Originally Posted by Maggy J (Post 34936029)

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:

Originally Posted by Moldova (Post 34936032)

So Hayley was drunk and she made the error of crossing the road to talk to friends and was halfway across when a speeding car hit her killing her instantaneously.

being drunk is not a reason to be killed but it can be a contributary factor in SOME cases ,however in this case i'm not sure it makes any difference

Also that report states that the was no reason for his blues and two's to be off as the was no pursuit to be alerted and he was just pursuing a vehicle for reasons unknown and said vehicle was doing less than 30MPH..


that's the main discrepancy i found between the drivers training and the ipcc's own code of conduct ,they do tend to conflict with each other and can be interpreted differently which imo is wrong.There should be no room for mis-interpretation of training or rules when lives are at stake

The was actually a group of friends and a 2nd speeding Police car so the could potentially have been a massacre if everyone had decided to cross the road.

agreed ,especially if they decided to do what they sometimes do and play chicken or throw bricks at the cars

Quite an interesting read and the question of drink is only at the start and the rest is focused on the officer not doing his job correctly, nice find.

it does show what happened without the tabloid hype

Just a thought as it says restricted all over that document are you allowed to post it in a public forum for everyone to see considering the amount of detail in the PDF.

Originally Posted by martyh (Post 34936049)

Originally Posted by zing (Post 34936038)

well if he used common sense realised he was not in a position to enter a "pursuit" even if he caught up with the car then the girl would be alive today

One point I raise about what is in the report

He says he approached a hill and saw people there at the top. Now a reasonable man may consider that there could be people the other side of the hill also and slow down a little just in case however he went flying over the hill with noway of seeing what was on the other side at at least 87 mph. This basically meant he had no chance of stopping no matter what was on the other side of this hill. The report also states if he had been traveling at 30 mph he would have been able to stop

Originally Posted by Moldova (Post 34936052)

I asked with it being restricted and I posted the link with the highlighted section.

That report does put the blame nice and squarely on his shoulders though.

No reasons not to use his lights and sirens.

No reasons to speed.

Actually he may well have rammed the Megane if he had not hit Hayley as they were so close to the incident.

Originally Posted by martyh (Post 34936054)

in reference to your above post zing i feel i must in fairness say that knowing the area well as i do there are always young kids and teenagers roaming the streets untill the early hours (usually upto no good)and in the report on the officers admision he knows the area well so one would assume he knows this ,i was surprised when watching the video how few kids there were on that road

Originally Posted by Gary L (Post 34939210)

What do they care? he's not a police officer anymore.

Originally Posted by Chris (Post 34939223)

I'd have thought it obvious that any organisation made up of coppers would be interested in how coppers and ex-coppers are treated, should they find themselves in prison. :confused: