General Chat

Kay, stealing a car is a criminal offence,

failing to stop is another offence

Speeding is another offence

The fact that people make a conscious decision to do all three should not put the blame on the police in any way shape or form,

Far too many criminals use the driving like lunatics in order to deter the police because they no that if THEY the criminal make it too dangerous the police will let them go, even with pursuit training

If they had a clear message that the police would continue regardless then maybe most of these criminals would think twice before putting their foot down

We either want them to catch the criminals and enforce the law or we don't

Roy

last but one company i worked for one of the lads there got killed whilst in a stolen car that crashed
his girl friend tried to organise a collection for flowers but had to give up as few people were willing to give

The compensation was for Iestyn, the 7 year old son.

The police admitted they had broken the law.

Their own black box showed a speed within their vehicle in excess of 90mph. The driver had not been trained in high speed pursuits. He was asked to stand down.

The police all had written warnings for breaking procedures. They have procedures for catching speedsters which anyone can see on Police Camera Action. Those procedures do not allow for any police driver to chase somebody at speed. Quite sensibly, in my view. Yes, Gins, Daily Mail stirring once again :-( :-(

What has all this waffle about a young man stealing and driving at 97mph and endangering life got to do with ANY of that? You could argue that little Iestyn got very little compensation for losing a father.

So John You are really saying that members of the public if they were hit and killed by the car which was driven by a young man who should have known better don't matter.just his son..

What a load of tosh you spout.

Sadly that little boy would still have a father if the father had not stolen a car then tried to get away from the Police

Am I saying that? No, of course I am not, Sue.

I would love to side with you and Roy and say that compensation should not have been paid to the son. For precisely the reasons you are giving. But I could not see any logic for taking up that position.

Neither could anybody else who has looked deeply into this case. Are they all talking a load of tosh? What are your reasons for disagreeing with the police internal and external procedures?

The 'waffle', as you so eloquently put it John, is about a young man who stole a car, drove it recklessly at high speed and endangered the life of his young son in the process, without any thought for his welfare, or indeed the child's future without a father.

John, Yes, His son is a victim of his fathers crime as are all the children with fathers and mothers serving a prison term and i know their are procedures they have to follow but I doubt the compensation would have been paid had the officers had the relevant pursuit training these officers would have been told to back off because they didn't have the relevant training so for me it goes back to what I said earlier If pursuit training is the main problem then maybe all officers should have to pass such training to be a serving office?


Roy

Edit, With fathers like him what sort of roll model would he have been and how would that have affected the young lad once he had grown up? follow in dads footsteps perhaps, Its not always a given that a biological father is better than another man or even no father at all

I can understand people getting emotional over this issue, Wend. Yes, father of little Iestyn was allegedly breaking the law all over the place. That is not the subject of any of this enquiry or compensation package for Iestyn. He did not have anyone in speeding car with him, as far as I can see from article I posted from BBC News - which may have a more objective analysis than Daily Mail.

Reason for this enquiry was that untrained police officers had been proven to have driven over 90mph without much training and without any authority. Local MP and/or father believe they should have been fined for speeding (almost an automatic ban at that ridiculous speed), that the compensation should have been much higher and that the police put the public in enormous danger. Note, not the pursued. THE PURSUERS. They were the ones being investigated and found guilty.

How the young man should or would have been dealt with is another matter entirely in my view. That was discussed ad nauseum four years ago.

Roy. If we are discussing whether the police should all be trained to drive at high speed and perhaps also all carry guns, that is taking this debate to a new level.

And I think I would tend to agree it needs to be looked at. The fact that no trained driver or (for that matter) no helicopter was after this fleeing car may be the problem.

It must have been frustrating to be so close to catching a villain when he "took off". The odds did seem to be stacked against police in S Wales in 2009. Possibly much the same today.

John.

We are NOT discussing the police wether they all should be trained to drive in pursuits or not.

Nolls put this thread up about the compensation issue not about wether the police were wrong or not.

If the silly bloody young man hadn't nicked the car and sped away and killed himself.
There would have been no need for the compensation.

I wasn't saying that the I disagree with police procedures but I do disagree with paying compensation to a child.

If we had to pay compensation to prisoners families for locking them up the coffers would be emptier than they are now.

