurance company, exceptional bravery when rescuing people and here in France the gallantry of the Lt Col of gendarmes who took the place of a hostage locally. So lots of good stuff too.

My reason for posting is mainly risk assessment oriented-ie the RA for these tactics, which I would love to see although I don't think a valid RA could ever support the tactics, not even if it was a tolerable v acceptable risk decision.

I also do not belong to the any/all means to an end fraternity and human rights apply to all persons not just those with whom you agree. It's unusual for human rights cases  to be wrongly decided however much the gutter press distort the judgements for their own purposes.

I'm just hoping that no other person, criminal or otherwise, is injured or killed because of these unacceptable tactics as no doubt, the driver will be the one to 'cop it' not the senior person who has signed off/commissioned the RA.

Regards

Mike

PS My wife doesn't agree with me either!

thanks 1 user thanked MikeKelly for this useful post.
O'Donnell54548 on 14/12/2018(UTC)
MaxL  
#36 Posted : 12 December 2018 13:36:35(UTC)
Rank: New forum user
MaxL

Well Mike as a retired cop you paint a dark picture of policing referring to police tactics etc.

The scenario of knocking criminals off mopeds is not new, however with social media coverage it is now hyped up to hysteria. These tactics have been used for the last 20 - 30 years with great success however there is a risk involved, so if you look at the risk against consequences I believe that it is justified.

You say you are not anti police, I find that hard to believe noting your commnets in paragraph three.

You didn't add Orgreave to your list ---- believe me dont be too gullable

RayRapp  
#37 Posted : 12 December 2018 20:59:09(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
RayRapp

Mike, you are brave person for admitting your concerns against the grain of this thread. As a h&s person I would have thought you would understand there will be unfortunate outcomes where someone getting chased will have serious injuries as a result. They will be few and far between I'm sure but it is inevitable.

In many other jurisdictions criminals evading the police get shot...we have not gone down that road yet. I doubt if we will in my life time because we have gone soft in this country. The criminals are laughing all the way to the bank - who said crime doesn't pay?  

Finally, the concept of 'risk assessment' per se was never intended for the blue light services. This is something which has crept in over the years often causing nothing more than paralysis by analysis.  

thanks 1 user thanked RayRapp for this useful post.
Roundtuit on 12/12/2018(UTC)
Roundtuit  
#38 Posted : 12 December 2018 21:13:10(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
Roundtuit

Paralysis by analysis Not only blue light but every employment where there are insurers and ambulance chasers
Roundtuit  
#39 Posted : 12 December 2018 21:13:10(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
Roundtuit

Paralysis by analysis Not only blue light but every employment where there are insurers and ambulance chasers
A Kurdziel  
#40 Posted : 13 December 2018 09:43:31(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
A Kurdziel

Of course risk assessment is intended for the Blue Light services. When there is a building fire the first thing that the officer in charge asks is “is there anybody in the building?” if not,  then all the brigade  try do, is  to prevent fire from spreading  but nobody expects them to go into the building to fight the fire at its centre or to try to save stock etc. That is a form of risk assessment.

Actions like this method of apprehending suspects (note theses are suspects of a crime not just random teenagers) must be justifiable in court. I said we should not speculate on what the police are doing but my guess would be something like:

  1. The individual is a clear suspect in a serious moped based offence.
  2. They have been given an opportunity to surrender to the police but instead decide to try to escape on the moped
  3. The police can chase them without placing anybody else at  unnecessary risk during the pursuit
  4. If they are not stopped immediately they will get away to commit further crimes

If the answer is yes to all of these then the police will be authorised to carry out a hard stop on the individual. If the police cannot justify the process then they are guilty of a crime such as GBH or (if the person dies) manslaughter.    

    

RayRapp  
#41 Posted : 13 December 2018 17:21:45(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
RayRapp

I had a hunch some know-it-all would would disagree with my post...

thanks 1 user thanked RayRapp for this useful post.
A Kurdziel on 14/12/2018(UTC)
O'Donnell54548  
#42 Posted : 14 December 2018 09:05:50(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
O'Donnell54548

Forgive me for coming into this debate late, but the answer to the original posters question appears quite obvious.

Should the police use a 4,118lbs (average) vehicle to knock a 'suspect' off a moving motor cycle? NO.

Would carrying out a 'suitable & sufficient' risk assessment make this acceptable? NO

Is the assumption the 'suspect' is a toe-rag who deserves to have the fear of god put into them a justifiable reason to do this? NO

Is the mantra "if you don't do the crime, you don't take the risk of being killed" sufficeint justification? NO

Is putting suspects in hospital an acceptable 'crime prevention' strategy? NO 

Am I a frothing at the mouth citizen that thinks that youngster today need a good clip round the ear, and hanging for anything more serious than 'scrumping'? NO

Am I a bleeding heart liberal? NO

Do I dispair at the mean, selfish, dis-honest, unscrupled, lazy, entitled, rude, insular and cruel society we have become? YES

WatsonD  
#43 Posted : 14 December 2018 09:52:56(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
WatsonD

Originally Posted by: O'Donnell54548 Go to Quoted Post

Do I dispair at the mean, selfish, dis-honest, unscrupled, lazy, entitled, rude, insular and cruel society we have become? YES

You make some good point but I'd love to know when this golden age in our History was that society had none of these elements.

Users browsing this topic
2 Pages12>
You cannot post new topics in this forum.
You cannot reply to topics in this forum.
You cannot delete your posts in this forum.
You cannot edit your posts in this forum.
You cannot create polls in this forum.
You cannot vote in polls in this forum.