Teen killed in police chase crash in Ilderton Road near New Cross

The traffic lights on Ilderton Road where a 13-year-old died

Ilderton Road resident Huseyin Bayir

Owner of Burhan Motors Burhan Salih

Southwark Council worker Paul Foster helped replace two of the lampposts destroyed in the crash.

First published in News This Is Local London: Photograph of the Author by , reporter

A POLICE car chase through the streets of New Cross on Sunday night left a 13-year-old girl dead.

The teenager was travelling with her family in a Volkswagen Polo when the driver of a Peugeot 308 being chased by police hit them at a set of traffic lights in Ilderton Road just before 6.30pm.

The girl - who was in the back of the vehicle - died of her injuries at the scene at the junction with Surrey Canal Road.

Her mother, father and four-year-old brother were all taken to hospital - although their injuries are not thought to be serious.

The Peugeot driver, who was being chased by a marked police car with lights and siren on, has been arrested. His female passenger was also taken to hospital with minor injuries.

The incident left debris and glass on the road with traffic lights "bent to 45 degrees" and lampposts on both sides of the road needing to be replaced.

Ilderton Road resident Huseyin Bayir returned home from a night out to find his road blocked off with police cars at around 10pm.

The Owner of Fish Republic - a takeaway around 100m from the scene of the crash - said: "It is very sad. I am shocked.

"It was closed. When I looked up I saw a car had crashed into the road. "There wasn’t even damage to the headlights - I didn’t see why the police were taking it so seriously.

"I knew it was more than an accident because if it was an accident they would have let me in.

"It is very sad news. The first time I hear of somebody dying here."

The 42-year-old went on to say he thought a lack of clear road markings had resulted in a number of accidents at the junction.

Burhan Salih is the owner of Burhan Motors, opposite the crash site. Speaking about the police response he said: "They (the police) have to do it but sometimes they over do it.

"It is upsetting. Nobody wants to see someone die."

Southwark Council worker Paul Foster helped replace two of the lampposts destroyed in the crash.

He said: "When I got there last night there were just people sweeping up the glass and debris. All the road was shut.

"This lamppost was all damaged and on the other side the traffic lights were bent 45 degrees."

Commander Tony Eastaugh said: "An innocent family are now dealing with the tragic loss of a loved one.

"The Metropolitan Police has begun a thorough investigation into the circumstances of this terrible incident.

"The thoughts of our staff and officers are with the family at this time."

The pursuit was initiated in Queens Road, Peckham after the Peugeot triggered a positive hit on the ANPR system of a police vehicle.

Officers from the Directorate of Professional Standards and Traffic officers are now investigating and an Independent Police Complaints Commission investigator attended the scene to assess the circumstances.

A post mortem has been scheduled for 9am on 8 January at St Thomas' Mortuary. The victim is yet to be formally identified.

The Road Death Investigation Unit are requesting any witnesses to the pursuit or collision to contact their witness line on 0208 285 1574.

Comments (107)

Please log in to enable comment sorting

8:51am Mon 7 Jan 13

melissa67 says...

This is so sad. That poor family have lost that child because of a wreck less, selfish coward. Throw away the key!!!
This is so sad. That poor family have lost that child because of a wreck less, selfish coward. Throw away the key!!! melissa67
  • Score: 1

9:04am Mon 7 Jan 13

PaulErith says...

Thoughts go out to the family, and let's hope the driver of the Peugeot gets everything that he has coming to him.
Thoughts go out to the family, and let's hope the driver of the Peugeot gets everything that he has coming to him. PaulErith
  • Score: 1

10:05am Mon 7 Jan 13

Inspirationalady28 says...

I think that emergency services are to blame for alot of accidents due to speeding in residential and built-up areas, especially the Police.. The driver of the car being chased obviously didn't stop because he/she had done something wrong, but this tragic accident may not have happened if the Police weren't in pursuit?!! Why are they allowed to go through RED traffic lights and exceed speed limits? If the driver of the car is at fault so be it, I hope he/she gets a punishment to fit the crime but I still think that something should be done to stop the emergency services driving without due care and attention and putting others lives at risk. A young girl has had her life cut short because of this...my thoughts and prayers are with all those that loved her as they now have to start a brand new year without her!
I think that emergency services are to blame for alot of accidents due to speeding in residential and built-up areas, especially the Police.. The driver of the car being chased obviously didn't stop because he/she had done something wrong, but this tragic accident may not have happened if the Police weren't in pursuit?!! Why are they allowed to go through RED traffic lights and exceed speed limits? If the driver of the car is at fault so be it, I hope he/she gets a punishment to fit the crime but I still think that something should be done to stop the emergency services driving without due care and attention and putting others lives at risk. A young girl has had her life cut short because of this...my thoughts and prayers are with all those that loved her as they now have to start a brand new year without her! Inspirationalady28
  • Score: -1

10:28am Mon 7 Jan 13

plasticfantastic says...

Inspirationalady28 wrote:
I think that emergency services are to blame for alot of accidents due to speeding in residential and built-up areas, especially the Police.. The driver of the car being chased obviously didn't stop because he/she had done something wrong, but this tragic accident may not have happened if the Police weren't in pursuit?!! Why are they allowed to go through RED traffic lights and exceed speed limits? If the driver of the car is at fault so be it, I hope he/she gets a punishment to fit the crime but I still think that something should be done to stop the emergency services driving without due care and attention and putting others lives at risk. A young girl has had her life cut short because of this...my thoughts and prayers are with all those that loved her as they now have to start a brand new year without her!
Are you for real, or just a troll????
[quote][p][bold]Inspirationalady28[/bold] wrote: I think that emergency services are to blame for alot of accidents due to speeding in residential and built-up areas, especially the Police.. The driver of the car being chased obviously didn't stop because he/she had done something wrong, but this tragic accident may not have happened if the Police weren't in pursuit?!! Why are they allowed to go through RED traffic lights and exceed speed limits? If the driver of the car is at fault so be it, I hope he/she gets a punishment to fit the crime but I still think that something should be done to stop the emergency services driving without due care and attention and putting others lives at risk. A young girl has had her life cut short because of this...my thoughts and prayers are with all those that loved her as they now have to start a brand new year without her![/p][/quote]Are you for real, or just a troll???? plasticfantastic
  • Score: 1

10:44am Mon 7 Jan 13

Inspirationalady28 says...

plasticfantastic wrote:
Inspirationalady28 wrote:
I think that emergency services are to blame for alot of accidents due to speeding in residential and built-up areas, especially the Police.. The driver of the car being chased obviously didn't stop because he/she had done something wrong, but this tragic accident may not have happened if the Police weren't in pursuit?!! Why are they allowed to go through RED traffic lights and exceed speed limits? If the driver of the car is at fault so be it, I hope he/she gets a punishment to fit the crime but I still think that something should be done to stop the emergency services driving without due care and attention and putting others lives at risk. A young girl has had her life cut short because of this...my thoughts and prayers are with all those that loved her as they now have to start a brand new year without her!
Are you for real, or just a troll????
I can assure you I'm for REAL..with a name like Plasticfantastic, are YOU? So what's your problem then?
[quote][p][bold]plasticfantastic[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Inspirationalady28[/bold] wrote: I think that emergency services are to blame for alot of accidents due to speeding in residential and built-up areas, especially the Police.. The driver of the car being chased obviously didn't stop because he/she had done something wrong, but this tragic accident may not have happened if the Police weren't in pursuit?!! Why are they allowed to go through RED traffic lights and exceed speed limits? If the driver of the car is at fault so be it, I hope he/she gets a punishment to fit the crime but I still think that something should be done to stop the emergency services driving without due care and attention and putting others lives at risk. A young girl has had her life cut short because of this...my thoughts and prayers are with all those that loved her as they now have to start a brand new year without her![/p][/quote]Are you for real, or just a troll????[/p][/quote]I can assure you I'm for REAL..with a name like Plasticfantastic, are YOU? So what's your problem then? Inspirationalady28
  • Score: -1

10:56am Mon 7 Jan 13

Only_me!! says...

Inspirationalady28 wrote:
I think that emergency services are to blame for alot of accidents due to speeding in residential and built-up areas, especially the Police.. The driver of the car being chased obviously didn't stop because he/she had done something wrong, but this tragic accident may not have happened if the Police weren't in pursuit?!! Why are they allowed to go through RED traffic lights and exceed speed limits? If the driver of the car is at fault so be it, I hope he/she gets a punishment to fit the crime but I still think that something should be done to stop the emergency services driving without due care and attention and putting others lives at risk. A young girl has had her life cut short because of this...my thoughts and prayers are with all those that loved her as they now have to start a brand new year without her!
They excess the speed limit because they are exempt by law, what do you want them to do in an emergency? drive at 30mph and stop and every red light when someone's life is depending on them being there as quickly as possible. Time is crucial in some emergencies and it saves lives, perhaps you need to take your concerns up with your local mp, expect a reply Never, Fool, RIP tragic loss of such a young life.
[quote][p][bold]Inspirationalady28[/bold] wrote: I think that emergency services are to blame for alot of accidents due to speeding in residential and built-up areas, especially the Police.. The driver of the car being chased obviously didn't stop because he/she had done something wrong, but this tragic accident may not have happened if the Police weren't in pursuit?!! Why are they allowed to go through RED traffic lights and exceed speed limits? If the driver of the car is at fault so be it, I hope he/she gets a punishment to fit the crime but I still think that something should be done to stop the emergency services driving without due care and attention and putting others lives at risk. A young girl has had her life cut short because of this...my thoughts and prayers are with all those that loved her as they now have to start a brand new year without her![/p][/quote]They excess the speed limit because they are exempt by law, what do you want them to do in an emergency? drive at 30mph and stop and every red light when someone's life is depending on them being there as quickly as possible. Time is crucial in some emergencies and it saves lives, perhaps you need to take your concerns up with your local mp, expect a reply Never, Fool, RIP tragic loss of such a young life. Only_me!!
  • Score: 1

11:16am Mon 7 Jan 13

Gypo.Joe says...

The only one to blame here is the idiot running from the po po. End of story.

RIP young lady.
The only one to blame here is the idiot running from the po po. End of story. RIP young lady. Gypo.Joe
  • Score: 1

11:17am Mon 7 Jan 13

j.j. says...

Inspirationalady28 wrote:
I think that emergency services are to blame for alot of accidents due to speeding in residential and built-up areas, especially the Police.. The driver of the car being chased obviously didn't stop because he/she had done something wrong, but this tragic accident may not have happened if the Police weren't in pursuit?!! Why are they allowed to go through RED traffic lights and exceed speed limits? If the driver of the car is at fault so be it, I hope he/she gets a punishment to fit the crime but I still think that something should be done to stop the emergency services driving without due care and attention and putting others lives at risk. A young girl has had her life cut short because of this...my thoughts and prayers are with all those that loved her as they now have to start a brand new year without her!
So what's your solution? Let criminals get away with whatever they do? Wait in the lights with critically ill patients? Let the house that is on fire burn down?

I have no idea of the circumstances of this tragic accident and I don't want to comment on it, but as a general rule many drivers don't seem to know what they are meant to do when they hear a siren or see a blue flashing light in their mirror (if they ever look in it). Some of these accidents are unavoidable, many could probably be eliminated through proper driver training. All emergency vehicles should also have cameras mounted on them and any drivers who don't give way to them fined.
[quote][p][bold]Inspirationalady28[/bold] wrote: I think that emergency services are to blame for alot of accidents due to speeding in residential and built-up areas, especially the Police.. The driver of the car being chased obviously didn't stop because he/she had done something wrong, but this tragic accident may not have happened if the Police weren't in pursuit?!! Why are they allowed to go through RED traffic lights and exceed speed limits? If the driver of the car is at fault so be it, I hope he/she gets a punishment to fit the crime but I still think that something should be done to stop the emergency services driving without due care and attention and putting others lives at risk. A young girl has had her life cut short because of this...my thoughts and prayers are with all those that loved her as they now have to start a brand new year without her![/p][/quote]So what's your solution? Let criminals get away with whatever they do? Wait in the lights with critically ill patients? Let the house that is on fire burn down? I have no idea of the circumstances of this tragic accident and I don't want to comment on it, but as a general rule many drivers don't seem to know what they are meant to do when they hear a siren or see a blue flashing light in their mirror (if they ever look in it). Some of these accidents are unavoidable, many could probably be eliminated through proper driver training. All emergency vehicles should also have cameras mounted on them and any drivers who don't give way to them fined. j.j.
  • Score: 1

11:43am Mon 7 Jan 13

melissa67 says...

Inspirationalady28 wrote:
I think that emergency services are to blame for alot of accidents due to speeding in residential and built-up areas, especially the Police.. The driver of the car being chased obviously didn't stop because he/she had done something wrong, but this tragic accident may not have happened if the Police weren't in pursuit?!! Why are they allowed to go through RED traffic lights and exceed speed limits? If the driver of the car is at fault so be it, I hope he/she gets a punishment to fit the crime but I still think that something should be done to stop the emergency services driving without due care and attention and putting others lives at risk. A young girl has had her life cut short because of this...my thoughts and prayers are with all those that loved her as they now have to start a brand new year without her!
I wonder if you have posted this quote simply to stir up a distasteful debate!! Only a fool could truly believe your point of view. Do you seriously think that the moron that killed this child would normally drive within the law? This animal has destroyed the life of that family and also that poor police officer has to deal with the his/her involvement. They risk their lives for the public, only yesterday an officer was killed dealing with an accident! Try supporting the actual victims for once. If not, make sure you never dial 999 no matter what the emergency is, just deal with it yourself!!!! Bet you don't.
[quote][p][bold]Inspirationalady28[/bold] wrote: I think that emergency services are to blame for alot of accidents due to speeding in residential and built-up areas, especially the Police.. The driver of the car being chased obviously didn't stop because he/she had done something wrong, but this tragic accident may not have happened if the Police weren't in pursuit?!! Why are they allowed to go through RED traffic lights and exceed speed limits? If the driver of the car is at fault so be it, I hope he/she gets a punishment to fit the crime but I still think that something should be done to stop the emergency services driving without due care and attention and putting others lives at risk. A young girl has had her life cut short because of this...my thoughts and prayers are with all those that loved her as they now have to start a brand new year without her![/p][/quote]I wonder if you have posted this quote simply to stir up a distasteful debate!! Only a fool could truly believe your point of view. Do you seriously think that the moron that killed this child would normally drive within the law? This animal has destroyed the life of that family and also that poor police officer has to deal with the his/her involvement. They risk their lives for the public, only yesterday an officer was killed dealing with an accident! Try supporting the actual victims for once. If not, make sure you never dial 999 no matter what the emergency is, just deal with it yourself!!!! Bet you don't. melissa67
  • Score: 1

11:44am Mon 7 Jan 13

the wall says...

Inspirationalady28 wrote:
I think that emergency services are to blame for alot of accidents due to speeding in residential and built-up areas, especially the Police.. The driver of the car being chased obviously didn't stop because he/she had done something wrong, but this tragic accident may not have happened if the Police weren't in pursuit?!! Why are they allowed to go through RED traffic lights and exceed speed limits? If the driver of the car is at fault so be it, I hope he/she gets a punishment to fit the crime but I still think that something should be done to stop the emergency services driving without due care and attention and putting others lives at risk. A young girl has had her life cut short because of this...my thoughts and prayers are with all those that loved her as they now have to start a brand new year without her!
My comment keeps getting removed ?????

Are you special needs ?
[quote][p][bold]Inspirationalady28[/bold] wrote: I think that emergency services are to blame for alot of accidents due to speeding in residential and built-up areas, especially the Police.. The driver of the car being chased obviously didn't stop because he/she had done something wrong, but this tragic accident may not have happened if the Police weren't in pursuit?!! Why are they allowed to go through RED traffic lights and exceed speed limits? If the driver of the car is at fault so be it, I hope he/she gets a punishment to fit the crime but I still think that something should be done to stop the emergency services driving without due care and attention and putting others lives at risk. A young girl has had her life cut short because of this...my thoughts and prayers are with all those that loved her as they now have to start a brand new year without her![/p][/quote]My comment keeps getting removed ????? Are you special needs ? the wall
  • Score: 1

11:51am Mon 7 Jan 13

madras says...

Inspirationalady28 wrote:
I think that emergency services are to blame for alot of accidents due to speeding in residential and built-up areas, especially the Police.. The driver of the car being chased obviously didn't stop because he/she had done something wrong, but this tragic accident may not have happened if the Police weren't in pursuit?!! Why are they allowed to go through RED traffic lights and exceed speed limits? If the driver of the car is at fault so be it, I hope he/she gets a punishment to fit the crime but I still think that something should be done to stop the emergency services driving without due care and attention and putting others lives at risk. A young girl has had her life cut short because of this...my thoughts and prayers are with all those that loved her as they now have to start a brand new year without her!
Let's be clear here - the person responsible for this tragic event is the driver that the police were pursuing. If the police had a policy not to do so then it would be near impossible to capture anyone driving a stolen car (or even if not stolen to prove who was driving)

The tragedy is that an innocent life has been lost and my sincere thoughts are with the girl's family and friends
[quote][p][bold]Inspirationalady28[/bold] wrote: I think that emergency services are to blame for alot of accidents due to speeding in residential and built-up areas, especially the Police.. The driver of the car being chased obviously didn't stop because he/she had done something wrong, but this tragic accident may not have happened if the Police weren't in pursuit?!! Why are they allowed to go through RED traffic lights and exceed speed limits? If the driver of the car is at fault so be it, I hope he/she gets a punishment to fit the crime but I still think that something should be done to stop the emergency services driving without due care and attention and putting others lives at risk. A young girl has had her life cut short because of this...my thoughts and prayers are with all those that loved her as they now have to start a brand new year without her![/p][/quote]Let's be clear here - the person responsible for this tragic event is the driver that the police were pursuing. If the police had a policy not to do so then it would be near impossible to capture anyone driving a stolen car (or even if not stolen to prove who was driving) The tragedy is that an innocent life has been lost and my sincere thoughts are with the girl's family and friends madras
  • Score: 1

11:55am Mon 7 Jan 13

melissa67 says...

Oh and now a police officer has been knocked off his motorbike in Bromley!! Perhaps Inspirationallady thinks they should not be on bikes too!!!
Oh and now a police officer has been knocked off his motorbike in Bromley!! Perhaps Inspirationallady thinks they should not be on bikes too!!! melissa67
  • Score: 1

1:19pm Mon 7 Jan 13

plasticfantastic says...

I don't really need to reply to you again, the other comments tell you exactly how I feel about your stupid remark.
I don't really need to reply to you again, the other comments tell you exactly how I feel about your stupid remark. plasticfantastic
  • Score: 1

1:53pm Mon 7 Jan 13

Marty1979 says...

Inspirationalady28 wrote:
I think that emergency services are to blame for alot of accidents due to speeding in residential and built-up areas, especially the Police.. The driver of the car being chased obviously didn't stop because he/she had done something wrong, but this tragic accident may not have happened if the Police weren't in pursuit?!! Why are they allowed to go through RED traffic lights and exceed speed limits? If the driver of the car is at fault so be it, I hope he/she gets a punishment to fit the crime but I still think that something should be done to stop the emergency services driving without due care and attention and putting others lives at risk. A young girl has had her life cut short because of this...my thoughts and prayers are with all those that loved her as they now have to start a brand new year without her!
yes they are allowed to exceed speed limits & go through red lights in emergencies - but the drivers (highly trained) are aware that if anything happens they can be held accountable

And as has been commented, what are the police supposed to do if criminals know they can escape because the police would stick to 30mph?
[quote][p][bold]Inspirationalady28[/bold] wrote: I think that emergency services are to blame for alot of accidents due to speeding in residential and built-up areas, especially the Police.. The driver of the car being chased obviously didn't stop because he/she had done something wrong, but this tragic accident may not have happened if the Police weren't in pursuit?!! Why are they allowed to go through RED traffic lights and exceed speed limits? If the driver of the car is at fault so be it, I hope he/she gets a punishment to fit the crime but I still think that something should be done to stop the emergency services driving without due care and attention and putting others lives at risk. A young girl has had her life cut short because of this...my thoughts and prayers are with all those that loved her as they now have to start a brand new year without her![/p][/quote]yes they are allowed to exceed speed limits & go through red lights in emergencies - but the drivers (highly trained) are aware that if anything happens they can be held accountable And as has been commented, what are the police supposed to do if criminals know they can escape because the police would stick to 30mph? Marty1979
  • Score: 1

2:28pm Mon 7 Jan 13

Inspirationalady28 says...

Well it appears that all are against my comment so far.. I was merely stating that, what's the point in attending an emergency if one is to endanger or even kill someone along the way? If someone is in a stolen car etc', what's the point in Police pursuing when that driver will only accelerate to avoid getting caught? So if these Emergency services are so highly trained, how come they are involved in a lot of RTA? Just a few days ago a Police officer on his way to a 999 call lost control of his car and ended up crashing into a tree..now I've heard that a Police motor cyclist has been in a RTA in Catford..C'mon, they are just like everyone else!!! So carry on with your negative comments, I'm allowed to speak my mind the same as all of you. I'm not a troll, I'm just speaking my mind!!
Well it appears that all are against my comment so far.. I was merely stating that, what's the point in attending an emergency if one is to endanger or even kill someone along the way? If someone is in a stolen car etc', what's the point in Police pursuing when that driver will only accelerate to avoid getting caught? So if these Emergency services are so highly trained, how come they are involved in a lot of RTA? Just a few days ago a Police officer on his way to a 999 call lost control of his car and ended up crashing into a tree..now I've heard that a Police motor cyclist has been in a RTA in Catford..C'mon, they are just like everyone else!!! So carry on with your negative comments, I'm allowed to speak my mind the same as all of you. I'm not a troll, I'm just speaking my mind!! Inspirationalady28
  • Score: -1

2:45pm Mon 7 Jan 13

PaulErith says...

Inspirationalady28 wrote:
Well it appears that all are against my comment so far.. I was merely stating that, what's the point in attending an emergency if one is to endanger or even kill someone along the way? If someone is in a stolen car etc', what's the point in Police pursuing when that driver will only accelerate to avoid getting caught? So if these Emergency services are so highly trained, how come they are involved in a lot of RTA? Just a few days ago a Police officer on his way to a 999 call lost control of his car and ended up crashing into a tree..now I've heard that a Police motor cyclist has been in a RTA in Catford..C'mon, they are just like everyone else!!! So carry on with your negative comments, I'm allowed to speak my mind the same as all of you. I'm not a troll, I'm just speaking my mind!!
Totally agree that you are entitled to your opinion, and anyone that is rude or calls you a troll is simply a troll themself. However, still can't agree with your opinion. What message does it send if the police cannot chase criminals? Would the streets be safer? - Maybe not because these scum will simply know that they can drive madly with no risk of being persued. As they are untrained drivers, they'd be likely to have more accidents.

I don't think that there are that many RTAs involving emergency vehicles. One hear's about every single one that does happen, but as a proportion of the total number of emergency calls, it's a minute percentage.
[quote][p][bold]Inspirationalady28[/bold] wrote: Well it appears that all are against my comment so far.. I was merely stating that, what's the point in attending an emergency if one is to endanger or even kill someone along the way? If someone is in a stolen car etc', what's the point in Police pursuing when that driver will only accelerate to avoid getting caught? So if these Emergency services are so highly trained, how come they are involved in a lot of RTA? Just a few days ago a Police officer on his way to a 999 call lost control of his car and ended up crashing into a tree..now I've heard that a Police motor cyclist has been in a RTA in Catford..C'mon, they are just like everyone else!!! So carry on with your negative comments, I'm allowed to speak my mind the same as all of you. I'm not a troll, I'm just speaking my mind!![/p][/quote]Totally agree that you are entitled to your opinion, and anyone that is rude or calls you a troll is simply a troll themself. However, still can't agree with your opinion. What message does it send if the police cannot chase criminals? Would the streets be safer? - Maybe not because these scum will simply know that they can drive madly with no risk of being persued. As they are untrained drivers, they'd be likely to have more accidents. I don't think that there are that many RTAs involving emergency vehicles. One hear's about every single one that does happen, but as a proportion of the total number of emergency calls, it's a minute percentage. PaulErith
  • Score: 1

2:46pm Mon 7 Jan 13

Marty1979 says...

So what's the answer? If some commits a crime & drives off, should the police not try to stop them?
So what's the answer? If some commits a crime & drives off, should the police not try to stop them? Marty1979
  • Score: 1

2:53pm Mon 7 Jan 13

Inspirationalady28 says...

Just read this in Evening Standard;

07 January 2013

A girl of 13 was killed when a car being chased by police rammed into her family’s VW Polo.

She was with her mother, father and brother when their car was struck by a Peugeot 308.

The girl, who was in the back seat, died at the scene. Her parents and brother were taken to hospital and their injuries were not thought to be serious. Independent investigators are expected to launch an inquiry into last night’s crash in New Cross close to Millwall’s football ground.

Today it emerged that police launched the high-speed pursuit after the Peugeot triggered a covert number plate reading camera which targets uninsured drivers and other suspected criminals.

Last year the Met launched an operation to double the number of such cameras in London to make it more difficult for criminals to move around the capital.

Commander Tony Eastaugh said today: “An innocent family are now dealing with the tragic loss of a loved one. The Met has now begun a thorough investigation into the circumstances of this terrible incident. The thoughts of our staff and officers are with the  family at this time.”

One witness said three police cars were involved in the pursuit though the Met said it appeared only one marked car using lights and sirens was involved.

The male driver of the Peugeot was uninjured and was arrested at the scene. A female passenger in his car, which was not thought to be stolen, was taken to hospital suffering from minor injuries. The incident happened just before 6.30pm.

The Peugeot is thought to have been chased south along Ilderton Road before colliding with the Peugeot near the junction with Surrey Canal Road.

A traffic light pole and a smaller pole with a wait button for pedestrians were bent out of position on the pavement. Fragments of glass and pieces of car debris were strewn across the pavement this morning before being removed by council cleaners.

The crash took place near the entrance to a primary school and a stone’s throw from the stadium of Millwall FC. One resident, who did not want to be named, described seeing the Peugeot being chased by police south along Ilderton Road seconds before the accident.

She said: “There were two normal police cars and one unmarked car. It is right on top of a school. It is ridiculous.” Eamonn Baxter, who works nearby, said: “It is a dangerous junction anyway, the lights are not synchronised so people are just taking off.

“It is shocking, it is an awful start to the new year for that family, it is very sad. Police have helicopters now, they don’t need to chase cars down roads, especially in a place like this.”

Dean Gayle, 35, whose two sons attend nearby Ilderton Primary School, said: “It is very dangerous, there should be barriers. I am always worried about my children walking along here. Cars are coming zooming round. It is a worry.”

Other residents said the junction was an accident blackspot.  Ibrahim Imanuel, 40, said: “There are always accidents there, it is a real nightmare. Something needs to be done or accidents will continue to happen.”

Recovery driver Mehmet Abdurraham, 38, said: “There was an accident at the same junction three weeks ago, it’s always happening. Now this poor girl has died, it’s terrible. This junction needs to be sorted out.”

Traffic police and officers from the Directorate of Professional Standards are now investigating, the Met said. The Independent Police Complaints Commission has also been informed and an investigator was at the scene assessing the circumstances of the collision.

...They were only chasing an uninsured driver?? That's my point!!!!!
Just read this in Evening Standard; 07 January 2013 A girl of 13 was killed when a car being chased by police rammed into her family’s VW Polo. She was with her mother, father and brother when their car was struck by a Peugeot 308. The girl, who was in the back seat, died at the scene. Her parents and brother were taken to hospital and their injuries were not thought to be serious. Independent investigators are expected to launch an inquiry into last night’s crash in New Cross close to Millwall’s football ground. Today it emerged that police launched the high-speed pursuit after the Peugeot triggered a covert number plate reading camera which targets uninsured drivers and other suspected criminals. Last year the Met launched an operation to double the number of such cameras in London to make it more difficult for criminals to move around the capital. Commander Tony Eastaugh said today: “An innocent family are now dealing with the tragic loss of a loved one. The Met has now begun a thorough investigation into the circumstances of this terrible incident. The thoughts of our staff and officers are with the  family at this time.” One witness said three police cars were involved in the pursuit though the Met said it appeared only one marked car using lights and sirens was involved. The male driver of the Peugeot was uninjured and was arrested at the scene. A female passenger in his car, which was not thought to be stolen, was taken to hospital suffering from minor injuries. The incident happened just before 6.30pm. The Peugeot is thought to have been chased south along Ilderton Road before colliding with the Peugeot near the junction with Surrey Canal Road. A traffic light pole and a smaller pole with a wait button for pedestrians were bent out of position on the pavement. Fragments of glass and pieces of car debris were strewn across the pavement this morning before being removed by council cleaners. The crash took place near the entrance to a primary school and a stone’s throw from the stadium of Millwall FC. One resident, who did not want to be named, described seeing the Peugeot being chased by police south along Ilderton Road seconds before the accident. She said: “There were two normal police cars and one unmarked car. It is right on top of a school. It is ridiculous.” Eamonn Baxter, who works nearby, said: “It is a dangerous junction anyway, the lights are not synchronised so people are just taking off. “It is shocking, it is an awful start to the new year for that family, it is very sad. Police have helicopters now, they don’t need to chase cars down roads, especially in a place like this.” Dean Gayle, 35, whose two sons attend nearby Ilderton Primary School, said: “It is very dangerous, there should be barriers. I am always worried about my children walking along here. Cars are coming zooming round. It is a worry.” Other residents said the junction was an accident blackspot.  Ibrahim Imanuel, 40, said: “There are always accidents there, it is a real nightmare. Something needs to be done or accidents will continue to happen.” Recovery driver Mehmet Abdurraham, 38, said: “There was an accident at the same junction three weeks ago, it’s always happening. Now this poor girl has died, it’s terrible. This junction needs to be sorted out.” Traffic police and officers from the Directorate of Professional Standards are now investigating, the Met said. The Independent Police Complaints Commission has also been informed and an investigator was at the scene assessing the circumstances of the collision. ...They were only chasing an uninsured driver?? That's my point!!!!! Inspirationalady28
  • Score: -1

3:19pm Mon 7 Jan 13

Familyguy321 says...

Insp lady, 99% of the incidents I go to could be summed up as minor such as this uninsured driver. The solution to this which sounds lazy is ..
A. remove all use of force powers from police, so that we can't be moaned at in struggles

B.remove the exemptions for our emergency driving, because this situation could have easily occurred on the route to a call for police for whatever reason.

Then put a CCTV camera on every corner and just record everything then it wouldn't be a police constables fault for unseen tragedy a that occur.... Or does this sound ridiculous.

To keep you informed the helicopter mentioned is based in north London. Bad weather there grounds it for the whole of London.( if it was indeed grounded) also note that all local residents claim that it's a bad road layout.

Yes it was just an uninsured driver. Which could have been solved by him stopping when requested to do he chose to drive off at speed to avoid being caught. We live in a contradictory world.

Imagine the outcry (this is a plausible situation) another uninsured driver is seen, police choose not to pursue.. For whatever reason. And that driver goes and assaults their partner in a domestic..

We already have a police service that is too worried about what ifs and well this could happen rather than actually doing anything about what has happened

Just to remind this awful thing could have been avoided. By the driver stopping.. But that's not what criminals do.
Insp lady, 99% of the incidents I go to could be summed up as minor such as this uninsured driver. The solution to this which sounds lazy is .. A. remove all use of force powers from police, so that we can't be moaned at in struggles B.remove the exemptions for our emergency driving, because this situation could have easily occurred on the route to a call for police for whatever reason. Then put a CCTV camera on every corner and just record everything then it wouldn't be a police constables fault for unseen tragedy a that occur.... Or does this sound ridiculous. To keep you informed the helicopter mentioned is based in north London. Bad weather there grounds it for the whole of London.( if it was indeed grounded) also note that all local residents claim that it's a bad road layout. Yes it was just an uninsured driver. Which could have been solved by him stopping when requested to do he chose to drive off at speed to avoid being caught. We live in a contradictory world. Imagine the outcry (this is a plausible situation) another uninsured driver is seen, police choose not to pursue.. For whatever reason. And that driver goes and assaults their partner in a domestic.. We already have a police service that is too worried about what ifs and well this could happen rather than actually doing anything about what has happened Just to remind this awful thing could have been avoided. By the driver stopping.. But that's not what criminals do. Familyguy321
  • Score: 1

3:37pm Mon 7 Jan 13

PaulErith says...

Familyguy321 wrote:
Insp lady, 99% of the incidents I go to could be summed up as minor such as this uninsured driver. The solution to this which sounds lazy is .. A. remove all use of force powers from police, so that we can't be moaned at in struggles B.remove the exemptions for our emergency driving, because this situation could have easily occurred on the route to a call for police for whatever reason. Then put a CCTV camera on every corner and just record everything then it wouldn't be a police constables fault for unseen tragedy a that occur.... Or does this sound ridiculous. To keep you informed the helicopter mentioned is based in north London. Bad weather there grounds it for the whole of London.( if it was indeed grounded) also note that all local residents claim that it's a bad road layout. Yes it was just an uninsured driver. Which could have been solved by him stopping when requested to do he chose to drive off at speed to avoid being caught. We live in a contradictory world. Imagine the outcry (this is a plausible situation) another uninsured driver is seen, police choose not to pursue.. For whatever reason. And that driver goes and assaults their partner in a domestic.. We already have a police service that is too worried about what ifs and well this could happen rather than actually doing anything about what has happened Just to remind this awful thing could have been avoided. By the driver stopping.. But that's not what criminals do.
Well said.
[quote][p][bold]Familyguy321[/bold] wrote: Insp lady, 99% of the incidents I go to could be summed up as minor such as this uninsured driver. The solution to this which sounds lazy is .. A. remove all use of force powers from police, so that we can't be moaned at in struggles B.remove the exemptions for our emergency driving, because this situation could have easily occurred on the route to a call for police for whatever reason. Then put a CCTV camera on every corner and just record everything then it wouldn't be a police constables fault for unseen tragedy a that occur.... Or does this sound ridiculous. To keep you informed the helicopter mentioned is based in north London. Bad weather there grounds it for the whole of London.( if it was indeed grounded) also note that all local residents claim that it's a bad road layout. Yes it was just an uninsured driver. Which could have been solved by him stopping when requested to do he chose to drive off at speed to avoid being caught. We live in a contradictory world. Imagine the outcry (this is a plausible situation) another uninsured driver is seen, police choose not to pursue.. For whatever reason. And that driver goes and assaults their partner in a domestic.. We already have a police service that is too worried about what ifs and well this could happen rather than actually doing anything about what has happened Just to remind this awful thing could have been avoided. By the driver stopping.. But that's not what criminals do.[/p][/quote]Well said. PaulErith
  • Score: 1

3:43pm Mon 7 Jan 13

Inspirationalady28 says...

Familyguy321 wrote:
Insp lady, 99% of the incidents I go to could be summed up as minor such as this uninsured driver. The solution to this which sounds lazy is ..
A. remove all use of force powers from police, so that we can't be moaned at in struggles

B.remove the exemptions for our emergency driving, because this situation could have easily occurred on the route to a call for police for whatever reason.

Then put a CCTV camera on every corner and just record everything then it wouldn't be a police constables fault for unseen tragedy a that occur.... Or does this sound ridiculous.

To keep you informed the helicopter mentioned is based in north London. Bad weather there grounds it for the whole of London.( if it was indeed grounded) also note that all local residents claim that it's a bad road layout.

Yes it was just an uninsured driver. Which could have been solved by him stopping when requested to do he chose to drive off at speed to avoid being caught. We live in a contradictory world.

Imagine the outcry (this is a plausible situation) another uninsured driver is seen, police choose not to pursue.. For whatever reason. And that driver goes and assaults their partner in a domestic..

We already have a police service that is too worried about what ifs and well this could happen rather than actually doing anything about what has happened

Just to remind this awful thing could have been avoided. By the driver stopping.. But that's not what criminals do.
I quite agree that the driver should have stopped but like you said; “This is not what criminals do.” So where does the emergency come in when dealing with an uninsured driver? Surely it could have been dealt with without having caused the death of a young girl!! The driver may have only been driving normally, but because of todays technology got caught out but that still doesn't give the Police the right to chase at high speed over such a trivial matter..that wasn't an emergency, but it was turned into one!!!
[quote][p][bold]Familyguy321[/bold] wrote: Insp lady, 99% of the incidents I go to could be summed up as minor such as this uninsured driver. The solution to this which sounds lazy is .. A. remove all use of force powers from police, so that we can't be moaned at in struggles B.remove the exemptions for our emergency driving, because this situation could have easily occurred on the route to a call for police for whatever reason. Then put a CCTV camera on every corner and just record everything then it wouldn't be a police constables fault for unseen tragedy a that occur.... Or does this sound ridiculous. To keep you informed the helicopter mentioned is based in north London. Bad weather there grounds it for the whole of London.( if it was indeed grounded) also note that all local residents claim that it's a bad road layout. Yes it was just an uninsured driver. Which could have been solved by him stopping when requested to do he chose to drive off at speed to avoid being caught. We live in a contradictory world. Imagine the outcry (this is a plausible situation) another uninsured driver is seen, police choose not to pursue.. For whatever reason. And that driver goes and assaults their partner in a domestic.. We already have a police service that is too worried about what ifs and well this could happen rather than actually doing anything about what has happened Just to remind this awful thing could have been avoided. By the driver stopping.. But that's not what criminals do.[/p][/quote]I quite agree that the driver should have stopped but like you said; “This is not what criminals do.” So where does the emergency come in when dealing with an uninsured driver? Surely it could have been dealt with without having caused the death of a young girl!! The driver may have only been driving normally, but because of todays technology got caught out but that still doesn't give the Police the right to chase at high speed over such a trivial matter..that wasn't an emergency, but it was turned into one!!! Inspirationalady28
  • Score: -1

4:07pm Mon 7 Jan 13

the wall says...

Inspirationalady28 wrote:
Familyguy321 wrote:
Insp lady, 99% of the incidents I go to could be summed up as minor such as this uninsured driver. The solution to this which sounds lazy is ..
A. remove all use of force powers from police, so that we can't be moaned at in struggles

B.remove the exemptions for our emergency driving, because this situation could have easily occurred on the route to a call for police for whatever reason.

Then put a CCTV camera on every corner and just record everything then it wouldn't be a police constables fault for unseen tragedy a that occur.... Or does this sound ridiculous.

To keep you informed the helicopter mentioned is based in north London. Bad weather there grounds it for the whole of London.( if it was indeed grounded) also note that all local residents claim that it's a bad road layout.

Yes it was just an uninsured driver. Which could have been solved by him stopping when requested to do he chose to drive off at speed to avoid being caught. We live in a contradictory world.

Imagine the outcry (this is a plausible situation) another uninsured driver is seen, police choose not to pursue.. For whatever reason. And that driver goes and assaults their partner in a domestic..

We already have a police service that is too worried about what ifs and well this could happen rather than actually doing anything about what has happened

Just to remind this awful thing could have been avoided. By the driver stopping.. But that's not what criminals do.
I quite agree that the driver should have stopped but like you said; “This is not what criminals do.” So where does the emergency come in when dealing with an uninsured driver? Surely it could have been dealt with without having caused the death of a young girl!! The driver may have only been driving normally, but because of todays technology got caught out but that still doesn't give the Police the right to chase at high speed over such a trivial matter..that wasn't an emergency, but it was turned into one!!!
Why do you hate the Police so much?
With every one of your post you show the world more and more lack of knowledge and understanding about:
A) Driving
B) Police
C) Criminals
D) Law

Hate the Police, plate the criminal scum..... Is this your motto?
[quote][p][bold]Inspirationalady28[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Familyguy321[/bold] wrote: Insp lady, 99% of the incidents I go to could be summed up as minor such as this uninsured driver. The solution to this which sounds lazy is .. A. remove all use of force powers from police, so that we can't be moaned at in struggles B.remove the exemptions for our emergency driving, because this situation could have easily occurred on the route to a call for police for whatever reason. Then put a CCTV camera on every corner and just record everything then it wouldn't be a police constables fault for unseen tragedy a that occur.... Or does this sound ridiculous. To keep you informed the helicopter mentioned is based in north London. Bad weather there grounds it for the whole of London.( if it was indeed grounded) also note that all local residents claim that it's a bad road layout. Yes it was just an uninsured driver. Which could have been solved by him stopping when requested to do he chose to drive off at speed to avoid being caught. We live in a contradictory world. Imagine the outcry (this is a plausible situation) another uninsured driver is seen, police choose not to pursue.. For whatever reason. And that driver goes and assaults their partner in a domestic.. We already have a police service that is too worried about what ifs and well this could happen rather than actually doing anything about what has happened Just to remind this awful thing could have been avoided. By the driver stopping.. But that's not what criminals do.[/p][/quote]I quite agree that the driver should have stopped but like you said; “This is not what criminals do.” So where does the emergency come in when dealing with an uninsured driver? Surely it could have been dealt with without having caused the death of a young girl!! The driver may have only been driving normally, but because of todays technology got caught out but that still doesn't give the Police the right to chase at high speed over such a trivial matter..that wasn't an emergency, but it was turned into one!!![/p][/quote]Why do you hate the Police so much? With every one of your post you show the world more and more lack of knowledge and understanding about: A) Driving B) Police C) Criminals D) Law Hate the Police, plate the criminal scum..... Is this your motto? the wall
  • Score: 1

4:09pm Mon 7 Jan 13

Bob Downondiss says...

nspirationalady28, have you ever considered a check up from the neck up ? Perhaps even ask the voices in your head about it.
nspirationalady28, have you ever considered a check up from the neck up ? Perhaps even ask the voices in your head about it. Bob Downondiss
  • Score: 1

4:12pm Mon 7 Jan 13

melissa67 says...

Okay ..... Let's stop emergency vehicles speeding etc. How many would die in fires, in accidents, of heart attacks, bleed to death, choke...... How long would motorways be closed for due to accidents or incidents?? Oh and as for accidents involving emergency vehicles??? You think the figure is too high? How many lives are stolen due to drink-driving, speeding, wrecklessnes? Chances are if someone is not insured they probably don't have all the other requirements and should not be in the road. I can not believe that someone can even start to try to blame the police for the loss of this child's life!!!
Okay ..... Let's stop emergency vehicles speeding etc. How many would die in fires, in accidents, of heart attacks, bleed to death, choke...... How long would motorways be closed for due to accidents or incidents?? Oh and as for accidents involving emergency vehicles??? You think the figure is too high? How many lives are stolen due to drink-driving, speeding, wrecklessnes? Chances are if someone is not insured they probably don't have all the other requirements and should not be in the road. I can not believe that someone can even start to try to blame the police for the loss of this child's life!!! melissa67
  • Score: 1

4:20pm Mon 7 Jan 13

Familyguy321 says...

@lady. most crime is trivial. until you have to speak to the victim of one. whatever crime has been committed. uninsured cars are small compared to a murder. but its what the uninsured is linked too which is why there is a clampdown on it. and i speak from experience the emergencys i attend i could have got the bus there but some one wanted police so we get the ASAP.

i dont know how long the follow went on for but i know the scrunity they are put under and it would have got cancelled should it got testy.

you state giving police the right. your correct we have just a job and a uniform none of it gained through right or privilidge. the only right we have is that we think we are doing right at the time we do it.
@lady. most crime is trivial. until you have to speak to the victim of one. whatever crime has been committed. uninsured cars are small compared to a murder. but its what the uninsured is linked too which is why there is a clampdown on it. and i speak from experience the emergencys i attend i could have got the bus there but some one wanted police so we get the ASAP. i dont know how long the follow went on for but i know the scrunity they are put under and it would have got cancelled should it got testy. you state giving police the right. your correct we have just a job and a uniform none of it gained through right or privilidge. the only right we have is that we think we are doing right at the time we do it. Familyguy321
  • Score: 1

4:35pm Mon 7 Jan 13

Oldchap says...

The trigger was that the car was uninsured, but often this is only one offence that the driver has committed.

Frequently, when stopped, the police find the driver has no licence (perhaps disqualified) and the car is not registered to the driver (so impossible to trace)

Maybe the driver/passengers were also in possession of drugs, weapons etc etc

So what should the police do – ignore it so they can drive around to commit a crime? Word would soon get out that criminals can do as they like because they won’t get stopped
The trigger was that the car was uninsured, but often this is only one offence that the driver has committed. Frequently, when stopped, the police find the driver has no licence (perhaps disqualified) and the car is not registered to the driver (so impossible to trace) Maybe the driver/passengers were also in possession of drugs, weapons etc etc So what should the police do – ignore it so they can drive around to commit a crime? Word would soon get out that criminals can do as they like because they won’t get stopped Oldchap
  • Score: 1

6:03pm Mon 7 Jan 13

Marty1979 says...

Only trivial? Try asking someone who's had their car written of by an uninsured driver, ending up losing no claims & facing higher premiums if they think it's trivial

And ask yourself why it was uninsured - probably the driver couldn't get insurance because they didn't have a licence (another crime). All of a sudden the offences are mounting up
Only trivial? Try asking someone who's had their car written of by an uninsured driver, ending up losing no claims & facing higher premiums if they think it's trivial And ask yourself why it was uninsured - probably the driver couldn't get insurance because they didn't have a licence (another crime). All of a sudden the offences are mounting up Marty1979
  • Score: 1

6:24pm Mon 7 Jan 13

cm punk says...

Inspirationalady28 wrote:
Well it appears that all are against my comment so far.. I was merely stating that, what's the point in attending an emergency if one is to endanger or even kill someone along the way? If someone is in a stolen car etc', what's the point in Police pursuing when that driver will only accelerate to avoid getting caught? So if these Emergency services are so highly trained, how come they are involved in a lot of RTA? Just a few days ago a Police officer on his way to a 999 call lost control of his car and ended up crashing into a tree..now I've heard that a Police motor cyclist has been in a RTA in Catford..C'mon, they are just like everyone else!!! So carry on with your negative comments, I'm allowed to speak my mind the same as all of you. I'm not a troll, I'm just speaking my mind!!
Stop it now inspirational troll, you are an embarrassment. Please return under the bridge from wence you came.
[quote][p][bold]Inspirationalady28[/bold] wrote: Well it appears that all are against my comment so far.. I was merely stating that, what's the point in attending an emergency if one is to endanger or even kill someone along the way? If someone is in a stolen car etc', what's the point in Police pursuing when that driver will only accelerate to avoid getting caught? So if these Emergency services are so highly trained, how come they are involved in a lot of RTA? Just a few days ago a Police officer on his way to a 999 call lost control of his car and ended up crashing into a tree..now I've heard that a Police motor cyclist has been in a RTA in Catford..C'mon, they are just like everyone else!!! So carry on with your negative comments, I'm allowed to speak my mind the same as all of you. I'm not a troll, I'm just speaking my mind!![/p][/quote]Stop it now inspirational troll, you are an embarrassment. Please return under the bridge from wence you came. cm punk
  • Score: 1

6:25pm Mon 7 Jan 13

Inspirationalady28 says...

Marty1979 wrote:
Only trivial? Try asking someone who's had their car written of by an uninsured driver, ending up losing no claims & facing higher premiums if they think it's trivial

And ask yourself why it was uninsured - probably the driver couldn't get insurance because they didn't have a licence (another crime). All of a sudden the offences are mounting up
This is NOT about money..this is about road safety..The driver of the car may have been uninsured but there was still no need for three police cars to chase it as if it was a matter between life and death.
[quote][p][bold]Marty1979[/bold] wrote: Only trivial? Try asking someone who's had their car written of by an uninsured driver, ending up losing no claims & facing higher premiums if they think it's trivial And ask yourself why it was uninsured - probably the driver couldn't get insurance because they didn't have a licence (another crime). All of a sudden the offences are mounting up[/p][/quote]This is NOT about money..this is about road safety..The driver of the car may have been uninsured but there was still no need for three police cars to chase it as if it was a matter between life and death. Inspirationalady28
  • Score: -1

6:27pm Mon 7 Jan 13

lollie,erith says...

sometimes the police do decide not to pursue as they are approaching a built up area. they also take into account what criminal has done. if it is stolen car or uninsured driver, they have been known not to chase.
sometimes the police do decide not to pursue as they are approaching a built up area. they also take into account what criminal has done. if it is stolen car or uninsured driver, they have been known not to chase. lollie,erith
  • Score: 1

6:34pm Mon 7 Jan 13

Inspirationalady28 says...

cm punk wrote:
Inspirationalady28 wrote:
Well it appears that all are against my comment so far.. I was merely stating that, what's the point in attending an emergency if one is to endanger or even kill someone along the way? If someone is in a stolen car etc', what's the point in Police pursuing when that driver will only accelerate to avoid getting caught? So if these Emergency services are so highly trained, how come they are involved in a lot of RTA? Just a few days ago a Police officer on his way to a 999 call lost control of his car and ended up crashing into a tree..now I've heard that a Police motor cyclist has been in a RTA in Catford..C'mon, they are just like everyone else!!! So carry on with your negative comments, I'm allowed to speak my mind the same as all of you. I'm not a troll, I'm just speaking my mind!!
Stop it now inspirational troll, you are an embarrassment. Please return under the bridge from wence you came.
I'm no troll..if you or anyone else don't like my comments that's too bad..have your say without the name-calling!!
[quote][p][bold]cm punk[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Inspirationalady28[/bold] wrote: Well it appears that all are against my comment so far.. I was merely stating that, what's the point in attending an emergency if one is to endanger or even kill someone along the way? If someone is in a stolen car etc', what's the point in Police pursuing when that driver will only accelerate to avoid getting caught? So if these Emergency services are so highly trained, how come they are involved in a lot of RTA? Just a few days ago a Police officer on his way to a 999 call lost control of his car and ended up crashing into a tree..now I've heard that a Police motor cyclist has been in a RTA in Catford..C'mon, they are just like everyone else!!! So carry on with your negative comments, I'm allowed to speak my mind the same as all of you. I'm not a troll, I'm just speaking my mind!![/p][/quote]Stop it now inspirational troll, you are an embarrassment. Please return under the bridge from wence you came.[/p][/quote]I'm no troll..if you or anyone else don't like my comments that's too bad..have your say without the name-calling!! Inspirationalady28
  • Score: -1

7:22pm Mon 7 Jan 13

Piggyfish says...

InspirationalLady,
Sadly the Evenjng Standard have thrown you a curved ball throught their generalisation of ANPR use. It doesn't say this vehicle was pursued because of no insurance, and I'm quite sure the reason for the ANPR hit won't be made public yet. It could be anything from "Tax Disc Expired" to "Wanted for 3 murders and a rape".
Consider that while you decide you have this all wrapped up.
InspirationalLady, Sadly the Evenjng Standard have thrown you a curved ball throught their generalisation of ANPR use. It doesn't say this vehicle was pursued because of no insurance, and I'm quite sure the reason for the ANPR hit won't be made public yet. It could be anything from "Tax Disc Expired" to "Wanted for 3 murders and a rape". Consider that while you decide you have this all wrapped up. Piggyfish
  • Score: 1

7:26pm Mon 7 Jan 13

plasticfantastic says...

Piggyfish wrote:
InspirationalLady,
Sadly the Evenjng Standard have thrown you a curved ball throught their generalisation of ANPR use. It doesn't say this vehicle was pursued because of no insurance, and I'm quite sure the reason for the ANPR hit won't be made public yet. It could be anything from "Tax Disc Expired" to "Wanted for 3 murders and a rape".
Consider that while you decide you have this all wrapped up.
Quite right. ANPR pings up vehicles for all sorts of reasons. Let's wait and see what else comes out about the car and the driver.

Something that I forgot say earlier though. Thoughts go out the family of the deceased girl.

The scumbag who was responsible for this will have to live with it for the rest of his life, but lucky for him, he still has a life.
[quote][p][bold]Piggyfish[/bold] wrote: InspirationalLady, Sadly the Evenjng Standard have thrown you a curved ball throught their generalisation of ANPR use. It doesn't say this vehicle was pursued because of no insurance, and I'm quite sure the reason for the ANPR hit won't be made public yet. It could be anything from "Tax Disc Expired" to "Wanted for 3 murders and a rape". Consider that while you decide you have this all wrapped up.[/p][/quote]Quite right. ANPR pings up vehicles for all sorts of reasons. Let's wait and see what else comes out about the car and the driver. Something that I forgot say earlier though. Thoughts go out the family of the deceased girl. The scumbag who was responsible for this will have to live with it for the rest of his life, but lucky for him, he still has a life. plasticfantastic
  • Score: 0

7:50pm Mon 7 Jan 13

Marty1979 says...

Inspirationalady28 wrote:
Marty1979 wrote:
Only trivial? Try asking someone who's had their car written of by an uninsured driver, ending up losing no claims & facing higher premiums if they think it's trivial

And ask yourself why it was uninsured - probably the driver couldn't get insurance because they didn't have a licence (another crime). All of a sudden the offences are mounting up
This is NOT about money..this is about road safety..The driver of the car may have been uninsured but there was still no need for three police cars to chase it as if it was a matter between life and death.
OK, so I don't bother with insurance - if the police flash me to stop I'll drive off knowing they won't do anything about it?
[quote][p][bold]Inspirationalady28[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Marty1979[/bold] wrote: Only trivial? Try asking someone who's had their car written of by an uninsured driver, ending up losing no claims & facing higher premiums if they think it's trivial And ask yourself why it was uninsured - probably the driver couldn't get insurance because they didn't have a licence (another crime). All of a sudden the offences are mounting up[/p][/quote]This is NOT about money..this is about road safety..The driver of the car may have been uninsured but there was still no need for three police cars to chase it as if it was a matter between life and death.[/p][/quote]OK, so I don't bother with insurance - if the police flash me to stop I'll drive off knowing they won't do anything about it? Marty1979
  • Score: 0

10:47pm Mon 7 Jan 13

Biscuit says...

Inspirationalady28 wrote:
Familyguy321 wrote:
Insp lady, 99% of the incidents I go to could be summed up as minor such as this uninsured driver. The solution to this which sounds lazy is ..
A. remove all use of force powers from police, so that we can't be moaned at in struggles

B.remove the exemptions for our emergency driving, because this situation could have easily occurred on the route to a call for police for whatever reason.

Then put a CCTV camera on every corner and just record everything then it wouldn't be a police constables fault for unseen tragedy a that occur.... Or does this sound ridiculous.

To keep you informed the helicopter mentioned is based in north London. Bad weather there grounds it for the whole of London.( if it was indeed grounded) also note that all local residents claim that it's a bad road layout.

Yes it was just an uninsured driver. Which could have been solved by him stopping when requested to do he chose to drive off at speed to avoid being caught. We live in a contradictory world.

Imagine the outcry (this is a plausible situation) another uninsured driver is seen, police choose not to pursue.. For whatever reason. And that driver goes and assaults their partner in a domestic..

We already have a police service that is too worried about what ifs and well this could happen rather than actually doing anything about what has happened

Just to remind this awful thing could have been avoided. By the driver stopping.. But that's not what criminals do.
I quite agree that the driver should have stopped but like you said; “This is not what criminals do.” So where does the emergency come in when dealing with an uninsured driver? Surely it could have been dealt with without having caused the death of a young girl!! The driver may have only been driving normally, but because of todays technology got caught out but that still doesn't give the Police the right to chase at high speed over such a trivial matter..that wasn't an emergency, but it was turned into one!!!
If he wasn't insured (or whatever his crime) it led to the death of a child and yet you say it's trivial?? And for the record, not being insured (if that's what it was) is not trivial. It may be to you, but it looks like you've got a pretty warped view of right and wrong to start with.
[quote][p][bold]Inspirationalady28[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Familyguy321[/bold] wrote: Insp lady, 99% of the incidents I go to could be summed up as minor such as this uninsured driver. The solution to this which sounds lazy is .. A. remove all use of force powers from police, so that we can't be moaned at in struggles B.remove the exemptions for our emergency driving, because this situation could have easily occurred on the route to a call for police for whatever reason. Then put a CCTV camera on every corner and just record everything then it wouldn't be a police constables fault for unseen tragedy a that occur.... Or does this sound ridiculous. To keep you informed the helicopter mentioned is based in north London. Bad weather there grounds it for the whole of London.( if it was indeed grounded) also note that all local residents claim that it's a bad road layout. Yes it was just an uninsured driver. Which could have been solved by him stopping when requested to do he chose to drive off at speed to avoid being caught. We live in a contradictory world. Imagine the outcry (this is a plausible situation) another uninsured driver is seen, police choose not to pursue.. For whatever reason. And that driver goes and assaults their partner in a domestic.. We already have a police service that is too worried about what ifs and well this could happen rather than actually doing anything about what has happened Just to remind this awful thing could have been avoided. By the driver stopping.. But that's not what criminals do.[/p][/quote]I quite agree that the driver should have stopped but like you said; “This is not what criminals do.” So where does the emergency come in when dealing with an uninsured driver? Surely it could have been dealt with without having caused the death of a young girl!! The driver may have only been driving normally, but because of todays technology got caught out but that still doesn't give the Police the right to chase at high speed over such a trivial matter..that wasn't an emergency, but it was turned into one!!![/p][/quote]If he wasn't insured (or whatever his crime) it led to the death of a child and yet you say it's trivial?? And for the record, not being insured (if that's what it was) is not trivial. It may be to you, but it looks like you've got a pretty warped view of right and wrong to start with. Biscuit
  • Score: 0

11:25pm Mon 7 Jan 13

Inspirationalady28 says...

I think you all are missing my point here..it doesn't matter what the driver was pursued for, the fact remains that the police gave chase at excessive speed which worsened the situation. Had an unmarked car followed the driver without alerting him it could have been handled very differently..of course a driver who has done wrong or has something to hide is going to avoid being stopped and put their foot down when they see flashing lights and hear sirens. Yes, the driver should have stopped, he was clearly in the wrong. But two wrongs don't make a right!!!
I think you all are missing my point here..it doesn't matter what the driver was pursued for, the fact remains that the police gave chase at excessive speed which worsened the situation. Had an unmarked car followed the driver without alerting him it could have been handled very differently..of course a driver who has done wrong or has something to hide is going to avoid being stopped and put their foot down when they see flashing lights and hear sirens. Yes, the driver should have stopped, he was clearly in the wrong. But two wrongs don't make a right!!! Inspirationalady28
  • Score: 0

11:33pm Mon 7 Jan 13

melissa67 says...

Inspirationalady28 wrote:
I think you all are missing my point here..it doesn't matter what the driver was pursued for, the fact remains that the police gave chase at excessive speed which worsened the situation. Had an unmarked car followed the driver without alerting him it could have been handled very differently..of course a driver who has done wrong or has something to hide is going to avoid being stopped and put their foot down when they see flashing lights and hear sirens. Yes, the driver should have stopped, he was clearly in the wrong. But two wrongs don't make a right!!!
You are wrong, accept it.
[quote][p][bold]Inspirationalady28[/bold] wrote: I think you all are missing my point here..it doesn't matter what the driver was pursued for, the fact remains that the police gave chase at excessive speed which worsened the situation. Had an unmarked car followed the driver without alerting him it could have been handled very differently..of course a driver who has done wrong or has something to hide is going to avoid being stopped and put their foot down when they see flashing lights and hear sirens. Yes, the driver should have stopped, he was clearly in the wrong. But two wrongs don't make a right!!![/p][/quote]You are wrong, accept it. melissa67
  • Score: 0

11:43pm Mon 7 Jan 13

Brook says...

Inspirationalady28
When you see why the driver Devon Newall was wanted by Sussex police, you might realise why the police were so anxious to catch him. You will hopefully then realise your mistake and maybe appologise at tarnishing the brave officers who chased him.
Inspirationalady28 When you see why the driver Devon Newall was wanted by Sussex police, you might realise why the police were so anxious to catch him. You will hopefully then realise your mistake and maybe appologise at tarnishing the brave officers who chased him. Brook
  • Score: 0

1:26am Tue 8 Jan 13

Inspirationalady28 says...

Brook wrote:
Inspirationalady28
When you see why the driver Devon Newall was wanted by Sussex police, you might realise why the police were so anxious to catch him. You will hopefully then realise your mistake and maybe appologise at tarnishing the brave officers who chased him.
Yes, I've seen why they gave chase because it's public knowledge now but I'm not apologising for speaking my mind! The police knew who they were chasing and were obviously aware of the risks involved at the time. So they got their man...that claimed the life of an innocent young girl.. There's nothing brave about that, if you seem to think so, try telling that to her grieving family..I'm sure if that had been your daughter, none of you would be so quick to praise the police for bravery!!
[quote][p][bold]Brook[/bold] wrote: Inspirationalady28 When you see why the driver Devon Newall was wanted by Sussex police, you might realise why the police were so anxious to catch him. You will hopefully then realise your mistake and maybe appologise at tarnishing the brave officers who chased him.[/p][/quote]Yes, I've seen why they gave chase because it's public knowledge now but I'm not apologising for speaking my mind! The police knew who they were chasing and were obviously aware of the risks involved at the time. So they got their man...that claimed the life of an innocent young girl.. There's nothing brave about that, if you seem to think so, try telling that to her grieving family..I'm sure if that had been your daughter, none of you would be so quick to praise the police for bravery!! Inspirationalady28
  • Score: 0

6:57am Tue 8 Jan 13

millwall1885 says...

Inspirationalady28 wrote:
Brook wrote:
Inspirationalady28
When you see why the driver Devon Newall was wanted by Sussex police, you might realise why the police were so anxious to catch him. You will hopefully then realise your mistake and maybe appologise at tarnishing the brave officers who chased him.
Yes, I've seen why they gave chase because it's public knowledge now but I'm not apologising for speaking my mind! The police knew who they were chasing and were obviously aware of the risks involved at the time. So they got their man...that claimed the life of an innocent young girl.. There's nothing brave about that, if you seem to think so, try telling that to her grieving family..I'm sure if that had been your daughter, none of you would be so quick to praise the police for bravery!!
Inspirationalady28. What are you on about? Yeah the police can be over the top at times. And if it is a minor driving offense a driver as committed then there shouldn't be high speed driving involved. But not once in this report as it said it was a high speed pursuit. You wasn't there so how can you judge if the police was at thought or not? And how can you say that the police ain't brave is beyond me. Like someone else said on here, hope you never need the emergency services and if you do and you're in a lot of pain? Remember to tell the ambulance driver to stick to 30mph and don't go through red lights. or if your cat is stuck up a tree get it down yourself.

What needs to be done is if someone causes death by dangerous driving, it shouldn't be manslaughter or as the easy way out term the law like it to be (death by dangerous driving) it should be treated as murder and that should mean proper punishment for the persons actions. He should be locked up till the day that poor family get over the lost of their daughter and that will be never. R.I.P Darling
[quote][p][bold]Inspirationalady28[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Brook[/bold] wrote: Inspirationalady28 When you see why the driver Devon Newall was wanted by Sussex police, you might realise why the police were so anxious to catch him. You will hopefully then realise your mistake and maybe appologise at tarnishing the brave officers who chased him.[/p][/quote]Yes, I've seen why they gave chase because it's public knowledge now but I'm not apologising for speaking my mind! The police knew who they were chasing and were obviously aware of the risks involved at the time. So they got their man...that claimed the life of an innocent young girl.. There's nothing brave about that, if you seem to think so, try telling that to her grieving family..I'm sure if that had been your daughter, none of you would be so quick to praise the police for bravery!![/p][/quote]Inspirationalady28. What are you on about? Yeah the police can be over the top at times. And if it is a minor driving offense a driver as committed then there shouldn't be high speed driving involved. But not once in this report as it said it was a high speed pursuit. You wasn't there so how can you judge if the police was at thought or not? And how can you say that the police ain't brave is beyond me. Like someone else said on here, hope you never need the emergency services and if you do and you're in a lot of pain? Remember to tell the ambulance driver to stick to 30mph and don't go through red lights. or if your cat is stuck up a tree get it down yourself. What needs to be done is if someone causes death by dangerous driving, it shouldn't be manslaughter or as the easy way out term the law like it to be (death by dangerous driving) it should be treated as murder and that should mean proper punishment for the persons actions. He should be locked up till the day that poor family get over the lost of their daughter and that will be never. R.I.P Darling millwall1885
  • Score: 0

8:55am Tue 8 Jan 13

millwall1885 says...

Inspirationalady28. Again i say it you wasn't there. How do you know it was excessive speed? How do you know the police wasn't following from a distance and he clocked them and took off? In a ideal world they could have got a unmarked car into position but there may not have been a unmarked car available? Please don't think for a second i'm a do gooder but the police are under staffed in England. They're under pressure to meet targets without the resources and backing from any government. I don't think you're a troll and you're entitled to your opinion but i think you are having a go at the wrong people in this post. It's the dirty little coward who beat up a 20 year old girl then run when he couldn't handle the thought of getting caught and killed a poor innocent girl in the process. His the one who should be taking all your anger?
Inspirationalady28. Again i say it you wasn't there. How do you know it was excessive speed? How do you know the police wasn't following from a distance and he clocked them and took off? In a ideal world they could have got a unmarked car into position but there may not have been a unmarked car available? Please don't think for a second i'm a do gooder but the police are under staffed in England. They're under pressure to meet targets without the resources and backing from any government. I don't think you're a troll and you're entitled to your opinion but i think you are having a go at the wrong people in this post. It's the dirty little coward who beat up a 20 year old girl then run when he couldn't handle the thought of getting caught and killed a poor innocent girl in the process. His the one who should be taking all your anger? millwall1885
  • Score: 0

9:04am Tue 8 Jan 13

neonis says...

My heart goes out to that poor girl and her family, may she rest in peace x
My heart goes out to that poor girl and her family, may she rest in peace x neonis
  • Score: 0

10:54am Tue 8 Jan 13

melissa67 says...

One of the problems here I think is that we seem to be turning into a 'blame' culture. We are so caught up in compensation, liability, contract, sueibility, civil rights .... Blah blah blah, that we have forgotten about good old 'consequences', and 'personal responsibility'!! When we wake up in the morning, EVERY choice we make has potential consequences. This lad CHOSE to break the law, beat up the girl, drive that car, speed away from the police .... The consequence of HIS actions have caused a death. The police would not have been involved at all if he had not taken the actions that he did. That child would still be alive. He is responsible for her death, which is why he has been charged with it. If you drop a pebble in a pond it causes lots of ripples ..... His actions have sadly affected many. Personally I hope he never sleeps without a nightmare, he deserves no peace.
One of the problems here I think is that we seem to be turning into a 'blame' culture. We are so caught up in compensation, liability, contract, sueibility, civil rights .... Blah blah blah, that we have forgotten about good old 'consequences', and 'personal responsibility'!! When we wake up in the morning, EVERY choice we make has potential consequences. This lad CHOSE to break the law, beat up the girl, drive that car, speed away from the police .... The consequence of HIS actions have caused a death. The police would not have been involved at all if he had not taken the actions that he did. That child would still be alive. He is responsible for her death, which is why he has been charged with it. If you drop a pebble in a pond it causes lots of ripples ..... His actions have sadly affected many. Personally I hope he never sleeps without a nightmare, he deserves no peace. melissa67
  • Score: 0

10:56am Tue 8 Jan 13

toomush2drink says...

Im sure there is so much more too this than a simple unisured driver, anpr flags up allsorts.

Why all this focus on the police, they didnt kill anyone it was the unisurd driver who did that by their own actions ?

Perhaps Uninspirationallady8 would prefer it if the police were all armed and just shot at anything that tried to get away ?
Im sure there is so much more too this than a simple unisured driver, anpr flags up allsorts. Why all this focus on the police, they didnt kill anyone it was the unisurd driver who did that by their own actions ? Perhaps Uninspirationallady8 would prefer it if the police were all armed and just shot at anything that tried to get away ? toomush2drink
  • Score: 0

11:33am Tue 8 Jan 13

j.j. says...

Inspirationalady28 wrote:
I think you all are missing my point here..it doesn't matter what the driver was pursued for, the fact remains that the police gave chase at excessive speed which worsened the situation. Had an unmarked car followed the driver without alerting him it could have been handled very differently..of course a driver who has done wrong or has something to hide is going to avoid being stopped and put their foot down when they see flashing lights and hear sirens. Yes, the driver should have stopped, he was clearly in the wrong. But two wrongs don't make a right!!!
"..of course a driver who has done wrong or has something to hide is going to avoid being stopped and put their foot down " - Is that what you would do, even if you knew that this could result in a crime that carries a max. sentence of 14 years (which, by the way, I hope the driver will get)?
[quote][p][bold]Inspirationalady28[/bold] wrote: I think you all are missing my point here..it doesn't matter what the driver was pursued for, the fact remains that the police gave chase at excessive speed which worsened the situation. Had an unmarked car followed the driver without alerting him it could have been handled very differently..of course a driver who has done wrong or has something to hide is going to avoid being stopped and put their foot down when they see flashing lights and hear sirens. Yes, the driver should have stopped, he was clearly in the wrong. But two wrongs don't make a right!!![/p][/quote]"..of course a driver who has done wrong or has something to hide is going to avoid being stopped and put their foot down " - Is that what you would do, even if you knew that this could result in a crime that carries a max. sentence of 14 years (which, by the way, I hope the driver will get)? j.j.
  • Score: 0

2:30pm Tue 8 Jan 13

Marty1979 says...

But the police who spotted him were not in an unmarked car. What would you suggest they should have done?

They would have had to follow (in a marked car) initially for however long it took until an unmarked car arrived - so it would have still sped off

Why are you blaming the police? It was the CRIMINAL who is to blame
But the police who spotted him were not in an unmarked car. What would you suggest they should have done? They would have had to follow (in a marked car) initially for however long it took until an unmarked car arrived - so it would have still sped off Why are you blaming the police? It was the CRIMINAL who is to blame Marty1979
  • Score: 0

10:14pm Tue 8 Jan 13

Piggyfish says...

Guys/Gals, please lay off with the whole trolling thing. Inspirationalady28 has an opinion and, while I strongly disagree with it, she's perfectly entitled to say it out loud. She's not alone in that opinion either - Jenny Jones (who, as an ex-Police Authority member, ought to know much better) has today said much the same thing. Sadly, I suspect that's more to do with a desite for self-promotion rather than any real concern.
Personally, I'm grateful for the pro-Police comments that are clearly in the majority here. We don't get enough of that usually, so thank you!
Guys/Gals, please lay off with the whole trolling thing. Inspirationalady28 has an opinion and, while I strongly disagree with it, she's perfectly entitled to say it out loud. She's not alone in that opinion either - Jenny Jones (who, as an ex-Police Authority member, ought to know much better) has today said much the same thing. Sadly, I suspect that's more to do with a desite for self-promotion rather than any real concern. Personally, I'm grateful for the pro-Police comments that are clearly in the majority here. We don't get enough of that usually, so thank you! Piggyfish
  • Score: 0

10:17am Wed 9 Jan 13

the wall says...

Piggyfish wrote:
Guys/Gals, please lay off with the whole trolling thing. Inspirationalady28 has an opinion and, while I strongly disagree with it, she's perfectly entitled to say it out loud. She's not alone in that opinion either - Jenny Jones (who, as an ex-Police Authority member, ought to know much better) has today said much the same thing. Sadly, I suspect that's more to do with a desite for self-promotion rather than any real concern.
Personally, I'm grateful for the pro-Police comments that are clearly in the majority here. We don't get enough of that usually, so thank you!
Guys/Gals - Well done for starting your comment with a Jimmy (Nonce) Sa-vile saying.

lay off with the whole trolling thing - While this person is allowed to voice their opinion others are allowed to voice their opinion. Get over it.

Jenny Jones - Bleedin Nora where to start with this person. Words do not express how much I really don't care what this woman has to say. She's an MP for the Green party says most of it.

One of the people that have left comments is a Police officer, I would trust what they say more than what ever Jenny Jones ever has to say.

Can't really see what the point of your post is. Are you trying to control what people say on the internet? You quote Jenny Jones like she is some sort of chosen one that must be obeyed. Then admit it's more to do with self-promotion. Why even bring that up ? Complete pointless and a waste of interweb.
[quote][p][bold]Piggyfish[/bold] wrote: Guys/Gals, please lay off with the whole trolling thing. Inspirationalady28 has an opinion and, while I strongly disagree with it, she's perfectly entitled to say it out loud. She's not alone in that opinion either - Jenny Jones (who, as an ex-Police Authority member, ought to know much better) has today said much the same thing. Sadly, I suspect that's more to do with a desite for self-promotion rather than any real concern. Personally, I'm grateful for the pro-Police comments that are clearly in the majority here. We don't get enough of that usually, so thank you![/p][/quote]Guys/Gals - Well done for starting your comment with a Jimmy (Nonce) Sa-vile saying. lay off with the whole trolling thing - While this person is allowed to voice their opinion others are allowed to voice their opinion. Get over it. Jenny Jones - Bleedin Nora where to start with this person. Words do not express how much I really don't care what this woman has to say. She's an MP for the Green party says most of it. One of the people that have left comments is a Police officer, I would trust what they say more than what ever Jenny Jones ever has to say. Can't really see what the point of your post is. Are you trying to control what people say on the internet? You quote Jenny Jones like she is some sort of chosen one that must be obeyed. Then admit it's more to do with self-promotion. Why even bring that up ? Complete pointless and a waste of interweb. the wall
  • Score: 0

10:37am Wed 9 Jan 13

Inspirationalady28 says...

the wall wrote:
Piggyfish wrote:
Guys/Gals, please lay off with the whole trolling thing. Inspirationalady28 has an opinion and, while I strongly disagree with it, she's perfectly entitled to say it out loud. She's not alone in that opinion either - Jenny Jones (who, as an ex-Police Authority member, ought to know much better) has today said much the same thing. Sadly, I suspect that's more to do with a desite for self-promotion rather than any real concern.
Personally, I'm grateful for the pro-Police comments that are clearly in the majority here. We don't get enough of that usually, so thank you!
Guys/Gals - Well done for starting your comment with a Jimmy (Nonce) Sa-vile saying.

lay off with the whole trolling thing - While this person is allowed to voice their opinion others are allowed to voice their opinion. Get over it.

Jenny Jones - Bleedin Nora where to start with this person. Words do not express how much I really don't care what this woman has to say. She's an MP for the Green party says most of it.

One of the people that have left comments is a Police officer, I would trust what they say more than what ever Jenny Jones ever has to say.

Can't really see what the point of your post is. Are you trying to control what people say on the internet? You quote Jenny Jones like she is some sort of chosen one that must be obeyed. Then admit it's more to do with self-promotion. Why even bring that up ? Complete pointless and a waste of interweb.
Haha! So it's have-a-go @ Piggyfish now is it? I'm no troll, but I can spot a few on here! You see, trolls are very negative people, hence, giving very negative comments..They just wait to have a dig, it's fuel for them to thrive!! So unless any of you have anything POSITIVE to say I suggest you keep your unwanted comments to yourself. Thank you!
[quote][p][bold]the wall[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Piggyfish[/bold] wrote: Guys/Gals, please lay off with the whole trolling thing. Inspirationalady28 has an opinion and, while I strongly disagree with it, she's perfectly entitled to say it out loud. She's not alone in that opinion either - Jenny Jones (who, as an ex-Police Authority member, ought to know much better) has today said much the same thing. Sadly, I suspect that's more to do with a desite for self-promotion rather than any real concern. Personally, I'm grateful for the pro-Police comments that are clearly in the majority here. We don't get enough of that usually, so thank you![/p][/quote]Guys/Gals - Well done for starting your comment with a Jimmy (Nonce) Sa-vile saying. lay off with the whole trolling thing - While this person is allowed to voice their opinion others are allowed to voice their opinion. Get over it. Jenny Jones - Bleedin Nora where to start with this person. Words do not express how much I really don't care what this woman has to say. She's an MP for the Green party says most of it. One of the people that have left comments is a Police officer, I would trust what they say more than what ever Jenny Jones ever has to say. Can't really see what the point of your post is. Are you trying to control what people say on the internet? You quote Jenny Jones like she is some sort of chosen one that must be obeyed. Then admit it's more to do with self-promotion. Why even bring that up ? Complete pointless and a waste of interweb.[/p][/quote]Haha! So it's have-a-go @ Piggyfish now is it? I'm no troll, but I can spot a few on here! You see, trolls are very negative people, hence, giving very negative comments..They just wait to have a dig, it's fuel for them to thrive!! So unless any of you have anything POSITIVE to say I suggest you keep your unwanted comments to yourself. Thank you! Inspirationalady28
  • Score: 0

10:43am Wed 9 Jan 13

PaulErith says...

Piggyfish wrote:
Guys/Gals, please lay off with the whole trolling thing. Inspirationalady28 has an opinion and, while I strongly disagree with it, she's perfectly entitled to say it out loud. She's not alone in that opinion either - Jenny Jones (who, as an ex-Police Authority member, ought to know much better) has today said much the same thing. Sadly, I suspect that's more to do with a desite for self-promotion rather than any real concern. Personally, I'm grateful for the pro-Police comments that are clearly in the majority here. We don't get enough of that usually, so thank you!
It's not even worth wasting your breath with some people. I said much the same earlier. ILady has been flattly insulted by some people (cmpunk in particular). It just shows that some are unable to debate intelligently, and their only option is to reply with insults when someone doesn't agree with them. They only make themselves look stupid.
[quote][p][bold]Piggyfish[/bold] wrote: Guys/Gals, please lay off with the whole trolling thing. Inspirationalady28 has an opinion and, while I strongly disagree with it, she's perfectly entitled to say it out loud. She's not alone in that opinion either - Jenny Jones (who, as an ex-Police Authority member, ought to know much better) has today said much the same thing. Sadly, I suspect that's more to do with a desite for self-promotion rather than any real concern. Personally, I'm grateful for the pro-Police comments that are clearly in the majority here. We don't get enough of that usually, so thank you![/p][/quote]It's not even worth wasting your breath with some people. I said much the same earlier. ILady has been flattly insulted by some people (cmpunk in particular). It just shows that some are unable to debate intelligently, and their only option is to reply with insults when someone doesn't agree with them. They only make themselves look stupid. PaulErith
  • Score: 0

11:03am Wed 9 Jan 13

Inspirationalady28 says...

PaulErith wrote:
Piggyfish wrote:
Guys/Gals, please lay off with the whole trolling thing. Inspirationalady28 has an opinion and, while I strongly disagree with it, she's perfectly entitled to say it out loud. She's not alone in that opinion either - Jenny Jones (who, as an ex-Police Authority member, ought to know much better) has today said much the same thing. Sadly, I suspect that's more to do with a desite for self-promotion rather than any real concern. Personally, I'm grateful for the pro-Police comments that are clearly in the majority here. We don't get enough of that usually, so thank you!
It's not even worth wasting your breath with some people. I said much the same earlier. ILady has been flattly insulted by some people (cmpunk in particular). It just shows that some are unable to debate intelligently, and their only option is to reply with insults when someone doesn't agree with them. They only make themselves look stupid.
Thank you #PaulErith..I appreciate your comment and others too even though I'm in the minority here. :)
[quote][p][bold]PaulErith[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Piggyfish[/bold] wrote: Guys/Gals, please lay off with the whole trolling thing. Inspirationalady28 has an opinion and, while I strongly disagree with it, she's perfectly entitled to say it out loud. She's not alone in that opinion either - Jenny Jones (who, as an ex-Police Authority member, ought to know much better) has today said much the same thing. Sadly, I suspect that's more to do with a desite for self-promotion rather than any real concern. Personally, I'm grateful for the pro-Police comments that are clearly in the majority here. We don't get enough of that usually, so thank you![/p][/quote]It's not even worth wasting your breath with some people. I said much the same earlier. ILady has been flattly insulted by some people (cmpunk in particular). It just shows that some are unable to debate intelligently, and their only option is to reply with insults when someone doesn't agree with them. They only make themselves look stupid.[/p][/quote]Thank you #PaulErith..I appreciate your comment and others too even though I'm in the minority here. :) Inspirationalady28
  • Score: 0

11:17am Wed 9 Jan 13

the wall says...

Inspirationalady28 wrote:
PaulErith wrote:
Piggyfish wrote:
Guys/Gals, please lay off with the whole trolling thing. Inspirationalady28 has an opinion and, while I strongly disagree with it, she's perfectly entitled to say it out loud. She's not alone in that opinion either - Jenny Jones (who, as an ex-Police Authority member, ought to know much better) has today said much the same thing. Sadly, I suspect that's more to do with a desite for self-promotion rather than any real concern. Personally, I'm grateful for the pro-Police comments that are clearly in the majority here. We don't get enough of that usually, so thank you!
It's not even worth wasting your breath with some people. I said much the same earlier. ILady has been flattly insulted by some people (cmpunk in particular). It just shows that some are unable to debate intelligently, and their only option is to reply with insults when someone doesn't agree with them. They only make themselves look stupid.
Thank you #PaulErith..I appreciate your comment and others too even though I'm in the minority here. :)
You're not the victim in all this, so stop trying to play one.
[quote][p][bold]Inspirationalady28[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]PaulErith[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Piggyfish[/bold] wrote: Guys/Gals, please lay off with the whole trolling thing. Inspirationalady28 has an opinion and, while I strongly disagree with it, she's perfectly entitled to say it out loud. She's not alone in that opinion either - Jenny Jones (who, as an ex-Police Authority member, ought to know much better) has today said much the same thing. Sadly, I suspect that's more to do with a desite for self-promotion rather than any real concern. Personally, I'm grateful for the pro-Police comments that are clearly in the majority here. We don't get enough of that usually, so thank you![/p][/quote]It's not even worth wasting your breath with some people. I said much the same earlier. ILady has been flattly insulted by some people (cmpunk in particular). It just shows that some are unable to debate intelligently, and their only option is to reply with insults when someone doesn't agree with them. They only make themselves look stupid.[/p][/quote]Thank you #PaulErith..I appreciate your comment and others too even though I'm in the minority here. :)[/p][/quote]You're not the victim in all this, so stop trying to play one. the wall
  • Score: 0

11:34am Wed 9 Jan 13

Inspirationalady28 says...

the wall wrote:
Inspirationalady28 wrote:
PaulErith wrote:
Piggyfish wrote:
Guys/Gals, please lay off with the whole trolling thing. Inspirationalady28 has an opinion and, while I strongly disagree with it, she's perfectly entitled to say it out loud. She's not alone in that opinion either - Jenny Jones (who, as an ex-Police Authority member, ought to know much better) has today said much the same thing. Sadly, I suspect that's more to do with a desite for self-promotion rather than any real concern. Personally, I'm grateful for the pro-Police comments that are clearly in the majority here. We don't get enough of that usually, so thank you!
It's not even worth wasting your breath with some people. I said much the same earlier. ILady has been flattly insulted by some people (cmpunk in particular). It just shows that some are unable to debate intelligently, and their only option is to reply with insults when someone doesn't agree with them. They only make themselves look stupid.
Thank you #PaulErith..I appreciate your comment and others too even though I'm in the minority here. :)
You're not the victim in all this, so stop trying to play one.
You're very correct, I'm not the victim in all this..that didn't take a lot of working out did it? ( the victim is the young girl & her family) which was what my post was about originally before certain people started to post comments that are totally irrelevant and uncalled for!
[quote][p][bold]the wall[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Inspirationalady28[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]PaulErith[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Piggyfish[/bold] wrote: Guys/Gals, please lay off with the whole trolling thing. Inspirationalady28 has an opinion and, while I strongly disagree with it, she's perfectly entitled to say it out loud. She's not alone in that opinion either - Jenny Jones (who, as an ex-Police Authority member, ought to know much better) has today said much the same thing. Sadly, I suspect that's more to do with a desite for self-promotion rather than any real concern. Personally, I'm grateful for the pro-Police comments that are clearly in the majority here. We don't get enough of that usually, so thank you![/p][/quote]It's not even worth wasting your breath with some people. I said much the same earlier. ILady has been flattly insulted by some people (cmpunk in particular). It just shows that some are unable to debate intelligently, and their only option is to reply with insults when someone doesn't agree with them. They only make themselves look stupid.[/p][/quote]Thank you #PaulErith..I appreciate your comment and others too even though I'm in the minority here. :)[/p][/quote]You're not the victim in all this, so stop trying to play one.[/p][/quote]You're very correct, I'm not the victim in all this..that didn't take a lot of working out did it? ( the victim is the young girl & her family) which was what my post was about originally before certain people started to post comments that are totally irrelevant and uncalled for! Inspirationalady28
  • Score: 0

11:53am Wed 9 Jan 13

the wall says...

Inspirationalady28 wrote:
the wall wrote:
Piggyfish wrote:
Guys/Gals, please lay off with the whole trolling thing. Inspirationalady28 has an opinion and, while I strongly disagree with it, she's perfectly entitled to say it out loud. She's not alone in that opinion either - Jenny Jones (who, as an ex-Police Authority member, ought to know much better) has today said much the same thing. Sadly, I suspect that's more to do with a desite for self-promotion rather than any real concern.
Personally, I'm grateful for the pro-Police comments that are clearly in the majority here. We don't get enough of that usually, so thank you!
Guys/Gals - Well done for starting your comment with a Jimmy (Nonce) Sa-vile saying.

lay off with the whole trolling thing - While this person is allowed to voice their opinion others are allowed to voice their opinion. Get over it.

Jenny Jones - Bleedin Nora where to start with this person. Words do not express how much I really don't care what this woman has to say. She's an MP for the Green party says most of it.

One of the people that have left comments is a Police officer, I would trust what they say more than what ever Jenny Jones ever has to say.

Can't really see what the point of your post is. Are you trying to control what people say on the internet? You quote Jenny Jones like she is some sort of chosen one that must be obeyed. Then admit it's more to do with self-promotion. Why even bring that up ? Complete pointless and a waste of interweb.
Haha! So it's have-a-go @ Piggyfish now is it? I'm no troll, but I can spot a few on here! You see, trolls are very negative people, hence, giving very negative comments..They just wait to have a dig, it's fuel for them to thrive!! So unless any of you have anything POSITIVE to say I suggest you keep your unwanted comments to yourself. Thank you!
The irony is strong in this one.


So unless any of you have anything POSITIVE to say I suggest you keep your unwanted comments to yourself. Thank you!

Who the feck do you think you are the Queen on the web. I will say what I like. I don't care if it upsets you. You can't have it all your own way love!

No one can comment unless you think it's positive. How boring would your world be! So you don't agree with what someone says you think that is negative. maybe the interweb isn't for you.

You have a very basic understanding of what you think a troll is, like what a teacher has told a 8 year old. Trolls are many different things, some are simple, and some do it for a joke.

Troll: is someone who posts inflammatory, extraneous, or off-topic messages in an online community, such as a forum, chat room, or blog, with the primary intent of provoking readers into an emotional response or of otherwise disrupting normal on-topic discussion. There are four grades of trolling: playtime trolling, tactical trolling, strategic trolling, and domination trolling. Trolls aspire to violence, to the level of trouble they can cause in an environment. They want it to kick off. They want to promote antipathetic emotions of disgust and outrage, which morbidly gives them a sense of pleasure.

Trolling : Trolling is a game about identity deception, albeit one that is played without the consent of most of the players. The troll attempts to pass as a legitimate participant, sharing the group's common interests and concerns; the newsgroups members, if they are cognizant of trolls and other identity deceptions, attempt to both distinguish real from trolling postings, and upon judging a poster a troll, make the offending poster leave the group. Their success at the former depends on how well they – and the troll – understand identity cues; their success at the latter depends on whether the troll's enjoyment is sufficiently diminished or outweighed by the costs imposed by the group. Trolls can be costly in several ways. A troll can disrupt the discussion on a newsgroup, disseminate bad advice, and damage the feeling of trust in the newsgroup community. Furthermore, in a group that has become sensitized to trolling – where the rate of deception is high – many honestly naïve questions may be quickly rejected as trollings. This can be quite off-putting to the new user who upon venturing a first posting is immediately bombarded with angry accusations. Even if the accusation is unfounded, being branded a troll is quite damaging to one's online reputation


"I disagree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it. Unlike you who thinks that people should only write things that YOU agree with.
So much for freedom of speech in your little world.
[quote][p][bold]Inspirationalady28[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]the wall[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Piggyfish[/bold] wrote: Guys/Gals, please lay off with the whole trolling thing. Inspirationalady28 has an opinion and, while I strongly disagree with it, she's perfectly entitled to say it out loud. She's not alone in that opinion either - Jenny Jones (who, as an ex-Police Authority member, ought to know much better) has today said much the same thing. Sadly, I suspect that's more to do with a desite for self-promotion rather than any real concern. Personally, I'm grateful for the pro-Police comments that are clearly in the majority here. We don't get enough of that usually, so thank you![/p][/quote]Guys/Gals - Well done for starting your comment with a Jimmy (Nonce) Sa-vile saying. lay off with the whole trolling thing - While this person is allowed to voice their opinion others are allowed to voice their opinion. Get over it. Jenny Jones - Bleedin Nora where to start with this person. Words do not express how much I really don't care what this woman has to say. She's an MP for the Green party says most of it. One of the people that have left comments is a Police officer, I would trust what they say more than what ever Jenny Jones ever has to say. Can't really see what the point of your post is. Are you trying to control what people say on the internet? You quote Jenny Jones like she is some sort of chosen one that must be obeyed. Then admit it's more to do with self-promotion. Why even bring that up ? Complete pointless and a waste of interweb.[/p][/quote]Haha! So it's have-a-go @ Piggyfish now is it? I'm no troll, but I can spot a few on here! You see, trolls are very negative people, hence, giving very negative comments..They just wait to have a dig, it's fuel for them to thrive!! So unless any of you have anything POSITIVE to say I suggest you keep your unwanted comments to yourself. Thank you![/p][/quote]The irony is strong in this one. So unless any of you have anything POSITIVE to say I suggest you keep your unwanted comments to yourself. Thank you! Who the feck do you think you are the Queen on the web. I will say what I like. I don't care if it upsets you. You can't have it all your own way love! No one can comment unless you think it's positive. How boring would your world be! So you don't agree with what someone says you think that is negative. maybe the interweb isn't for you. You have a very basic understanding of what you think a troll is, like what a teacher has told a 8 year old. Trolls are many different things, some are simple, and some do it for a joke. Troll: is someone who posts inflammatory, extraneous, or off-topic messages in an online community, such as a forum, chat room, or blog, with the primary intent of provoking readers into an emotional response or of otherwise disrupting normal on-topic discussion. There are four grades of trolling: playtime trolling, tactical trolling, strategic trolling, and domination trolling. Trolls aspire to violence, to the level of trouble they can cause in an environment. They want it to kick off. They want to promote antipathetic emotions of disgust and outrage, which morbidly gives them a sense of pleasure. Trolling : Trolling is a game about identity deception, albeit one that is played without the consent of most of the players. The troll attempts to pass as a legitimate participant, sharing the group's common interests and concerns; the newsgroups members, if they are cognizant of trolls and other identity deceptions, attempt to both distinguish real from trolling postings, and upon judging a poster a troll, make the offending poster leave the group. Their success at the former depends on how well they – and the troll – understand identity cues; their success at the latter depends on whether the troll's enjoyment is sufficiently diminished or outweighed by the costs imposed by the group. Trolls can be costly in several ways. A troll can disrupt the discussion on a newsgroup, disseminate bad advice, and damage the feeling of trust in the newsgroup community. Furthermore, in a group that has become sensitized to trolling – where the rate of deception is high – many honestly naïve questions may be quickly rejected as trollings. This can be quite off-putting to the new user who upon venturing a first posting is immediately bombarded with angry accusations. Even if the accusation is unfounded, being branded a troll is quite damaging to one's online reputation "I disagree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it. Unlike you who thinks that people should only write things that YOU agree with. So much for freedom of speech in your little world. the wall
  • Score: 0

12:19pm Wed 9 Jan 13

PaulErith says...

