'Justice for Henry Hicks'
Discussion
desamax said:
The four WILL face gross missconduct charge, (fact)
Did you mean misconduct?You are correct (the charge if not the spelling) they police have been instructed to hold a misconduct hearing. They didn't chose to, the IPCC (which has to be seen to be impartial) have instructed them as they have the powers to do.
The family could be considering all sorts of things, but whether they would get anywhere with it would depend on the strength of their case. So probably not.
singlecoil said:
desamax said:
The four WILL face gross missconduct charge, (fact)
Did you mean misconduct?You are correct (the charge if not the spelling) they police have been instructed to hold a misconduct hearing. They didn't chose to, the IPCC (which has to be seen to be impartial) have instructed them as they have the powers to do.
The family could be considering all sorts of things, but whether they would get anywhere with it would depend on the strength of their case. So probably not.
Predictive text is a mare lol.
Who knows what the family have up their sleeve, so possibly could happen.
Edited by desamax on Thursday 30th June 22:03
desamax said:
singlecoil said:
desamax said:
The four WILL face gross missconduct charge, (fact)
Did you mean misconduct?You are correct (the charge if not the spelling) they police have been instructed to hold a misconduct hearing. They didn't chose to, the IPCC (which has to be seen to be impartial) have instructed them as they have the powers to do.
The family could be considering all sorts of things, but whether they would get anywhere with it would depend on the strength of their case. So probably not.
Predictive text is a mare lol.
Who knows what the family have up their sleeve, so possibly could happen.
Nobody minds typos by the way, but bad spelling will sometimes attract negative remarks, especially if it seems that the culprit isn't making an effort.
Nobody minds typos by the way, but bad spelling will sometimes attract negative remarks, especially if it seems that the culprit isn't making an effort.
[/quote]
I believe we all make mistakes, some big some tiny. It's not my nature to pull someone up over a tiny error, knowing I could , or have done similar.
I would consider that very patronising.
desamax said:
The four WILL face gross missconduct charge, (fact)
There's no "charge" (fact). The IPCC have directed the Met to hold misconduct hearings. The range of outcomes go from no further action to dismissal. The initial stage is an investigatory one for the Met to establish what level, if any, they feel whatever conduct amounts to. I am incapable of explaining that any more simply and have explained it at least twice now.
desamax said:
Who was NOT on trial at this inquest.
Nor were the police, yet you're happy to make judgements about them at the same stage. Why the double standards? Probably because it doesn't suit you to look at both sides with the same scrutiny. I wonder why...
If the IPCC have passed nothing on the CPS, then there's evidently no criminal matters to be considered.
Do you not find it a little embarrassing to continuously talk rubbish about things you pretty much know nothing about?
La Liga said:
desamax said:
The four WILL face gross missconduct charge, (fact)
There's no "charge" (fact). The IPCC have directed the Met to hold misconduct hearings. The range of outcomes go from no further action to dismissal. The initial stage is an investigatory one for the Met to establish what level, if any, they feel whatever conduct amounts to. I am incapable of explaining that any more simply and have explained it at least twice now.
desamax said:
Who was NOT on trial at this inquest.
Nor were the police, yet you're happy to make judgements about them at the same stage. Why the double standards? Probably because it doesn't suit you to look at both sides with the same scrutiny. I wonder why...
If the IPCC have passed nothing on the CPS, then there's evidently no criminal matters to be considered.
Do you not find it a little embarrassing to continuously talk rubbish about things you pretty much know nothing about?
However the jury rejected the police version of events leading up to the crash. (Source ITV)
So there will be no case to answer, once the met look into it.
desamax said:
Pot and kettle comes to mind, the four insisted in their statements the young boy "never knew he was being pursued"
However the jury rejected the police version of events leading up to the crash. (Source ITV)
So there will be no case to answer, once the met look into it.
You can't just write "pot and kettle" and "make assumptions that are clearly wrong" without specifying the contradictions / incorrect assumptions you refer to. Well, you can, and I expect it goes without challenge amongst your peers, but when you interact with reasonably intelligent people then it sticks out a fair bit. However the jury rejected the police version of events leading up to the crash. (Source ITV)
So there will be no case to answer, once the met look into it.
The jury concluded it was a pursuit - it merely requires the person failing to stop to be aware of the stop on the balance of probabilities. There's scope for different people to believe different things - again, as I've explained. There have been times where officers have tried to stop a vehicle and belive it's failing to stop, but for whatever reason the driver is unaware, and visa-versa. That, of course may not be the case, and the officer/s may have a case to answer. We'll see what the outcomes are.
There's evidently conflict between the IPCC and Met's interpretation of the conduct of two of the officers, so I wouldn't be surprised to see those two have no action / very low level action taken against them. The others, again, we have to wait and see. I have little doubt that you and others of a similar nature will only accept the outcomes you want, and make up some rubbish if you don't get the ones you want.
+1 for finally getting the 'quotes' function to work. I wonder if you're equal to the challenge of understanding the basics of the subject matter.
La Liga said:
desamax said:
Pot and kettle comes to mind, the four insisted in their statements the young boy "never knew he was being pursued"
However the jury rejected the police version of events leading up to the crash. (Source ITV)
So there will be no case to answer, once the met look into it.
You can't just write "pot and kettle" and "make assumptions that are clearly wrong" without specifying the contradictions / incorrect assumptions you refer to. Well, you can, and I expect it goes without challenge amongst your peers, but when you interact with reasonably intelligent people then it sticks out a fair bit. However the jury rejected the police version of events leading up to the crash. (Source ITV)
So there will be no case to answer, once the met look into it.
The jury concluded it was a pursuit. The definition is quite wide and there's scope for different people to believe different things - again, as I've explained. That, of course may not be the case, and the officer/s may have a case to answer. We'll see what the outcomes are.
+1 for finally getting the quotes to work. I wonder if you're equal to the challenge of understanding the basics of the subject matter.
Thought you would be competent enough to remember what you have labelled him with. Nothing has been proven on him.
And as for the quote thing, I'm trying.
It's a lot to take in.
If the four had followed the proper procedure laid out to them. We would not be having this discussion.
desamax said:
Have you not judged the young lad on hear say and allegations. ?
The things presented to the court aren't hearsay, they're primary evidence e.g. being found in possession of cannabis / what was on his phones. I've not judged him, I've speculated what his likely activity was based upon the information available. desamax said:
Thought you would be competent enough to remember what you have labelled him with. Nothing has been proven on him.
I have said he was likely drug dealing. Unlike the policing matter, we have received all the information we will about Hicks, so we can only draw conclusions based on what is available. This is in contrast to the policing aspect where we'll receive much greater information about that matter once the IPCC release their report. At the moment there's far too little detail about the policing matter to draw any firm conclusions. It's a reasonable inference to draw about Hicks from the facts presented to the court and the court's conclusions:
- He was in possession of several bags of cannabis.
- His PM found no evidence of personal use of cannabis.
- He failed to stop.
- He was in possession of multiple mobile phones using 'street' language and communicating about drug deals.
Had he been caught alive, I would think it likely there'd be a prosecution based on this information. We'll never know for certain, but to conveniently hide behind 'nothing is proven' as an excuse to disregard reasonable conclusions is foolish.
desamax said:
If the four had followed the proper procedure laid out to them. We would not be having this discussion.
You don't know whether or not they have, or more importantly, if it had made any difference. It's perfectly feasible that even if requesting an authority, the time it would take to grant or be declined would make no difference to the outcome depending on the length of the pursuit. Equally, they may have acted wholly inappropriately and must face the consequences. We won't know until the misconduct outcomes and the IPCC report. 
desamax said:
Nobody minds typos by the way, but bad spelling will sometimes attract negative remarks, especially if it seems that the culprit isn't making an effort.
I believe we all make mistakes, some big some tiny. It's not my nature to pull someone up over a tiny error, knowing I could , or have done similar. I would consider that very patronising.
mph1977 said:
desamax said:
Nobody minds typos by the way, but bad spelling will sometimes attract negative remarks, especially if it seems that the culprit isn't making an effort.
I believe we all make mistakes, some big some tiny. It's not my nature to pull someone up over a tiny error, knowing I could , or have done similar. I would consider that very patronising.
Generally Grammar flames in SPL and NPE are used where the flamer is losing their arguement; So is on the slippery slope to ad-hominem attacks or slurring the other person as an attempt to discredit their, often superior, knowledge of the topic.
I'll assume it was me. Neither I nor anyone else here is having an argument with desamax, he's not arguing, he's simply repeating his position using different words each time. So there's no argument to be won or lost. As for knowledge of the topic, he wasn't there, neither was I and I don't suppose any other posters here were either.
BTW anybody who has difficulty with their spelling would be well advised to use Google Chrome and to turn on the spell checker (I think it's on by default). It's available for Android as well as Windows etc. It will red-underline a lot of the spelling mistakes we see here, and words people aren't sure of can be quickly searched and corrected.
According the BBC report the jury concluded that "This was a police pursuit as defined by the Metropolitan Police Service standard operating procedure."
This is the definition of "pursuit"
"A police driver is deemed to be in pursuit when a driver/motorcyclist indicates by their actions or continuance of their manner of driving/riding that:
they have no intention of stopping for the police, and
the police driver believes that the driver of the subject vehicle is aware of the requirement to stop and decides to continue behind the subject vehicle with a view to either reporting its progress or stopping it.
When a situation falls within the definition of a pursuit, officers need to decide whether a pursuit is justified, proportionate and conforms to the principle of least intrusion. Pursuits may be spontaneous or part of pre-planned operations."
The conclusion must therefore be that the jury did not believe the police view that Hicks was unaware of them.
This is what the disciplinary process will have to focus on.
I come at that this from having had two family members in the force but I find it hard to stomach that if someone is aware the police are following and decides to flee that the risk of an accident is transferred to the police. Anyone with seven bags of skunk and multiple mobile phones on them is conclusively either (a) a drug dealer or (b) a courier for a drug dealer but still somehow this is the fault of the police.
The police are there to CATCH criminals, not wave them past while admiring their ludicrous driving.
I feel sorry for the family but that is tempered by the fact that in the cirucmstances it was no one's fault but his own.
This is the definition of "pursuit"
"A police driver is deemed to be in pursuit when a driver/motorcyclist indicates by their actions or continuance of their manner of driving/riding that:
they have no intention of stopping for the police, and
the police driver believes that the driver of the subject vehicle is aware of the requirement to stop and decides to continue behind the subject vehicle with a view to either reporting its progress or stopping it.
When a situation falls within the definition of a pursuit, officers need to decide whether a pursuit is justified, proportionate and conforms to the principle of least intrusion. Pursuits may be spontaneous or part of pre-planned operations."
The conclusion must therefore be that the jury did not believe the police view that Hicks was unaware of them.
This is what the disciplinary process will have to focus on.
I come at that this from having had two family members in the force but I find it hard to stomach that if someone is aware the police are following and decides to flee that the risk of an accident is transferred to the police. Anyone with seven bags of skunk and multiple mobile phones on them is conclusively either (a) a drug dealer or (b) a courier for a drug dealer but still somehow this is the fault of the police.
The police are there to CATCH criminals, not wave them past while admiring their ludicrous driving.
I feel sorry for the family but that is tempered by the fact that in the cirucmstances it was no one's fault but his own.
Billsnemesis said:
According the BBC report the jury concluded that "This was a police pursuit as defined by the Metropolitan Police Service standard operating procedure."
This is the definition of "pursuit"
"A police driver is deemed to be in pursuit when a driver/motorcyclist indicates by their actions or continuance of their manner of driving/riding that:
they have no intention of stopping for the police, and
the police driver believes that the driver of the subject vehicle is aware of the requirement to stop and decides to continue behind the subject vehicle with a view to either reporting its progress or stopping it.
When a situation falls within the definition of a pursuit, officers need to decide whether a pursuit is justified, proportionate and conforms to the principle of least intrusion. Pursuits may be spontaneous or part of pre-planned operations."
The conclusion must therefore be that the jury did not believe the police view that Hicks was unaware of them.
This is what the disciplinary process will have to focus on.
I come at that this from having had two family members in the force but I find it hard to stomach that if someone is aware the police are following and decides to flee that the risk of an accident is transferred to the police. Anyone with seven bags of skunk and multiple mobile phones on them is conclusively either (a) a drug dealer or (b) a courier for a drug dealer but still somehow this is the fault of the police.
The police are there to CATCH criminals, not wave them past while admiring their ludicrous driving.
I feel sorry for the family but that is tempered by the fact that in the cirucmstances it was no one's fault but his own.
Seems a pretty sensible approach to me - the end of the post that is This is the definition of "pursuit"
"A police driver is deemed to be in pursuit when a driver/motorcyclist indicates by their actions or continuance of their manner of driving/riding that:
they have no intention of stopping for the police, and
the police driver believes that the driver of the subject vehicle is aware of the requirement to stop and decides to continue behind the subject vehicle with a view to either reporting its progress or stopping it.
When a situation falls within the definition of a pursuit, officers need to decide whether a pursuit is justified, proportionate and conforms to the principle of least intrusion. Pursuits may be spontaneous or part of pre-planned operations."
The conclusion must therefore be that the jury did not believe the police view that Hicks was unaware of them.
This is what the disciplinary process will have to focus on.
I come at that this from having had two family members in the force but I find it hard to stomach that if someone is aware the police are following and decides to flee that the risk of an accident is transferred to the police. Anyone with seven bags of skunk and multiple mobile phones on them is conclusively either (a) a drug dealer or (b) a courier for a drug dealer but still somehow this is the fault of the police.
The police are there to CATCH criminals, not wave them past while admiring their ludicrous driving.
I feel sorry for the family but that is tempered by the fact that in the cirucmstances it was no one's fault but his own.
Ultimately, I expect any wrongdoing will be procedural in nature. Of course the possibility exists that the pursuit was relatively long and, had a relevant manager been aware, it may have been cancelled. That may have meant Hicks's riding would have changed and he may not have crashed.
Even if so, there are so many variables and 'may haves' that I doubt any firm conclusions will come out that amount to whatever form of 'justice' those who use the word want.
Fundamentally, the answer is simple; don't fail to stop for the police and you'll dramatically reduce the risk of dying. No matter what outcomes are forthcoming, that simple life-preserving advice doesn't change.
That's a generous picture. Who is this person asking the bed question? 
Even if so, there are so many variables and 'may haves' that I doubt any firm conclusions will come out that amount to whatever form of 'justice' those who use the word want.
Fundamentally, the answer is simple; don't fail to stop for the police and you'll dramatically reduce the risk of dying. No matter what outcomes are forthcoming, that simple life-preserving advice doesn't change.
DBRacingGod said:
La Liga said:
Ultimately, I expect any wrongdoing will be procedural in nature. Of course the possibility exists that the pursuit was relatively long and, had a relevant manager been aware, it may have been cancelled. That may have meant Hicks's riding would have changed and he may not have crashed.
Even if so, there are so many variables and 'may haves' that I doubt any firm conclusions will come out that amount to whatever form of 'justice' those who use the word want.
Fundamentally, the answer is simple; don't fail to stop for the police and you'll dramatically reduce the risk of dying. No matter what outcomes are forthcoming, that simple life-preserving advice doesn't change.
That's a generous picture. Who is this person asking the bed question?
LOLEven if so, there are so many variables and 'may haves' that I doubt any firm conclusions will come out that amount to whatever form of 'justice' those who use the word want.
Fundamentally, the answer is simple; don't fail to stop for the police and you'll dramatically reduce the risk of dying. No matter what outcomes are forthcoming, that simple life-preserving advice doesn't change.
DBRacingGod said:
I didn't notice the difference in the picture straight away.
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff