'Justice for Henry Hicks'
Discussion
Bigends said:
He simply wasn't entitles or authorised to block the road and should have stuck to his day job which he's now lost
He was not authorised purse the driver, no one said he wasn't authorised to drive a police car and practice his turn in the road whilst an officers surprised traffic on one side.Bigends said:
He simply wasn't entitles or authorised to block the road and should have stuck to his day job which he's now lost
He was not authorised purse the driver, no one said he wasn't authorised to drive a police car and practice his turn in the road whilst an officers surprised traffic on one side.Do me a favour, tell your mates its easier to pull over when told to do so by the police.
Do yourself a favour, tell you colleagues no one is above the law.
No I can see that you are a keyboard warrior, so I'll let you have the last word. Just like all spoilt brats have to.
See you on patrol.
Do yourself a favour, tell you colleagues no one is above the law.
No I can see that you are a keyboard warrior, so I'll let you have the last word. Just like all spoilt brats have to.
See you on patrol.
desamax said:
Do me a favour, tell your mates its easier to pull over when told to do so by the police.
Do yourself a favour, tell you colleagues no one is above the law.
No I can see that you are a keyboard warrior, so I'll let you have the last word. Just like all spoilt brats have to.
See you on patrol.
Sorry you feel that way but just remember you're the one who came on here crying and abusing people and calling all police corrupt so take your teddy and put it back in your pram. Do yourself a favour, tell you colleagues no one is above the law.
No I can see that you are a keyboard warrior, so I'll let you have the last word. Just like all spoilt brats have to.
See you on patrol.
Your moped riding weed smoking mates arent above the law either, you'd do well to remember that.
Sorry you feel that way but just remember you're the one who came on here crying and abusing people and calling all police corrupt so take your teddy and put it back in your pram.
Your moped riding weed smoking mates arent above the law either, you'd do well to remember that.
Abusing ?? Ha ha look back and see who started the name calling?
I don't have a problem with decent honest police, I came on defending a young lad and his family, who got justice today, who clearly were being abused on here. I never started this thread. And as for calling ALL police corrupt I only accused the 4 guilty liars of being couurupt. ( you called them unlucky) bent police are criminals
Simple. Now go serve the public.
Your moped riding weed smoking mates arent above the law either, you'd do well to remember that.
Abusing ?? Ha ha look back and see who started the name calling?
I don't have a problem with decent honest police, I came on defending a young lad and his family, who got justice today, who clearly were being abused on here. I never started this thread. And as for calling ALL police corrupt I only accused the 4 guilty liars of being couurupt. ( you called them unlucky) bent police are criminals
Simple. Now go serve the public.
desamax said:
Sorry you feel that way but just remember you're the one who came on here crying and abusing people and calling all police corrupt so take your teddy and put it back in your pram.
Your moped riding weed smoking mates arent above the law either, you'd do well to remember that.
Abusing ?? Ha ha look back and see who started the name calling?
I don't have a problem with decent honest police, I came on defending a young lad and his family, who got justice today, who clearly were being abused on here. I never started this thread. And as for calling ALL police corrupt I only accused the 4 guilty liars of being couurupt. ( you called them unlucky) bent police are criminals
Simple. Now go serve the public.
You came here relating todays police to Hillsborough, you called people Your moped riding weed smoking mates arent above the law either, you'd do well to remember that.
Abusing ?? Ha ha look back and see who started the name calling?
I don't have a problem with decent honest police, I came on defending a young lad and his family, who got justice today, who clearly were being abused on here. I never started this thread. And as for calling ALL police corrupt I only accused the 4 guilty liars of being couurupt. ( you called them unlucky) bent police are criminals
Simple. Now go serve the public.
s etc. Now go serve the public?
Maybe I'll go serve the public and deal with someone innocently making off on a moped whilst carring a load of weed.
desamax said:
Sorry you feel that way but just remember you're the one who came on here crying and abusing people and calling all police corrupt so take your teddy and put it back in your pram.
Your moped riding weed smoking mates arent above the law either, you'd do well to remember that.
Abusing ?? Ha ha look back and see who started the name calling?
I don't have a problem with decent honest police, I came on defending a young lad and his family, who got justice today, who clearly were being abused on here. I never started this thread. And as for calling ALL police corrupt I only accused the 4 guilty liars of being couurupt. ( you called them unlucky) bent police are criminals
Simple. Now go serve the public.
You need to calm down a bit. It's not unknown for people to get banned from this forum when they get as stroppy as you.Your moped riding weed smoking mates arent above the law either, you'd do well to remember that.
Abusing ?? Ha ha look back and see who started the name calling?
I don't have a problem with decent honest police, I came on defending a young lad and his family, who got justice today, who clearly were being abused on here. I never started this thread. And as for calling ALL police corrupt I only accused the 4 guilty liars of being couurupt. ( you called them unlucky) bent police are criminals
Simple. Now go serve the public.
You should also learn how to use the quoting system.
I suggest you read my post again. I called it a cover up like Hillsbourgh,
Coppers changing statements to suit.
Stick together by all means, but if you see wrong and stand by, your just as bad,
If you do see someone making off with a small quantities of "weed" I'd trust you would follow procudure or suffer the consequences If it went wrong.
I know there are more good police than bad thankfully. But thease four thought they were above the law.
Coppers changing statements to suit.
Stick together by all means, but if you see wrong and stand by, your just as bad,
If you do see someone making off with a small quantities of "weed" I'd trust you would follow procudure or suffer the consequences If it went wrong.
I know there are more good police than bad thankfully. But thease four thought they were above the law.
singlecoil said:
You need to calm down a bit. It's not unknown for people to get banned from this forum when they get as stroppy as you.
You should also learn how to use the quoting system.
Thanks for that, I don't think I was at all stroppy after being called names etc. You should also learn how to use the quoting system.
and this poor boy and his family ? Just look at the comments?
Desamax is certainly an articulate and intelligent chap. His comprehension and understanding of the subject matter is first rate.
Let me try to help him a little. It's a narrative verdict. Therefore blame isn't attributed to any individual/s for the cause of death by the jury. The jury have concluded the matter was a pursuit as defined by police policy, just as they've concluded Hicks's riding contributed to his death. The IPCC have asked the Met to see whether or not there are any misconduct issues. The word 'may' in the brief BBC article gives this away (as it naturally means there's a 'may not' scenario). There evidently aren't any criminal matters so using words like 'bent' and 'corrupt' etc clearly aren't supported by any evidence. The absence of criminal matters means the context is one of policy and procedure.
I'm glad I and most others pay into the Fed. It means we can afford the best legal reps.
I can also help the Coroner with their 'prevention of death report'. It'll start with this; "If the police try and stop you. Then don't speed off and fail to stop or you may die, even if you're likely to be drug dealing".
Let me try to help him a little. It's a narrative verdict. Therefore blame isn't attributed to any individual/s for the cause of death by the jury. The jury have concluded the matter was a pursuit as defined by police policy, just as they've concluded Hicks's riding contributed to his death. The IPCC have asked the Met to see whether or not there are any misconduct issues. The word 'may' in the brief BBC article gives this away (as it naturally means there's a 'may not' scenario). There evidently aren't any criminal matters so using words like 'bent' and 'corrupt' etc clearly aren't supported by any evidence. The absence of criminal matters means the context is one of policy and procedure.
I'm glad I and most others pay into the Fed. It means we can afford the best legal reps.
I can also help the Coroner with their 'prevention of death report'. It'll start with this; "If the police try and stop you. Then don't speed off and fail to stop or you may die, even if you're likely to be drug dealing".
La Liga said:
Desamax is certainly an articulate and intelligent chap. His comprehension and understanding of the subject matter is first rate.
