MOP1

Resident Members
  • Content count

    183
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    2

MOP1 last won the day on December 11 2012

MOP1 had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

10 Good

About MOP1

  • Rank
    Learning Curve
  1. A very interesting thought from a police officer, especially when looking at figures for 'Reported Crime'. :sad:
  2. I think this is what we are both referring to? "Thrown out" obviously means something different to you than it does to me. He was found not guilty - he is not guilty, he did nothing wrong - which is what I meant by "thrown out". Obviously the problem is that 'someone' decided to try to get him convicted for doing his job correctly and that is wrong. He was (according to the verdict) doing his job correctly - that should have been recognised by whoever reported him to CPS and this should not have needed to go to court (but the court, by finding him not guilty came IMO to the correct verdict). Holding anyone responsible for the actions of a third party (with whom they have not conspired) defies reason. As for saying a persons skill level ie police driver training could not be taken into consideration, this just shows how disconnected from reality some judges are! Of course a higher driving skill can and should be taken into consideration, along with what our society expects Police officers to do (deter and catch criminals). I am here, vehemently agreeing that the prosecution of PC Holden and the (separate) comments by a judge re. police driver training have made it harder for Police to do their job, but the court decision was as far as I am aware, in PC Holden's favour (for what relief that gives us).
  3. IIRC the dangerous driving charge was thrown out in that other case, so it wasn't dangerous driving. The issue is of course that someone who was supposed to be backing the driver, instead decided to try to get him convicted (for doing his job correctly).
  4. Avon and Somerset Police 'steal' bikes to test reaction: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-bristol-20248535 How do posters here explain the lack of response from passing public? Apathy? Conditioned by years of 'Let the Professionals deal with it' public pronouncements? Lack of expectation of any result? Fear (can so many people be afraid, even of reporting the incidents anonymously)? Something else?
  5. Clearly none of them had folding seats in their cars then! After all we (usually) have to press a button to fold a folding seat :wink: , otherwise they'd just fold whenever we brake!
  6. If that is inevitable (which I strongly doubt) then the cyclists will be so constrained by the footpaths full of cyclists that they'll move at a pace no faster than pedestrians. Pedestrians (being able to move sideways as well as forwards and backwards) will have the advantage of being more manoeverable than cyclists and so cyclists will give up their bikes to become pedestrians (we can all do reduction ad absurdum, the trick is to see what the ultimate absurdity would result in, rather than trying to set it up as a straw man). In fact it would be rather like some metropolitan areas are becoming now with respect to motor vehicle transport - with the exception that (unlike motor vehicles) bicycles are not powered by an overwhelmingly stronger engine than pedestrians and so cause significantly less damage in any collision that might occur (and even less if they are constrained as in your scenario).
  7. Perhaps it is the FPN that was the slippery slope, as some people predicted when it was introduced? It was to address concerns that a minority of officers would treat all pavement cycling as an offence against police and public irrespective of the manner of such cycling, that the then Home Office Minister Paul Boateng wrote to the MP Ben Bradshaw: "The introduction of the fixed penalty is not aimed at responsible cyclists who sometimes feel obliged to use the pavement out of fear of the traffic, and who show consideration to other pavement users." I do not have the reference to hand but believe this has also been supported in case law where a judge essentially said (I paraphrase from memory) 'Given the danger of this road, the action of cycling on the pavement was fully justified'. Pavement cycling is not necessarily anti-social of itself and can be done safely. Sometimes it is safer than walking, as the cyclist has proper control, is narrower and knows where the pedals are (these generally have very sharp edges)! Irresponsible cycling and any cyclist in collision with a pedestrian when cycling on a footpath reserved for pedestrians should of course be prevented. Note please that there are footpaths where the offence of cycling on the footpath does not apply, because the footpath isn’t made or set apart for pedestrians. (HA 1835, s. 72). Many councils seem intent on making these by slapping a bit of paint on the footpath (or putting up signs) and sometimes even doing the paperwork with a TRO. Somehow this is supposed to make the interaction of cycles and pedestrians magically safe! As a cyclist I detest these (and the expectation they create from motorists that I should be on one of them instead of in the road). In general the offence of cycling on a footpath requires the path in question to be by the side of a carriageway. Cycling in pedestrian precincts or along footpaths other than beside a carriageway is not covered by this legislation (but may be covered by bylaws, rights of way etc.). IANAL but the whole subject is filled with 'ifs, buts and maybes'.
