Police dropping people off in the middle of nowhere?

[Greendubber]

So one witness says the police did nothing but anothers says the police did try and resche him with life lines and rings?

Who do you beleive then eclassy, my money is on Fiona.

[Martin4x4]

Greendubber said:

So one witness says the police did nothing but anothers says the police did try and resche him with life lines and rings?

Who do you beleive then eclassy, my money is on Fiona.

He does appear to argue from an inconsistent position, typically he wants the Police to obey the rules when it suits him while simultaneously breaking the rules when it suits him.

[Greendubber]

Martin4x4 said:

He does appear to argue from an inconsistent position, typically he wants the Police to obey the rules when it suits him while simultaneously breaking the rules when it suits him.

He's one of lifes career victims and a fully paid up member of the 'should have could have' brigade.

What if the police had allowed members of the public in to help and they got into difficulty and also drowned? He'd be ranting about that too, you then have 2 drowned people in the water.

He wont let anything like that get in the way of a good old moan about what the police should have done though.

[Mk3Spitfire]

ikarl said:

Mk3Spitfire said:

speedyguy said:

Reminds me of this one where it seems the wrong action may have been taken by the BIB ?
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1247048/He...

Some police cars are not appropriate for motorways/fast roads. The blue lights are inadequate and using an inappropriate car could potentially cause more harm than good. I would say it's a judgement call for the officer. The calling in the wrong location was poor, but if the cop wasn't local, perhaps understandable. Surprised it wasn't given a grade 1 response though. Then again..it is the Mail.

Not sure what that has to do with anything or am I missing something?

I was referring to the fact that the Mail, as do the majority of printed press, fill their pages with sensationalist, anti-police propaganda with total disregard for the facts. Much like some of the posters on here.

[anonymous-user]

Eclassy said:

Stuff about the water incident.

Yes, that's the alternative account/s. So there are different accounts which are quite different. We all know how reliable non-expert witness recollection is in a stressful situation and how time isn't over-estimated. For example, someone having their window banged upon by a man who then walks away. An expert witness would probably see that as a little anti-social, a non-expert thinks it's attempt murder.

Why did you conclude one was right when you have no idea as to what actually happened and when faced with different account? Is it because you only presented the side which suited you.

I'm sure the Met have lied and completely made-up an officer went in risking his / her own life. They'd take the chance no one would be using a phone camera.

Martin4x4 said:

@La Liga

Yes, but undoubtedly the prosecution barrister said something very different, which is why this decision should fall on the Jury. That in MHO is the whole point of having jury trials and why Judges should not be allowed to make that decision, which subverts Justice.

Yes, they said something different. What they said didn't amount to a case to answer.

A Judge has an obligation to get rid of any case which isn't fit for purpose. That is the CPS's job which they get right most of the time when deciding whether or not to charge. Saying a Judge getting rid of a case is subverting justice is like saying the CPS do when they discontinue a case. They're both doing the same thing when they make the assessment if there's a case to answer / realistic prospect of conviction.

The CPS can / could have appealed the Judge's decision. They chose not to.

[ikarl]

Mk3Spitfire said:

ikarl said:

Mk3Spitfire said:

speedyguy said:

Reminds me of this one where it seems the wrong action may have been taken by the BIB ?
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1247048/He...

Some police cars are not appropriate for motorways/fast roads. The blue lights are inadequate and using an inappropriate car could potentially cause more harm than good. I would say it's a judgement call for the officer. The calling in the wrong location was poor, but if the cop wasn't local, perhaps understandable. Surprised it wasn't given a grade 1 response though. Then again..it is the Mail.

Not sure what that has to do with anything or am I missing something?

I was referring to the fact that the Mail, as do the majority of printed press, fill their pages with sensationalist, anti-police propaganda with total disregard for the facts. Much like some of the posters on here.

I think in quite a few cases, this being one of them, the facts speak for themselves.

Whilst I agree there are posters on here that work with 'propaganda' etc... and are expected in their replies, but for as many posters that are against the police and outrageously hammer them at every chance there are posters, such as yourself, that are so pro-police that your responses are as much expected as the anti-police crowd.

[Eclassy]

Officer risked his life.....hahahahahaha

10/15 minutes after the boy was last seen. He even had the time to take off his clothes.

I believe independent witnesses over the Met's spin doctors. Thank you.

[Mk3Spitfire]

ikarl said:

Mk3Spitfire said:

ikarl said:

Mk3Spitfire said:

speedyguy said:

Reminds me of this one where it seems the wrong action may have been taken by the BIB ?
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1247048/He...

Some police cars are not appropriate for motorways/fast roads. The blue lights are inadequate and using an inappropriate car could potentially cause more harm than good. I would say it's a judgement call for the officer. The calling in the wrong location was poor, but if the cop wasn't local, perhaps understandable. Surprised it wasn't given a grade 1 response though. Then again..it is the Mail.

Not sure what that has to do with anything or am I missing something?

I was referring to the fact that the Mail, as do the majority of printed press, fill their pages with sensationalist, anti-police propaganda with total disregard for the facts. Much like some of the posters on here.

I think in quite a few cases, this being one of them, the facts speak for themselves.

Whilst I agree there are posters on here that work with 'propaganda' etc... and are expected in their replies, but for as many posters that are against the police and outrageously hammer them at every chance there are posters, such as yourself, that are so pro-police that your responses are as much expected as the anti-police crowd.

How can you possibly say "the facts speak for themselves"? Were you there? Did you witness the incident in its entirety? If you did, then I apologise. I strongly suggest however, that you are taking your "facts" from one newspaper which is fairly well known for its sensationalism and bias. Several of the papers who lapped up this story have been shown to be wrong already by other accounts, and I suspect that as the full details emerge, will continue to be proved so.

I am pro police, yes. Because given the nature of my employment, I am privy to a lot more of the goings on of such an organisation than someone who is not. Like yourself for example. Unless you are a police officer in which case I again apologise. It's the nature of the beast that someone involved in an organisation is more aware of how it works than someone who is not. I see what goes on, on a daily basis. Like it or not, the amount of good done by the police far, far outweighs the bad. But the bad makes much more exciting reading. People don't like to hear about the good the Police do.
So if I provide a different, more pro police side to an argument based on my experiences as opposed to "facts" from a daily rag, then you'll have to forgive me. If I am merely balancing out some of the less informed police haters on here, then get over it. It's another side to a debate.
If you really want to, you'll find several occasions on here where I have criticised police. But I usually include a caveat that we may not have all the facts, because usually we do not.

[Greendubber]

Eclassy said:

Officer risked his life.....hahahahahaha

10/15 minutes after the boy was last seen. He even had the time to take off his clothes.

I believe independent witnesses over the Met's spin doctors. Thank you.

So its funny that someone went into the water and got into difficulty themselves after trying to get the lad to grab rescue lines and life rings? So which 'independent witness' do you believe because ones saying the police did nothing and the other is saying they were making efforts to rescue the lad?

Well that says more about you than them I'm afraid, confirms that you are an odious little tt.

Hey why not say the old bill killed him too?

Edited by Greendubber on Saturday 1st August 15:14

[Eclassy]

^^^^^

What efforts? According to the witnesses quoted the policeman's actions look more like a search. Any sensible person knows that going into the water 10 minutes after a drowning boy was last seen was was not an attempt to save his life.

The police didnt kill him but surely contributed to his death. I would run as fast as I can if I see NINE gang members running after me. I wont be jumping in the river though as elf&safety means as a non swimmer, I will be left to drown.

[ikarl]

Mk3Spitfire said:

How can you possibly say "the facts speak for themselves"? Were you there? Did you witness the incident in its entirety? If you did, then I apologise. I strongly suggest however, that you are taking your "facts" from one newspaper which is fairly well known for its sensationalism and bias. Several of the papers who lapped up this story have been shown to be wrong already by other accounts, and I suspect that as the full details emerge, will continue to be proved so.

I am pro police, yes. Because given the nature of my employment, I am privy to a lot more of the goings on of such an organisation than someone who is not. Like yourself for example. Unless you are a police officer in which case I again apologise. It's the nature of the beast that someone involved in an organisation is more aware of how it works than someone who is not. I see what goes on, on a daily basis. Like it or not, the amount of good done by the police far, far outweighs the bad. But the bad makes much more exciting reading. People don't like to hear about the good the Police do.
So if I provide a different, more pro police side to an argument based on my experiences as opposed to "facts" from a daily rag, then you'll have to forgive me. If I am merely balancing out some of the less informed police haters on here, then get over it. It's another side to a debate.
If you really want to, you'll find several occasions on here where I have criticised police. But I usually include a caveat that we may not have all the facts, because usually we do not.

Not sure what I would have had to witness ... police car drove past a man stumbling down a motorway embankment and he ended up dead because or his own drunken stupidity and to some degree because the police did not stop and/or did not call in the location correctly.

Very possibly we have a different opinion of what constitutes facts (that's fine) in this case, you see this from your view and I from mine.

[anonymous-user]

Eclassy said:

Officer risked his life.....hahahahahaha

10/15 minutes after the boy was last seen. He even had the time to take off his clothes.

I believe independent witnesses over the Met's spin doctors. Thank you.

So you know for a fact an officer didn't go in and get into difficulties himself? The Met have just totally created that out of thin air.

Eclassy said:

What efforts?

And according to the Met:

Met statement said:

East London Commander Lucy D'Orsi wrote: "Officers first tried to use a life aid and throw lines to him before an officer, who then needed assistance himself, entered dangerous water to try and safe Jack's life.

You disregard this because you don't like what it says.

Eclassy said:

I would run as fast as I can if I see NINE gang members running after me. I wont be jumping in the river though as elf&safety means as a non swimmer, I will be left to drown.

Nine gang members AKA police officers trying to search and locate someone who was classed as high risk and missing.

Are you also saying any time someone jumps in a river the police should automatically follow?

Hopefully next time someone like you will be alongside to help. We need to bravery of someone who gets scared when someone knocks on their car window

[Greendubber]

Eclassy said:

^^^^^

What efforts? According to the witnesses quoted the policeman's actions look more like a search. Any sensible person knows that going into the water 10 minutes after a drowning boy was last seen was was not an attempt to save his life.

The police didnt kill him but surely contributed to his death. I would run as fast as I can if I see NINE gang members running after me. I wont be jumping in the river though as elf&safety means as a non swimmer, I will be left to drown.

Do you often look for things by throwing life ring and rescue lines at them?

Nine 'gang' members?.....really?

How did they contribute towards his death, by him running away, him jumping into a canal, him not grabbing the rescue items thrown at him?

I'd think long and hard about jumping in after you to be honest.

[Mk3Spitfire]

ikarl said:

Not sure what I would have had to witness ... police car drove past a man stumbling down a motorway embankment and he ended up dead because or his own drunken stupidity and to some degree because the police did not stop and/or did not call in the location correctly.

Very possibly we have a different opinion of what constitutes facts (that's fine) in this case, you see this from your view and I from mine.

The point I was trying to make, was that maybe it wasn't quite how the Mail put it. I.e was it more that the male was walking, not stumbling. Was he closer to the fields than the carriageway, and simply walking parallel to the road. This might not look quite so dangerous as "a drunk man stumbling down the bank". You can see how one looks much worse than the other.
Maybe you're right though and those particular officers were wrong. Who knows? Except those officers.

It would appear we have different opinions, and there's nothing wrong with that. Thanks for yours.

[anonymous-user]

Martin4x4 said:

@La Liga

Yes, but undoubtedly the prosecution barrister said something very different, which is why this decision should fall on the Jury. That in MHO is the whole point of having jury trials and why Judges should not be allowed to make that decision, which subverts Justice.

It would be interesting to know what would happen if the Jury disagreed/refused to accept a Judges direction (has it ever happened). Would the Judge be obliged to recluse themselves. We occasionally see the opposite, Jury nullification in trails like Spy Catcher, Clive Pointing, Oz, Penguin for example.

From memory, there was no jury nullification in Ponting or the Oz case. The Ponting case is arguably an example of a jury bringing in a verdict that is legally perverse but is morally correct (ie not guilty when, on the law, Ponting was guilty) . In the Oz case, the jury convicted (helped by a rather biased Judge), and the Court of Appeal quashed the convictions, IIRC.

As for Spycatcher, do you mean the Australian or the English version? I was involved in the English Spycatcher cases and there weren't any jury trials that I can recall. The cases were all civil cases determined by Judges, not juries.