Re: This one's going down
 

After asking several times (actually lost count now) that is all you can come up with. I would have thought you were best place to tell us, seeing as you are defending this man. I can only presume form your lack of response that he was not following any guidelines at all, in fact I would suggest that he so far away from these guidelines that his behaviour was criminal, as was agreed by the judge, jury and the IPCC.

Throughout this thread we a have been told that he was "pursuing" an alleged criminal; please, can you enlighten us as to what he was actually doing then and how this was within his job description, i.e. within the rules he has to follow and what these rules actually are.

Re: This one's going down
 

I take you never read the other link I posted, an extract below.
Taken from HERE

Re: This one's going down
 

I'll bullet point it for you. You are obviously incapable of understanding it any other way. I'm not going into the full training and policies for pursuits for a variety of reasons.

• He was a highly trained driver in a marked Police car.
• The Police car was fitted with an ANPR system which alerted him to a potential stolen vehicle driving past him the other way
• In a very short space of time he had to decide whether to follow the vehicle, turn a car round and catch up with the vehicle
• During this time he didn't have time to do everything he would like to have done so had to prioritise keeping the car in view until he could radio in that he was in a pursuit situation

You may be some kind of hand-wringing apologist aghast at the thought the Police take any form of risk in apprehending criminals but I live in the real world. Risks need to be taken. If you automatically barred the Police from pursuits every criminal in the land would take to screaming about in stolen cars knowing they cant be touched.

Of course at this point the first time one of them takes out a pedestrian the cops will get a hard time for failing to stop them.

And I'll leave the thread at this point before I injure myself by hitting my head off the wall.

Just for clarification my viewpoint is.

I think the Police driver was justified for the way he was driving
I do not think he should have been convicted.
He has been convicted and as such he should be treated as any other criminal and not have his fate decided by media stories.

Re: This one's going down
 

He chose not to alert innocent people of the danger by turning his lights and siren on.
he said he didn't want to as it would 'alert' the driver of the car he was pursuing.
IIRC that was one of the main reasons why he ended up being jailed.

Re: This one's going down
 

I have a good capacity to understand a logical perspective, unfortunately this does not follow any logic I am aware of.


And so should easily have been able to follow procedure

I thought the reasons for the flag were uncertain, do you have more information?

It takes less than one second to flick a switch. He could have chosen to do that at anytime from receiving the alert from the ANPR. In fact there are many things he could have done to avoid the tragedy, but he chose not to.

The IPCC disagree, with you as does ACPO, the courts and other police officers. Do you support opinions of this body? Do you support the opinions of ACPO? Do you support opinions of other police officers who agree with the courts?

I would have thought that his priority was to keep the public safe.

Apologist? Who am I apologising for?

What I and many others on this thread are asking for is for the police to be accountable for their "mistakes." We are also asking them to behave in a manner in accordance to their traing and the guidelines they are issued with.

Failing to stop who? If you mean the alleged car thief, I doubt very much the public would give two hoots about him, compared to the death of a child. What is just as worrying as that you seem to think that the public regard stopping a car thief more important than keeping a child from being mowed down at ninety-four miles per hour.

Again, this is the most disturbing aspect of this thread to date. That fact that you consider the death of a child to be of a lower importance than the price of a car and that you truly believe that the majority of police officers in the country agree with you.

Re: This one's going down
 

• So we can tell that the vehicle approaching is a Police car as it is marked, rather impossible if at night and they are speeding.

Where about was this stolen vehicle at this moment in time.
He did wrong, he killed, he tried to get out of it by saying that he was not in control of his vehicle, he was found guilty, he was jailed, he did not get a home visit, so get over it.

We have people saying that it is terrible that this man could not go home during his jail sentence to see his family, they can at least see him in jail regardless of how not nice for the kids it may be, tough on them he did the crime at least serve the time.

The nearest Hayley's mother can get close to her child at Christmas is by going to her graveside.

He is far luckier in that he will have many Christmas's with his family, so what if he has to see them in jail, at least he can see them.

The has only ever been one victim here and that is the person that was killed by his dangerous driving.

