Shoot dogs, help me?

Use this board for general non-cycling-related chat, or to introduce yourself to the forum.
Pebble
Posts: 1930
Joined: 7 Jun 2020, 11:59pm

Re: Shoot dogs, help me?

Post by Pebble »

Police need to start dealing with these electric motor bikes and adapted electric bicycles. They're becoming a serious problem, I nearly got wiped out on footpath on tyneside at the begging of the year, youth doing 40-50mph, on a footpath. And I see them all the time in Edinburgh.

Sadly this incident will have the police doing even less, difficult to imagine that the police could do less, but it will happen.
Carlton green
Posts: 3626
Joined: 22 Jun 2019, 12:27pm

Re: Shoot dogs, help me?

Post by Carlton green »

francovendee wrote: 26 May 2023, 7:58am
Tangled Metal wrote: 25 May 2023, 1:40pm That south Wales incident was about the police following kids on a bike and causing a crash that killed one, right? Police denied following and social media conspiracies had it that they were still following at time of crash I believe. However cctv and other footage shows the kids going one way and police tracker showing it going the other.

I think that's a case of police denying something when better coming clean but the accusers also making stuff up on social media. The whole situation isn't clear cut and is also undergoing independent investigation.

I know it's unlikely to be popular on here, but I do think there is a tendency for ppl to see videos or social reporting on social media and making judgements more based on their own prejudices and social conscience. There's no desire to give independent review the chance to get to the truth, there's the viewer's truth and that's enough for you.

Police are everything from criminal to virtuous and everything in between. No different to us then I guess.
It's a tragedy when someone gets killed and it's more comforting to blame someone. What doesn't seem to be mentioned is why the two were being followed, before or at the time of the crash. I assume they were arousing suspicion or breaking the law?
Agreed, however the origin of this thread drift was of examples of how the Police too often respond badly to situations and how they can’t be trusted to be honest about all their actions. I say that whilst respecting the Police and being glad of their presence; perfection is neither possible or practical but, for whatever reasons, policing is not all of what it should be.

Some years back I witnessed a police officer dealing with a distressed, not so able and a little drunk person and, to be honest, concluded that the Constable was little better than a thug in uniform. I’m not a bleeding heart softie so if I was surprised others would have been horrified. Was my observation a one off? I don’t know but too many chance conversations here and there, with respectable folk too, indicate that there’s something wrong.
Don’t fret, it’s OK to: ride a simple old bike; ride slowly, walk, rest and admire the view; ride off-road; ride in your raincoat; ride by yourself; ride in the dark; and ride one hundred yards or one hundred miles. Your bike and your choices to suit you.
Psamathe
Posts: 17616
Joined: 10 Jan 2014, 8:56pm

Re: Shoot dogs, help me?

Post by Psamathe »

Tangled Metal wrote: 25 May 2023, 4:26pm The CCTV was earlier, they broke off some time before the crash and went in a different direction. That was shown on. ....
That does not change the fact that the police started telling us all lies (that they were not involved before the riots. They were "found out" by the private CCTV and (after a few days of bad PR because of it) "changed their story".
Tangled Metal wrote: 25 May 2023, 4:26pm ...
Police aren't the only occupation where bad apples are serious. There's a case going through the courts now of an alleged bad apple nurse. These people are human like everyone else and yes I too think these people should be the best of us not the average or worst. However humans mess up and do all sorts of stupid things to mitigate their mistakes. Plus they do absolute wrong.

However I suppose it's likely to be the want of people on this forum to be more critical of the police considering the political leanings of the political thread participants.
That is just "whataboutism". It changes nothing in relation to trust of Police.

A few years ago I'd have trusted Police story and be reacting like you are. But last few years as how the Police operate is emerging I've gradually lost all trust in them.

Ian
Psamathe
Posts: 17616
Joined: 10 Jan 2014, 8:56pm

Re: Shoot dogs, help me?

Post by Psamathe »

Tangled Metal wrote: 26 May 2023, 12:05am
Bonefishblues wrote: 25 May 2023, 4:55pm The reason they broke off was that the kids turned down a road with bollards at the end and therefore the van had to take a different route, it is widely understood.
True but still they were not at the site of the accident so what exactly is the issue, that they were following the kids for some reason them denied it? They certainly weren't directly involved in the accident. So basically if they'd been honest and stated they had been following and their reasons would that make it any better?
They are never going to be "at the site of the accident" or they would be following far far too close. Maybe a few meters away, maybe half a mile away. I'd guess that in any car chase sometimes chaser has to drop back a bit (maybe they rightly wont take the same risks as the vehicle being pursued). It is that they are being chased that can push the person being chased into greater speed and risks.

For me the issue is that the Police lied to the public about their involvement and what happened and that it took private CCTV to get them to start telling a bit of truth.

Ian
Psamathe
Posts: 17616
Joined: 10 Jan 2014, 8:56pm

Re: Shoot dogs, help me?

Post by Psamathe »

francovendee wrote: 26 May 2023, 7:58am ...
It's a tragedy when someone gets killed and it's more comforting to blame someone. What doesn't seem to be mentioned is why the two were being followed, before or at the time of the crash. I assume they were arousing suspicion or breaking the law?
Re: The Cardiff incident. The thing about this that makes me unhappy is not that the Police were pursuing somebody but that after the crash they thought they could lie to the public about their involvement (even accusing the rumours on Social Media as lies - when they were true) and that it took private CCTV being passed to the press to get the Police to admit as to their real involvement.

It was the lies to cover-up their involvement that is yet another example of Police behaviour.

Ian
mattheus
Posts: 5030
Joined: 29 Dec 2008, 12:57pm
Location: Western Europe

Re: Shoot dogs, help me?

Post by mattheus »

Psamathe wrote: 26 May 2023, 10:07am
It was the lies to cover-up their involvement that is yet another example of Police behaviour.

Ian
[EDIT]: I think it's bad form to go maligning a group, with such a broad brush, with no right of reply here. Some of whom may have been injured during the incident under discussion, whilst defending private individuals and their property. [\EDIT]:

It is clear from your several posts here that you believe the police wholly untrustworthy. I therefore cannot anticipate a balanced discussion with you. However:

you have now made several posts accusing them of lies in Cardiff; please post your evidence. Show me the actual lie, that would be a nice start.
Psamathe
Posts: 17616
Joined: 10 Jan 2014, 8:56pm

Re: Shoot dogs, help me?

Post by Psamathe »

mattheus wrote: 26 May 2023, 12:09pm
Psamathe wrote: 26 May 2023, 10:07am
It was the lies to cover-up their involvement that is yet another example of Police behaviour.

Ian
[EDIT]: I think it's bad form to go maligning a group, with such a broad brush, with no right of reply here. Some of whom may have been injured during the incident under discussion, whilst defending private individuals and their property. [\EDIT]:

It is clear from your several posts here that you believe the police wholly untrustworthy. I therefore cannot anticipate a balanced discussion with you. However:

you have now made several posts accusing them of lies in Cardiff; please post your evidence. Show me the actual lie, that would be a nice start.
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2023/may/24/cardiff-riots-police-commissioner-alun-michael-chase-boys-deaths wrote:On Tuesday morning, Michael claimed the riots in the Ely area of the Welsh capital had followed false rumours spread on social media that Kyrees Sullivan, 16, and Harvey Evans, 15, were killed as police pursued the e-bike they were on.

But later that day, CCTV footage emerged showing a police van following two boys on an e-bike a few minutes before the crash about half a mile away, prompting South Wales police to refer themselves to the police watchdog.
Ian
mattheus
Posts: 5030
Joined: 29 Dec 2008, 12:57pm
Location: Western Europe

Re: Shoot dogs, help me?

Post by mattheus »

Psamathe wrote: 26 May 2023, 12:50pm
mattheus wrote: 26 May 2023, 12:09pm <snip>you have now made several posts accusing them of lies in Cardiff; please post your evidence. Show me the actual lie, that would be a nice start.
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2023/may/24/cardiff-riots-police-commissioner-alun-michael-chase-boys-deaths wrote:On Tuesday morning, Michael claimed the riots in the Ely area of the Welsh capital had followed false rumours spread on social media that Kyrees Sullivan, 16, and Harvey Evans, 15, were killed as police pursued the e-bike they were on.

But later that day, CCTV footage emerged showing a police van following two boys on an e-bike a few minutes before the crash about half a mile away, prompting South Wales police to refer themselves to the police watchdog.
Ian
Ok, well that's a start .. of sorts ... because you don't quote what the police actually said. Bit of a harsh accusation, wouldn't you say? You haven't actually shown me the lie.

Meanwhile, the CCTV footage going round
- is not on the same road as the fatal crash
- shows the motorbike before they sneak through a barrier that the police van couldn't have followed them through. and
- shows a police van following an illegal road vehicle at some distance, not very fast. "pursued" you say? Hmmm ...
Psamathe
Posts: 17616
Joined: 10 Jan 2014, 8:56pm

Re: Shoot dogs, help me?