the wall wrote:
Inspirationalady28 wrote:
the wall wrote:
Piggyfish wrote: Guys/Gals, please lay off with the whole trolling thing. Inspirationalady28 has an opinion and, while I strongly disagree with it, she's perfectly entitled to say it out loud. She's not alone in that opinion either - Jenny Jones (who, as an ex-Police Authority member, ought to know much better) has today said much the same thing. Sadly, I suspect that's more to do with a desite for self-promotion rather than any real concern. Personally, I'm grateful for the pro-Police comments that are clearly in the majority here. We don't get enough of that usually, so thank you!
Guys/Gals - Well done for starting your comment with a Jimmy (Nonce) Sa-vile saying. lay off with the whole trolling thing - While this person is allowed to voice their opinion others are allowed to voice their opinion. Get over it. Jenny Jones - Bleedin Nora where to start with this person. Words do not express how much I really don't care what this woman has to say. She's an MP for the Green party says most of it. One of the people that have left comments is a Police officer, I would trust what they say more than what ever Jenny Jones ever has to say. Can't really see what the point of your post is. Are you trying to control what people say on the internet? You quote Jenny Jones like she is some sort of chosen one that must be obeyed. Then admit it's more to do with self-promotion. Why even bring that up ? Complete pointless and a waste of interweb.
Haha! So it's have-a-go @ Piggyfish now is it? I'm no troll, but I can spot a few on here! You see, trolls are very negative people, hence, giving very negative comments..They just wait to have a dig, it's fuel for them to thrive!! So unless any of you have anything POSITIVE to say I suggest you keep your unwanted comments to yourself. Thank you!
The irony is strong in this one. So unless any of you have anything POSITIVE to say I suggest you keep your unwanted comments to yourself. Thank you! Who the feck do you think you are the Queen on the web. I will say what I like. I don't care if it upsets you. You can't have it all your own way love! No one can comment unless you think it's positive. How boring would your world be! So you don't agree with what someone says you think that is negative. maybe the interweb isn't for you. You have a very basic understanding of what you think a troll is, like what a teacher has told a 8 year old. Trolls are many different things, some are simple, and some do it for a joke. Troll: is someone who posts inflammatory, extraneous, or off-topic messages in an online community, such as a forum, chat room, or blog, with the primary intent of provoking readers into an emotional response or of otherwise disrupting normal on-topic discussion. There are four grades of trolling: playtime trolling, tactical trolling, strategic trolling, and domination trolling. Trolls aspire to violence, to the level of trouble they can cause in an environment. They want it to kick off. They want to promote antipathetic emotions of disgust and outrage, which morbidly gives them a sense of pleasure. Trolling : Trolling is a game about identity deception, albeit one that is played without the consent of most of the players. The troll attempts to pass as a legitimate participant, sharing the group's common interests and concerns; the newsgroups members, if they are cognizant of trolls and other identity deceptions, attempt to both distinguish real from trolling postings, and upon judging a poster a troll, make the offending poster leave the group. Their success at the former depends on how well they – and the troll – understand identity cues; their success at the latter depends on whether the troll's enjoyment is sufficiently diminished or outweighed by the costs imposed by the group. Trolls can be costly in several ways. A troll can disrupt the discussion on a newsgroup, disseminate bad advice, and damage the feeling of trust in the newsgroup community. Furthermore, in a group that has become sensitized to trolling – where the rate of deception is high – many honestly naïve questions may be quickly rejected as trollings. This can be quite off-putting to the new user who upon venturing a first posting is immediately bombarded with angry accusations. Even if the accusation is unfounded, being branded a troll is quite damaging to one's online reputation "I disagree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it. Unlike you who thinks that people should only write things that YOU agree with. So much for freedom of speech in your little world.
I'm not trying to start any kind of argument with you, but to defend her previous post. By 'positive', I believe that she's means something that adds to the debate. i.e. yesterday in one post (that now seems to have been removed), you simply called her a 'silly cow'. That was unnecessary and doesn't add to the debate. As you've stated previously, everyone is entitled to their opinions. I'm sure if the boot was on the other foot, and someone simply replied to a post of yours with an insult, you would cut them down to size.
[quote][p][bold]the wall[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Inspirationalady28[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]the wall[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Piggyfish[/bold] wrote: Guys/Gals, please lay off with the whole trolling thing. Inspirationalady28 has an opinion and, while I strongly disagree with it, she's perfectly entitled to say it out loud. She's not alone in that opinion either - Jenny Jones (who, as an ex-Police Authority member, ought to know much better) has today said much the same thing. Sadly, I suspect that's more to do with a desite for self-promotion rather than any real concern. Personally, I'm grateful for the pro-Police comments that are clearly in the majority here. We don't get enough of that usually, so thank you![/p][/quote]Guys/Gals - Well done for starting your comment with a Jimmy (Nonce) Sa-vile saying. lay off with the whole trolling thing - While this person is allowed to voice their opinion others are allowed to voice their opinion. Get over it. Jenny Jones - Bleedin Nora where to start with this person. Words do not express how much I really don't care what this woman has to say. She's an MP for the Green party says most of it. One of the people that have left comments is a Police officer, I would trust what they say more than what ever Jenny Jones ever has to say. Can't really see what the point of your post is. Are you trying to control what people say on the internet? You quote Jenny Jones like she is some sort of chosen one that must be obeyed. Then admit it's more to do with self-promotion. Why even bring that up ? Complete pointless and a waste of interweb.[/p][/quote]Haha! So it's have-a-go @ Piggyfish now is it? I'm no troll, but I can spot a few on here! You see, trolls are very negative people, hence, giving very negative comments..They just wait to have a dig, it's fuel for them to thrive!! So unless any of you have anything POSITIVE to say I suggest you keep your unwanted comments to yourself. Thank you![/p][/quote]The irony is strong in this one. So unless any of you have anything POSITIVE to say I suggest you keep your unwanted comments to yourself. Thank you! Who the feck do you think you are the Queen on the web. I will say what I like. I don't care if it upsets you. You can't have it all your own way love! No one can comment unless you think it's positive. How boring would your world be! So you don't agree with what someone says you think that is negative. maybe the interweb isn't for you. You have a very basic understanding of what you think a troll is, like what a teacher has told a 8 year old. Trolls are many different things, some are simple, and some do it for a joke. Troll: is someone who posts inflammatory, extraneous, or off-topic messages in an online community, such as a forum, chat room, or blog, with the primary intent of provoking readers into an emotional response or of otherwise disrupting normal on-topic discussion. There are four grades of trolling: playtime trolling, tactical trolling, strategic trolling, and domination trolling. Trolls aspire to violence, to the level of trouble they can cause in an environment. They want it to kick off. They want to promote antipathetic emotions of disgust and outrage, which morbidly gives them a sense of pleasure. Trolling : Trolling is a game about identity deception, albeit one that is played without the consent of most of the players. The troll attempts to pass as a legitimate participant, sharing the group's common interests and concerns; the newsgroups members, if they are cognizant of trolls and other identity deceptions, attempt to both distinguish real from trolling postings, and upon judging a poster a troll, make the offending poster leave the group. Their success at the former depends on how well they – and the troll – understand identity cues; their success at the latter depends on whether the troll's enjoyment is sufficiently diminished or outweighed by the costs imposed by the group. Trolls can be costly in several ways. A troll can disrupt the discussion on a newsgroup, disseminate bad advice, and damage the feeling of trust in the newsgroup community. Furthermore, in a group that has become sensitized to trolling – where the rate of deception is high – many honestly naïve questions may be quickly rejected as trollings. This can be quite off-putting to the new user who upon venturing a first posting is immediately bombarded with angry accusations. Even if the accusation is unfounded, being branded a troll is quite damaging to one's online reputation "I disagree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it. Unlike you who thinks that people should only write things that YOU agree with. So much for freedom of speech in your little world.[/p][/quote]I'm not trying to start any kind of argument with you, but to defend her previous post. By 'positive', I believe that she's means something that adds to the debate. i.e. yesterday in one post (that now seems to have been removed), you simply called her a 'silly cow'. That was unnecessary and doesn't add to the debate. As you've stated previously, everyone is entitled to their opinions. I'm sure if the boot was on the other foot, and someone simply replied to a post of yours with an insult, you would cut them down to size. PaulErith
  • Score: 0

12:48pm Wed 9 Jan 13

the wall says...

I didn't 'simply called her a 'silly cow' Many posters have asked her good questions which she has totally ignored. Yeah that adds to the debate. Is it any wonder most people think she's a troll. What's the point of a debate if little Miss Inspirationalady28 doesn't like the words on a screen on the interwar which no one really cares about and no one will ever read again after this Friday or until it gets knock off the most comments list.
I didn't 'simply called her a 'silly cow' Many posters have asked her good questions which she has totally ignored. Yeah that adds to the debate. Is it any wonder most people think she's a troll. What's the point of a debate if little Miss Inspirationalady28 doesn't like the words on a screen on the interwar which no one really cares about and no one will ever read again after this Friday or until it gets knock off the most comments list. the wall
  • Score: 0

1:22pm Wed 9 Jan 13

Inspirationalady28 says...

the wall wrote:
I didn't 'simply called her a 'silly cow' Many posters have asked her good questions which she has totally ignored. Yeah that adds to the debate. Is it any wonder most people think she's a troll. What's the point of a debate if little Miss Inspirationalady28 doesn't like the words on a screen on the interwar which no one really cares about and no one will ever read again after this Friday or until it gets knock off the most comments list.
@The wall..I have a very basic knowledge of what a troll is?? Please don't insult my intelligence! You probably had a basic knowledge before you looked up the definition on Wikipedia..quoting word for word. When I said Positive comments, I meant for people to comment whether they Agree/Disagree NOT slag one off like someone has already pointed out!! As for who I am? I didn't get my name for no reason...
[quote][p][bold]the wall[/bold] wrote: I didn't 'simply called her a 'silly cow' Many posters have asked her good questions which she has totally ignored. Yeah that adds to the debate. Is it any wonder most people think she's a troll. What's the point of a debate if little Miss Inspirationalady28 doesn't like the words on a screen on the interwar which no one really cares about and no one will ever read again after this Friday or until it gets knock off the most comments list.[/p][/quote]@The wall..I have a very basic knowledge of what a troll is?? Please don't insult my intelligence! You probably had a basic knowledge before you looked up the definition on Wikipedia..quoting word for word. When I said Positive comments, I meant for people to comment whether they Agree/Disagree NOT slag one off like someone has already pointed out!! As for who I am? I didn't get my name for no reason... Inspirationalady28
  • Score: 0

2:56pm Wed 9 Jan 13

the wall says...

Yes I copied it from wiki because I can't be bothered to write it all out. Going by what you have written on here you haven't shown much intelligence! I could have quoted from many other sources. But I didn't so get other it and going by your reaction you have looked it up in the last 24 - 48 hours.
Would you like the Urban Dictionary definition :
Troll - One who posts a deliberately provocative message to a newsgroup or message board with the intention of causing maximum disruption and argument. Seems to some it up nicely.

Or do you want dictionary.com
Troll- slang computing a person who submits deliberately inflammatory articles to an internet discussion.


As for who I am? I didn't get my name for no reason...” I didn't ask so why are you telling me. You have really no understanding about how much I don't care who you are or the why's and wherefore of your interweb name. Yawn.
Yes I copied it from wiki because I can't be bothered to write it all out. Going by what you have written on here you haven't shown much intelligence! I could have quoted from many other sources. But I didn't so get other it and going by your reaction you have looked it up in the last 24 - 48 hours. Would you like the Urban Dictionary definition : Troll - One who posts a deliberately provocative message to a newsgroup or message board with the intention of causing maximum disruption and argument. Seems to some it up nicely. Or do you want dictionary.com Troll- slang computing a person who submits deliberately inflammatory articles to an internet discussion. As for who I am? I didn't get my name for no reason...” I didn't ask so why are you telling me. You have really no understanding about how much I don't care who you are or the why's and wherefore of your interweb name. Yawn. the wall
  • Score: 0

2:57pm Wed 9 Jan 13

the wall says...

That should read : But I didn't so get over it.
That should read : But I didn't so get over it. the wall
  • Score: 0

3:50pm Wed 9 Jan 13

Inspirationalady28 says...

the wall wrote:
That should read : But I didn't so get over it.
@The Wall.. You said“Who the feck do you think you are, the Queen on/of the Web!!!? As for needing the Urban Dictionary for the meaning..why would anyone need that when you are explaining it better by your actions and your words!!!! Now, getting back to the original topic..I would like to know your views on Police Chase Speeds on our roads? Whether you agree/disagree and why?
[quote][p][bold]the wall[/bold] wrote: That should read : But I didn't so get over it.[/p][/quote]@The Wall.. You said“Who the feck do you think you are, the Queen on/of the Web!!!? As for needing the Urban Dictionary for the meaning..why would anyone need that when you are explaining it better by your actions and your words!!!! Now, getting back to the original topic..I would like to know your views on Police Chase Speeds on our roads? Whether you agree/disagree and why? Inspirationalady28
  • Score: 0

4:34pm Wed 9 Jan 13

the wall says...

What are you going on about? You can't even quote properly.

See what I mean by trying to lead the debate 'getting it back on topic' Remind me, who made you the leader?



Even in the face of everyone telling you that what you have written is mis-judged, you still carry on. That makes you an attention seeking troll. One person that has made a comment is a PCSO and another person is a Police Officer. You have not answered many a question put to you, so really all you have wanted to do is stir up some trouble before your daughter comes home from school.

You said "Please don't insult my intelligence" Yet with every one of your post you show the world more and more lack of knowledge and understanding about:
A) Driving
B) Police
C) Criminals
D) Law

Hate the Police, plate the criminal.... Is this your motto?
What are you going on about? You can't even quote properly. See what I mean by trying to lead the debate 'getting it back on topic' Remind me, who made you the leader? Even in the face of everyone telling you that what you have written is mis-judged, you still carry on. That makes you an attention seeking troll. One person that has made a comment is a PCSO and another person is a Police Officer. You have not answered many a question put to you, so really all you have wanted to do is stir up some trouble before your daughter comes home from school. You said "Please don't insult my intelligence" Yet with every one of your post you show the world more and more lack of knowledge and understanding about: A) Driving B) Police C) Criminals D) Law Hate the Police, plate the criminal.... Is this your motto? the wall
  • Score: 0

5:15pm Wed 9 Jan 13

Inspirationalady28 says...

the wall wrote:
What are you going on about? You can't even quote properly.

See what I mean by trying to lead the debate 'getting it back on topic' Remind me, who made you the leader?



Even in the face of everyone telling you that what you have written is mis-judged, you still carry on. That makes you an attention seeking troll. One person that has made a comment is a PCSO and another person is a Police Officer. You have not answered many a question put to you, so really all you have wanted to do is stir up some trouble before your daughter comes home from school.

You said "Please don't insult my intelligence" Yet with every one of your post you show the world more and more lack of knowledge and understanding about:
A) Driving
B) Police
C) Criminals
D) Law

Hate the Police, plate the criminal.... Is this your motto?
My Daughter comes in from school?!! I have five grown-up children and six grandchildren...I don't normally waste my time on the Internet as I'm a writer/poet with published work to prove it so I'm usually like it's been stated; “In a world of my own.”
[quote][p][bold]the wall[/bold] wrote: What are you going on about? You can't even quote properly. See what I mean by trying to lead the debate 'getting it back on topic' Remind me, who made you the leader? Even in the face of everyone telling you that what you have written is mis-judged, you still carry on. That makes you an attention seeking troll. One person that has made a comment is a PCSO and another person is a Police Officer. You have not answered many a question put to you, so really all you have wanted to do is stir up some trouble before your daughter comes home from school. You said "Please don't insult my intelligence" Yet with every one of your post you show the world more and more lack of knowledge and understanding about: A) Driving B) Police C) Criminals D) Law Hate the Police, plate the criminal.... Is this your motto?[/p][/quote]My Daughter comes in from school?!! I have five grown-up children and six grandchildren...I don't normally waste my time on the Internet as I'm a writer/poet with published work to prove it so I'm usually like it's been stated; “In a world of my own.” Inspirationalady28
  • Score: 0

5:26pm Wed 9 Jan 13

Marty1979 says...

Why do comments need to deteriorate into insults

There was a tragic death because a criminal failed to stop for the police - how about trying to keep comments relevant?
Why do comments need to deteriorate into insults There was a tragic death because a criminal failed to stop for the police - how about trying to keep comments relevant? Marty1979
  • Score: 0

6:02pm Wed 9 Jan 13

Familyguy321 says...

@lady. just to update you on police chase speeds. when any pursuit starts its closely monitored by the information room. speed is one thing that is constantly asked. now there is allways the possibilty that signals drop out if that happens, its usually cancelled. there is also a little black box in the car that records the speed. this also pops up on a map so any marked car can be monitored at any point.

pursuits can be cancelled at any point by the police driver as well as by supervising officers in the information room of which "civillian" staff are also in that role.

generally any pursuit that goes over double the limit is stopped, and in every pursuit an advanced driver and the helicopter is requested. at the very start.

also you mentioned unmarked cars. it is service policy that in a pursuit a marked police car should be used and only advanced drivers can be in a pursuit in an unmarked car.

it may appease you that as a result of this every police driver will think "is this worth the risk" when required to use the exemptions for police driving. be that a call for help or a chase.

just let me remind you every copper i know ( there are some berks i aggree) thinks that at the time they are doing the right thing. as we are under more
scrunity than people think. its not the boys club it was in the 50s & 60s.

the benefit of hindsight is a benefit will all have. but also bear in mind that there is a requirement ( demand by the home office) to be at all emergency calls within 11-15 minutes. if that time is missed questions are asked why. sky news has a response time of 8.

on a different note how about another plausible example. your bag is snatched a FOOTchase happens and the suspect runs into the road to get away and is hit by a car and subsequently dies. do we now stop footchases ( and before anyone moans about seeing coppers on foot and they wouldnt chase on foot this is a talking point) and would it be a different matter if it was your husband doing the chasing

police pursuits will forever be a touchy subject of a should and should not. depends on what you want from your police service. we are allready a reporting service. ill quite happily sit on my hands and not put anyone/thing/ or my freedom at risk if you think we should be more observant and less urgent.
@lady. just to update you on police chase speeds. when any pursuit starts its closely monitored by the information room. speed is one thing that is constantly asked. now there is allways the possibilty that signals drop out if that happens, its usually cancelled. there is also a little black box in the car that records the speed. this also pops up on a map so any marked car can be monitored at any point. pursuits can be cancelled at any point by the police driver as well as by supervising officers in the information room of which "civillian" staff are also in that role. generally any pursuit that goes over double the limit is stopped, and in every pursuit an advanced driver and the helicopter is requested. at the very start. also you mentioned unmarked cars. it is service policy that in a pursuit a marked police car should be used and only advanced drivers can be in a pursuit in an unmarked car. it may appease you that as a result of this every police driver will think "is this worth the risk" when required to use the exemptions for police driving. be that a call for help or a chase. just let me remind you every copper i know ( there are some berks i aggree) thinks that at the time they are doing the right thing. as we are under more scrunity than people think. its not the boys club it was in the 50s & 60s. the benefit of hindsight is a benefit will all have. but also bear in mind that there is a requirement ( demand by the home office) to be at all emergency calls within 11-15 minutes. if that time is missed questions are asked why. sky news has a response time of 8. on a different note how about another plausible example. your bag is snatched a FOOTchase happens and the suspect runs into the road to get away and is hit by a car and subsequently dies. do we now stop footchases ( and before anyone moans about seeing coppers on foot and they wouldnt chase on foot this is a talking point) and would it be a different matter if it was your husband doing the chasing police pursuits will forever be a touchy subject of a should and should not. depends on what you want from your police service. we are allready a reporting service. ill quite happily sit on my hands and not put anyone/thing/ or my freedom at risk if you think we should be more observant and less urgent. Familyguy321
  • Score: 0

8:37pm Wed 9 Jan 13

Inspirationalady28 says...

Familyguy321 wrote:
@lady. just to update you on police chase speeds. when any pursuit starts its closely monitored by the information room. speed is one thing that is constantly asked. now there is allways the possibilty that signals drop out if that happens, its usually cancelled. there is also a little black box in the car that records the speed. this also pops up on a map so any marked car can be monitored at any point.

pursuits can be cancelled at any point by the police driver as well as by supervising officers in the information room of which "civillian" staff are also in that role.

generally any pursuit that goes over double the limit is stopped, and in every pursuit an advanced driver and the helicopter is requested. at the very start.

also you mentioned unmarked cars. it is service policy that in a pursuit a marked police car should be used and only advanced drivers can be in a pursuit in an unmarked car.

it may appease you that as a result of this every police driver will think "is this worth the risk" when required to use the exemptions for police driving. be that a call for help or a chase.

just let me remind you every copper i know ( there are some berks i aggree) thinks that at the time they are doing the right thing. as we are under more
scrunity than people think. its not the boys club it was in the 50s & 60s.

the benefit of hindsight is a benefit will all have. but also bear in mind that there is a requirement ( demand by the home office) to be at all emergency calls within 11-15 minutes. if that time is missed questions are asked why. sky news has a response time of 8.

on a different note how about another plausible example. your bag is snatched a FOOTchase happens and the suspect runs into the road to get away and is hit by a car and subsequently dies. do we now stop footchases ( and before anyone moans about seeing coppers on foot and they wouldnt chase on foot this is a talking point) and would it be a different matter if it was your husband doing the chasing

police pursuits will forever be a touchy subject of a should and should not. depends on what you want from your police service. we are allready a reporting service. ill quite happily sit on my hands and not put anyone/thing/ or my freedom at risk if you think we should be more observant and less urgent.
I have taken on board your comments but..there's a lot of people (maybe not on NS) who are thinking the same way as me. For example, the Police Officer in Hampshire who was prosecuted for Dangerous Driving (speeding) whilst on duty and the control room staff were accused of aiding and abetting. Although the case went in the officers favour, it opened up a huge can of worms for the rest of the force! One only has to read national news archives on this matter within the last 2 years to understand what I'm talking about. It is a very debatable subject but, common sense must be applied. The law is the law...before the Police enforce it they too should obey it like everyone else. One can't get away from the fact that police pursuits have caused a high number of road deaths to drivers and pedestrians and will continue to do so unless something is done about it.
[quote][p][bold]Familyguy321[/bold] wrote: @lady. just to update you on police chase speeds. when any pursuit starts its closely monitored by the information room. speed is one thing that is constantly asked. now there is allways the possibilty that signals drop out if that happens, its usually cancelled. there is also a little black box in the car that records the speed. this also pops up on a map so any marked car can be monitored at any point. pursuits can be cancelled at any point by the police driver as well as by supervising officers in the information room of which "civillian" staff are also in that role. generally any pursuit that goes over double the limit is stopped, and in every pursuit an advanced driver and the helicopter is requested. at the very start. also you mentioned unmarked cars. it is service policy that in a pursuit a marked police car should be used and only advanced drivers can be in a pursuit in an unmarked car. it may appease you that as a result of this every police driver will think "is this worth the risk" when required to use the exemptions for police driving. be that a call for help or a chase. just let me remind you every copper i know ( there are some berks i aggree) thinks that at the time they are doing the right thing. as we are under more scrunity than people think. its not the boys club it was in the 50s & 60s. the benefit of hindsight is a benefit will all have. but also bear in mind that there is a requirement ( demand by the home office) to be at all emergency calls within 11-15 minutes. if that time is missed questions are asked why. sky news has a response time of 8. on a different note how about another plausible example. your bag is snatched a FOOTchase happens and the suspect runs into the road to get away and is hit by a car and subsequently dies. do we now stop footchases ( and before anyone moans about seeing coppers on foot and they wouldnt chase on foot this is a talking point) and would it be a different matter if it was your husband doing the chasing police pursuits will forever be a touchy subject of a should and should not. depends on what you want from your police service. we are allready a reporting service. ill quite happily sit on my hands and not put anyone/thing/ or my freedom at risk if you think we should be more observant and less urgent.[/p][/quote]I have taken on board your comments but..there's a lot of people (maybe not on NS) who are thinking the same way as me. For example, the Police Officer in Hampshire who was prosecuted for Dangerous Driving (speeding) whilst on duty and the control room staff were accused of aiding and abetting. Although the case went in the officers favour, it opened up a huge can of worms for the rest of the force! One only has to read national news archives on this matter within the last 2 years to understand what I'm talking about. It is a very debatable subject but, common sense must be applied. The law is the law...before the Police enforce it they too should obey it like everyone else. One can't get away from the fact that police pursuits have caused a high number of road deaths to drivers and pedestrians and will continue to do so unless something is done about it. Inspirationalady28
  • Score: 0

9:29pm Wed 9 Jan 13

Gypo.Joe says...

Lets just blindfold OB, tie both hands behind their backs, and issue them bikes with flat tires, now that should placate all you hand ringing tofu eating ninnies. ( Yes that you Inspirationaskeezer2
8 )

FFS why dont we all roll over and let the wronguns rule the world.......well they nearly do now.
Lets just blindfold OB, tie both hands behind their backs, and issue them bikes with flat tires, now that should placate all you hand ringing tofu eating ninnies. ( Yes that you Inspirationaskeezer2 8 ) FFS why dont we all roll over and let the wronguns rule the world.......well they nearly do now. Gypo.Joe
  • Score: 0

10:44pm Wed 9 Jan 13

cm punk says...

well,well,well this has turned into a farce,inspirational(
troll) has got what she came in for,reaction by trolling,fair play some people have bitten to her basic jedi mind trick,but i wont be fooled.
An article about aTragic accident about a poor girl has been hijacked by a mental case.

shame on you all
well,well,well this has turned into a farce,inspirational( troll) has got what she came in for,reaction by trolling,fair play some people have bitten to her basic jedi mind trick,but i wont be fooled. An article about aTragic accident about a poor girl has been hijacked by a mental case. shame on you all cm punk
  • Score: 0

9:28am Thu 10 Jan 13

PaulErith says...

cm punk wrote:
well,well,well this has turned into a farce,inspirational( troll) has got what she came in for,reaction by trolling,fair play some people have bitten to her basic jedi mind trick,but i wont be fooled. An article about aTragic accident about a poor girl has been hijacked by a mental case. shame on you all
You make yourself look more stupid with every post.
[quote][p][bold]cm punk[/bold] wrote: well,well,well this has turned into a farce,inspirational( troll) has got what she came in for,reaction by trolling,fair play some people have bitten to her basic jedi mind trick,but i wont be fooled. An article about aTragic accident about a poor girl has been hijacked by a mental case. shame on you all[/p][/quote]You make yourself look more stupid with every post. PaulErith
  • Score: 0

10:14am Thu 10 Jan 13

the wall says...

Inspirationalady28 wrote:
Familyguy321 wrote:
@lady. just to update you on police chase speeds. when any pursuit starts its closely monitored by the information room. speed is one thing that is constantly asked. now there is allways the possibilty that signals drop out if that happens, its usually cancelled. there is also a little black box in the car that records the speed. this also pops up on a map so any marked car can be monitored at any point.

pursuits can be cancelled at any point by the police driver as well as by supervising officers in the information room of which "civillian" staff are also in that role.

generally any pursuit that goes over double the limit is stopped, and in every pursuit an advanced driver and the helicopter is requested. at the very start.

also you mentioned unmarked cars. it is service policy that in a pursuit a marked police car should be used and only advanced drivers can be in a pursuit in an unmarked car.

it may appease you that as a result of this every police driver will think "is this worth the risk" when required to use the exemptions for police driving. be that a call for help or a chase.

just let me remind you every copper i know ( there are some berks i aggree) thinks that at the time they are doing the right thing. as we are under more
scrunity than people think. its not the boys club it was in the 50s & 60s.

the benefit of hindsight is a benefit will all have. but also bear in mind that there is a requirement ( demand by the home office) to be at all emergency calls within 11-15 minutes. if that time is missed questions are asked why. sky news has a response time of 8.

on a different note how about another plausible example. your bag is snatched a FOOTchase happens and the suspect runs into the road to get away and is hit by a car and subsequently dies. do we now stop footchases ( and before anyone moans about seeing coppers on foot and they wouldnt chase on foot this is a talking point) and would it be a different matter if it was your husband doing the chasing

police pursuits will forever be a touchy subject of a should and should not. depends on what you want from your police service. we are allready a reporting service. ill quite happily sit on my hands and not put anyone/thing/ or my freedom at risk if you think we should be more observant and less urgent.
I have taken on board your comments but..there's a lot of people (maybe not on NS) who are thinking the same way as me. For example, the Police Officer in Hampshire who was prosecuted for Dangerous Driving (speeding) whilst on duty and the control room staff were accused of aiding and abetting. Although the case went in the officers favour, it opened up a huge can of worms for the rest of the force! One only has to read national news archives on this matter within the last 2 years to understand what I'm talking about. It is a very debatable subject but, common sense must be applied. The law is the law...before the Police enforce it they too should obey it like everyone else. One can't get away from the fact that police pursuits have caused a high number of road deaths to drivers and pedestrians and will continue to do so unless something is done about it.
Really you haven't taken on board anything Familyguy321 has said.



One can't get away from the fact that 'drink drivers' have caused a high number of road deaths to drivers and pedestrians and will continue to do so unless something is done about it.
[quote][p][bold]Inspirationalady28[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Familyguy321[/bold] wrote: @lady. just to update you on police chase speeds. when any pursuit starts its closely monitored by the information room. speed is one thing that is constantly asked. now there is allways the possibilty that signals drop out if that happens, its usually cancelled. there is also a little black box in the car that records the speed. this also pops up on a map so any marked car can be monitored at any point. pursuits can be cancelled at any point by the police driver as well as by supervising officers in the information room of which "civillian" staff are also in that role. generally any pursuit that goes over double the limit is stopped, and in every pursuit an advanced driver and the helicopter is requested. at the very start. also you mentioned unmarked cars. it is service policy that in a pursuit a marked police car should be used and only advanced drivers can be in a pursuit in an unmarked car. it may appease you that as a result of this every police driver will think "is this worth the risk" when required to use the exemptions for police driving. be that a call for help or a chase. just let me remind you every copper i know ( there are some berks i aggree) thinks that at the time they are doing the right thing. as we are under more scrunity than people think. its not the boys club it was in the 50s & 60s. the benefit of hindsight is a benefit will all have. but also bear in mind that there is a requirement ( demand by the home office) to be at all emergency calls within 11-15 minutes. if that time is missed questions are asked why. sky news has a response time of 8. on a different note how about another plausible example. your bag is snatched a FOOTchase happens and the suspect runs into the road to get away and is hit by a car and subsequently dies. do we now stop footchases ( and before anyone moans about seeing coppers on foot and they wouldnt chase on foot this is a talking point) and would it be a different matter if it was your husband doing the chasing police pursuits will forever be a touchy subject of a should and should not. depends on what you want from your police service. we are allready a reporting service. ill quite happily sit on my hands and not put anyone/thing/ or my freedom at risk if you think we should be more observant and less urgent.[/p][/quote]I have taken on board your comments but..there's a lot of people (maybe not on NS) who are thinking the same way as me. For example, the Police Officer in Hampshire who was prosecuted for Dangerous Driving (speeding) whilst on duty and the control room staff were accused of aiding and abetting. Although the case went in the officers favour, it opened up a huge can of worms for the rest of the force! One only has to read national news archives on this matter within the last 2 years to understand what I'm talking about. It is a very debatable subject but, common sense must be applied. The law is the law...before the Police enforce it they too should obey it like everyone else. One can't get away from the fact that police pursuits have caused a high number of road deaths to drivers and pedestrians and will continue to do so unless something is done about it.[/p][/quote]Really you haven't taken on board anything Familyguy321 has said. One can't get away from the fact that 'drink drivers' have caused a high number of road deaths to drivers and pedestrians and will continue to do so unless something is done about it. the wall
  • Score: 0

11:01am Thu 10 Jan 13

cm punk says...

PaulErith wrote:
cm punk wrote:
well,well,well this has turned into a farce,inspirational( troll) has got what she came in for,reaction by trolling,fair play some people have bitten to her basic jedi mind trick,but i wont be fooled. An article about aTragic accident about a poor girl has been hijacked by a mental case. shame on you all
You make yourself look more stupid with every post.
And every time you speak it makes me smile, it makes me smile because its you,not me that lives in the sweaty crutch of south east London
[quote][p][bold]PaulErith[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]cm punk[/bold] wrote: well,well,well this has turned into a farce,inspirational( troll) has got what she came in for,reaction by trolling,fair play some people have bitten to her basic jedi mind trick,but i wont be fooled. An article about aTragic accident about a poor girl has been hijacked by a mental case. shame on you all[/p][/quote]You make yourself look more stupid with every post.[/p][/quote]And every time you speak it makes me smile, it makes me smile because its you,not me that lives in the sweaty crutch of south east London cm punk
  • Score: 0

11:24am Thu 10 Jan 13

Inspirationalady28 says...

cm punk wrote:
PaulErith wrote:
cm punk wrote:
well,well,well this has turned into a farce,inspirational( troll) has got what she came in for,reaction by trolling,fair play some people have bitten to her basic jedi mind trick,but i wont be fooled. An article about aTragic accident about a poor girl has been hijacked by a mental case. shame on you all
You make yourself look more stupid with every post.
And every time you speak it makes me smile, it makes me smile because its you,not me that lives in the sweaty crutch of south east London
Well you'll be grinning like a Cheshire cat by the end of the day then because I live in SE London too..(New Cross in fact!!!)
[quote][p][bold]cm punk[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]PaulErith[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]cm punk[/bold] wrote: well,well,well this has turned into a farce,inspirational( troll) has got what she came in for,reaction by trolling,fair play some people have bitten to her basic jedi mind trick,but i wont be fooled. An article about aTragic accident about a poor girl has been hijacked by a mental case. shame on you all[/p][/quote]You make yourself look more stupid with every post.[/p][/quote]And every time you speak it makes me smile, it makes me smile because its you,not me that lives in the sweaty crutch of south east London[/p][/quote]Well you'll be grinning like a Cheshire cat by the end of the day then because I live in SE London too..(New Cross in fact!!!) Inspirationalady28
  • Score: 0

12:08pm Thu 10 Jan 13

cm punk says...

PaulErith wrote:
cm punk wrote:
well,well,well this has turned into a farce,inspirational( troll) has got what she came in for,reaction by trolling,fair play some people have bitten to her basic jedi mind trick,but i wont be fooled. An article about aTragic accident about a poor girl has been hijacked by a mental case. shame on you all
You make yourself look more stupid with every post.
And every time you speak it makes me smile, it makes me smile because its you,not me that lives in the sweaty crotch of south east London
[quote][p][bold]PaulErith[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]cm punk[/bold] wrote: well,well,well this has turned into a farce,inspirational( troll) has got what she came in for,reaction by trolling,fair play some people have bitten to her basic jedi mind trick,but i wont be fooled. An article about aTragic accident about a poor girl has been hijacked by a mental case. shame on you all[/p][/quote]You make yourself look more stupid with every post.[/p][/quote]And every time you speak it makes me smile, it makes me smile because its you,not me that lives in the sweaty crotch of south east London cm punk
  • Score: 0

12:08pm Thu 10 Jan 13

cm punk says...

PaulErith wrote:
cm punk wrote:
well,well,well this has turned into a farce,inspirational( troll) has got what she came in for,reaction by trolling,fair play some people have bitten to her basic jedi mind trick,but i wont be fooled. An article about aTragic accident about a poor girl has been hijacked by a mental case. shame on you all
You make yourself look more stupid with every post.
And every time you speak it makes me smile, it makes me smile because its you,not me that lives in the sweaty crotch of south east London
[quote][p][bold]PaulErith[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]cm punk[/bold] wrote: well,well,well this has turned into a farce,inspirational( troll) has got what she came in for,reaction by trolling,fair play some people have bitten to her basic jedi mind trick,but i wont be fooled. An article about aTragic accident about a poor girl has been hijacked by a mental case. shame on you all[/p][/quote]You make yourself look more stupid with every post.[/p][/quote]And every time you speak it makes me smile, it makes me smile because its you,not me that lives in the sweaty crotch of south east London cm punk
  • Score: 0

12:19pm Thu 10 Jan 13

PaulErith says...

cm punk wrote:
PaulErith wrote:
cm punk wrote: well,well,well this has turned into a farce,inspirational( troll) has got what she came in for,reaction by trolling,fair play some people have bitten to her basic jedi mind trick,but i wont be fooled. An article about aTragic accident about a poor girl has been hijacked by a mental case. shame on you all
You make yourself look more stupid with every post.
And every time you speak it makes me smile, it makes me smile because its you,not me that lives in the sweaty crotch of south east London
lol! By the way, I don't live anywhere near South East London, so you might want to get your facts right. I'm from there originally and I still frequent the area to visit friends and familty.
[quote][p][bold]cm punk[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]PaulErith[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]cm punk[/bold] wrote: well,well,well this has turned into a farce,inspirational( troll) has got what she came in for,reaction by trolling,fair play some people have bitten to her basic jedi mind trick,but i wont be fooled. An article about aTragic accident about a poor girl has been hijacked by a mental case. shame on you all[/p][/quote]You make yourself look more stupid with every post.[/p][/quote]And every time you speak it makes me smile, it makes me smile because its you,not me that lives in the sweaty crotch of south east London[/p][/quote]lol! By the way, I don't live anywhere near South East London, so you might want to get your facts right. I'm from there originally and I still frequent the area to visit friends and familty. PaulErith
  • Score: 0

12:29pm Thu 10 Jan 13

cm punk says...

PaulErith wrote:
cm punk wrote:
PaulErith wrote:
cm punk wrote: well,well,well this has turned into a farce,inspirational( troll) has got what she came in for,reaction by trolling,fair play some people have bitten to her basic jedi mind trick,but i wont be fooled. An article about aTragic accident about a poor girl has been hijacked by a mental case. shame on you all
You make yourself look more stupid with every post.
And every time you speak it makes me smile, it makes me smile because its you,not me that lives in the sweaty crotch of south east London
lol! By the way, I don't live anywhere near South East London, so you might want to get your facts right. I'm from there originally and I still frequent the area to visit friends and familty.
So your just so proud of your Erith roots,that you name yourself after that cesspool.
And a message to the people's poet,no one likes you and your liberal wooly views.let us hope you or your family never need an emergency service in a hurry
[quote][p][bold]PaulErith[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]cm punk[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]PaulErith[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]cm punk[/bold] wrote: well,well,well this has turned into a farce,inspirational( troll) has got what she came in for,reaction by trolling,fair play some people have bitten to her basic jedi mind trick,but i wont be fooled. An article about aTragic accident about a poor girl has been hijacked by a mental case. shame on you all[/p][/quote]You make yourself look more stupid with every post.[/p][/quote]And every time you speak it makes me smile, it makes me smile because its you,not me that lives in the sweaty crotch of south east London[/p][/quote]lol! By the way, I don't live anywhere near South East London, so you might want to get your facts right. I'm from there originally and I still frequent the area to visit friends and familty.[/p][/quote]So your just so proud of your Erith roots,that you name yourself after that cesspool. And a message to the people's poet,no one likes you and your liberal wooly views.let us hope you or your family never need an emergency service in a hurry cm punk
  • Score: 0

12:52pm Thu 10 Jan 13

the wall says...

Seem the Irritablelady28 has reported my post. But nothing in my post was false, abusive or malicious.
Seem the Irritablelady28 has reported my post. But nothing in my post was false, abusive or malicious. the wall
  • Score: 0

1:01pm Thu 10 Jan 13

PaulErith says...

cm punk wrote:
PaulErith wrote:
cm punk wrote:
PaulErith wrote:
cm punk wrote: well,well,well this has turned into a farce,inspirational( troll) has got what she came in for,reaction by trolling,fair play some people have bitten to her basic jedi mind trick,but i wont be fooled. An article about aTragic accident about a poor girl has been hijacked by a mental case. shame on you all
You make yourself look more stupid with every post.
And every time you speak it makes me smile, it makes me smile because its you,not me that lives in the sweaty crotch of south east London
lol! By the way, I don't live anywhere near South East London, so you might want to get your facts right. I'm from there originally and I still frequent the area to visit friends and familty.
So your just so proud of your Erith roots,that you name yourself after that cesspool.
And a message to the people's poet,no one likes you and your liberal wooly views.let us hope you or your family never need an emergency service in a hurry
One should never their roots. I don't particularly think Erith is a nice place but I know lots of very genuine nice people that live there.
[quote][p][bold]cm punk[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]PaulErith[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]cm punk[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]PaulErith[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]cm punk[/bold] wrote: well,well,well this has turned into a farce,inspirational( troll) has got what she came in for,reaction by trolling,fair play some people have bitten to her basic jedi mind trick,but i wont be fooled. An article about aTragic accident about a poor girl has been hijacked by a mental case. shame on you all[/p][/quote]You make yourself look more stupid with every post.[/p][/quote]And every time you speak it makes me smile, it makes me smile because its you,not me that lives in the sweaty crotch of south east London[/p][/quote]lol! By the way, I don't live anywhere near South East London, so you might want to get your facts right. I'm from there originally and I still frequent the area to visit friends and familty.[/p][/quote]So your just so proud of your Erith roots,that you name yourself after that cesspool. And a message to the people's poet,no one likes you and your liberal wooly views.let us hope you or your family never need an emergency service in a hurry[/p][/quote]One should never their roots. I don't particularly think Erith is a nice place but I know lots of very genuine nice people that live there. PaulErith
  • Score: 0

1:02pm Thu 10 Jan 13

PaulErith says...

...meant to say "forget their roots"
...meant to say "forget their roots" PaulErith
  • Score: 0

2:14pm Thu 10 Jan 13

Marty1979 says...

Inspirationalady28 wrote:
Familyguy321 wrote:
@lady. just to update you on police chase speeds. when any pursuit starts its closely monitored by the information room. speed is one thing that is constantly asked. now there is allways the possibilty that signals drop out if that happens, its usually cancelled. there is also a little black box in the car that records the speed. this also pops up on a map so any marked car can be monitored at any point.

pursuits can be cancelled at any point by the police driver as well as by supervising officers in the information room of which "civillian" staff are also in that role.

generally any pursuit that goes over double the limit is stopped, and in every pursuit an advanced driver and the helicopter is requested. at the very start.

also you mentioned unmarked cars. it is service policy that in a pursuit a marked police car should be used and only advanced drivers can be in a pursuit in an unmarked car.

it may appease you that as a result of this every police driver will think "is this worth the risk" when required to use the exemptions for police driving. be that a call for help or a chase.

just let me remind you every copper i know ( there are some berks i aggree) thinks that at the time they are doing the right thing. as we are under more
scrunity than people think. its not the boys club it was in the 50s & 60s.

the benefit of hindsight is a benefit will all have. but also bear in mind that there is a requirement ( demand by the home office) to be at all emergency calls within 11-15 minutes. if that time is missed questions are asked why. sky news has a response time of 8.

on a different note how about another plausible example. your bag is snatched a FOOTchase happens and the suspect runs into the road to get away and is hit by a car and subsequently dies. do we now stop footchases ( and before anyone moans about seeing coppers on foot and they wouldnt chase on foot this is a talking point) and would it be a different matter if it was your husband doing the chasing

police pursuits will forever be a touchy subject of a should and should not. depends on what you want from your police service. we are allready a reporting service. ill quite happily sit on my hands and not put anyone/thing/ or my freedom at risk if you think we should be more observant and less urgent.
I have taken on board your comments but..there's a lot of people (maybe not on NS) who are thinking the same way as me. For example, the Police Officer in Hampshire who was prosecuted for Dangerous Driving (speeding) whilst on duty and the control room staff were accused of aiding and abetting. Although the case went in the officers favour, it opened up a huge can of worms for the rest of the force! One only has to read national news archives on this matter within the last 2 years to understand what I'm talking about. It is a very debatable subject but, common sense must be applied. The law is the law...before the Police enforce it they too should obey it like everyone else. One can't get away from the fact that police pursuits have caused a high number of road deaths to drivers and pedestrians and will continue to do so unless something is done about it.
But this (Hampshire case) just shows that the police can be held accountable - and that a court decided their actions were justified!
[quote][p][bold]Inspirationalady28[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Familyguy321[/bold] wrote: @lady. just to update you on police chase speeds. when any pursuit starts its closely monitored by the information room. speed is one thing that is constantly asked. now there is allways the possibilty that signals drop out if that happens, its usually cancelled. there is also a little black box in the car that records the speed. this also pops up on a map so any marked car can be monitored at any point. pursuits can be cancelled at any point by the police driver as well as by supervising officers in the information room of which "civillian" staff are also in that role. generally any pursuit that goes over double the limit is stopped, and in every pursuit an advanced driver and the helicopter is requested. at the very start. also you mentioned unmarked cars. it is service policy that in a pursuit a marked police car should be used and only advanced drivers can be in a pursuit in an unmarked car. it may appease you that as a result of this every police driver will think "is this worth the risk" when required to use the exemptions for police driving. be that a call for help or a chase. just let me remind you every copper i know ( there are some berks i aggree) thinks that at the time they are doing the right thing. as we are under more scrunity than people think. its not the boys club it was in the 50s & 60s. the benefit of hindsight is a benefit will all have. but also bear in mind that there is a requirement ( demand by the home office) to be at all emergency calls within 11-15 minutes. if that time is missed questions are asked why. sky news has a response time of 8. on a different note how about another plausible example. your bag is snatched a FOOTchase happens and the suspect runs into the road to get away and is hit by a car and subsequently dies. do we now stop footchases ( and before anyone moans about seeing coppers on foot and they wouldnt chase on foot this is a talking point) and would it be a different matter if it was your husband doing the chasing police pursuits will forever be a touchy subject of a should and should not. depends on what you want from your police service. we are allready a reporting service. ill quite happily sit on my hands and not put anyone/thing/ or my freedom at risk if you think we should be more observant and less urgent.[/p][/quote]I have taken on board your comments but..there's a lot of people (maybe not on NS) who are thinking the same way as me. For example, the Police Officer in Hampshire who was prosecuted for Dangerous Driving (speeding) whilst on duty and the control room staff were accused of aiding and abetting. Although the case went in the officers favour, it opened up a huge can of worms for the rest of the force! One only has to read national news archives on this matter within the last 2 years to understand what I'm talking about. It is a very debatable subject but, common sense must be applied. The law is the law...before the Police enforce it they too should obey it like everyone else. One can't get away from the fact that police pursuits have caused a high number of road deaths to drivers and pedestrians and will continue to do so unless something is done about it.[/p][/quote]But this (Hampshire case) just shows that the police can be held accountable - and that a court decided their actions were justified! Marty1979
  • Score: 0

2:43pm Thu 10 Jan 13

Oldchap says...

A question for inspirational lady, you have comment about the number of deaths caused by police trying to apprehend criminals

So what would you have them do?

And the same could apply to a fire engine speeding to where people are trapped or an ambulance going to a heart attack
A question for inspirational lady, you have comment about the number of deaths caused by police trying to apprehend criminals So what would you have them do? And the same could apply to a fire engine speeding to where people are trapped or an ambulance going to a heart attack Oldchap
  • Score: 0

2:16pm Fri 11 Jan 13

Inspirationalady28 says...

Marty1979 wrote:
Inspirationalady28 wrote:
Familyguy321 wrote:
@lady. just to update you on police chase speeds. when any pursuit starts its closely monitored by the information room. speed is one thing that is constantly asked. now there is allways the possibilty that signals drop out if that happens, its usually cancelled. there is also a little black box in the car that records the speed. this also pops up on a map so any marked car can be monitored at any point.

pursuits can be cancelled at any point by the police driver as well as by supervising officers in the information room of which "civillian" staff are also in that role.

generally any pursuit that goes over double the limit is stopped, and in every pursuit an advanced driver and the helicopter is requested. at the very start.

also you mentioned unmarked cars. it is service policy that in a pursuit a marked police car should be used and only advanced drivers can be in a pursuit in an unmarked car.

it may appease you that as a result of this every police driver will think "is this worth the risk" when required to use the exemptions for police driving. be that a call for help or a chase.

just let me remind you every copper i know ( there are some berks i aggree) thinks that at the time they are doing the right thing. as we are under more
scrunity than people think. its not the boys club it was in the 50s & 60s.

the benefit of hindsight is a benefit will all have. but also bear in mind that there is a requirement ( demand by the home office) to be at all emergency calls within 11-15 minutes. if that time is missed questions are asked why. sky news has a response time of 8.

on a different note how about another plausible example. your bag is snatched a FOOTchase happens and the suspect runs into the road to get away and is hit by a car and subsequently dies. do we now stop footchases ( and before anyone moans about seeing coppers on foot and they wouldnt chase on foot this is a talking point) and would it be a different matter if it was your husband doing the chasing

police pursuits will forever be a touchy subject of a should and should not. depends on what you want from your police service. we are allready a reporting service. ill quite happily sit on my hands and not put anyone/thing/ or my freedom at risk if you think we should be more observant and less urgent.
I have taken on board your comments but..there's a lot of people (maybe not on NS) who are thinking the same way as me. For example, the Police Officer in Hampshire who was prosecuted for Dangerous Driving (speeding) whilst on duty and the control room staff were accused of aiding and abetting. Although the case went in the officers favour, it opened up a huge can of worms for the rest of the force! One only has to read national news archives on this matter within the last 2 years to understand what I'm talking about. It is a very debatable subject but, common sense must be applied. The law is the law...before the Police enforce it they too should obey it like everyone else. One can't get away from the fact that police pursuits have caused a high number of road deaths to drivers and pedestrians and will continue to do so unless something is done about it.
But this (Hampshire case) just shows that the police can be held accountable - and that a court decided their actions were justified!
I think this was a case of; “The Tail Wagging The Dog.” So basically, it was because there were no fatalities or complaints from the general public or the suspect, he got acquitted!  

End of the road for police pursuits?

Roads policing officer James Holden was recently cleared of dangerous driving while following a suspect, but the case could have a massive impact on police drivers being held responsible for the actions of those they are pursuing. Barrister Mark Aldred, who defended the officer, writes

The recent case of R v Holden heralds a new and disturbing approach to police pursuits by the Crown Prosecution Service. PC Holden was attached to Hampshire Constabulary’s roads policing unit and trained to the highest levels in pursuit driving. The pursuit that he and a colleague were involved in lasted about four minutes and ended when the driver they were pursuing crashed into a level crossing barrier and ran off.

 PC Holden stopped the pursuit and no one was injured. Neither the suspect’s vehicle or the police vehicle had an accident with any third party. There was no public complaint. PC Holden was pursuing a serial burglar. An independent review of the driver by another force expert described PC Holden’s driving as “admirable” and “not careless, reckless or dangerous” and “typical of an urban pursuit”. However, the in-force review panel felt, in retrospect, the risk was too great and the pursuit ought to have been terminated some one minute 30 seconds earlier.

 PC Holden was then prosecuted for dangerous driving before being cleared by a jury in February this year.

 A central plank of the case against him was that he had a responsibility to ‘discontinue’ when the risks became disproportionate, and he had not done so. The prosecution case against PC Holden was largely based upon the danger created by the subject driver. In the words of the prosecutor: “If you continue to pursue you continue to expose the public to risk of serious injury and serious damage to property. That is dangerous.”

 By failing to terminate at the point where the force head of driving standards had retrospectively decided that the risk had become disproportionate, PC Holden had in effect ‘caused’ the subject vehicle to drive in a dangerous manner and was responsible for the danger that resulted. Again, in the words of the prosecutor: “He is a dangerous driver. He will exhibit risk. The contention is PC Holden continued when it was disproportionate and exposed other road users to risk.”

 One is tempted to ask the question, why was this not dealt with by the in-force procedures? However, the more pertinent questions are, how did this case get past the CPS, a District Judge and a Crown Court Judge? Why did it go all the way to a jury? If it does go to a jury what protections or exemptions do police have? Are police drivers who engage in pursuits at risk of a similar fate to that of PC Holden in the event that someone refers a drive which is “typical of an urban pursuit” to the CPS?

 The fact that PC Holden’s case survived all the legal hurdles suggests that the view of the CPS cannot be said to be an aberration. The real problem is the law and the lack of protection it offers police pursuit drivers.

 This first concern is that it seems there is now a willingness to hold an officer legally responsible for the danger created by the driver he is pursuing. If a subject vehicle makes off he will create a danger. He will exceed the speed limit. He will ignore road signs. The ACPO guidelines tell us that “all pursuits are inherently dangerous”. Does this mean all officers who pursue could be liable for causing or perpetuating that danger?

 An answer along the lines of “only if the officer pursues when he should have discontinued” is no answer at all. There will always be a difference of professional opinion about when and if a pursuit becomes disproportionate.

 At either end of the spectrum, the answer will be obvious. In the middle it is a finely balanced judgment. There will be differences.

 In PC Holden’s case neither he nor the pursuit commander, the roads policing unit driver in car two of the pursuit, the control room supervisor or the controller felt the need to end it before it was terminated.

 An independent driving expert, chosen by the prosecution, also did not feel the pursuit ought to have been terminated before it was.

 However, on the basis of the opinion of the head of driver training, supported by a traffic sergeant, the prosecution was mounted. Once it had started, it continued under its own momentum, through committal, through a half-time submission, all the way to a jury.

 Once the case is before the jury the officer is really exposed. If the danger relied on by the prosecution is that created by the fleeing driver, then, on the argument in PC Holden’s case, the police driver will have caused or contributed to the danger by continuing to pursue. This argument may well be supplemented by an argument that the officer, in driving at speed in an urban environment, exposed the public to danger and was therefore dangerous. This also occurred in PC Holden’s case.

 These arguments can be applied to virtually any substantive pursuit. The yardstick against which an officer’s driving will be judged is not the standard of a trained police pursuit driver. It is the standard of the careful and competent driver. Did the officer’s driving fall far below the standard of the careful and competent driver?

 Unfortunately, the careful and competent driver does not engage in pursuits, he does not contravene traffic signs and speed limits. Yes, a police officer has exemptions under road traffic legislation but there is no exemption from dangerous driving.
 If there are no legal exemptions permitting dangerous driving by a police officer during a pursuit, what distinguishes a police pursuit driver from the subject he is pursuing? The obvious answer is his training and his skill. Unfortunately, since the case of R v Bannister, a jury is not permitted to take into account an officer’s special skill and training in determining whether the driving was dangerous only against the standard of the careful and competent driver.

 At present, forces have the best of both worlds, they can tell the public there is not a ‘no pursuit’ policy but, when it is politically expedient, officers who pursue can be prosecuted, and the law offers them little protection. Thankfully for PC Holden, the jury applied a common sense approach and acquitted him. However, that was after a year of worry that he would lose his job and possibly his liberty.

 Until the law is changed a police officer can only hope that a reviewer does not refer his case for prosecution. The other option is for the driver not to pursue at all. But if he does pursue, and his case is referred, a police officer is left in a very exposed position, reliant upon a good barrister and a jury that accepts common sense arguments. The Police Federation can control the former, but not the latter.

 Alan Jones, lead on roads policing for the Police Federation, says the issues have been raised with the director of public prosecutions Keir Starmer and ACPO. The Federation is in talks on how this will impact on operational issues and is seeking clear guidance as well as a change in the law in the long term to protect officers.
[quote][p][bold]Marty1979[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Inspirationalady28[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Familyguy321[/bold] wrote: @lady. just to update you on police chase speeds. when any pursuit starts its closely monitored by the information room. speed is one thing that is constantly asked. now there is allways the possibilty that signals drop out if that happens, its usually cancelled. there is also a little black box in the car that records the speed. this also pops up on a map so any marked car can be monitored at any point. pursuits can be cancelled at any point by the police driver as well as by supervising officers in the information room of which "civillian" staff are also in that role. generally any pursuit that goes over double the limit is stopped, and in every pursuit an advanced driver and the helicopter is requested. at the very start. also you mentioned unmarked cars. it is service policy that in a pursuit a marked police car should be used and only advanced drivers can be in a pursuit in an unmarked car. it may appease you that as a result of this every police driver will think "is this worth the risk" when required to use the exemptions for police driving. be that a call for help or a chase. just let me remind you every copper i know ( there are some berks i aggree) thinks that at the time they are doing the right thing. as we are under more scrunity than people think. its not the boys club it was in the 50s & 60s. the benefit of hindsight is a benefit will all have. but also bear in mind that there is a requirement ( demand by the home office) to be at all emergency calls within 11-15 minutes. if that time is missed questions are asked why. sky news has a response time of 8. on a different note how about another plausible example. your bag is snatched a FOOTchase happens and the suspect runs into the road to get away and is hit by a car and subsequently dies. do we now stop footchases ( and before anyone moans about seeing coppers on foot and they wouldnt chase on foot this is a talking point) and would it be a different matter if it was your husband doing the chasing police pursuits will forever be a touchy subject of a should and should not. depends on what you want from your police service. we are allready a reporting service. ill quite happily sit on my hands and not put anyone/thing/ or my freedom at risk if you think we should be more observant and less urgent.[/p][/quote]I have taken on board your comments but..there's a lot of people (maybe not on NS) who are thinking the same way as me. For example, the Police Officer in Hampshire who was prosecuted for Dangerous Driving (speeding) whilst on duty and the control room staff were accused of aiding and abetting. Although the case went in the officers favour, it opened up a huge can of worms for the rest of the force! One only has to read national news archives on this matter within the last 2 years to understand what I'm talking about. It is a very debatable subject but, common sense must be applied. The law is the law...before the Police enforce it they too should obey it like everyone else. One can't get away from the fact that police pursuits have caused a high number of road deaths to drivers and pedestrians and will continue to do so unless something is done about it.[/p][/quote]But this (Hampshire case) just shows that the police can be held accountable - and that a court decided their actions were justified![/p][/quote]I think this was a case of; “The Tail Wagging The Dog.” So basically, it was because there were no fatalities or complaints from the general public or the suspect, he got acquitted!   End of the road for police pursuits? Roads policing officer James Holden was recently cleared of dangerous driving while following a suspect, but the case could have a massive impact on police drivers being held responsible for the actions of those they are pursuing. Barrister Mark Aldred, who defended the officer, writes The recent case of R v Holden heralds a new and disturbing approach to police pursuits by the Crown Prosecution Service. PC Holden was attached to Hampshire Constabulary’s roads policing unit and trained to the highest levels in pursuit driving. The pursuit that he and a colleague were involved in lasted about four minutes and ended when the driver they were pursuing crashed into a level crossing barrier and ran off.  PC Holden stopped the pursuit and no one was injured. Neither the suspect’s vehicle or the police vehicle had an accident with any third party. There was no public complaint. PC Holden was pursuing a serial burglar. An independent review of the driver by another force expert described PC Holden’s driving as “admirable” and “not careless, reckless or dangerous” and “typical of an urban pursuit”. However, the in-force review panel felt, in retrospect, the risk was too great and the pursuit ought to have been terminated some one minute 30 seconds earlier.  PC Holden was then prosecuted for dangerous driving before being cleared by a jury in February this year.  A central plank of the case against him was that he had a responsibility to ‘discontinue’ when the risks became disproportionate, and he had not done so. The prosecution case against PC Holden was largely based upon the danger created by the subject driver. In the words of the prosecutor: “If you continue to pursue you continue to expose the public to risk of serious injury and serious damage to property. That is dangerous.”  By failing to terminate at the point where the force head of driving standards had retrospectively decided that the risk had become disproportionate, PC Holden had in effect ‘caused’ the subject vehicle to drive in a dangerous manner and was responsible for the danger that resulted. Again, in the words of the prosecutor: “He [the subject driver] is a dangerous driver. He will exhibit risk. The contention is PC Holden continued when it was disproportionate and exposed other road users to risk.”  One is tempted to ask the question, why was this not dealt with by the in-force procedures? However, the more pertinent questions are, how did this case get past the CPS, a District Judge and a Crown Court Judge? Why did it go all the way to a jury? If it does go to a jury what protections or exemptions do police have? Are police drivers who engage in pursuits at risk of a similar fate to that of PC Holden in the event that someone refers a drive which is “typical of an urban pursuit” to the CPS?  The fact that PC Holden’s case survived all the legal hurdles suggests that the view of the CPS cannot be said to be an aberration. The real problem is the law and the lack of protection it offers police pursuit drivers.  This first concern is that it seems there is now a willingness to hold an officer legally responsible for the danger created by the driver he is pursuing. If a subject vehicle makes off he will create a danger. He will exceed the speed limit. He will ignore road signs. The ACPO guidelines tell us that “all pursuits are inherently dangerous”. Does this mean all officers who pursue could be liable for causing or perpetuating that danger?  An answer along the lines of “only if the officer pursues when he should have discontinued” is no answer at all. There will always be a difference of professional opinion about when and if a pursuit becomes disproportionate.  At either end of the spectrum, the answer will be obvious. In the middle it is a finely balanced judgment. There will be differences.  In PC Holden’s case neither he nor the pursuit commander, the roads policing unit driver in car two of the pursuit, the control room supervisor or the controller felt the need to end it before it was terminated.  An independent driving expert, chosen by the prosecution, also did not feel the pursuit ought to have been terminated before it was.  However, on the basis of the opinion of the head of driver training, supported by a traffic sergeant, the prosecution was mounted. Once it had started, it continued under its own momentum, through committal, through a half-time submission, all the way to a jury.  Once the case is before the jury the officer is really exposed. If the danger relied on by the prosecution is that created by the fleeing driver, then, on the argument in PC Holden’s case, the police driver will have caused or contributed to the danger by continuing to pursue. This argument may well be supplemented by an argument that the officer, in driving at speed in an urban environment, exposed the public to danger and was therefore dangerous. This also occurred in PC Holden’s case.  These arguments can be applied to virtually any substantive pursuit. The yardstick against which an officer’s driving will be judged is not the standard of a trained police pursuit driver. It is the standard of the careful and competent driver. Did the officer’s driving fall far below the standard of the careful and competent driver?  Unfortunately, the careful and competent driver does not engage in pursuits, he does not contravene traffic signs and speed limits. Yes, a police officer has exemptions under road traffic legislation but there is no exemption from dangerous driving.  If there are no legal exemptions permitting dangerous driving by a police officer during a pursuit, what distinguishes a police pursuit driver from the subject he is pursuing? The obvious answer is his training and his skill. Unfortunately, since the case of R v Bannister, a jury is not permitted to take into account an officer’s special skill and training in determining whether the driving was dangerous only against the standard of the careful and competent driver.  At present, forces have the best of both worlds, they can tell the public there is not a ‘no pursuit’ policy but, when it is politically expedient, officers who pursue can be prosecuted, and the law offers them little protection. Thankfully for PC Holden, the jury applied a common sense approach and acquitted him. However, that was after a year of worry that he would lose his job and possibly his liberty.  Until the law is changed a police officer can only hope that a reviewer does not refer his case for prosecution. The other option is for the driver not to pursue at all. But if he does pursue, and his case is referred, a police officer is left in a very exposed position, reliant upon a good barrister and a jury that accepts common sense arguments. The Police Federation can control the former, but not the latter.  Alan Jones, lead on roads policing for the Police Federation, says the issues have been raised with the director of public prosecutions Keir Starmer and ACPO. The Federation is in talks on how this will impact on operational issues and is seeking clear guidance as well as a change in the law in the long term to protect officers. Inspirationalady28
  • Score: 0

3:31pm Fri 11 Jan 13

Oldchap says...

It's all very well quoting various articles - but as I commented, what would YOU have then do?
It's all very well quoting various articles - but as I commented, what would YOU have then do? Oldchap
  • Score: 0

4:02pm Fri 11 Jan 13

Gypo.Joe says...

Inspirationalady28 I thought you was gone and never coming back.


Do you have the NS number on speed dial ?
Inspirationalady28 I thought you was gone and never coming back. Do you have the NS number on speed dial ? Gypo.Joe
  • Score: 0

4:06pm Fri 11 Jan 13

Inspirationalady28 says...

Oldchap wrote:
It's all very well quoting various articles - but as I commented, what would YOU have then do?
I would have them adhere to the law like the rest of us! As for speeding, I believe they're allowed up to +20mph over the legal speed limit as it is but some still choose to over do it and take risks, not only to themselves but to the public too.
[quote][p][bold]Oldchap[/bold] wrote: It's all very well quoting various articles - but as I commented, what would YOU have then do?[/p][/quote]I would have them adhere to the law like the rest of us! As for speeding, I believe they're allowed up to +20mph over the legal speed limit as it is but some still choose to over do it and take risks, not only to themselves but to the public too. Inspirationalady28
  • Score: 0

4:15pm Fri 11 Jan 13

the wall says...

There's always someone who wonders why the Police have just gone past over the speed limit with no lights or sirens.


The speed limits can be 'ignored' if to adhere to them would hinder the use of the vehicle for a police purpose. Police officers in marked cars on duty have been given speeding tickets and paid them when shown to not be legally using the exemption.

There is no requirement to use blue lights and sirens to take advantage of exemptions. As such no laws have been broken.

They shouldn't be travelling dangerously at any time.

There is no requirement for them to have warning lights or horns on in order to avail themselves of the exemption. It is a decision for the driver on whether they consider it appropriate or not in the individual circumstances.

Some times they'll use them because they deem it appropriate, some times they won't because they deem that most appropriate. There is nothing in law that requires them to ever use blue lights & two tones, it's down to their discretion.

If I don't want to alert the burglar in a house, I won't use them.

If I want to catch up with a car I want observe without alerting them, I won't use them.

Putting the blue lights on doesn't validate the use of the exemption it's the purpose that does.

If an officer wants a thrill & drives quickly, putting the blue lights on doesn't make what he is doing right.

If an officer is going to a burglary & doesn't use blue lights, that doesn't make what he is doing wrong.

The purpose defines whether the use of the exemption was appropriate in each case, not the use (or lack of) of blue lights.

In poor weather, especially at night, blue lights can be a distraction. I only use them at junctions and hazards but not on straight main roads in these circumstances.

The law says that the vehicle must be being used for police purposes. Therefore it does not have to be:
a, Driven by a police officer
b, A police vehicle.
A commandeered taxi would be a good example - however it would have be driven by a fully trained police driver. NO. As long as the vehicle is being used 'for police purposes' whether or not the driver is a police officer is immaterial.

By virtue of Section 87 Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984 (as amended by Section 19 Road Safety Act 2006),

(1) No statutory provision imposing a speed limit on motor vehicles shall apply to any vehicle on an occasion when–

(a) it is being used for fire and rescue authority purposes or for or in connection with the exercise of any function of a relevant authority as defined in section 6 of the Fire (Scotland) Act 2005, for Ambulance purposes or for Police or Serious Organised Crime Agency purposes,(b) it is being used for other prescribed purposes in such circumstances as may be prescribed, or
(c) it is being used for training persons to drive vehicles for use for any of the purposes mentioned in paragraph (a) or (b) above, if the observance of that provision would be likely to hinder the use of the vehicle for the purpose for which it was being used on that occasion.

A police driver is able to make use of their exemptions at any time and for any length so long as they are able to justify their use. The justification for their use rests solely with the driver and if a legal dispute ever arose it would for the courts to decide whether or not the justification was appropriate. A police driver is still liable to be prosecuted for any road traffic offence outside of their exemptions if their driving falls below the standard expected. This is even if they are making legitimate use of exemption, for example when legitimatley negotiating a red traffic light junction on route to a call with bluea and twos, if the police car is not driven through at speed and without treating the red light as a "give way", the driver may be liable to a Sec 2 or Sec 3 traffic offence.

28 Sept 2009
The exemptions mentioned above will be amended by the folloiwng section contained in the Road Safety Act 2006 which is awaiting full commencement Order to implement

19 Exemptions from speed limits

For section 87 of the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984 (c. 27) (exemption of fire, ambulance and police vehicles from speed limits) substitute—

“87 Exemptions from speed limits (1) No statutory provision imposing a speed limit on motor vehicles shall apply to any vehicle on an occasion when—

(a) it is being used for fire and rescue authority purposes or for or in connection with the exercise of any function of a relevant authority as defined in section 6 of the Fire (Scotland) Act 2005, for ambulance purposes or for police or Serious Organised Crime Agency purposes,

(b) it is being used for other prescribed purposes in such circumstances as may be prescribed, or

(c) it is being used for training persons to drive vehicles for use for any of the purposes mentioned in paragraph (a) or (b) above,

if the observance of that provision would be likely to hinder the use of the vehicle for the purpose for which it is being used on that occasion.

(2) Subsection (1) above does not apply unless the vehicle is being driven by a person who—

(a) has satisfactorily completed a course of training in the driving of vehicles at high speed provided in accordance with regulations under this section, or

(b) is driving the vehicle as part of such a course.

(3) The Secretary of State may by regulations make provision about courses of training in the driving of vehicles at high speed.

(4) The regulations may include—
(a) provision about the nature of courses,
(b) provision for the approval by the Secretary of State of persons providing courses or giving instruction on courses and the withdrawal of approvals (including provision for appeals against refusal and withdrawal of approvals),
(c) provision specifying the maximum fees that a person may be required to pay for a course,
(d) provision for the training or assessment, or the supervision of the training or assessment, of persons providing courses or giving instruction on courses,
(e) provision for the evidencing of the successful completion of courses,
(f) provision authorising the Secretary of State to make available information about persons providing courses or giving instruction on courses, and
(g) provision treating courses of training in the driving of vehicles at high speed which have been completed before the coming into force of the regulations as if they had been provided in accordance with the regulations.

(5) The regulations may include provision for the charging of reasonable fees in respect of any function conferred or imposed on the Secretary of State by the regulations.
(6) The regulations may make different provision—
(a) for different classes of vehicle,
(b) for different descriptions of persons, or
(c) otherwise for different circumstances.”
(dvd)

Finally, ambulances & Fire Appliances cannot claim an exemption to cross solid white lines, even when on emergency drives. They can only cross solid white lines in the same way as every other road user, as per the highway code.

Ambulance drivers can claim the following exemptions:

Using audible and visible warning devices.
Exceeding statutory speed restrictions.
Treating a red traffic signal as a ‘give way’.
Passing either side of a ‘keep left/right’ sign.
Entering a pedestrian area.
Stopping on a clearway.
Parking on double yellow lines.
Parking on zig zag lines.
Parking on footway/central reservation.
Parking on offside of road after dark.
Showing a white floodlight to the rear of a stationary vehicle.
Driving and parking on the hard shoulder of a motorway.
Using restricted motorway access roads.
Leaving the engine of an unattended vehicle running.

An ambulance driver cannot claim exemptions to the following laws/rules:

Dangerous/careless driving/parking.
Failing to stop after an accident.
Overtaking on zig zags.
Failing to obey a red light on traffic signals controlling a level crossing/airfield/fi
re stations.
Failing to obey a one way sign/no right or no left turn/one way traffic sign.
Crossing or straddling a solid white line (except as stated in the highway code for all road users).
There's always someone who wonders why the Police have just gone past over the speed limit with no lights or sirens. The speed limits can be 'ignored' if to adhere to them would hinder the use of the vehicle for a police purpose. Police officers in marked cars on duty have been given speeding tickets and paid them when shown to not be legally using the exemption. There is no requirement to use blue lights and sirens to take advantage of exemptions. As such no laws have been broken. They shouldn't be travelling dangerously at any time. There is no requirement for them to have warning lights or horns on in order to avail themselves of the exemption. It is a decision for the driver on whether they consider it appropriate or not in the individual circumstances. Some times they'll use them because they deem it appropriate, some times they won't because they deem that most appropriate. There is nothing in law that requires them to ever use blue lights & two tones, it's down to their discretion. If I don't want to alert the burglar in a house, I won't use them. If I want to catch up with a car I want observe without alerting them, I won't use them. Putting the blue lights on doesn't validate the use of the exemption it's the purpose that does. If an officer wants a thrill & drives quickly, putting the blue lights on doesn't make what he is doing right. If an officer is going to a burglary & doesn't use blue lights, that doesn't make what he is doing wrong. The purpose defines whether the use of the exemption was appropriate in each case, not the use (or lack of) of blue lights. In poor weather, especially at night, blue lights can be a distraction. I only use them at junctions and hazards but not on straight main roads in these circumstances. The law says that the vehicle must be being used for police purposes. Therefore it does not have to be: a, Driven by a police officer b, A police vehicle. A commandeered taxi would be a good example - however it would have be driven by a fully trained police driver. NO. As long as the vehicle is being used 'for police purposes' whether or not the driver is a police officer is immaterial. By virtue of Section 87 Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984 (as amended by Section 19 Road Safety Act 2006), (1) No statutory provision imposing a speed limit on motor vehicles shall apply to any vehicle on an occasion when– (a) it is being used for fire and rescue authority purposes or for or in connection with the exercise of any function of a relevant authority as defined in section 6 of the Fire (Scotland) Act 2005, for Ambulance purposes or for Police or Serious Organised Crime Agency purposes,(b) it is being used for other prescribed purposes in such circumstances as may be prescribed, or (c) it is being used for training persons to drive vehicles for use for any of the purposes mentioned in paragraph (a) or (b) above, if the observance of that provision would be likely to hinder the use of the vehicle for the purpose for which it was being used on that occasion. A police driver is able to make use of their exemptions at any time and for any length so long as they are able to justify their use. The justification for their use rests solely with the driver and if a legal dispute ever arose it would for the courts to decide whether or not the justification was appropriate. A police driver is still liable to be prosecuted for any road traffic offence outside of their exemptions if their driving falls below the standard expected. This is even if they are making legitimate use of exemption, for example when legitimatley negotiating a red traffic light junction on route to a call with bluea and twos, if the police car is not driven through at speed and without treating the red light as a "give way", the driver may be liable to a Sec 2 or Sec 3 traffic offence. 28 Sept 2009 The exemptions mentioned above will be amended by the folloiwng section contained in the Road Safety Act 2006 which is awaiting full commencement Order to implement 19 Exemptions from speed limits For section 87 of the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984 (c. 27) (exemption of fire, ambulance and police vehicles from speed limits) substitute— “87 Exemptions from speed limits (1) No statutory provision imposing a speed limit on motor vehicles shall apply to any vehicle on an occasion when— (a) it is being used for fire and rescue authority purposes or for or in connection with the exercise of any function of a relevant authority as defined in section 6 of the Fire (Scotland) Act 2005, for ambulance purposes or for police or Serious Organised Crime Agency purposes, (b) it is being used for other prescribed purposes in such circumstances as may be prescribed, or (c) it is being used for training persons to drive vehicles for use for any of the purposes mentioned in paragraph (a) or (b) above, if the observance of that provision would be likely to hinder the use of the vehicle for the purpose for which it is being used on that occasion. (2) Subsection (1) above does not apply unless the vehicle is being driven by a person who— (a) has satisfactorily completed a course of training in the driving of vehicles at high speed provided in accordance with regulations under this section, or (b) is driving the vehicle as part of such a course. (3) The Secretary of State may by regulations make provision about courses of training in the driving of vehicles at high speed. (4) The regulations may include— (a) provision about the nature of courses, (b) provision for the approval by the Secretary of State of persons providing courses or giving instruction on courses and the withdrawal of approvals (including provision for appeals against refusal and withdrawal of approvals), (c) provision specifying the maximum fees that a person may be required to pay for a course, (d) provision for the training or assessment, or the supervision of the training or assessment, of persons providing courses or giving instruction on courses, (e) provision for the evidencing of the successful completion of courses, (f) provision authorising the Secretary of State to make available information about persons providing courses or giving instruction on courses, and (g) provision treating courses of training in the driving of vehicles at high speed which have been completed before the coming into force of the regulations as if they had been provided in accordance with the regulations. (5) The regulations may include provision for the charging of reasonable fees in respect of any function conferred or imposed on the Secretary of State by the regulations. (6) The regulations may make different provision— (a) for different classes of vehicle, (b) for different descriptions of persons, or (c) otherwise for different circumstances.” (dvd) Finally, ambulances & Fire Appliances cannot claim an exemption to cross solid white lines, even when on emergency drives. They can only cross solid white lines in the same way as every other road user, as per the highway code. Ambulance drivers can claim the following exemptions: Using audible and visible warning devices. Exceeding statutory speed restrictions. Treating a red traffic signal as a ‘give way’. Passing either side of a ‘keep left/right’ sign. Entering a pedestrian area. Stopping on a clearway. Parking on double yellow lines. Parking on zig zag lines. Parking on footway/central reservation. Parking on offside of road after dark. Showing a white floodlight to the rear of a stationary vehicle. Driving and parking on the hard shoulder of a motorway. Using restricted motorway access roads. Leaving the engine of an unattended vehicle running. An ambulance driver cannot claim exemptions to the following laws/rules: Dangerous/careless driving/parking. Failing to stop after an accident. Overtaking on zig zags. Failing to obey a red light on traffic signals controlling a level crossing/airfield/fi re stations. Failing to obey a one way sign/no right or no left turn/one way traffic sign. Crossing or straddling a solid white line (except as stated in the highway code for all road users). the wall
  • Score: 0

4:22pm Fri 11 Jan 13

the wall says...

Should of said copied and pasted from a very good source and not some fair trade, lily livered, limp wristed lefty waffle Police hating website.
Should of said copied and pasted from a very good source and not some fair trade, lily livered, limp wristed lefty waffle Police hating website. the wall
  • Score: 0

4:53pm Fri 11 Jan 13

the wall says...

Inspirationalady28 - For everyone of these news reports about the Police on blues and twos having an accident with the public, there are 10/20/50/100 reports of the Police saving someones life etc.

Lets not forget who's actions killed this poor girl...... The scum in the car. Do you think for 1 minute that even if he was not being "chased" and had hit their car he would have stopped?
Inspirationalady28 - For everyone of these news reports about the Police on blues and twos having an accident with the public, there are 10/20/50/100 reports of the Police saving someones life etc. Lets not forget who's actions killed this poor girl...... The scum in the car. Do you think for 1 minute that even if he was not being "chased" and had hit their car he would have stopped? the wall
  • Score: 0

5:12pm Fri 11 Jan 13

Inspirationalady28 says...

the wall wrote:
Inspirationalady28 - For everyone of these news reports about the Police on blues and twos having an accident with the public, there areWell that's the most intelligent thing I've heard you say in all of this. I agree with what you say! But I still believe that emergency services should not risk their lives or an innocent member of the public I really do. There have been a number of cases whereby casualties on their way to hospital have been victims of RTA'S due to the speed of ambulances taking them there! At the end of the day it all boils down to risk assessment.. This needs to be addressed!
[quote][p][bold]the wall[/bold] wrote: Inspirationalady28 - For everyone of these news reports about the Police on blues and twos having an accident with the public, there areWell that's the most intelligent thing I've heard you say in all of this. I agree with what you say! But I still believe that emergency services should not risk their lives or an innocent member of the public I really do. There have been a number of cases whereby casualties on their way to hospital have been victims of RTA'S due to the speed of ambulances taking them there! At the end of the day it all boils down to risk assessment.. This needs to be addressed! Inspirationalady28
  • Score: 0

6:23pm Fri 11 Jan 13

Marty1979 says...

Inspirationalady28 wrote:
Oldchap wrote:
It's all very well quoting various articles - but as I commented, what would YOU have then do?
I would have them adhere to the law like the rest of us! As for speeding, I believe they're allowed up to +20mph over the legal speed limit as it is but some still choose to over do it and take risks, not only to themselves but to the public too.
They should adhere to the law?

So if police see someone committing a crime (ie breaking the law) who then gets in a car and drives off, the police should keep to 30mph

Just imagine you were assaulted, the police saw it happen but couldn't catch the offender because, by your logic, they must keep to the speed limit - would you complain?

I expect you will now demand this comment is removed and I'm banned because I dont agree with you
[quote][p][bold]Inspirationalady28[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Oldchap[/bold] wrote: It's all very well quoting various articles - but as I commented, what would YOU have then do?[/p][/quote]I would have them adhere to the law like the rest of us! As for speeding, I believe they're allowed up to +20mph over the legal speed limit as it is but some still choose to over do it and take risks, not only to themselves but to the public too.[/p][/quote]They should adhere to the law? So if police see someone committing a crime (ie breaking the law) who then gets in a car and drives off, the police should keep to 30mph Just imagine you were assaulted, the police saw it happen but couldn't catch the offender because, by your logic, they must keep to the speed limit - would you complain? I expect you will now demand this comment is removed and I'm banned because I dont agree with you Marty1979
  • Score: 0

6:30pm Fri 11 Jan 13

Gypo.Joe says...

Inspirationalady28 with all your anti police rhetoric I wager you are in fact a council tenant !

I'm right aren't I ?
Inspirationalady28 with all your anti police rhetoric I wager you are in fact a council tenant ! I'm right aren't I ? Gypo.Joe
  • Score: 0

7:21pm Fri 11 Jan 13

BeckenhamCloud9 says...

Marty1979 wrote:
Inspirationalady28 wrote:
Oldchap wrote: It's all very well quoting various articles - but as I commented, what would YOU have then do?
I would have them adhere to the law like the rest of us! As for speeding, I believe they're allowed up to +20mph over the legal speed limit as it is but some still choose to over do it and take risks, not only to themselves but to the public too.
They should adhere to the law? So if police see someone committing a crime (ie breaking the law) who then gets in a car and drives off, the police should keep to 30mph Just imagine you were assaulted, the police saw it happen but couldn't catch the offender because, by your logic, they must keep to the speed limit - would you complain? I expect you will now demand this comment is removed and I'm banned because I dont agree with you
The police have to work under so many restrictions, and there are people like Inspirationalady28 who are quick to blame them if anything goes wrong

No wonder theres so much crime - criminals are probably laughing at her suggestion that police must stick to the speed limit

It was the CRIMINAL who killed the poor girl, not the police
[quote][p][bold]Marty1979[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Inspirationalady28[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Oldchap[/bold] wrote: It's all very well quoting various articles - but as I commented, what would YOU have then do?[/p][/quote]I would have them adhere to the law like the rest of us! As for speeding, I believe they're allowed up to +20mph over the legal speed limit as it is but some still choose to over do it and take risks, not only to themselves but to the public too.[/p][/quote]They should adhere to the law? So if police see someone committing a crime (ie breaking the law) who then gets in a car and drives off, the police should keep to 30mph Just imagine you were assaulted, the police saw it happen but couldn't catch the offender because, by your logic, they must keep to the speed limit - would you complain? I expect you will now demand this comment is removed and I'm banned because I dont agree with you[/p][/quote]The police have to work under so many restrictions, and there are people like Inspirationalady28 who are quick to blame them if anything goes wrong No wonder theres so much crime - criminals are probably laughing at her suggestion that police must stick to the speed limit It was the CRIMINAL who killed the poor girl, not the police BeckenhamCloud9
  • Score: 0

7:36pm Fri 11 Jan 13

reasonable75 says...

Gypo.Joe wrote:
Inspirationalady28 with all your anti police rhetoric I wager you are in fact a council tenant !

I'm right aren't I ?
I expect she's a friend of that loony liberal in Lewisham who introduced (at ratepayers expense) that scheme to send messages to "young people" (muggers & robbers) to advise (warn) them which areas the police would be patrolling
[quote][p][bold]Gypo.Joe[/bold] wrote: Inspirationalady28 with all your anti police rhetoric I wager you are in fact a council tenant ! I'm right aren't I ?[/p][/quote]I expect she's a friend of that loony liberal in Lewisham who introduced (at ratepayers expense) that scheme to send messages to "young people" (muggers & robbers) to advise (warn) them which areas the police would be patrolling reasonable75
  • Score: 0

8:20pm Fri 11 Jan 13

Inspirationalady28 says...

Gypo.Joe wrote:
Inspirationalady28 with all your anti police rhetoric I wager you are in fact a council tenant !

I'm right aren't I ?
I 'm not trying to have PEOPLE banned, only those who are offensive.. I do not care if people agree with me or not , but I do care when someone constantly posts disparaging comments! For the records, I'm NOT anti-police..a male cousin of mine was rank of Sergeant in the police force for over 2 decades and a niece was also in the force. And know I'm not a council tenant but even if I was, what has that got to do with anything? I'm just a person who has a mind of her own and I certainly do not support criminal activity ok?!!!! 
[quote][p][bold]Gypo.Joe[/bold] wrote: Inspirationalady28 with all your anti police rhetoric I wager you are in fact a council tenant ! I'm right aren't I ?[/p][/quote]I 'm not trying to have PEOPLE banned, only those who are offensive.. I do not care if people agree with me or not , but I do care when someone constantly posts disparaging comments! For the records, I'm NOT anti-police..a male cousin of mine was rank of Sergeant in the police force for over 2 decades and a niece was also in the force. And know I'm not a council tenant but even if I was, what has that got to do with anything? I'm just a person who has a mind of her own and I certainly do not support criminal activity ok?!!!!  Inspirationalady28
  • Score: 0

10:07pm Fri 11 Jan 13

reasonable75 says...

You say you're not anti police, but your blaming them for this death

You also have said police should not brake the speed limit to catch criminals

Well just think for a minute, your at home and a burglar, perhaps armed, is breaking into your house. You phone the police but because they must stick to the speed limit it takes them 20 minutes to get there

But that's OK as they haven't broken the law
You say you're not anti police, but your blaming them for this death You also have said police should not brake the speed limit to catch criminals Well just think for a minute, your at home and a burglar, perhaps armed, is breaking into your house. You phone the police but because they must stick to the speed limit it takes them 20 minutes to get there But that's OK as they haven't broken the law reasonable75
  • Score: 0

10:42pm Fri 11 Jan 13

Familyguy321 says...

lady. i fully appreicate your opinion and train of thought. there are 60 million people in this country all with a different view of what police should and shouldnt do.

i hope it appeases you that you shall be the first thought that pops in my mind should i become involved in a pursuit because should i come up against you as a jury member then i shall be very nervous indeed. please note im not having a dig at you, but as your earlier post highlights a PC went to crown court on the evidence of someone completly removed from the pursuit. its just shows that the most powerful tool we have as human beings is hindsight.

hindsight is a wonderful thing. coppers are far from perfect. me included. but the ones i know, even when they f**k up think that at the time all they are doing is the right thing.

i havent met any smokey and the bandit types yet.

we can go round in circles i wont try to change your point of view. but if anything please take from all of this all we are trying to do is what we are paid to do and we get criticised enough for not doing what is expected when a lot of the time its other factors in our way.

i can imagine the pursuit policy is allready being looked at again because of this incident.

but ill inform you of this. you are now one PC down who will engage in a pursuit becuase of, this thread and this incident. and guess what that now puts me in the firing line for neglect of duty.

whatever way i turn. im stuffed
lady. i fully appreicate your opinion and train of thought. there are 60 million people in this country all with a different view of what police should and shouldnt do. i hope it appeases you that you shall be the first thought that pops in my mind should i become involved in a pursuit because should i come up against you as a jury member then i shall be very nervous indeed. please note im not having a dig at you, but as your earlier post highlights a PC went to crown court on the evidence of someone completly removed from the pursuit. its just shows that the most powerful tool we have as human beings is hindsight. hindsight is a wonderful thing. coppers are far from perfect. me included. but the ones i know, even when they f**k up think that at the time all they are doing is the right thing. i havent met any smokey and the bandit types yet. we can go round in circles i wont try to change your point of view. but if anything please take from all of this all we are trying to do is what we are paid to do and we get criticised enough for not doing what is expected when a lot of the time its other factors in our way. i can imagine the pursuit policy is allready being looked at again because of this incident. but ill inform you of this. you are now one PC down who will engage in a pursuit becuase of, this thread and this incident. and guess what that now puts me in the firing line for neglect of duty. whatever way i turn. im stuffed Familyguy321
  • Score: 0

3:57pm Sat 12 Jan 13

reasonable75 says...

Obviously your busy reporting people and demanding they're banned

But couldn't you take a minute to answer the very reasonable question

What would you have them do?

(perhaps the question is too difficult)
Obviously your busy reporting people and demanding they're banned But couldn't you take a minute to answer the very reasonable question What would you have them do? (perhaps the question is too difficult) reasonable75
  • Score: 0

11:40am Mon 14 Jan 13

Gypo.Joe says...

Come in Marty are you there ? Ground control to Mart......come in Marty.

I'm hiding in the shed ......somewhere.



sent from my iPhone.
Come in Marty are you there ? Ground control to Mart......come in Marty. I'm hiding in the shed ......somewhere. sent from my iPhone. Gypo.Joe
  • Score: 0

1:15pm Tue 15 Jan 13

Simon Bull says...

Hi all. It's come to my attention that certain comments on this article have been getting personal and going over the top.

Please refrain from insults and abuse as any comments of this nature which are reported to us will be removed.

if you disagree with particular comment posters' opinions then feel free to express your own views, but do it in a constructive and polite way.

There is nothing wrong with some friendly banter, if it's taken in the right way, but attacking people personally does nothing to aid what could be a reasonable debate on what is obviously an important issue.

Thank you.
Hi all. It's come to my attention that certain comments on this article have been getting personal and going over the top. Please refrain from insults and abuse as any comments of this nature which are reported to us will be removed. if you disagree with particular comment posters' opinions then feel free to express your own views, but do it in a constructive and polite way. There is nothing wrong with some friendly banter, if it's taken in the right way, but attacking people personally does nothing to aid what could be a reasonable debate on what is obviously an important issue. Thank you. Simon Bull
  • Score: 0

2:53pm Tue 15 Jan 13

Inspirationalady28 says...

Simon Bull wrote:
Hi all. It's come to my attention that certain comments on this article have been getting personal and going over the top.

Please refrain from insults and abuse as any comments of this nature which are reported to us will be removed.

if you disagree with particular comment posters' opinions then feel free to express your own views, but do it in a constructive and polite way.

There is nothing wrong with some friendly banter, if it's taken in the right way, but attacking people personally does nothing to aid what could be a reasonable debate on what is obviously an important issue.

Thank you.
NS Simon, thanks for pointing that out, it isn't nice when anyone, especially a young person comes online and sees comments of that nature..there really is no need for it. :) Thank You!
[quote][p][bold]Simon Bull[/bold] wrote: Hi all. It's come to my attention that certain comments on this article have been getting personal and going over the top. Please refrain from insults and abuse as any comments of this nature which are reported to us will be removed. if you disagree with particular comment posters' opinions then feel free to express your own views, but do it in a constructive and polite way. There is nothing wrong with some friendly banter, if it's taken in the right way, but attacking people personally does nothing to aid what could be a reasonable debate on what is obviously an important issue. Thank you.[/p][/quote]NS Simon, thanks for pointing that out, it isn't nice when anyone, especially a young person comes online and sees comments of that nature..there really is no need for it. :) Thank You! Inspirationalady28
  • Score: 0

5:11pm Tue 15 Jan 13

Marty1979 says...

So how about answering the question?
So how about answering the question? Marty1979
  • Score: 0

6:51pm Wed 16 Jan 13

Gypo.Joe says...

and still no answer.
and still no answer. Gypo.Joe
  • Score: 0

5:55pm Thu 17 Jan 13

reasonable75 says...

She's quick to complain, demand comments are removed & people banned for expressing an opinion (and brown nose Simon!) yet totally incapable of answering a perfectly valid question
She's quick to complain, demand comments are removed & people banned for expressing an opinion (and brown nose Simon!) yet totally incapable of answering a perfectly valid question reasonable75
  • Score: 0

10:12pm Thu 17 Jan 13

Marty1979 says...

I'm not expecting an answer because it would need her to put together some rational thoughts - easy to copy & paste articles (probably out of daily wail) which purport to back up her anti-police comments

Only surprised she hasn't gone running to Simon demanding I'm banned

PS In case she's forgotten, I simply asked what would she have had the police do?

Now try to explain how that is insulting, abusive or threatening before you hit the report button
I'm not expecting an answer because it would need her to put together some rational thoughts - easy to copy & paste articles (probably out of daily wail) which purport to back up her anti-police comments Only surprised she hasn't gone running to Simon demanding I'm banned PS In case she's forgotten, I simply asked what would she have had the police do? Now try to explain how that is insulting, abusive or threatening before you hit the report button Marty1979
  • Score: 0

10:20am Fri 18 Jan 13

the wall says...

Marty1979 wrote:
I'm not expecting an answer because it would need her to put together some rational thoughts - easy to copy & paste articles (probably out of daily wail) which purport to back up her anti-police comments

Only surprised she hasn't gone running to Simon demanding I'm banned

PS In case she's forgotten, I simply asked what would she have had the police do?

Now try to explain how that is insulting, abusive or threatening before you hit the report button
Well said.
[quote][p][bold]Marty1979[/bold] wrote: I'm not expecting an answer because it would need her to put together some rational thoughts - easy to copy & paste articles (probably out of daily wail) which purport to back up her anti-police comments Only surprised she hasn't gone running to Simon demanding I'm banned PS In case she's forgotten, I simply asked what would she have had the police do? Now try to explain how that is insulting, abusive or threatening before you hit the report button[/p][/quote]Well said. the wall
  • Score: 0

5:36pm Fri 18 Jan 13

Marty1979 says...

Just thought I'd check

Nope, no answer
Just thought I'd check Nope, no answer Marty1979
  • Score: 0

11:06am Sat 19 Jan 13

Oldchap says...

As mentioned, wonder why she hates the police?

No reply to question, but guarantee if anyone makes a comment she considers insulting (ie anything she disagrees with) there would be a complaint in an instant
As mentioned, wonder why she hates the police? No reply to question, but guarantee if anyone makes a comment she considers insulting (ie anything she disagrees with) there would be a complaint in an instant Oldchap
  • Score: 0

8:46pm Sun 20 Jan 13

Gypo.Joe says...

Me thinks 'its' playing hard to get.
Me thinks 'its' playing hard to get. Gypo.Joe
  • Score: 0

Comments are closed on this article.

Send us your news, pictures and videos

Most read stories

Local Info

Enter your postcode, town or place name

About cookies

We want you to enjoy your visit to our website. That's why we use cookies to enhance your experience. By staying on our website you agree to our use of cookies. Find out more about the cookies we use.

I agree