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?

Insurance is surely the least of anyone’s concerns here!

The insurers will be overjoyed if claims for personal injury and theft caused by violent scooter gangs can be brought down.

If I was an insurance co and my customer’s moped was stolen, and then wrecked by the police deliberately bashing into it, I would claim against the police.

If I was an insurance co and my customer’s moped was stolen, and then wrecked by the police deliberately bashing into it, I would claim against the police.

And you’d fail. Just as you would if you were the insurer of a car that was stolen and that ended up totalled by the thief in the course of a chase.

If the thief has money you’d go after them. Almost never worth it though.

But if someone smashed into my car, the insurance co pay me, and then pursue the insurers of the other car. If the other driver is insured, my insurance co get their money.

The police are insured, they have bashed into the moped, how is it different?

Because they’re carrying out their public duty.

If a copper just decided to ram you for the hell of it I imagine their insurers would pay out because there’d be no argument of duty. But if you’re a violent criminal, or suspect, riding a stolen scooter and you get knocked off, any damage to the bike is your fault not the police’s.

The fire service don’t pay out for water damage to property either.

Not insured if you conducting illegal activity

Not insured if you conducting illegal activity

Firstly, we're talking about having your scooter stolen and used by the thief for illegal activity. So not you using it for illegal activity.

Secondly, what's your source for saying you aren't insured if you are conducting illegal activity? What if you crash your car whilst speeding? Or you park it on a double yellow line and it gets stolen?

Where did you get this from and is it all illegal activity, or just some?

The insurance company has the right to refuse your claim, DUI used for theft, whatever. Just check your policy wordings for exclusions

Only if you’re the culprit, surely?

The insurance company has the right to refuse your claim, DUI used for theft, whatever. Just check your policy wordings for exclusions

Just have. Absolutely nothing in the exclusions about withholding cover if I'm law breaking. Let alone if my vehicle is stolen and used by the thief for lawbreaking.

You're talking nonsense.

im giggling at the thought one of these lovely little darlings would come onto mumsnet to check their insurance cover should they choose to nick a ped and mug someone....

i think they are generally not that bothered about insurance.

you - dear victim - on the other hand - if your moped gets nicked - are insured if indeed you have it which im assuming most upstanding mn members have,

Wtf is happening to this country?! It’s sickening that a police force is allowed to do that.

It's sickening that they have to!

Let alone if my vehicle is stolen and used by the thief for lawbreaking.

You're covered. This happened to me.

Oh Jax ! Of course you're covered, how awful!

No, is someone suggesting that criminals would come here t check whether they were insured!!! Ahahah. They wouldn't care less!!

I’m not sure about police not being liable for causing damage because they’re carrying out their public duty. A police officer decided to lift up one of my fences whilst looking for someone who’d escaped custody. He then decided to leave it half in and half out in high winds (didn’t give a toss about likely damage to plants either). I rang to complain and was told I could claim against them for any damage and they would pay out.

Craft 1905:

Minor injuries Miscible. Broken fingers, dislocations, hurt knees. No serious injuries so far.

Hmmm. Serious head injuries and fractures, apparently.

To say nothing of the police's economy with the truth in claiming that only specialist officers have been using these tactics.
]

Police being investigated after ramming incident causes injuries

BBC News - Met police officer could be charged for ramming moped
www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-46440172

Ah sorry, missed it had already been linked to

To say nothing of the police's economy with the truth in claiming that only specialist officers have been using these tactics*

Miscible yes agreed! So many posting to this thread pointed out just how lacking the skill (if that's what we are calling it?!) the majority of police drivers are these days. It's a fact that the standards from Class A drivers are now unattainable.

Having seen the footage of similar situations earlier I can't see his anybody in their right mind would describe this as progress.

I was mugged by two guys on mopeds in North London several years ago. It was an extremely unpleasant experience, hugely exacerbated by the fact that no one came to see if I was okay, despite me being pushed to the ground. However, I would absolutely not have wanted them to be apprehended in this way with such a disregard for their lives.

The police should not be above the law, they should be upholding it. If one of the lads who mugged me had died due to the police deliberate ramming them off the road I would have been distraught, even more so if I had witnessed it. This is an utterly abhorrent idea which has no place in a civilised society. We need the police to legally and safely detain criminals so that they can face the consequences of their crime according to the established laws.
This is not the answer to moped crime, in fact it is only a matter of time before someone is seriously injured or the method is abused, which will only lead one way: to the large scale riots we saw in 2011.
Plus, I would hate to be the police officer ordered to use my vehicle in this way. It must be an awful situation for police officers to be in. Their job is to protect people, not to endanger, injure, or kill them.

Neither of the links says any more than incidents are being examined, which they should be and are self-referred anyway.

People get hurt fleeing the police quite often, whether they’re rammed or have collisions with other cars, barriers, trees etc. Even more people get hurt in the course of ordinary - entirely proper - arrests.

The argument is that ramming a fleeing suspect is inevitably excessive. Let’s see if juries agree. If a case ever gets that far.

Right leaning Daily Mail types generally support the police regardless. They find it easy to throw away human rights, risk to life etc as "they're a criminal and deserve it/lose that right when they willingly choose to commit violent crimes"

Left leaning types will generally seek to uphold human rights and question whether we want a society where the police can break the law themselves and cause intentional harm to individuals (who may be under 18).

There will never be agreement on this issue and others like it.

I avoid debates on such subjects, people's mindsets are so fixed. I've never seen someone converted to the other side as a result of a (typically heated) debate

It’s not a human right to evade the law without consequences. It’s not a human right to endanger others as you flee. It’s not a human right to avoid all injury after you commit crime.

Some people will object to anything done by the police. The same people often shout ‘human rights’ because they think it’s a magic incantation.

Plenty of left leaning types are perfectly happy for the police to ram violent suspects.

Left leaning types will generally seek to uphold human rights and question whether we want a society where the police can break the law themselves and cause intentional harm to individuals (who may be under 18).

There's no human right to break the law (you could even say these gangs are breaking natural law, in this case - it's hardly arbitrary) with impunity.