Moped muggers and police bike chase laws

[MrBrightSi]

zygalski said:

MrBrightSi said:

zygalski said:

ChemicalChaos said:

Apologies in advance as this article is by Katie Hopkins, for the Daily Mail.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4500202/KA...

Anyway, London residents - is this as much of an epidemic as is being made out?

Isn't it about time something was done about the police laws stopping them chasing bikes? What not have police bikes to chase these scum if cars are too unwieldy?
Surely if you get injured running from the police, it's YOUR fault for being a criminal in the first place?

Why apologise if you're trawling the Daily Mail for news stories to link to a car owner's forum?
Just accept you're a fan of quality journalism & move on.

Great reply, totally misses the point avoids the topic and condescends all at the same time.

Like most i wont deny i browse the Mail, less for it's content and more for the comments bar, a great mix of common sense, idiocy and outright trolling.

But why apologise for having done something, and probably repeatedly over time. It just seems so false & happens pretty much every day on this forum. Just admit you guys enjoy reading DM online. What's so hard about that?

Fair enough, misread your point. I think people should admit to liking it, it's not that bad a website, i'm not saying the journalism is any good, but the website with it's ability to comment is good, it's fun to read and often i'll miss the story completely just to see the comment section.

[Dr Jekyll]

Pothole said:

Gargamel said:

loose cannon said:

It's a shame a big gang of police can't stage a nice little set up sting operation to catch them all out or better still a huge bunch of there previous angry customers,
Maybe a nice handset set with some form of incendiary device that melts there face and arms of immediately

I agree - it cannot be beyond the wit of man to set up a number of operations, with tracked phones, video surveillence, and tagging devices to catch entire gangs "at work"

Why the Police don't do this - I don't understand

How do you propose this is financed?

The police are supposed to be financed to fight crime anyway, and there is certainly no shortage of video surveillance in London.

Change the rules so that a copper chasing someone can't be held liable if the scrote crashes.

Make sure that when caught these bds are locked up for a few years.

Shoot a few. If someone was waving a shotgun around in the street he's be shot because he might hurt someone, but if they steal a moped and right like a nutter they are left alone because, err, they might hurt someone.

If the police really can't cope then obviously the army need to be called in.

[Jazzy Jag]

If someone goes out on a stolen/ number plateless scooter, armed with weapons an tools with the intention of committing a crime and then refuse to stop for the police then you forego the right to have your safety considered.

If they get injured in the course of justice, tiff st.

[Gargamel]

Pothole said:

How do you propose this is financed?

This is a slightly strange comment, Council tax payers see an item in their bills that pays for the police. I suggest they use that money to catch criminals...

Where it is well known that gangs are operating in a similar manner regularly and apparently without concern of being caught, then the Police are failing in their duty.

Above that I would guess that the proceeds of crime act would enable them to recover cash, stolen items and such like to help defray costs. It isn't just about pinching a few thieves on bikes, it is the gangs that then collect and resell the stolen goods, and the lifestyles and assets bought with the proceeds

[Police State]

anonymous said:

[redacted]

tip of the iceberg with regards to lawlessness in London. It's endemic; very few available police.

this one is very recent:

[anonymous-user]

Here's a chap who failed to stop for the police (who was drug dealing), crashed and died. His fault you'd think. Apparently not.

http://www.islingtongazette.co.uk/news/thousands-d...

If you pursue someone on a quad / bike you are throwing dice. If they fall off and die then you likely face years of investigations / scrutiny via the IPCC, CPS, inquest, appeals etc.

No thanks.


Any pursuit needs an end-game. Just chasing someone until they fall off isn't suitable. If any force is going to be able to be in a position to quickly get themselves setup to deal with such pursuits it's the met. Most smaller forces don't have the capacity quickly enough i.e. too few specialist traffic officers and resources / helicopters shared between several of them.

Here's an example of when the Met have got things in place. A helicopter and a low speed deliberate collision: http://www.standard.co.uk/news/crime/dramatic-heli...

[dudleybloke]

If they want to live as outlaws its only fair and part of their human rights to be treated as outlaws.

[rscott]

anonymous said:

[redacted]

Read the link posted by La Liga - the Henry Hicks death. He was riding a moped with a 300cc engine (instead of the original 50cc), no helmet, found with drugs & multiple mobiles on his person, yet 19,000+ people have signed a petition calling 'for justice' for him..

[anonymous-user]

anonymous said:

[redacted]

I think the right conclusions are eventually reached most of the time, but the process takes far too long.

How can it be right someone who steps up / puts themselves at risk to deal with the most violent, ruthless criminals in the country can be investigated and uncertain if they'll be prosecuted / internally disciplined for years?

It's well established that the more scrutiny people who make risk-based decisions make are placed under, the more risk-averse they'll behave.

The Human Rights Act is a good thing. The right to life means agents of the state need to do what they can to make sure they are placing the public at little risk of having that life taken by them. I think with Brexit we have the opportunity to opt out of the HRA (perhaps we have to anyway) and have something in its place which strikes a better balance between risk and crime. If someone fails to stop for the police and are in the process of a criminal act, then the cause / effect needs to be clearly owned by the criminal.

Even within the context of the HRA, we see countries who police in a rather more forceful way in this manner. From what I've seen, the Spanish police don't have too many concerns about pursuing mopeds. I remember watching one of those crap police shows in Spain where they were pursuing a moped and one of the cops decided to hang out the side of the window and shout at the riders So perhaps we have the autonomy already to develop a system where we can operate in a manner that most law-abiding decent people will approve of.

The Spanish police don't seem to care that much, especially when getting their kebabs: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=egQW2u87RC0

[Pothole]

Gargamel said:

Pothole said:

How do you propose this is financed?

This is a slightly strange comment, Council tax payers see an item in their bills that pays for the police. I suggest they use that money to catch criminals...

Where it is well known that gangs are operating in a similar manner regularly and apparently without concern of being caught, then the Police are failing in their duty.

Above that I would guess that the proceeds of crime act would enable them to recover cash, stolen items and such like to help defray costs. It isn't just about pinching a few thieves on bikes, it is the gangs that then collect and resell the stolen goods, and the lifestyles and assets bought with the proceeds

So you don't have a proposal. Do you perhaps think there is an unlimited pot of cash for these operations and that all the media reporting of cuts to force finances and the subsequent strains put on the remaining resources are lies or fake news?

earlier you said:

I agree - it cannot be beyond the wit of man to set up a number of operations, with tracked phones, video surveillence, and tagging devices to catch entire gangs "at work"

Why the Police don't do this - I don't understand

I'm sure you do understand. I'm no expert but insured losses are likely to be way down the list of priorities for funding.

This is not an ideal situation of course, but one which has been imposed on forces nationwide by our current prime minister. As she is likely to be reelected soon, don't hold your breath for anything to change any time soon.

I've asked in the other threads on BB about this if anyone has a viable proposal to alter the situation but so far nobody has.

[kev1974]

rscott said:

anonymous said:

[redacted]

Read the link posted by La Liga - the Henry Hicks death. He was riding a moped with a 300cc engine (instead of the original 50cc), no helmet, found with drugs & multiple mobiles on his person, yet 19,000+ people have signed a petition calling 'for justice' for him..

My workplace is just round the corner from the church where they had his funeral. Never seen so many lowlife and thugs in one place, the place was teeming with shady characters. Also Islington council suspended a load of parking restrictions on the local roads - they are either scared of or in the pay of the family or their associates too.

[Pothole]

kev1974 said:

rscott said:

anonymous said:

[redacted]

Read the link posted by La Liga - the Henry Hicks death. He was riding a moped with a 300cc engine (instead of the original 50cc), no helmet, found with drugs & multiple mobiles on his person, yet 19,000+ people have signed a petition calling 'for justice' for him..

My workplace is just round the corner from the church where they had his funeral. Never seen so many lowlife and thugs in one place, the place was teeming with shady characters. Also Islington council suspended a load of parking restrictions on the local roads - they are either scared of or in the pay of the family or their associates too.

Or they did a risk assessment and decided that their parking enforcement officers would be safer not having to argue with the aforementioned unsavoury characters?

[italianjob1275]

16 week suspended sentence and £315 fine. That will show him! It's cheaper than taxis

[oyster]

Jimboka said:

How times have changed..
Back in the 70s I saw a policeman on BMW motorbike, alongside stolen moped at 30 odd mph, policeman kicking him until he fell off!
Happy days

Until the stolen moped then careers into a child on the pavement and killing them.

Happy days though eh?

[Gecko1978]

oyster said:

Jimboka said:

How times have changed..
Back in the 70s I saw a policeman on BMW motorbike, alongside stolen moped at 30 odd mph, policeman kicking him until he fell off!
Happy days

Until the stolen moped then careers into a child on the pavement and killing them.

Happy days though eh?

While the second quote is valid I am guessing if the first is true the officer on the bike had maybe checked to see if there were a load of school kids at a bus stop etc before he started kicking the offender. My second guess is having knocked the offender off no one else was injured etc.

I am pretty sure in fact that the above sort of thing went on in the 70s rightly or wrongly but that there were very few cases where as a result a third party were injured.

[Shakermaker]

loose cannon said:

It's a shame a big gang of police can't stage a nice little set up sting operation to catch them all out or better still a huge bunch of there previous angry customers,
Maybe a nice handset set with some form of incendiary device that melts there face and arms of immediately

Samsung Galaxy 7?

[lemmingjames]

oyster said:

Until the stolen moped then careers into a child on the pavement and killing them.

Happy days though eh?

Quick risk assessment would determine this though, just as you do everyday driving

[Digga]

italianjob1275 said:

16 week suspended sentence and £315 fine. That will show him! It's cheaper than taxis

And that, in a nutshell, is everything that's wrong with our legal system. A joke of a sentence. There's ordinary people accidentally exceeding 'smart' motorway limits getting almost as bad as this blatant criminal.

[Pothole]

Digga said:

. A joke of a sentence. There's ordinary people accidentally exceeding 'smart' motorway limits getting almost as bad as this blatant criminal.

you'll have a link to share to prove this outrageous claim, of course.

[Cold]

Pothole said:

you'll have a link to share to prove this outrageous claim, of course.

The convicted received a suspended sentence which is only a threat of jail if convicted of another crime within the set time frame. Given his record, the chance of capture and conviction seems slim so it's not a particularly effective deterrent.
The "fine" was a few hundred quid (or a small holdall full of mobile phones) and it wouldn't be too difficult to find examples of comparable speeding convictions - especially given the recent overhaul.

This chap has received no punishment of any merit. No punishment is no deterrent. He'll be back to his career before you can say probation.