A big "well done" to the Met

[ballinio]

The reason stop and search was stopped was because the police ended up catching people who were disproportionately from ethnic groups with disproportionately high crime rates, even though by doing so they helped ordinary peaceful citizens from those communities.

Just wait till they realise these bike criminals include relatively few British whites, Jews, Indians, Lankans and Vietnamese compared to their population. That will be the end of it.

I fear this may be the case.

 

[gordondaviesmoustache]

The officer in the patrol car has to radio and ask for permission from the control room supervisor. The supervisor will ask for speeds, weather conditions, traffic conditions even the age of the driver before he will agree to allow the pursuit or not. In the same way the supervisor will halt the pursuit if he deems it unsafe. I do wish BM posters would not make such sweeping statements as 'thats simply not true without knowing any facts of how the police operate. One of the reasons this has been made into a major news story by the Met is that is is a complete about turn and why an Inspector stated that criminals had been removing their crash helmets whilst being chased knowing that the police would stop chasing them. The inspector stated that was no longer the case.

So the police need permission from the police? Not quite the same as you were appearing to suggest when you said ‘the police need permission’. Perhaps you should make what you’re saying clearer in future, as it would avoid any confusion about the point you are seeking to advance.

I would add, that approach seems perfectly sensible to me.

 

[Stoned Rose]

That simply isn’t true. Permission from who?

To be fair GDav it is true. Police can ‘follow’ a vehicle but to ‘pursue’ needs clearance from a supervising rank due to clear safety issues it creates.

 

[Stoned Rose]

It's not, really. As I said, if I was signalled by the police I'd pull over, but if I didn't see them then it wouldn't be grounds for lethal force. They have to be sure they have the right man.

Is correctamundo.

 

[gordondaviesmoustache]

Gordon you say 'chase criminals'.

Where have I said that? It would be unusual for me to use such clumsy terminology.

 

[gordondaviesmoustache]

To be fair GDav it is true. Police can ‘follow’ a vehicle but to ‘pursue’ needs clearance from a supervising rank due to clear safety issues it creates.

He didn’t make that clear in his post. He said the ‘the police need permission’, which, without any clarification, clearly implies from an outside agency. That is what I took issue with, and was entitled to based on what he posted. I’m only as good as the material I am required to work with :-)

I do like it when you call me GDav.

 

[Blue Mist]

So the police need permission from the police? Not quite the same as you were appearing to suggest when you said ‘the police need permission’. Perhaps you should make what you’re saying clearer in future, as it would avoid any confusion about the point you are seeking to advance.

I would add, that approach seems perfectly sensible to me.

I wasn't appearing to suggest anything. You however may have interpreted it incorrectly. Are you still saying you haven't heard of any uproar regarding police chases ?

 

[1.618034]

Good.

 

[gordondaviesmoustache]

I wasn't appearing to suggest anything. You however may have interpreted it incorrectly. Are you still saying you haven't heard of any uproar regarding police chases ?

No I haven’t.

In terms of what you posted, I have responded to this point, including to @Stoned Rose . Your choice of words was deficient to convey your message. If you’d made it clear from where the permission was required then I wouldn’t have misunderstood you. No dramas, and don’t want to fall out about it.

I understand what you were trying to say now and I would have expected what you have described to be the case. It seems a sensible approach to me.

 

[Metalartin]

Excellent irony there Mr Metal.

What was ironic Mr Stoned?