Post by Psamathe »

mattheus wrote: 26 May 2023, 1:07pm
Psamathe wrote: 26 May 2023, 12:50pm
mattheus wrote: 26 May 2023, 12:09pm <snip>you have now made several posts accusing them of lies in Cardiff; please post your evidence. Show me the actual lie, that would be a nice start.
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2023/may/24/cardiff-riots-police-commissioner-alun-michael-chase-boys-deaths wrote:On Tuesday morning, Michael claimed the riots in the Ely area of the Welsh capital had followed false rumours spread on social media that Kyrees Sullivan, 16, and Harvey Evans, 15, were killed as police pursued the e-bike they were on.

But later that day, CCTV footage emerged showing a police van following two boys on an e-bike a few minutes before the crash about half a mile away, prompting South Wales police to refer themselves to the police watchdog.
Ian
Ok, well that's a start .. of sorts ... because you don't quote what the police actually said. Bit of a harsh accusation, wouldn't you say? You haven't actually shown me the lie.

Meanwhile, the CCTV footage going round
- is not on the same road as the fatal crash
- shows the motorbike before they sneak through a barrier that the police van couldn't have followed them through. and
- shows a police van following an illegal road vehicle at some distance, not very fast. "pursued" you say? Hmmm ...
Sorry you don't like the quote saying how he told untruths. But I don't have time to do more Google searches for you - you could always use google.co.uk yourself.

In terms of "chase" and same road - when 2 vehicles are following each other, the instant one turns at a junction they are "not on the same road"; add a small distance between them and they are "not on the same road" for a bit longer. Somebody earlier commented on bollards being present which could mean a bike followed by a van might not "be on the same road" for even longer.

I'm not saying the Police should not have been pursuing the bike - I have no idea on what grounds they might have been following and no idea about it being justified or not. What has "disappointed" me is that the Police then started saying they had not been following and that the Social Media rumours were untrue - when it was Police statements that were untrue.

Ian
Carlton green
Posts: 3626
Joined: 22 Jun 2019, 12:27pm

Re: Shoot dogs, help me?

Post by Carlton green »

mattheus wrote: 26 May 2023, 1:07pm
Psamathe wrote: 26 May 2023, 12:50pm
mattheus wrote: 26 May 2023, 12:09pm <snip>you have now made several posts accusing them of lies in Cardiff; please post your evidence. Show me the actual lie, that would be a nice start.
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2023/may/24/cardiff-riots-police-commissioner-alun-michael-chase-boys-deaths wrote:On Tuesday morning, Michael claimed the riots in the Ely area of the Welsh capital had followed false rumours spread on social media that Kyrees Sullivan, 16, and Harvey Evans, 15, were killed as police pursued the e-bike they were on.

But later that day, CCTV footage emerged showing a police van following two boys on an e-bike a few minutes before the crash about half a mile away, prompting South Wales police to refer themselves to the police watchdog.
Ian
Ok, well that's a start .. of sorts ... because you don't quote what the police actually said. Bit of a harsh accusation, wouldn't you say? You haven't actually shown me the lie.

Meanwhile, the CCTV footage going round
- is not on the same road as the fatal crash
- shows the motorbike before they sneak through a barrier that the police van couldn't have followed them through. and
- shows a police van following an illegal road vehicle at some distance, not very fast. "pursued" you say? Hmmm ...
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/av/uk-65700564

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/av/uk-wales-65695523

It is clear that there was some pursuit and that official accounts accounts of it have changed as private video footage was presented as evidence.

My suspicion is that the accident was as a result of police action that on another day would have ended without particular injury to anyone. My suspicion is also that there’s a cover-up in process with some officers covering up the true nature of events that day whilst more senior ones will want to know both what actually happened and how the fall-out from it can best be managed.

I always think that Hillsborough tells one all one needs to know about police honesty and willingness to admit errors.
https://www.theguardian.com/football/20 ... h-cover-up
Last edited by Carlton green on 26 May 2023, 1:46pm, edited 1 time in total.
Don’t fret, it’s OK to: ride a simple old bike; ride slowly, walk, rest and admire the view; ride off-road; ride in your raincoat; ride by yourself; ride in the dark; and ride one hundred yards or one hundred miles. Your bike and your choices to suit you.
Tangled Metal
Posts: 9505
Joined: 13 Feb 2015, 8:32pm

Re: Shoot dogs, help me?

Post by Tangled Metal »

Psamathe wrote: 26 May 2023, 9:57am
Tangled Metal wrote: 25 May 2023, 4:26pm The CCTV was earlier, they broke off some time before the crash and went in a different direction. That was shown on. ....
That does not change the fact that the police started telling us all lies (that they were not involved before the riots. They were "found out" by the private CCTV and (after a few days of bad PR because of it) "changed their story".
Tangled Metal wrote: 25 May 2023, 4:26pm ...
Police aren't the only occupation where bad apples are serious. There's a case going through the courts now of an alleged bad apple nurse. These people are human like everyone else and yes I too think these people should be the best of us not the average or worst. However humans mess up and do all sorts of stupid things to mitigate their mistakes. Plus they do absolute wrong.

However I suppose it's likely to be the want of people on this forum to be more critical of the police considering the political leanings of the political thread participants.
That is just "whataboutism". It changes nothing in relation to trust of Police.

A few years ago I'd have trusted Police story and be reacting like you are. But last few years as how the Police operate is emerging I've gradually lost all trust in them.

Ian
Might be whataboutism but it was in response to your police exceptionalism comment. If police must be better than us then so must doctors, nurses, etc. Personally I don't have that naive view that it's even possible. Humans are flawed so we need the means to hold all to account no matter what your job.

PS there's been much discussion about police policing themselves but whilst that's not wholly the case now, it is for many key workers such as nurses, doctors, legal profession and partly for MPs and house of Lords.
Jdsk
Posts: 24478
Joined: 5 Mar 2019, 5:42pm

Re: Shoot dogs, help me?

Post by Jdsk »

Tangled Metal wrote: 26 May 2023, 3:00pmPS there's been much discussion about police policing themselves but whilst that's not wholly the case now, it is for many key workers such as nurses, doctors, legal profession and partly for MPs and house of Lords.
If you think that doctors police themselves then I suggest that you have a look at how the Medical Practitioners Tribunal Service works.

https://www.mpts-uk.org
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medical_P ... al_Service

Jonathan
Tangled Metal
Posts: 9505
Joined: 13 Feb 2015, 8:32pm

Re: Shoot dogs, help me?

Post by Tangled Metal »

If you're talking about Hillsborough deaths of Liverpool fans and the cover up. You should note that police, government and press conspired over that to mislead. Even now I know people who do not completely believe the truth as found by the independent panel. There's also a chant aimed at LFC fans about always being the victim. That whole incident and aftermath, that's still going on courtesy of ignorant football "fans" from rival coins, was on another level to a lot of the examples of poor police behaviour/ decisions mentioned on here.
Tangled Metal
Posts: 9505
Joined: 13 Feb 2015, 8:32pm

Re: Shoot dogs, help me?

Post by Tangled Metal »

Jdsk wrote: 26 May 2023, 3:07pm
Tangled Metal wrote: 26 May 2023, 3:00pmPS there's been much discussion about police policing themselves but whilst that's not wholly the case now, it is for many key workers such as nurses, doctors, legal profession and partly for MPs and house of Lords.
If you think that doctors police themselves then I suggest that you have a look at how the Medical Practitioners Tribunal Service works.

https://www.mpts-uk.org
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medical_P ... al_Service

Jonathan
[https://www.gmc-uk.org/about/what-we-do ... ut-doctors]

Doctors and layperson. I can understand medical expertise is needed due to the often technical information but there's still doctors among those deciding on serious beaches by doctors plus isn't the the MPTS still part of the GMC in that GMC sets the rules such MPTS investigate against. GMC is partly a trade union for doctors too. So imho still doctors policing doctors with layperson.

BTW I've looked at the complaints system within the NHS against doctors. It's a real mess for the layperson imho. So many routes for making complaints. Certainly an opportunity to streamline it to a wholly independent, one stop shop for complaints, investigation and tribunal.
Jdsk
Posts: 24478
Joined: 5 Mar 2019, 5:42pm

Re: Shoot dogs, help me?

Post by Jdsk »

Tangled Metal wrote: 26 May 2023, 3:27pm
Jdsk wrote: 26 May 2023, 3:07pm
Tangled Metal wrote: 26 May 2023, 3:00pmPS there's been much discussion about police policing themselves but whilst that's not wholly the case now, it is for many key workers such as nurses, doctors, legal profession and partly for MPs and house of Lords.
If you think that doctors police themselves then I suggest that you have a look at how the Medical Practitioners Tribunal Service works.

https://www.mpts-uk.org
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medical_P ... al_Service
[https://www.gmc-uk.org/about/what-we-do ... ut-doctors]

Doctors and layperson. I can understand medical expertise is needed due to the often technical information but there's still doctors among those deciding on serious beaches by doctors plus isn't the the MPTS still part of the GMC in that GMC sets the rules such MPTS investigate against. GMC is partly a trade union for doctors too. So imho still doctors policing doctors with layperson.
...
The relation between the GMC and MPTS is unique. The MPTS isn't simply a part of the GMC.

And the GMC isn't a trade union.

Links above for anyone who is interested in how it actually works.

Jonathan
Post Reply