Sue. Not only have you insulted me and my "tosh", as you call it. You have insulted the Police Complaints Commission and indeed the local police authority who dealt with this case.

And you are assuming the father of Iestyn was guilty. Are you sure he was guilty? Are you sure you have all the facts to judge anyone guilty in these circumstances. He died as innocent as I assume you are, after being chased for 12 miles and pursuing officers being told to "stand down"

He was not found guilty of breaking the law, neither was his little son. Five police officers were found guilty and punished. Aberavon MP Hywel Francis has supported the family's call for the way South Wales Police handled the case to be reviewed and has called on Alun Michael (Police Commissioner) to arrange a review.

Now please explain why you support the pursuing police in these particular circumstances.:-S :-S

The other half of Nolls OP is about Suffolk Police paying out compensation to their own staff for personal injuries. Over £300,000 in a year. No idea how that compares to other forces or other companies of a similar size.

The biggest successful claim – for £130,845 – came in August 2010 when a member of force staff fell in a store room and fractured a hip.

The Daily Mail (in their inimitable way) picked up a £13,000 award for a big toe hurt in H & S training.

I have seen examples of NHS 50 years ago giving huge compo to somebody who slipped on a wet floor and broke her hip and could not work again at age of 50. The compo more or less gave her half pay till she would have retired at age of 60.

The facts might prove these police compensation claims were all fair (they were presumably all "settled"). But that would not stop the Daily Mail digging up long buried stories to provide dramatic and emotional headlines :-(

John,
Where in my post have I insulted the police in any shape or form.


I should think his girlfriend's mother would have reoported the car stolen
to the police and I don't asume anything NOT like you do.

Like you John I wouldn't have all the facts of the case and as for the local police investigating the case against their own police.

Well the case should have been investigated by another police force not their own.

He died because he stole a car that DID NOT BELONG TO HIM and he was driving
no-one else.
Even if the police did stop and not carry on in pursuit he may have still got killed.


Just think of all the offences that he committed and if he had lived he would have gone down for a long time.


Nolls only mentioned 2 cases for compensation.


So why oh why do you have to add other compensation claims that have nothing to do with the thread.

Sue. Cannot really see logic of what you have written at all. Am trying hard to understand your point.

The Police Complaints Commission reviewed this case, as they do in all cases where a suspect is killed. Is that wrong, in your view?

He was a "loveable rogue" (according to his dad and friends) who stole a friends car, had a can of beer and some amphetamines. Are you seriously saying he would have been put behind bars for that?

The Police admitted they had broken the law and admitted liability. If I understand it, the only question is how much compensation is his innocent and fatherless young son entitled to. How much would you have offered if you had been the local police force legal adviser, Sue?

You seem to want to attack both the dead driver and me. As if it was us who broke internal rules and were found guilty of breaking the law. Both of us are innocent until proven guilty - at least in South Wales.

John,

The trouble with you is you don't want to see past your own point of view and think you are always right just because it happened in Wales.

As fot the PCC investigating the case I have no problem with that at all.

Of course the family will say a "Lovable Rogue" but even lovable rogues commit crimes which end up either killing someone else or themselves.

And I have NOT attacked you or the young man.

My last word on this subject is look in the REALWORLD.

And by the way you have put Nolls off of posting anymore and she has been on this site as long as you.

Her first time back in a few years.

No Sue I'm OK and I endorse everything you say however as we are just getting ready to go out (for afternoon tea at Betty's of Harrogate, thanks for a lovely Christmas present - hope it's not too fascist a place for some....sorry not called for! lol) I will be answering when I come back !

You told me I was talking tosh and you swore, Sue. I think I have put my point of view as fairly as I can. The police agree with me. The Police Complaints Commission agree with me. The family of the dead driver agree with me.

So you seem to be saying we are all talking tosh and you are talking good sense. You even say that it should have been investigated by another police force. I totally agree, but I seem to remember a few years ago that police could investigate within own force - probably when this occurred 4 years ago. And that is probably why the local MP wants to open the investigation to review the level of compensation to the infant son.

The police broke their own rules...if they do that and it leads to an accident death or injury...they pay out.

If they keep their own rules, and it leads to an accident, death or injury...then they don't pay out.

Isn't it actually that simple? You can't change that just to 'fit', it has to be the same rule for all, however unpalatable. imo.