Let me try to help him a little. It's a narrative verdict. Therefore blame isn't attributed to any individual/s for the cause of death by the jury. The jury have concluded the matter was a pursuit as defined by police policy, just as they've concluded Hicks's riding contributed to his death. The IPCC have asked the Met to see whether or not there are any misconduct issues. The word 'may' in the brief BBC article gives this away (as it naturally means there's a 'may not' scenario). There evidently aren't any criminal matters so using words like 'bent' and 'corrupt' etc clearly aren't supported by any evidence. The absence of criminal matters means the context is one of policy and procedure.
I'm glad I and most others pay into the Fed. It means we can afford the best legal reps.
I can also help the Coroner with their 'prevention of death report'. It'll start with this; "If the police try and stop you. Then don't speed off and fail to stop or you may die, even if you're likely to be drug dealing".
I'm sure I've warned you before about speaking the truth, please dont do it again Let me try to help him a little. It's a narrative verdict. Therefore blame isn't attributed to any individual/s for the cause of death by the jury. The jury have concluded the matter was a pursuit as defined by police policy, just as they've concluded Hicks's riding contributed to his death. The IPCC have asked the Met to see whether or not there are any misconduct issues. The word 'may' in the brief BBC article gives this away (as it naturally means there's a 'may not' scenario). There evidently aren't any criminal matters so using words like 'bent' and 'corrupt' etc clearly aren't supported by any evidence. The absence of criminal matters means the context is one of policy and procedure.
I'm glad I and most others pay into the Fed. It means we can afford the best legal reps.
I can also help the Coroner with their 'prevention of death report'. It'll start with this; "If the police try and stop you. Then don't speed off and fail to stop or you may die, even if you're likely to be drug dealing".
desamax said:
I suggest you read my post again. I called it a cover up like Hillsbourgh,
Coppers changing statements to suit.
Stick together by all means, but if you see wrong and stand by, your just as bad,
If you do see someone making off with a small quantities of "weed" I'd trust you would follow procudure or suffer the consequences If it went wrong.
I know there are more good police than bad thankfully. But thease four thought they were above the law.
I dont know about your eyes but mine cant see into the pockets of a passing moped rider to count bags of weed. Coppers changing statements to suit.
Stick together by all means, but if you see wrong and stand by, your just as bad,
If you do see someone making off with a small quantities of "weed" I'd trust you would follow procudure or suffer the consequences If it went wrong.
I know there are more good police than bad thankfully. But thease four thought they were above the law.
You really need to realise that the person who thought they were above the law was your mate on the moped.
I fear this'll be beyond certain people, but it's perfectly possible for a driver to believe they're not in a pursuit but they in fact are in one - ultimately, you're not in the head of the driver. The same applies the other way around. If a driver didn't believe they were in a pursuit, then why would they seek an authority? The policy threshold is a 'belief', not just suspicion.
I expect it was a pursuit and the jury have made the right decision. The definition can be quite wide. Here's some reading on the matter: https://www.app.college.police.uk/app-content/road...
I'd like to know more details i.e. how long between police contact and the collision?When was warning equipment activated (it doesn't need to be for there to be a pursuit)? Was there time for authorities? It's often not a quick progress relative to the ground a pursuit can cover.
If it was obviously a pursuit and the police driver has realised they're in the wrong and changed their account because of that, then naturally they deserve consequences for that behaviour. However, until misconduct matters have been concluded, any right or wrongdoing is speculation.
As I wrote before, never give an account after a major incident.
The Met have disagreed about the IPCC conclusions about the radio operators, so the IPCC have had to force the Met (using their powers) to undertake misconduct proceedings against the radio operators.
Who'd have thought there are downsides and risk to committing crime? I'm glad he didn't kill anyone else, as that would have been a tragedy.
I expect it was a pursuit and the jury have made the right decision. The definition can be quite wide. Here's some reading on the matter: https://www.app.college.police.uk/app-content/road...
