From: NM on 7 Aug 2010 06:28
On 7 Aug, 09:09, "Steve Walker" <spam-t...(a)beeb.net> wrote:
> NM wrote:
> | No charges were brought therefore this cannot be serious, seems
> | like the old duffer got a bit confused after dealing with the
> | uniformed louts. For sure he would have faced charges if it
> | really happened as said in the Daily Wail.
> He did face, and admit, a number of charges
But not for knocking down an officer which would be the most serious
thing in the litany of his transgressions.
From: NM on 7 Aug 2010 06:30
On 7 Aug, 11:10, "Steve O" <nospamh...(a)thanks.com> wrote:
> "NM" <nik.mor...(a)mac.com> wrote in message
> > On 6 Aug, 22:54, "Steve O" <nospamh...(a)thanks.com> wrote:
> >> "NM" <nik.mor...(a)mac.com> wrote in message
> >> > On 6 Aug, 15:20, Chelsea Tractor Man <mr.c.trac...(a)hotmail.co.uk>
> >> > wrote:
> >> >> On Fri, 6 Aug 2010 14:54:01 +0100, GT wrote:
> >> >> >> as in the other post, his RR will almost certainly be the same as
> >> >> >> my
> >> >> >> LR.
> >> >> >> Stays locked.
> >> >> > Fair enough - they'll need to smash the windows and jump on the
> >> >> > bonnet
> >> >> > like
> >> >> > gorillas then!!
> >> >> I suspect they are trained to go in fast, after all the average person
> >> >> who
> >> >> fails to stop is going to be trouble. Put yourself in the coppers
> >> >> position,
> >> >> this old gaffer in a *Range Rover* (plenty of villans drive them) has
> >> >> driven off mid interview. Is he carrying drugs? A firearm? Just
> >> >> because
> >> >> he
> >> >> is 70 does not been he cannot be an armed criminal or a madman like
> >> >> that
> >> >> bloke who recently shot and blinded a copper in the Lake District for
> >> >> no
> >> >> rational reason at all.
> >> >> He was being followed by a car with blue lights, (the idea of a police
> >> >> escort is ridiculous) even if he thought it nothing to do with him
> >> >> (even
> >> >> though he had just been speaking to the coppers) he should have pulled
> >> >> over
> >> >> to let it through.
> >> >> --
> >> > So you smash his car up and assult him just to be on the safe side?
> >> Who is claiming he was assaulted?
> >> I saw him being led out of his car.
> > that is an assault on his person.
> Your implication was that a criminal assault had occurred.
> It didn't.
> While I would grant that the officer smashing the window didn't give the
> gent much opportunity to open the door, it is important to note that he had
> been engaged on a low speed pursuit for 17 minutes, had failed to stop, had
> previously struck another officer either deliberately or accidentally, and
> only stopped because a stop stick was deployed in front of him.
> The officer would have no way of knowing if the driver was about to make off
> again, so his actions were fairly reasonable.
> Not too sure why the other officer felt it necessary to jump on the bonnet
> as this would be quite unsafe to do while the driver still had control of
> the car.
> I doubt if that one is in the manual.
But really they were enjoying a bit of legalised bullying, as you well
know and can be seen in the video.
From: Steve Walker on 7 Aug 2010 06:48
| On 6 Aug, 17:17, Chelsea Tractor Man mr.c.trac...(a)hotmail.co.uk
|| breaking the windows to get in and pulling him out? If somebody
|| drives off while being interviewed, knocking aside a policeman,
|| fails to stop or pull over for 17 miles in front of twos and
|| blues and only stops at a stinger its his own stupid fault. The
|| US would have pulled him to the ground and handcuffed him from
|| behind while lying on his face, if they hadn't shot him already.
| And you think thats OK?
In the circumstances described, I think it would be reasonable.
From: Mortimer on 7 Aug 2010 07:12
"Steve Walker" <spam-trap(a)beeb.net> wrote in message
> NM wrote:
> | On 6 Aug, 17:17, Chelsea Tractor Man mr.c.trac...(a)hotmail.co.uk
> || breaking the windows to get in and pulling him out? If somebody
> || drives off while being interviewed, knocking aside a policeman,
> || fails to stop or pull over for 17 miles in front of twos and
> || blues and only stops at a stinger its his own stupid fault. The
> || US would have pulled him to the ground and handcuffed him from
> || behind while lying on his face, if they hadn't shot him already.
> | And you think thats OK?
> In the circumstances described, I think it would be reasonable.
I think what we need to know is what happened just *before* the video that
has been released. Was the officers' *first* response on getting out of the
car to jump on the bonnet and to smash the window with a truncheon, or did
they initially ask him politely to get out of the car, and only resort to
Plan B when he refused to co-operate? My impression is that the man with the
truncheon is running as if he's just got out of the police car, not as if
he's been standing there for some time.
Do traffic cars routinely record video all the time in case it's needed in
evidence, or does the camera have to be switched on manually? If the latter,
it's surprising that someone decided to record the events, and that the
officers behaved as they did when they were on camera. I'm surprised the
recording survived and didn't get "accidentally lost due to equipment
It's very interesting that the offences that he was convicted of don't
include failing to stop after an accident (ie after he allegedly collided
with the policeman as he was driving away). The seatbelt and tinted window
offences are technical offences - it is important that he is punished for
them but they are not related to the later attack. The driving off offence
*could* have been a genuine misunderstanding.
When I was stopped by the police (the one and only time, for slightly
exceeding the speed limit late at night and the police were checking that I
was not drunk) I remember saying at the end "Right, is it OK for me to go
now" because I wasn't sure whether they'd finished with me. What was amusing
was that the police wanted to see all my official documents and were rather
gobsmacked when I produced each thing on demand: even the MOT certificate
for the test that I'd had earlier in the day. The tyres were brand new, the
lights were working. There was nothing they could fault me on -apart from
being a few mph over the limit, for which they gave me a verbal warning.
Luckily the police saw the funny side of it and commented "Well, you seem to
be pretty squeaky clean". It's a good thing it hadn't been a few years
earlier when I got the shock of my life to discover that I'd been driving my
"new" (to me) car for several months with no MOT because the previous owner
had had it tested when it was 2 1/2 years old, so the MOT was due for
renewal at a time other than n years after the date of first registration. I
did some hasty phoning around, booked it for an MOT the same day and drove
very cautiously to the garage so as not to be stopped by the police or get
involved in an accident (I think my own insurance, as opposed to third-party
liability, would have been invalid). I'd have been OK if the police had
stopped me because I was on the way to a pre-booked test, but there would
have been awkward questions about "have you been driving the car between now
and when the MOT expired" ;-)
From: Brimstone on 7 Aug 2010 07:12
"Chelsea Tractor Man" <mr.c.tractor(a)hotmail.co.uk> wrote in message
> On Fri, 6 Aug 2010 18:55:47 +0100, Brimstone wrote:
>> Anyone who condones and old man's car being smashed up to give a couple
>> coppers some sport is a thug.
> that comment is idiotic.