Just When You Thought It Couldnt Get Any Worse

Discussion in 'Current Affairs, News and Analysis' started by Xenophon, Jun 30, 2006.

Welcome to the Army Rumour Service, ARRSE

The UK's largest and busiest UNofficial military website.

The heart of the site is the forum area, including:

  1. I'm gobsmacked

    Bike Thieves

    I can remember a time when individuals were supposed to be responsible for their own actions. If some gobshite wishes to flee from the police on a stolen scooter without the benefit of a helmet then the choice was his and he should be ready to face the consequences. I don't know who I despise more the thief or the police who lacked the moral courage to do their job. I say this because to quote from the article

    "There is no blanket ban on calling off chases where a rider has no helmet,......"

    Tough on crime? I could puke. Blair's Britain a true case of the lunatics taking over the asylum.
  2. It could have been worse he was lucky they never charged him for wasting police time? And of course the police won’t apprehend any burglars in case they fall off the ladder.
  3. That's about the sum of it really. Litigation & Human Rights legislation seem to dictate everything these days - which sort of negates the whole point of policing. Personally, I'd rather take my chances without any form of police force than entrust my safety to a spurious organisation seemingly preoccupied with easy targets and obsessed with political correctness, who might turn up three days after I'd been knifed in the ribs - providing, of course, that they have available resources. Keep going guys, you're doing a great job of reassurance... not! :(
  4. And if a Law abiding biker was on the road without a helmet, you can guarantee he'd be nicked!
  5. FFs is everybody going to jump on the New Labour and Tory boat of blaming Human Rights legislation for everything? I do not actually see how Human Rights legislation could play a part n this. In fact the only law that could cover it is the law of Tort. The criminal would have to prove the police were negligent in their action, if he fell off the bike and was injured due to them chasing him. Even if they were found guilty he would be found to contribute to the negligence due to the fact he did not wear a helmet.

    The place to blame is actually the U.S law of tort which is giving compensation for people burning their mouths on hot coffee. Whilst our judges seem to be handling Tort cases a lot better than this there is still a fear that the police will be prosecuted and then the tax payer will have to pay the scum bag damages. The police probably did a risk assessment and figured they could catch him anyway.

    Get off the Human Rights bandwagon, neither the ECHR nor the HRA 1998 hold any right not to be chased by the police because they are not wearing a helmet. The only problem with this situation is that the when using Human Rights we bring in the doctrine of proprtionality, if this police could catch him a different way without the risk of injuring him then they must use them. The police were probably covering their own backs until we can figure out how our Law of Tort is going to go.
  6. You're right Jest. This case has nothing to do with the HRA, but it does have everything to do with litigation. Not healthy litigation, but rather the 'no win, no fee' private litigation that has banned hop-scotch at school, has banned villagers tidying the roads through their villages or holding fetes that have operated for 600 years and has made it almost impossible to volunteer for anything these days without a couple of million pounds of public liability insurance.

    That's proportional?
  7. I'm a little naive on this one Jest. How could tort apply to the police, exactly how would they be negligent in this case?
  8. Tort applies to everybody DR. I don't know if they would be found negligent in this case but negligence is the part of the criteria for a tort that the person would have to prove in this case f he fell off his bike and got injured. To be quite honest unless they actually did something that was negligent, his denfence would probably argue that they were negligent in chasing him knowing he didn't have a helmet. I am unsure how that one would go, but as I said if it was said to be negligent he would be found to contribute to it thus lowering his amount in damages.

    The police would have a defense in that they could say the accident may have happened without them chasing him, thus he would not pass the 'but for' test.

    I doubt, without any other factors that they would be found guilty but they do have to weigh things up and I can understand their not wanting to chase him, especially if they thought they could catch him later. If he was a murderer, rapist etc and they did not know where he lived and it was likely he would attack again then they probably would have chased him.
  9. If he wasn't wearing helmet he wouldn't be law abiding :p

    Sorry W_P just had to be a cnut.
  10. I was waiting for someone to mention that! What I meant was someone taxed, insured etc that had momentarily rode on the road without a helmet on for some cunningly plausible reason, maybe chasing a moped thief?
  11. Who do you know with two mopeds, ya flash git!
  12. Jasper Carrot!
  13. I read the opening paragraph of the news report and became disinterested at once, it's either that or I'll crack my head open from banging it off a wall. I really wonder if turning to crime might not be a bad idea, there is so much in my favour.
  14. Law of Tort! What we need is a law of common sense!

    Its easy:
    1. Scrote steals scooter without helmet.
    2. Police give chase in order to arrest him (strange thing for police to do I know!)
    3. Scrote tries to escape and falls off.
    4. Scrotes head gets mangled.
    5. Mrs Bliar takes up his case to sue the police.
    6. It goes to court and the judge says "shut up you left wing, tree hugging hippy biatch, your client is a scrote, if he hadn't stole a moped he wouldn't have been chased by the police, hence he wouldn't be here now."
    7. Case dismissed, police get congratulated for nicking scrote!
    8. Scrote gets sent to jail for wasting the courts time and being an arrse!
    9. Law abiding public sleep easier knowing that justice is served and the rights of the victim get put ahead of the criminal.
  15. And at 10: Victim sues scrote for damage to moped, gets compensation and new bike