I'd like to know more details i.e. how long between police contact and the collision?When was warning equipment activated (it doesn't need to be for there to be a pursuit)? Was there time for authorities? It's often not a quick progress relative to the ground a pursuit can cover.
If it was obviously a pursuit and the police driver has realised they're in the wrong and changed their account because of that, then naturally they deserve consequences for that behaviour. However, until misconduct matters have been concluded, any right or wrongdoing is speculation.
As I wrote before, never give an account after a major incident.
The Met have disagreed about the IPCC conclusions about the radio operators, so the IPCC have had to force the Met (using their powers) to undertake misconduct proceedings against the radio operators.
Greendubber said:
You really need to realise that the person who thought they were above the law was your mate on the moped.
No, he chose to carry drugs, failed to stop, speed and swerve. It's definitely the fault of the police. It's also the fault of the police he was on a stolen moped with a larger-than-registered engine fitted. I expect fitting a 300cc engine makes it more challenging to ride. Who'd have thought there are downsides and risk to committing crime? I'm glad he didn't kill anyone else, as that would have been a tragedy.
La Liga said:
o, he chose to carry drugs, failed to stop, speed and swerve. It's definitely the fault of the police. It's also the fault of the police he was on a stolen moped with a larger-than-registered engine fitted. I expect fitting a 300cc engine makes it more challenging to ride.
Who'd have thought there are downsides and risk to committing crime? I'm glad he didn't kill anyone else, as that would have been a tragedy.
If you in any doubt you pull over as soon as its safe and wait to see if their on a shout on trying to stop you.Who'd have thought there are downsides and risk to committing crime? I'm glad he didn't kill anyone else, as that would have been a tragedy.
Greendubber said:
I dont know about your eyes but mine cant see into the pockets of a passing moped rider to count bags of weed.
You really need to realise that the person who thought they were above the law was your mate on the moped.
Laws rules and procedures are made for all to abide by, you keep insisting the young lad was my mate ! He was not. You really need to realise that the person who thought they were above the law was your mate on the moped.
According to the police statements he was not requested to stop, the "weed" less that 6 grams, was found hours later with non of the lads DNA on any of the so called packs ( very strange) this could suggest a plant ? As no THC was found in the lads blood . As a serving officer you should help root out the bad apples, not condone their actions Every one has rights, it's not a police state yet.
desamax said:
Laws rules and procedures are made for all to abide by, you keep insisting the young lad was my mate ! He was not.
According to the police statements he was not requested to stop, the "weed" less that 6 grams, was found hours later with non of the lads DNA on any of the so called packs ( very strange) this could suggest a plant ? As no THC was found in the lads blood . As a serving officer you should help root out the bad apples, not condone their actions Every one has rights, it's not a police state yet.
No DNA on it so it could have been planted? Go and educate yourself about DNA. I suggest you then read La Ligas VERY relevant post about this case. No THC in his blood, oh right well that confirms it cant have been in his pocket doesnt it?According to the police statements he was not requested to stop, the "weed" less that 6 grams, was found hours later with non of the lads DNA on any of the so called packs ( very strange) this could suggest a plant ? As no THC was found in the lads blood . As a serving officer you should help root out the bad apples, not condone their actions Every one has rights, it's not a police state yet.
Hopefully you'll stop making yourself look stupid soon.
desamax said:
Laws rules and procedures are made for all to abide by, you keep insisting the young lad was my mate ! He was not.
According to the police statements he was not requested to stop, the "weed" less that 6 grams, was found hours later with non of the lads DNA on any of the so called packs ( very strange) this could suggest a plant ? As no THC was found in the lads blood . As a serving officer you should help root out the bad apples, not condone their actions Every one has rights, it's not a police state yet.
Why strange no DNA? According to the police statements he was not requested to stop, the "weed" less that 6 grams, was found hours later with non of the lads DNA on any of the so called packs ( very strange) this could suggest a plant ? As no THC was found in the lads blood . As a serving officer you should help root out the bad apples, not condone their actions Every one has rights, it's not a police state yet.
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff