Police refuse to chase thief for fear of being sued?!?!
Discussion
Hi all,
Just thought I would share this - please can one of the BIB reassure me that this isn't some sort of national policy?
Link to Story
Police refused to chase a thief who had stolen a moped because the youth was not wearing a helmet, the victim said yesterday.
Max Foster, 18, said officers told him they feared being sued if the thief fell off the moped and injured himself.
The thief escaped on the £1,200 moped, which was only insured third party. Mr Foster, of Coleford, Somerset, uses his Gilera 180cc to commute to work in Bath.
He was staying at a friend's house in Bath on Tuesday night when he was woken at 1.45am by the sound of his machine being ridden outside.
He saw three youths taking it in turns to ride without helmets, and he dialled 999.
Two officers from a police response unit arrived shortly after the trio sped away, but Mr Foster said they told him they could not go after them.
"They said they weren't allowed to follow the yobs because they were not wearing helmets and it was too dangerous," said Mr Foster. "They told me the force could be sued if the riders fell off mid-chase and hurt themselves.
"This softly-softly approach is totally ridiculous. It gives thieves a perfect way to exploit the law and steal as many bikes as they want without getting arrested."
Avon and Somerset police said that aborting a pursuit because the rider was not wearing a helmet was one of the "options available" to officers when "members of the public or the riders themselves could be put in danger".
"With regard to the incident on Tuesday, a decision was made to actively search for the stolen moped and inquiries to trace the offenders are still ongoing."
The Association of Chief Police Officers said: "There is no blanket ban on calling off chases where a rider has no helmet, however most forces will adopt similar stances."
Sharon Ball, a Liberal Democrat councillor in Bath, said: "There is a terrible bike theft problem in this area, and this crazy approach means the issue will just get worse."
Just thought I would share this - please can one of the BIB reassure me that this isn't some sort of national policy?
Link to Story
Police refused to chase a thief who had stolen a moped because the youth was not wearing a helmet, the victim said yesterday.
Max Foster, 18, said officers told him they feared being sued if the thief fell off the moped and injured himself.
The thief escaped on the £1,200 moped, which was only insured third party. Mr Foster, of Coleford, Somerset, uses his Gilera 180cc to commute to work in Bath.
He was staying at a friend's house in Bath on Tuesday night when he was woken at 1.45am by the sound of his machine being ridden outside.
He saw three youths taking it in turns to ride without helmets, and he dialled 999.
Two officers from a police response unit arrived shortly after the trio sped away, but Mr Foster said they told him they could not go after them.
"They said they weren't allowed to follow the yobs because they were not wearing helmets and it was too dangerous," said Mr Foster. "They told me the force could be sued if the riders fell off mid-chase and hurt themselves.
"This softly-softly approach is totally ridiculous. It gives thieves a perfect way to exploit the law and steal as many bikes as they want without getting arrested."
Avon and Somerset police said that aborting a pursuit because the rider was not wearing a helmet was one of the "options available" to officers when "members of the public or the riders themselves could be put in danger".
"With regard to the incident on Tuesday, a decision was made to actively search for the stolen moped and inquiries to trace the offenders are still ongoing."
The Association of Chief Police Officers said: "There is no blanket ban on calling off chases where a rider has no helmet, however most forces will adopt similar stances."
Sharon Ball, a Liberal Democrat councillor in Bath, said: "There is a terrible bike theft problem in this area, and this crazy approach means the issue will just get worse."
well have to do it ourselves then
then when we get hurt we can sue the police for not doing there job and us having to do it instead
sounds like a plan i am up for it
truncheon on standby
any way what are they going to sue for loss of earnings????
then when we get hurt we can sue the police for not doing there job and us having to do it instead
sounds like a plan i am up for it
truncheon on standby
any way what are they going to sue for loss of earnings????
Edited by splatspeed on Friday 30th June 12:54
xhavoc said:
Cherie Blair should be burned at the stake for what she and her colleagues have inflicted on this country.
That is not a death threat......... 
What's next? The scrotes will be suing the owners of the vehicles when they fall off, for 'allowing' them find a way to make off with them.... well if a burglar can sue a building owner for falling through a skylight...
Personally, I would prefer them to fall off, it might actually teach them a lesson in road safety - or at least raise the bar of the gene pool.
smeggy said:
havoc said:
Cherie Blair should be burned at the stake for what she and her colleagues have inflicted on this country.
That is not a death threat......... Nope, just a statement of fact. She should be!
I however, won't do it because I'm law-abiding. Not that it does me any good when the police refuse to chase criminals anymore.
Quick question for the BiB/Lawyers - where's the line between 'doing nothing' and 'aiding and abetting'?!?
havoc said:
smeggy said:
havoc said:
Cherie Blair should be burned at the stake for what she and her colleagues have inflicted on this country.
That is not a death threat......... Nope, just a statement of fact. She should be!
I however, won't do it because I'm law-abiding. Not that it does me any good when the police refuse to chase criminals anymore.
Quick question for the BiB/Lawyers - where's the line between 'doing nothing' and 'aiding and abetting'?!?
Yo're right.If I know a crime is being committed and I do nothing then I think I would be aiding and abetting,whereas the police do nothing and.........?
Avon and Somerset Police said:
"... a decision was made to actively search for the stolen moped and inquiries to trace the offenders are still ongoing...."
I suppose this means that they could just as easily have taken a decision not "to actively search" instead. Well I guess we have to be thankful for small mercies in Blair's Britain.
Doesn't suprise me at all. We often get mopeds and bikes racing round our ground after being nicked. I wouldn't dream of chasing them. If i was stupid enough to (which some people are) the chase would very quickly be terminated by the control room anyway. We can't have a thief possiblly being injured, after all it's ME who has a 'duty of care' to them (not joking).I wouldn't want to infringe their human rights would i.....
ing lunatic. cotton wool is highly flamable
Forums | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff