Met police chief locked himself inside car while officer was stabbed

[Greyman 28,440]

Sorry I have not read the whole thread before adding my ten pence worth, but just like to say I was so disgusted seeing this story on the news last night I had to turn it off before I kicked the telly in,  I don't particularly have a great relationship with plod but no way in the world could I have sat in a locked car and watched that unfold without jumping in, that fat pig should be named and shamed then stripped of all his little perks including his police pension and stuck in a council flat, gutless piece of shite 

[Meece 1,957]

I read that he is retiring in December. He didn't want to risk the perks. He should go before a disciplinery along with the others in the car.

[Lenmcharristar 9,782]

hes a yellow backed useless up his own ass peeler as is the norm.

[johnny.w 316]

We aren't allowed to defend ourselves and are told the police will protect us. They don't even protect each other. Cowardly cur. 

[FLATTOP 4,456]

The blokes a coward he should have got the wheel brace or jack and smashed the fuckers head in because he didn’t he will be now known as the bloke who done f**k all. 

[ChrisJones 7,975]

19 hours ago, sussex said:

Every senior officer who was in on the decision to have an UNARMED Pc on the front gate of the No1 terrorist target in the UK should be dismissed for gross negligence, they to a man or woman have the blood of this Pc on there hands ..including this senior career officer who was clearly never tested to lead from the front ...

That I can agree with. I'm curious as to just how many unarmed police are patrolling there and whether that's changed in light of this event.

14 hours ago, greg64 said:

he sat in that locked car knowing the pc on the gate was unarmed and watched it unfold, the pc could of ran off but he  stood his ground  and paid the ultimate price ,lions led by donkeys springs to mind

Do we know that for sure or are we assuming he knew? If he knew or enacted policy to place unarmed police in that position then he absolutely should be accountable for that decision but for a senior officer in a car with no comms or body armour I have nothing but questions.

I still wouldn't expect a desk jockey to suddenly charge down an armed attacker. I'm not saying it's right but I can understand it. As was pointed out earlier in the thread too many Ifs.

[Meece 1,957]

What else can you expect from cowards and incompetants. They should all be sacked without pension for dereliction of duty.

https://nytimespost.com/met-chief-defends-deputy-who-locked-himself-in-car-during-terrorist-rampage/

[ChrisJones 7,975]

" The inquest heard that Sir Craig’s first instinct when he saw the attack was to get out of the car, but a uniformed officer told him to stay put because he had no protective equipment and would have been in the firing line. "

I'm still in mixed opinions on this one. Again still no comment from the Met as to why he didn't have any protective equipment or basic comms.

[TALKCHEAP 183]

On 8 October 2018 at 19:07, ChrisJones said:

I read this one a little earlier and I'm of mixed opinions. He was unarmed. Had no body armour and was in a vehicle with two unarmed and untrained people. On the flip side, we're always told that we're not capable of doing these things ourselves because that's the domain of the police. Had he intervened he realistically could have been fatally wounded. As he didn't his conduct is under suspicion because he didn't do anything.

you sure you aint a copper , would help a copper would i fcuk

Edited October 15, 2018 by TALKCHEAP
said wrong thing

[Deker 3,478]

4 hours ago, ChrisJones said:

" The inquest heard that Sir Craig’s first instinct when he saw the attack was to get out of the car, but a uniformed officer told him to stay put because he had no protective equipment and would have been in the firing line. "

I'm still in mixed opinions on this one. Again still no comment from the Met as to why he didn't have any protective equipment or basic comms.

The timing of his instruction from a PC seems to alter in his words, the inquest and the media...... rather convenient!

Edited October 15, 2018 by Deker

[ChrisJones 7,975]

2 hours ago, TALKCHEAP said:

you sure you aint a copper

I'm not a kamikaze pilot either.

53 minutes ago, Deker said:

The timing of his instruction from a PC seems to alter in his words, the inquest and the media...... rather convenient!

I tend to agree but one's written down in the inquiry and one's written down in a newspaper article. That's doesn't mean it's truthful but I still don't expect a desk jockey to charge down an armed attacker. Again I'm not saying he was right but I understand.

[Meece 1,957]

If this senior officer had ordered the two with him to to join up with th he bloke on the gate it would have been four of them on one, and not one on one. Since when have pc's had the operational discisional power to order senior officers what to do ? All of them should be severely reprimanded.  And as for that cressida dick thing she was involved when they went out and shot that brazilian bloke in the head on the train. A complete shambles and again  a cover up that the spineless politicians are allowIng. time and time again the police service is a complete shambles from the situation on black teenage gangs knifing random people in the street,  court cases collapsing through non disclosure of evidence, to bent coppers faĺsely accusing people, turning a blind eye to paki peodophile gangs, ect ect.  Unequal stop and search of black and asian minorities. Picki g on the easy target of motorists. The list is endless. Result is piss poor performance and  no public confidence. If an officer gets into trouble nearly all of the public would turn away thats how it is and its not a gòod situation.

[ChrisJones 7,975]

This is completely tangental and more of an apples to oranges but over here the supreme court has ruled that the police do not have a duty of care to the individual only to society as a whole.

This played out in 2013 when two NYPD officers hid in the operators cab while a passenger subdued an attacker and endured seven stab wounds in the process. He was successful and the police intervened to make the arrest. The passenger sued the NYPD and lost.

I personally believe that you're responsible for your own security and as a result of the case above I also believe that any government rule that won't allow you to meet force with force is deeply flawed given the chain of events in both cases.

Both cases have police that didn't intervene and both cases have multiple deaths and injuries. As I've stated on this thread I can understand why they didn't intervene but I don't excuse it or endorse it. Any outrage directed at the officer involved is ultimately futile, IMHO as it won't change anything although it does highlight the failings in this particular case.

Emotions aside I want to know

• Why the senior officer wasn't carrying/wearing body armour?
• Why the senior officer didn't have comms?
• Why an unarmed officer was killed intervening?
• What is the ratio of armed/unarmed officers patrolling Westminster?
• Why hasn't two decades of the T.W.A.T changed operating procedure?
• Why has the current standard of training/operation allowed all of the above to happen?

I'm fortunate enough to live in an area where I can be armed. I'm also in a vocation where I'm armed, wearing body armour, and have access to comms as a private security contractor. Again this might be apples to oranges but I understand the inherent risk associated with society so why doesn't a senior police officer under an elevated level of threat?

Edited October 15, 2018 by ChrisJones
Typo

[Meece 1,957]

25 minutes ago, ChrisJones said:

 

Emotions aside I want to know

• Why the senior officer wasn't carrying/wearing body armour?
• 1.   Probably to bleedin fat to get into one
• 2.  To pompous to wear one. I bet he stands in front of a mirror admiring his stature.
• 3.  Didn't even consider that anything might happen

 

25 minutes ago, ChrisJones said:

• Why the senior officer didn't have comms?

He wouldn't want anyone trying to contact him regarding work and making a decision 

• Why an unarmed officer was killed intervening?

The same reason that most of these cock ups happen.  Poor management. Just like the first world war.

• What is the ratio of armed/unarmed officers patrolling Westminster?
• Who knows. But it probably is related to the fact that plod would shòt more public than terrorists.
•  
• Why hasn't two decades of the T.W.A.T changed operating procedure?
• Old boy network. Same as the army.
•  
• Why has the current standard of training/operation allowed all of the above to happen?
• There isn't any. That's why this happened. Don't forget the Muppet attacker rammed a sold fence and then attacked on foot.

I'm fortunate enough to live in an area where I can be armed. I'm also in a vocation where I'm armed, wearing body armour, and have access to comms as a private security contractor. Again this might be apples to oranges but I understand the inherent risk associated with society so why doesn't a senior police officer under an elevated level of threat?

Cos their incompetent clowns. That's why this keeps happening. Problem is that it is the blind leading the blind.

Watch this video and you'll see what the mindset is. No it's not monty python. Well I don't think it is.

 

 

[TOMO 26,179]

as flat top on the other page said,,,,get a wheel brace or jack out.....and one bit of kit that is in most cop cars...fire extinguisher ....those the fire out powder or fecking leathal when breathed in