Re: This one's going down
 

ok i think it's time we introduced a few facts into this discussion instead of some of the drivel i have been reading from some members

1) police drivers ARE required to use lights and/or siren when engaged in PURSUITS unless "there are special circumstances ".A pursuit is deemed to have started when the target vehicle has "taken off and refused to stop" .Police driver training states that use of lights and sirens is NOT recommended until the police car is in close proximity for tactical reasons i.e in case the target vehicle speeds off ,or verification of the vehicle is needed but is left to the driver to assess the situation
In this case there was NOT a pursuit

2) pc Dougal was responding to a ANPR ping for a passing vehicle that was reported stolen by a previous owner and not updated on the police database .Pc Dougal had been briefed on a stolen car in the scotswood/denton burn area that was being used in robberies at the start of his shift
with this information in mind is it surprising that he did not want to alert the driver of his presence until he could confirm if this was the car he had been briefed about which he could not do until he had caught up with it?

3)Pc Dougal could not inform his command of his intentions because all the communication channels available to Northumbria police were busy ,this has also been confirmed by the second officer involved in the incident and a reccomendation made by the ipcc to look into the matter

4)It has been stated that Hayley was drunk. I said this at the start of the thread (other people have inferred it) but was slapped down as there not being any evidence, well there was ,she was twice the limit .The reason i mention this is to clarify how she came to be crossing the road .Reading the statement of pc Dougal it is quite clear that she saw the police car approach and decided to run across the road in front of the car instead of returning to the path ,this is also backed up with the video .The same group of children Hayleywas with were "honked at" by the renault megan as it passed them because they were too close to the road

5)The first words spoken by pc Dougal after the incident were, according to witnesses, "I'm not denying it, it was my fault" .According to his own statement and that of other witnesses he has never denied it was his fault .Some members have suggested he tried to lie his way out of it ,I would suggest that you stop reading emotive articles from the tabloids or a one sided view from the family they are obviously biased .Some of the witnesses (children Hayley was out with at the time) suggested the two police cars were "playing racies" up the street ,this was based on the fact that the street was quiet and there were no other cars ,these are the sort of people the press interviewed .It has been confirmed by the ipcc using all the data including the gps tracker on both police cars that they were NOT "playing racies"up the street

All of this information has been taken from the ipcc's own findings in there final report on the incident which can be read in full here and i suggest a few do
http://www.ipcc.gov.uk/adamson_redacted_19june-2.pdf

It must be mentioned that in my opinion the rules of conduct regarding police chases allowes too much for the driver to assess ,i do believe that some decision has to be made by the driver but it does tend to put all the onus on the driver and not with the force in general when things go wrong ,i feel that the rules for chasing other cars is far to open to interpretation ..usually when the driver is under pressure and is required to make split second decisions
It must also be pointed out that the Police federation has been campaigning and is on record as saying that all cars fitted with APNR systems should be dual manned

This post is in no way intended to support any guilt or innocence ,that has already been decided,and i have made my views well known in this thread , it is purely to correct some common misconceptions about the case and to provide some insight into the thinking behind pc Dougals' actions

Re: This one's going down
 

Well I love the way the use of the words can be altered to fit a certain group.

AskOxford and Pursuit simply means the act of pursuing so you expand the search for a verb and it says

so was this police officer following in order to catch this car or not? if the answer is yes then irrelevant of what the old bill say he was in a pursuit

Obviously of course your over sanctimonious attack by saying anyone who does not agree with your point of view as drivel is not agreed with in the courts of this land so I simply say Pah to you

Re: This one's going down
 

that is the police definition ..if you bothered to read
and if a few facts upset any body ..TOUGH

Re: This one's going down
 

You aint likely to upset me matey ;)

sorry I use English not Police English ;)

Re: This one's going down
 

It all comes down to the not using the blue lights and siren for why he got locked up.

Re: This one's going down
 

that seems to be the case ,the trouble is there are 2 conflicting methods that the officers are trained to use which i feel can be an issue as this case proves ,maybe it should be updated to mean lights and sirens at all times?not just for emergency calls or high speed pursuits

Re: This one's going down
 

Reading the facts you linked to has done nothing bar given me the chills when it comes to the Northumbrian Police force and how they sent to coppers out in vehicles that should have been manned by 2 officers. If they were not equiped to enter into a "pursuit" then the individual officers should not have even attempted to aprehend this vehicle

Re: This one's going down
 

I personally think the blue lights at the least should be used when driving well over the speed limit. there shouldn't be no stealth mode at high speeds.

Re: This one's going down
 

Easy enough to say zing but when you are the bloke at the bottom of the pile it's a bit difficult to stand up to those at the top.Remember the police are not allowed to strike and this leaves very little leverage when it comes to working conditions and demanding that certain conditions are met.:erm: