Brit Cops Bike Thieves and the City

I’d welcome a PM to tell me what’s dicreditable about what’s been said. Just re-read it and can’t see anything that I wouldn’t say to the highest ranking Police Officers.

Nobody has said anything untoward, or revealed any sensitive info, so I don’t see what the problem is!? :ermm:

Fully aware thanks and having had a read through there is nothing in this thread that could be stated breaches any of the Discipline and Misconduct Regs.
PM me if you have any concerns instead of us boring the rest of LB with ‘job’ talk.

Possibly he’s referring to the earlier revelation of rampant alcohol abuse by some members of the met? :smiley: :wink:

I’d hardly say a couple of bottles of red wine was rampant! :stuck_out_tongue: :wink:

hmmm why is it any thread that contains police’s methods comes under major fire or police bashing as i call it

but now i propose

One large cage

All intrested parties inside …

X number of persons enter

1 Person only to leave

.bring it on …

have your say in the ring

for or against

just beat the **** out of each other

anything goes

oh yeah thats what started this thread off isn’t it

oh **** it then forget the steel cage just pick a back alley of your own choice …and then make sure you start a thread about it … ps im bored now … wanders off to start a tree hacking thread …

That’s the trouble with you alcoholics, you’re always in denial… :wink:


I don’t think you can ever claim scrutiny of police action as “cop bashing”.

If guidelines exist as to the use of force by the police and the police are clearly not adhering to those guidelines, while being filmed by a docu/drama, then asking ‘why not?’ can hardly be considered cop bashing.

The cops in the show gave the thieves absolutely no opportunity to give up, before they deployed CS gas, I am not even sure they identified themselves, but maybe they did and it wasn’t clear in the video.

I am not sure I am happy (even though this unhappiness is tempered by the fact that it happened to bike thieves and I have very little sympathy for them) with the idea of our police deciding to just use force against people without it being warranted. Sure it is bike thieves today, but what about when it is some 80 year old guy who has heckled Jack Straw tomorrow.

The use of force by the state must be properly controlled and used only when necessary. There was nothing in that film that seemed to indicate that it was necessary for the police to use CS gas in the first instance. The criminals were not known before their arrest, their behaviour and history was not known before the arrests, so there didn’t seem any reason to jump to the conclusion that they would turn violent.

That doesn’t mean the Police can’t have the CS drawn and be ready to deploy it given any sign that violence may be initiated, I have no problem with the Police defending themselves, but to deploy it without any sign of aggression from the criminals appears to go against the guidelines set out for the use of CS gas.

ACPO guidelines are just that. Guidelines.

As for ‘Use of force’ that would be covered more by the particular force policy.

Force policy is what would be referred to in the event of a complaint etc.

Now, i haven’t seen the clip in question but CS is an INCAPACITANT…therefore if an Officer believes an offender has the potential to escalate his/her resistance or may resort to ‘flight’ (i.e leg it) and needs to effect an arrest, and quickly, he may use CS to aid the arrest.

It is up to the deploying officer to justify his actions and where one officer may use CS and another wouldn’t it doesn’t mean one is right and one is wrong as every one has a different perception of another’s behaviour.

FWIW, Kaos I don’t know you, but it appears to me that you must be one of those goody goodies who think scumbags that nick other peoples property or mug old ladies have ‘rights’ get into the real world mate, scum like that just need a good kicking, by who ever has the chance to give it!! end of!!

good work by the police, its good to see they are doing something about it.

I’d have thought the knowledge that the suspects would be tooled up for nicking bikes - i.e. with screwdrivers & hammers (as were indeed found on their scooter) would be justification for using CS to incapacitate them as quickly as possible.

To be honest, neither of them seemed particularly affected by it barely minutes afterwards anyway.

“I’d have thought the knowledge that the suspects would be tooled up for nicking bikes - i.e. with screwdrivers & hammers (as were indeed found on their scooter) would be justification for using CS to incapacitate them as quickly as possible.”

Exactly. I watched the episode and as I remember it the thieves were already screwing the bike over (therefore would have been in possession of a screwdriver/hammer etc), and as I recall their initial reaction to the officer’s arrival was not clear on the video. And as for helmets being a hindrance to the thieves (as per another previous post), well a helmet is also a nice bit of kit to deliver a headbutt.

Incapacitants like CS are actually a much safer (and a lower level of) use of force than using batons or other physical forms of restraint. It looks bad, but will generally result in a much lower risk of injury to the subject, officers and passing members of the public. What’s better - get into a roll-around and have the (poor, misunderstood) subject end up with scratches, bruises/broken fingers etc while you try and prise the screwdriver from him in the hope you don’t get stabbed for your trouble, or spray some painful but otherwise harmless CS in the eyes (and have people look on and say, ‘ooh, how terrible’)?

My initial risk assessment would say - use the gas.

I am training to be a Lawyer Busa55, and although I am quite right wing in my crime and punishment outlook, I do have to remain on the right side of “legal” and “professional” when talking about legal matters. I also express a more legal ideal then a personal opinion when talking about the law most of the time.

I tend to disagree with the view of “scum like that just need a good kicking” as who is to do the kicking? Me? You? Government Agents? Nah I don’t think that is a good idea.

People do have rights, regardless of what they have done. Some you can take away but some rights are absolute. It isn’t even for their benefit either, which is the odd thing, it is for our benefit.


However, I do admit to a tingle of schadenfreude as the scrotes were sprayed with CS. Hope they inhaled!

Well with a legal mind then how on earth did you come to this conclusion ?

At no stage in the video do can you hear what anyone is saying.
At no stage in the video can you see what is taking place at the point of ‘hands on’.
The Officers and suspects are out of view which clearly means that you nor I can see the reaction of the suspects on being approached. You nor I can tell what opportunity they were given. It may have been a case of an officer taking hold of an arm, stating they were Police and the suspects immediately became aggresive - only a guess as thats all I and you can do.

What may swing your uninformed opinion on this is that the reporter states “The cops strike hard and fast using cs gas and wrestling both suspected thieves to the ground before either of them know whats happening”.

Having been on a few of these documentry type shows over the years I can safely tell you that what gets stated is quite often not what is happening but sounds so much better for the camera and more dramatic for the viewer.

I’m not really surprised that a simple expression of thanks to those guys who risked injury for you to arrest motorbike thieves doesn’t get voiced by a few on here, instead of the criticism and the minute picking apart of an incident that took seconds to occur while you sit in the comfort of your homes deciding what was right and wrong.

“but maybe they did and it wasn’t clear in the video.”

Did you just decide to ignore that part of the sentence in favour of a part that gave you an opportunity to have a rant? I don’t mind, just thought I would clarify.

I did not ignore the bit at the end, specifically why I kept it in. You still came to a couple of conclusions that the cops did something wrong with no way at all of backing it up.

So, I’ll ask again, how did you come to that conclusion ?

Seriously, you will be ripped to shreds in court if, once you start your working career, you come out with stuff like that.

Furthermore, it’s a case of proportionality - something which is paramount when dealing with ‘use of force’ issues. Sometimes it’s quite proporionate to give ‘absolutely no chance to give up’ (even though, I think we’d probably agree that we don’t even know what the immediate circumstances were in this case) to certain offenders. On other occasions, use of CS at the outset would be disproporionate.

Kaos, I’m certain that your input on this issue has been made with the best of intentions, but if you would like someone to provide you with a few examples of levels of force in respect of proportionality and go over the CLA 67 and Common Law, then please say.

Does the CLA 1967 s3(2) not replace the Common Law on use of force in such cases? It appears to. The CLA also seems pretty consistent with the ACPO guidelines, with just a slight change in language.

The ACPO state that force must be proportionate and necessary and the CLA states that it must be reasonable in the circumstances. Two sides of the same coin?

The difference in words is, I would think, due to the introduction (of the substantive rights) of the ECHR into UK Law. The words have changed from those used previously. We no longer talk about what is reasonable, we talk about what is proportionate, because proportionality is what any Human Rights court will look at.

Using the ACPO guidelines for the basis of the debate seems to encompass the CLA itself, and the CLA negates the Common Law in these circumstances. It appears that the ACPO Guidelines are enough to fully inform the debate.

Is there something I am missing from the CLA that changes the debate?