Norfolk Plod dangerously driving?
Discussion
see link;
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/no
Full story;
Pc 'scared' before 100mph crash
A colleague in a police car driven by an officer accused of dangerous driving, said he felt "scared" moments before a 100mph crash, a court heard.
Pc Andrew Deadman, 43, who denies dangerous driving, pursued a 17-year-old suspect the wrong way up a dual carriageway.
The crash, on the A47 near King's Lynn in Norfolk, happened in January 2005.
Stacy Ellington, 16, lost her child after the car she was in swerved to avoid the vehicle being pursued.
Pc Jamie Ward was a passenger in a marked police car driven by Pc Andrew Deadman when the crash happened at Terrington St John, near King's Lynn, Norfolk.
Lost unborn baby
Norwich Crown Court has heard that Pc Deadman, 43, was following a Vauxhall Cavalier driven by disqualified driver Damian Pearl.
The jury was told that another vehicle, a Peugeot in which Miss Ellington was being driven by her boyfriend David Loasby had swerved to avoid the Cavalier and hit the central reservation.
The Peugeot was then hit by Pc Deadman's Ford Mondeo, leaving Miss Ellington with serious injuries and leading to the loss of her unborn baby.
Giving evidence on Tuesday, Pc Ward said he had been in the police car with Pc Deadman when the accident happened.
Pc Ward said that Pc Deadman followed the vehicle along the wrong side of the carriageway, while another police car used the correct carriageway.
Asked by Mr Spence how he was feeling in the moments before the crash, Pc Ward said: "To be perfectly honest I was very scared."
Pc Ward said that he had radioed Norfolk Police control room and had informed them they were following a car on the wrong side of the road.
On Monday the court heard that Pc Deadman, of Tilney St Lawrence, near King's Lynn, was a trained response driver, but not a trained pursuit driver.
Pearl was later jailed after he admitted dangerous driving and a string of other motoring offences.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/no
Full story;
Pc 'scared' before 100mph crash
A colleague in a police car driven by an officer accused of dangerous driving, said he felt "scared" moments before a 100mph crash, a court heard.
Pc Andrew Deadman, 43, who denies dangerous driving, pursued a 17-year-old suspect the wrong way up a dual carriageway.
The crash, on the A47 near King's Lynn in Norfolk, happened in January 2005.
Stacy Ellington, 16, lost her child after the car she was in swerved to avoid the vehicle being pursued.
Pc Jamie Ward was a passenger in a marked police car driven by Pc Andrew Deadman when the crash happened at Terrington St John, near King's Lynn, Norfolk.
Lost unborn baby
Norwich Crown Court has heard that Pc Deadman, 43, was following a Vauxhall Cavalier driven by disqualified driver Damian Pearl.
The jury was told that another vehicle, a Peugeot in which Miss Ellington was being driven by her boyfriend David Loasby had swerved to avoid the Cavalier and hit the central reservation.
The Peugeot was then hit by Pc Deadman's Ford Mondeo, leaving Miss Ellington with serious injuries and leading to the loss of her unborn baby.
Giving evidence on Tuesday, Pc Ward said he had been in the police car with Pc Deadman when the accident happened.
Pc Ward said that Pc Deadman followed the vehicle along the wrong side of the carriageway, while another police car used the correct carriageway.
Asked by Mr Spence how he was feeling in the moments before the crash, Pc Ward said: "To be perfectly honest I was very scared."
Pc Ward said that he had radioed Norfolk Police control room and had informed them they were following a car on the wrong side of the road.
On Monday the court heard that Pc Deadman, of Tilney St Lawrence, near King's Lynn, was a trained response driver, but not a trained pursuit driver.
Pearl was later jailed after he admitted dangerous driving and a string of other motoring offences.
According to the EDP website he hadnt been authorised for the pursuit -
EDP said:Whichever way you look at it its a tragedy, a woman has lost an unborn child and the PC has to live with that on his mind. Lets not forget the 17 year old who started it by driving up the wrong lane in the first place, ultimately the blame lies with him IHMO.
The colleague of a police driver who tailed an offender the wrong way down the A47 and crashed with an on-coming car had not gained authorisation for the high-speed chase, a jury heard today.
PC Jamie Ward, who was in the passenger seat next to PC Andrew Deadman, told Norwich Crown Court he was still awaiting the go ahead from force control when their patrol car was in collision with a Peugeot driven by David Loasby, 17, on the dual carriageway at Terrington St John, between King's Lynn and Wisbech.
(snip)
Sgt Stephen King, who spoke to PC Ward from Wymondham dispatch centre, said he would have stopped the pursuit immediately if he had known it was on the wrong carriageway.
njwc said:
Whichever way you look at it its a tragedy, a woman has lost an unborn child and the PC has to live with that on his mind. Lets not forget the 17 year old who started it by driving up the wrong lane in the first place, ultimately the blame lies with him IHMO.
The 17 year old would face the full 'blame' in this country, i.e. murder/manslaughter for the unborn child.
>> Edited by texasjohn on Tuesday 14th February 22:43
texasjohn said:
Whichever way you look at it its a tragedy, a woman has lost an unborn child and the PC has to live with that on his mind. Lets not forget the 17 year old who started it by driving up the wrong lane in the first place, ultimately the blame lies with him IHMO.
The 17 year old would face the full 'blame' in this country, i.e. murder/manslaughter for the unborn child.
>> Edited by texasjohn on Tuesday 14th February 22:43
Can you export large amounts of that culture to GB texas John
dvd
>> Edited by Dwight VanDriver on Wednesday 15th February 06:41
He's at fault, he wasn't authorised, and he claims he wasn't aware it was Police policy.
More to the point, this is Kings Lynn. There is only one stretch of road this can be, the bypass.
It's a 2 mile long dual carriageway, at 100+ mph this means the pursuit can't be more than a minute. At either end (A47/A17, A148/A47/A10) the roads are so terrible that the driver would simply have to slow down and could then be apprehended. There is nowhere else to go. It's not like a chase on the M1 where it could go on for miles.
More to the point, this is Kings Lynn. There is only one stretch of road this can be, the bypass.
It's a 2 mile long dual carriageway, at 100+ mph this means the pursuit can't be more than a minute. At either end (A47/A17, A148/A47/A10) the roads are so terrible that the driver would simply have to slow down and could then be apprehended. There is nowhere else to go. It's not like a chase on the M1 where it could go on for miles.
without wishing to thread hi-jack, how can you murder an unborn child?
At point is the unborn child an unoborn child, and at what point just a collection of cells?
If you murder one of a couple who are trying to get pregnant, does that count as murdering and unborn child. What if you stop a thought about copulation in somebody's head, murder?
At point is the unborn child an unoborn child, and at what point just a collection of cells?
If you murder one of a couple who are trying to get pregnant, does that count as murdering and unborn child. What if you stop a thought about copulation in somebody's head, murder?
D_Mike said:
without wishing to thread hi-jack, how can you murder an unborn child?
At point is the unborn child an unoborn child, and at what point just a collection of cells?
If you murder one of a couple who are trying to get pregnant, does that count as murdering and unborn child. What if you stop a thought about copulation in somebody's head, murder?
I would say that if the baby is less than 24 weeks old, and therefore can be terminated legally by abortion, it should read "induced a miscarriage". After that time the state accepts the foetus as an entity that should be protected by law and it could be “murdered”. Just my thoughts.
mg6b said:
.....the roads are so terrible that the driver would simply have to slow down and could then be apprehended.
Thats a bit of a simplistic view
Not really. The roads are pretty bad off that dual carriageway, grotty S2s. They're usually pretty full of traffic as well.
risk of the 'suspect' and the seriousness of the crime ans getting away -v- safety of the public in chasing them.
Why was he chased to start with? was the risk of chasing him at 100mph on the wrong side of a duel carriage in proportion to the crime he committed or was suspected of committing?
So he was a disqualified driver, did they know that when they chased him? if so why not pay him a visit later without the hish speed pursuit?
If they just saw him driving badly - was the car stolen? again pay a visit later with no high speed pursuit.
I cringe when whatching some of the police camera action type programms when it is the act of the pursuit which 'makes' the suspect drive even faster/wrong side of the road to lose the police.
I think unless the police know or suspect the person of a serious crime the police must be very careful not to start in a dangerous chase - nothing wrong with high speed in the right place but not the wrong way on a road or in town for instance. The risk to the public is too high.
Why was he chased to start with? was the risk of chasing him at 100mph on the wrong side of a duel carriage in proportion to the crime he committed or was suspected of committing?
So he was a disqualified driver, did they know that when they chased him? if so why not pay him a visit later without the hish speed pursuit?
If they just saw him driving badly - was the car stolen? again pay a visit later with no high speed pursuit.
I cringe when whatching some of the police camera action type programms when it is the act of the pursuit which 'makes' the suspect drive even faster/wrong side of the road to lose the police.
I think unless the police know or suspect the person of a serious crime the police must be very careful not to start in a dangerous chase - nothing wrong with high speed in the right place but not the wrong way on a road or in town for instance. The risk to the public is too high.
The crash was at Terrington St John, a couple of miles past the little chef on the A47 as you head towards Kings Lynn.
IMO the fault is with the scrote who instigated the chase. If he hadn't tried to leg it the incident wouldn't have happened. It is he who should feel the full force of the law, not
IMO the fault is with the scrote who instigated the chase. If he hadn't tried to leg it the incident wouldn't have happened. It is he who should feel the full force of the law, not
BliarOut said:
IMO the fault is with the scrote who instigated the chase. If he hadn't tried to leg it the incident wouldn't have happened. It is he who should feel the full force of the law, not
I don't agree. The BiB response still has to be measured and proportionate.
If BiB's are exceeding their authority when it comes to thei driving permit, and that leads to a collision then that does nothing to reassure the public that BiB response driving is up to scratch.
We need to find out why this BiB did what he did and find ways of preventing it.
Jonleeper said:
without wishing to thread hi-jack, how can you murder an unborn child?
At point is the unborn child an unoborn child, and at what point just a collection of cells?
If you murder one of a couple who are trying to get pregnant, does that count as murdering and unborn child. What if you stop a thought about copulation in somebody's head, murder?
I would say that if the baby is less than 24 weeks old, and therefore can be terminated legally by abortion, it should read "induced a miscarriage". After that time the state accepts the foetus as an entity that should be protected by law and it could be “murdered”. Just my thoughts.
In this country a fetus is not a person therefore cannot be murdered however, if the baby is born alive and dies of injuries caused by the incident then a criminal case can be brought.
volvos70t5 said:
We need to find out why this BiB did what he did and find ways of preventing it.
Err, we know why the BIB did what he did, he was trying to stop a scrote. I guess you are suggesting that whenever a scrote steals a car and drives dangerously, they should be left to their own devices? Only scrotes that steal cars and drive safely should be stopped and arrested?
MR2Mike said:
We need to find out why this BiB did what he did and find ways of preventing it.
Err, we know why the BIB did what he did, he was trying to stop a scrote. I guess you are suggesting that whenever a scrote steals a car and drives dangerously, they should be left to their own devices? Only scrotes that steal cars and drive safely should be stopped and arrested?
No, I am suggesting that the response from Bib has to be appropriate and proportionate.
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff