Re: Scott Moore found guilty : Thu Mar 08, 2018 1:26 pm  

JINJER wrote:

Just out of interest FIL, have I watched too many crime dramas but I thought for public safety police gave up on chases like this to protect the public?

Maybe so but wasn't the S Moore chase at something like 4am when most people were in bed?

Re: Scott Moore found guilty : Thu Mar 08, 2018 1:50 pm  

JINJER wrote:

Just out of interest FIL, have I watched too many crime dramas but I thought for public safety police gave up on chases like this to protect the public?

I've had a word with my brother who is a rozzer (but not a traffic one tbh) and he says that as far as he's aware they need clearance from the duty traffic officer at HQ to commence a high speed chase though 99.9% of the time that's a given.

As for folk being in danger, when the guy is already travelling at 135mph in a built up area which is how I read it, then he already is a danger to the public so chasing and attempting to stop him is the only option.

Re: Scott Moore found guilty : Thu Mar 08, 2018 10:43 pm  

FIL wrote:

Sorry pal but that is out of order....I've been a "traffic rozzer" for the past 23 years :

Slightly O/T but just out of interest roughly how many cyclists have you pulled up for having no lights during darkness hours?

Re: Scott Moore found guilty : Thu Mar 08, 2018 11:03 pm  

wildshot wrote:

Maybe so but wasn't the S Moore chase at something like 4am when most people were in bed?

3-55 AM mate. Get your facts right

Re: Scott Moore found guilty : Thu Mar 08, 2018 11:06 pm  

vastman wrote:

Without doubt after 20 years posting on these forums that is the dumbest post ever. I'm no snowflake and I accept boys and girls will be boys at times but come off it.

We all make balls up, yeah we do but the definition of a balls up is massivly different between you and normal folk. Doing 55mph in a 50 is a balls up, getting involved in a bit of pushing and shoving in a pub is a bit of a balls up.

What Moore did is the act a a nutcase, end of, the blokes an animal and will only get worse now he's lost one outlet for his lunacy.

As for keeping us in SL for christ sake what's that got to do with anything. Had Jeffrey Damar been a world class half back would you have praised him despite the fact he kept eating his team mates! Get real.

Surprisingly for a Cas fan I do agree with a lot of your posts. I agree with this one whole heartedly as well but its the first time I've realised you have a sense of humour and it made me laugh.

Re: Scott Moore found guilty : Fri Mar 09, 2018 3:39 pm  

At the commencement of a pursuit, all officers get officially reminded of their obligations under the pursuit criteria...Initial Phase Pursuit for standard driving permits (beat officers) and T-Pac authority for Advanced (Traffic) permits. The pursuing officer has then to keep the control room supervisor informed as to the safety and progress of the pursuit (via the radio) as it continues. If the pursuit AT ANY TIME becomes unsafe, then either party must abort the pursuit. The helicopter frequently assists, obviously, so this provides a live downlink to the control room supervisor who can then view the pursuit in live time and we have now got a new in-car CCTV system that can also provide a live link to the control room too.
Suffice to say that safety is paramount at all times but the risk threat can change in an instant and that's when people can get hurt.

Re: Scott Moore found guilty : Fri Mar 09, 2018 3:46 pm  

vastman wrote:

I've had a word with my brother who is a rozzer (but not a traffic one tbh) and he says that as far as he's aware they need clearance from the duty traffic officer at HQ to commence a high speed chase though 99.9% of the time that's a given.

As for folk being in danger, when the guy is already travelling at 135mph in a built up area which is how I read it, then he already is a danger to the public so chasing and attempting to stop him is the only option.

That's incorrect Vasty...if the pursuit becomes too dangerous, then it will be aborted by either the control room supervisor or the pursuing officer, otherwise the pursuing officer could also be deemed to be driving dangerously and could also be liable to prosecution !!. In aborting the pursuit, the responsibility is then placed back solely on the fleeing driver.

Re: Scott Moore found guilty : Fri Mar 09, 2018 3:51 pm  

Wollo-Wollo-Wollo-Wayoo wrote:

Slightly O/T but just out of interest roughly how many cyclists have you pulled up for having no lights during darkness hours?

I've pulled quite a few but all have been told to get off the road and acquire some lights and hi-vis clothing

Re: Scott Moore found guilty : Fri Mar 09, 2018 4:07 pm  

FIL wrote:

I've pulled quite a few but all have been told to get off the road and acquire some lights and hi-vis clothing

No more than what I'm doing then. No doubt they take similar amount of notice.

Re: Scott Moore found guilty : Fri Mar 09, 2018 4:32 pm  

Correct