Hit and run driver-Can police withhold info?

Stoke

AndyMc..... wrote: »

You fit the stereotype Daily Mail anti police mob quite well don’t you?

You’ve resulted to insults and accusations without a shred of evidence.

There’s one fundamental flaw in the case of your “friend” that you clearly chose not to see. Aren’t you clever enough to see it or do you chose not to?

Good luck Stoke, keep working hard paying your taxes as it obviously funds my lifestyle very well.

Listen mate, I'm not a copper. If there's a gaping and obvious reason why the police wouldn't at least attempt to prosecute the men who attacked my mate, feel free to tell me. It might even give me some understanding as to why they didn't even try. I'm open minded (unlike most daily mail readers and yourself).

AndyMc.....

Stoke wrote: »

Listen mate, I'm not a copper. If there's a gaping and obvious reason why the police wouldn't at least attempt to prosecute the men who attacked my mate, feel free to tell me. It might even give me some understanding as to why they didn't even try. I'm open minded (unlike most daily mail readers and yourself).

They could be various reasons, unlike yourself I’ll give a balance view.

One obvious reason that you have come to is they can’t be arsed. If the assault is as serious as you say that would mean various departments within the police are corrupt. If you think that’s the answer we’ll bear in mind that will include civilian contractors who will be out of a job if crime reduces or the police can be trusted to do things properly.

The second is down to money, your mate Dave would be to blame but then if the assault was that serious then it’s unlikely.

The third reason and most likely is the evidence is flawed, identification appears to be an issue and the offenders were never identified.

You have chosen to believe the police have lied rather than a soldier on the gate talking to some nosy so and so asking questions about their mates.

As for the cctv, I haven’t seen it, don’t know the quality. Maybe it was circulated and no one identified the suspects.

What I do find amusing about you is you keep barking up the wrong tree. The police are far worse than you think they are. No don’t say you don’t find that worrying.

AndyMc.....

Stoke wrote: »

Hahahahahahahahahahahaha. Ok bud.

Keep on top coppering.

You’re old enough to vote.

Stoke

AndyMc..... wrote: »

They could be various reasons, unlike yourself I!!!8217;ll give a balance view.

One obvious reason that you have come to is they can!!!8217;t be arsed. If the assault is as serious as you say that would mean various departments within the police are corrupt. If you think that!!!8217;s the answer we!!!8217;ll bear in mind that will include civilian contractors who will be out of a job if crime reduces or the police can be trusted to do things properly.

The second is down to money, your mate Dave would be to blame but then if the assault was that serious then it!!!8217;s unlikely.

The third reason and most likely is the evidence is flawed, identification appears to be an issue and the offenders were never identified.

You have chosen to believe the police have lied rather than a soldier on the gate talking to some nosy so and so asking questions about their mates.

As for the cctv, I haven!!!8217;t seen it, don!!!8217;t know the quality. Maybe it was circulated and no one identified the suspects.

What I do find amusing about you is you keep barking up the wrong tree. The police are far worse than you think they are. No don!!!8217;t say you don!!!8217;t find that worrying.

So by a balanced view, you mean the view from the brain of a copper? Oki doki.

I would say the assault was serious enough that one or more of the five involved deserved prosecuting. I've never been one to come down hard on petty criminals, however this was not a petty crime. My friend was signed off work for several weeks (I believe 5 in total). Had the paramedics been correct in their assumptions and he had bled on the brain, he could have been much worse off. The fact he wasn't worse is down to luck, rather than mercy from those involved.

My mate 'Dave' (his name was Dan, so not a bad guess) would be to blame about money? What are you talking about?

You say the evidence is flawed, but from where I'm standing the police didn't seem to make any attempt to gather evidence. What happened to the days of building a case?

OK, I'll give the policeman I spoke to the benefit of the doubt. Let's say for arguments sake he got his wires crossed and actually they didn't visit the Barracks because they felt it was a dead end.

The CCTV was obtained (at some difficulty) from the council. This wasn't some crappy shops poxy eBay camera. The camera I speak of, is one of the very few council installed cameras in the area. The video quality was probably as good as you are going to get from a CCTV. I would have thought the aim of this camera was to capture things like anti-social behaviour, drug dealing and violent crime. If that isn't the point, what is the point? To keep wrong-thinkers in line? The police watched the footage and agreed that it showed 5 men attacking my friend. To their credit, the police at no point doubted what had happened to my friend (unlike you two, lol) or even my version of events (not that I'm a credible witness, I turned up afterwards). However, having seen what they saw from the footage and having visited my badly beaten friend in hospital, it astounds me that they seemed to make such little effort to actually deliver some kind of punishment.

I don't believe the CCTV was ever circulated. Quite frankly, after I obtained it, I felt the police officers I spoke to were generally hostile towards the idea of even viewing it, let alone actually doing anything with it. My opinion of course, I would imagine it differs to yours. I understand that police officers will have many things going on, not just the welfare of my friend.

Individual officers acted reasonably, hence my point about not all coppers being bad, however I can only judge the police as an institution and specifically from how they dealt with this particular case. I just don't think they dealt with it particularly well. In the immediate aftermath, not only were they slow to arrive (I'll blame that on cuts), but they made no attempt to actually do anything while the iron was hot. Call it the golden hour. There's no chance those men could have gotten very far, even when the police had arrived. After the people came out of the pub, they ran towards the taxi rank, which makes sense as there would have been no busses at that time. The taxi rank is a good 30 minutes away from where they were (opposite end of the town). Had the police been on their toes, they could have maybe even picked them up when they arrived at the Barracks. Surely an officer is allowed to ask a group of 5 men what they had been up to that evening?

I've said all I'm going to say. I don't believe for one second you'll change your opinion. You clearly think I'm some Daily Mail reading Northern air head.

As for why I hadn't 'bashed them' for being soldiers, well I couldn't care if they bloody mathematicians or geologists or scientists or strippers..... I honestly don't care. The reason I mentioned their occupation is because, like most squaddies, they live in a singe location, making the task of actually finding them significantly easier than perhaps had they hopped off 40 miles down the road to a different city. Nothing to do with me being a St George waving nutter. Thanks again though.

AndyMc.....

Stoke wrote: »

So by a balanced view, you mean the view from the brain of a copper? Oki doki.

No balanced, unlike you I can see both sides.

I would say the assault was serious enough that one or more of the five involved deserved prosecuting. I've never been one to come down hard on petty criminals, however this was not a petty crime. My friend was signed off work for several weeks (I believe 5 in total). Had the paramedics been correct in their assumptions and he had bled on the brain, he could have been much worse off. The fact he wasn't worse is down to luck, rather than mercy from those involved.I’ve not said it wasn’t serious, but legally you’re now taking actual bodily harm. By current recording standards the same as a slap with more than momentarily pain.

My mate 'Dave' (his name was Dan, so not a bad guess) would be to blame about money? What are you talking about? David Cameron.

You say the evidence is flawed, but from where I'm standing the police didn't seem to make any attempt to gather evidence. What happened to the days of building a case?
Idenfification and you did arrive 40 minutes after the incident.

OK, I'll give the policeman I spoke to the benefit of the doubt. Let's say for arguments sake he got his wires crossed and actually they didn't visit the Barracks because they felt it was a dead end.Yet again you can’t let it drop, so you’re saying the police lied to you and not the squaddies mate on the gate.

The CCTV was obtained (at some difficulty) from the council. This wasn't some crappy shops poxy eBay camera. The camera I speak of, is one of the very few council installed cameras in the area. The video quality was probably as good as you are going to get from a CCTV. I would have thought the aim of this camera was to capture things like anti-social behaviour, drug dealing and violent crime. If that isn't the point, what is the point? To keep wrong-thinkers in line? The police watched the footage and agreed that it showed 5 men attacking my friend. To their credit, the police at no point doubted what had happened to my friend (unlike you two, lol) or even my version of events (not that I'm a credible witness, I turned up afterwards). However, having seen what they saw from the footage and having visited my badly beaten friend in hospital, it astounds me that they seemed to make such little effort to actually deliver some kind of punishment.
If it’s so easy why didn’t you either tell the police who the offenders were or find them yourself?

I don't believe the CCTV was ever circulated. Quite frankly,
after I obtained it, I felt the police officers I spoke to were generally hostile towards the idea of even viewing it, let alone actually doing anything with it. My opinion of course, I would imagine it differs to yours. I understand that police officers will have many things going on, not just the welfare of my friend.
You’ll never know, odds on it was as it’s the easiest way to file a crime pending developments.

Individual officers acted reasonably, hence my point about not all coppers being bad, however I can only judge the police as an institution and specifically from how they dealt with this particular case. I just don't think they dealt with it particularly well. In the immediate aftermath, not only were they slow to arrive (I'll blame that on cuts), but they made no attempt to actually do anything while the iron was hot. Call it the golden hour. There's no chance those men could have gotten very far, even when the police had arrived. After the people came out of the pub, they ran towards the taxi rank, which makes sense as there would have been no busses at that time. The taxi rank is a good 30 minutes away from where they were (opposite end of the town). Had the police been on their toes, they could have maybe even picked them up when they arrived at the Barracks. Surely an officer is allowed to ask a group of 5 men what they had been up to that evening? So if the individual officers were ok who was bad? By the time you got there they could of been 40 miles away.

I've said all I'm going to say. I don't believe for one second you'll change your opinion. You clearly think I'm some Daily Mail reading Northern air head.

As for why I hadn't 'bashed them' for being soldiers, well I couldn't care if they bloody mathematicians or geologists or scientists or strippers..... I honestly don't care. The reason I mentioned their occupation is because, like most squaddies, they live in a singe location, making the task of actually finding them significantly easier than perhaps had they hopped off 40 miles down the road to a different city. Nothing to do with me being a St George waving nutter. Thanks again though.

Daily Mail reader or narrow minded maybe but you’re expectations are way too high.

Stoke

No balanced, unlike you I can see both sides.

With respect, I only have your word for that. You're unlikely to be objective, you're a policeman.

I!!!8217;ve not said it wasn!!!8217;t serious, but legally you!!!8217;re now taking actual bodily harm. By current recording standards the same as a slap with more than momentarily pain.

So, I've Googled both ABH and GBH and briefly read up the two crimes. You could easily interpret what happened to my friend as GBH, as he was left with serious injuries and while they were not life-threatening, they could have been. That said, on balance, it's probably ABH, or somewhere between ABH and GBH. Obviously that isn't how the justice system works, therefore it's ABH. That said, if ABH is considered as trivial as a slap, then it really does undersell the beating my friend took, for absolutely no reason.

David Cameron

LOL, don't blame me. I've never voted Conservative in my life.

Idenfification and you did arrive 40 minutes after the incident.

Isn't that what the police are there to find out? Not just give up at the first hurdle? What happened to trying to solve an actual case, or do they have to be so simple these days?

If it!!!8217;s so easy why didn!!!8217;t you either tell the police who the offenders were or find them yourself?

The police are able to obtain things I can't, like interviews with soldiers who went out that evening. They are afforded those powers, so they can use them when necessary. I would say this was a necessary case, they didn't feel the same way.

AndyMc..... wrote: »

Daily Mail reader or narrow minded maybe but you!!!8217;re expectations are way too high.

My expectations is that the police do slightly more than the bare minimum when someone is viciously assaulted. I can assure you, I do not read the Daily Mail. I might be from Stoke, but it doesn't mean I eat McDonald's everyday and watch Love Island with a copy of the Mail on Sunday from last month.

AndyMc.....

Stoke wrote: »

With respect, I only have your word for that. You're unlikely to be objective, you're a policeman.
If you say I am then is that another assumption of your?

So, I've Googled both ABH and GBH and briefly read up the two crimes. You could easily interpret what happened to my friend as GBH, as he was left with serious injuries and while they were not life-threatening, they could have been. That said, on balance, it's probably ABH, or somewhere between ABH and GBH. Obviously that isn't how the justice system works, therefore it's ABH. That said, if ABH is considered as trivial as a slap, then it really does undersell the beating my friend took, for absolutely no reason.
Red it again, it’s abh, the could have killed him but they didn’t. Bruising and soft tissue injuries are abh.


My expectations is that the police do slightly more than the bare minimum when someone is viciously assaulted. But someone greater than us both have decided the bare minimum is acceptable.I can assure you, I do not read the Daily Mail. I might be from Stoke, but it doesn't mean I eat McDonald's everyday and watch Love Island with a copy of the Mail on Sunday from last month.

Like I said, you’re part of the problem.

Stoke

AndyMc..... wrote: »

Like I said, you’re part of the problem.

Andy, I can assure you... I'm not the one cutting resources, I do pay my taxes and I'm not involved in any crime whatsoever. I'm not the problem, or even part of it.

What I am, is a dissenting voice and rather than looking inwards, the police have a history of doubling down.

AndyMc.....

Stoke wrote: »

Andy, I can assure you... I'm not the one cutting resources, I do pay my taxes and I'm not involved in any crime whatsoever. I'm not the problem, or even part of it.

What I am, is a dissenting voice and rather than looking inwards, the police have a history of doubling down.

I’m not sure what you mean by that.

Stoke

AndyMc..... wrote: »

I’m not sure what you mean by that.

You know? Closing ranks? Doubling down? When you're wrong, you're still right.... etc etc.