to think that Labour's stance on moped ramming is stupid

[longfingernails]

The Metropolitan Police have been knocking over moped muggers with their cars, and releasing the footage as a deterrent. It's a fantastic idea which has cut moped crime dramatically.

Predictably, the Shadow Home Secretary has said 'it shouldn't be legal for anyone'.

Why is Labour's instinct always to side with the scumbag criminals over the victims, the police and the decent people?

easy Ok, that’s your experience and certainly isn’t mine. And I speak to cops every day at work.

The minute anyone says that criminals shouldn’t have human rights I get very worried. It’s a short slope from there to totalitarian thinking as unpalatable as it sounds. I think the idea of restorative justice is the sort of that promotes best in humanity. This is the opposite.

Miscible you didn’t mention mistake; you said “for the crime of being black”.

Anyway, I do agree that the procedure should be tightly designed and reviewed. If that’s found wanting then certainly it should be stopped.

But none of these problems is at all apparent.

Although easyandy101 I’m surprised you know so much about what police officers want and don’t want as you said earlier you hated them earlier. Wouldn’t have thought you would have been having in-depth conversations with them.

I support the police on this.
They have to do a detailed risk assessment each time, patrols with specific training only, upper speed limitation, immediate environment risks, whether the mugger is wearing a helmet, Protective clothing etc.
A lot more than the muggers do when they plough through pedestrians at speed.

That's exactly the figure that was quoted on BBC London News on Tuesday. 75% reduction.

But the figure given by the police is 36%. Or do you claim they are wrong, Craft?

By the way, do you now accept that innocent people have killed by these workshy scooter riding scum?

I didn't deny it. Another fact-free assertion on your part.

Do you also accept that none of those knocked off have been badly hurt?

No idea. I know that reports indicate that at least three incidents when people have been injured are being investigated officially. I'm not aware that details of their injuries have been published.

Tell me, would you like to guarantee that no-one who is innocent will be injured by this tactic, and that no-one will be seriously injured at all?

I know that it is normal procedure, Nicknacky. The point is that people around here are denying that the tactic has caused injury at all.

No one has said it hasn’t caused injury. They are saying it hasn’t caused death or serious injury in the 90 occasions it’s been used.

Tell me, would you like to guarantee that no-one who is innocent will be injured by this tactic, and that no-one will be seriously injured at all?

That’s not the test for any policy.

The minute anyone says that criminals shouldn’t have human rights I get very worried. It’s a short slope from there to totalitarian thinking

Totally agree, Dehumanise them and then do as you want, Hitler didn't start on the Jews; criminals, disabled were the first to be killed off no one cared because they were "little fuckers and cunts with no rights"

Most of the pro-police tactics posters are very sensible
Nearly all - but not all - the antis are foolish posturing Corbynistas though

I can't work out if you're being ironic or not, but please - let's not become too polarised on this

I'd have thought everyone would be on the side of supporting the police to stop this happening ... well, except for Diane Abbot perhaps, who has an infamous record of not even knowing what they cost

It's surely only how to do it that separates us

KissingInTheRain, on what basis would arresting someone on the basis that they are black or because of their clothing not be a mistake?

Well what other solutions do people have for stopping the moped crime? I haven't seen anything plausible floated. My four year old, who witnessed me pitch myself over a wall with his sister in a sling, is now terrified of all mopeds. He's seen at least half a dozen muggings. It has to stop. If there was a kinder way I'd be all for it but I don't know what that would be and neither does anyone on this thread.

Isn't this just akin to the fact Police sometimes use tasers or batons (what we used to call truncheons) to subdue persons risking arrest. There's a balance of risk of injury (on both sides) to balance against risk to the public and facilitating the escape of suspected offenders.

I am tempted to agree that being knocked off one's moped by the Police is likely to be an extremely rare event, easily avoided by stopping if asked and/or not using a moped to rob people.

iggity You possibly missed the only suggestion mooted which was have cops on motorbikes chase them until the bad boy got bored and gave up. Or crashed and killed innocent bystanders, whichever comes first.

Other than that, there has been no suggestions.

puzzled

I was being a bit ironic. But only because Beardies’ post was so intentionally provocative (I fucking hate “goady”).

I do respect the views of those - mostly - who would prefer that the police don’t do this. I just disagree, for all the reasons I’ve given.

Kissing, when you put in place a policy that involves chasing suspects on vehicles on the roads and deliberately hitting them and knocking them off, don't you think the test absolutely has to be the risk of serious injury - whether to them or anyone else?

There have been serious injuries and even death suffered by the victims of the moped crimes. There have been no serious injuries to the moped muggers to date inflicted by their tactic of ramming. How can this not be sensible?

Nicknacky, the suggestion was that the use of motorbikes would (a) demonstrate to scooter riders that they can't rely on their usual escape routes where cars can't go, and (b) that they would be a deterrent. The use of deterrents is of course standard.

Someone please correct me if I'm wrong, but hasn't it been laid down that police can't use this tactic if the offender's not wearing a crash helmet?

If so, I'd have thought that was the end of it anyway ... won't they all instantly stop wearing them?

KissingInTheRain, on what basis would arresting someone on the basis that they are black or because of their clothing not be a mistake?

Because it would be wilful racism.

A mistake is unintentional.

Tell me, would you like to guarantee that no-one who is innocent will be injured by this tactic, and that no-one will be seriously injured at all?

Miscible, I'll give you a guarantee; fewer innocent people will be killed or seriously injured by using this tactic that would have been the case otherwise.

Interestingly, the police themselves don't sneer at the use of alternative methods: www.standard.co.uk/news/crime/scotland-yard-unveil-new-tactics-in-crackdown-on-moped-gangs-including-new-scrambler-bikes-to-chase-a3672366.html

Kissing, when you put in place a policy that involves chasing suspects on vehicles on the roads and deliberately hitting them and knocking them off, don't you think the test absolutely has to be the risk of serious injury - whether to them or anyone else?

You didn’t say that. You wanted a guarantee.

miscible I have already explained upthread why using motorcycle cops isn’t effective. It’s common sense why it won’t work.

And would you really rather risk the public in a pursuit situation particularly when the offender will attend to evade capture by going down lanes, through parks, built up areas etc?

Sometimes I think posters would disagree with the police no matter what they do.