  8. As a MOP, that's certainly what it sounds like to me. Seriously Not Impressed - is this how our taxes and what should be professional scrutiny are wasted? It's (if I understand correctly) a public-relations sticker, to be given to people who've met the Met, as a friendly gesture. Hedlu have indeed met the Met and presumably relations are ... cordial. So where's the problem if they get a free reminder? The insistence on monitoring and controlling even of humour, of what you think and how you express it, is precisely what scares many of us about the way society is developing towards an Orwellian state.
  9. When people see the words 'police state', they often get caught up with the word 'police' and assume it would need to be the organisation currently known as 'the police' who would police it. Remember that 'police' is a verb as well as a noun. 'Police' functions can be (are being) sold off for ideological reasons and all sorts of relative incompetents can be brought in and given access to any 'police' information and powers. Perhaps it would be easier to comprehend if it was described as an 'Orwellian state' or a 'G$S State'?
  10. Really? You (and you would imagine, just about any other officer) would arrest for "going equipped/offwep" somene who was perfectly legally carrying a multi-tool with a perfectly legal non-locking blade, or with a locking blade and a good reason? I thought you were meant to uphold the law! Obviously not.
  11. There is nothing, repeat nothing, about a lock knife that makes it a more dangerous weapon than a non-locking. folding knife of the same size. Locks are put on folding knives as a safety measure. The idea that putting a safety lock on a knife makes it more dangerous is as deluded as thinking that calling a knife a "combat knife" makes it so. The problem with your thinking is that it from dealing with society's dregs, you have come to regard everything from that perspective. Fortunately the parliament that passed the law restricting everyday carry knives to sub three inches wasn't so limited in their thinking. Unfortunately one judge subsequently was. I carry at least one (folding sub-three inch) knife with me at all times. It comes in useful for a variety of purposes, from opening packages, to cleaning my nails, to eating. I do not have to justify its presence and I should be able to carry a locking version for increased safety: The law was passed on the understanding that I would continue to be able to do so. It is madness that in order to "keep lock knives out of the hands of dangerous people" (which it doesn't do - criminals ignore laws, in case you haven't noticed), I am prevented from having a safety feature on the knives I carry.
  12. Lock-knives case law: Madness yes, even worse because the parliamentary debates that accompanied the law in question specifically agreed that a folding knife would include a locking folding knife, so any locking folding knife under 3" would be legal to carry without needing any 'excuse'. The judge in the first case where a locking knife was involved, decided that 'folding' meant only "simple folding" which (to him) meant folding without doing anything else first (so no button to press): Obviously this judge does not have 'folding' rear seats in his car, because there would be a button to press first!
  13. To answer the original question :biggrin: ... Usually cycle lanes when on both sides of the road and in the road* are meant to be used in the same direction as the rest of the traffic flow. There are exceptions however and contra-flow cycle lanes exist, both in one-way systems and on large roads (where crossing to use the 'with-direction' lane would be problematic or dangerous). *Cycle paths on pavement tend not to be directional - even when they are barely a cycle width.
  14. So he is saying he made up what he thought they should have said because he was unable (? or unwilling - technology can replace shorthand) to record and use what they actually said - if indeed they were there, which they may not have been (I think that we can safely assume the ones that didn't exist weren't there), but he quoted what they (should have, in his opinion) said anyway.How can that be decribed as an "honest mistake"? Oh, that's right, it is decribed as such by the man who made up quotes from non-existent officers; he also does not see this as flawed evidence. I'd hate to have him take against me in court! So that makes it OK to come up with a report that leaves even lower morale?
  15. Well, something went very wrong during the training exercise. CPS say there was insufficient evidence for criminal charges (I assume that means they concluded it was indeed the tragic accident for the individuals involved, that it appears to be). H&S seem to have have decided that certain reasonable precautions were omitted (which does appear to be true, if the published accounts are to be believed). As someone who practices a weapons-based martial art, it is instructive and relevant that the two considerations are separate. It also appears to make sense: Reasonable precautions (whatever they are) which accord with normal practice should have been observed. PC Terry may or may not have died if he had been wearing (for example) body armour, but since body armour is available, relatively unrestricting (given what we are told went on in the exercise) and 'normal' wear in similar circumstances, it is (on the face of it) negligence by someone that he wasn't wearing any. Other normal precautions which were not reported may also be involved (I have no way of knowing).