PC Plod delivers notam personally! [Archive]

Autostart Abort

1st Apr 2006, 00:29

Gaseaus

I regret to say you did the right thing. If they so wished, you could be seriously stitched up with great ease. My view is that was a threat, no doubt.

Although the majority of Police are honest individuals, in time they can become corrupted simply because they are coloured by the company they keep!

For example, a previous Met Commissioner said corruption is beyond repair in the police force!

The Police force from my experience is institutionally corrupt, procedures exist within police which are designed to assist police corruption and dishonesty. The result being that if these characters are cowboys, they can easily fit you up if required.

Anyone with half a brain cell is aware that time and time again police falsify evidence to fit honest citizens up, one way or another they will screw you if they want to and there is no one to police the police.

Therefore it is not worth chancing it. You have no way of knowing if these two characters are decent like the majority or police officers..or not.

Lastly don’t bother writing to anyone as no one would give a toss!

We are sleepwalking into a rather unpleasant society and by the time anyone realises it will be too late!

Islandcrazy

1st Apr 2006, 01:41

Gaseous / Auto-Start,

I gotta say thanks to you both for giving me a good laugh at your posts!

Its nice to see balanced opinions about local law enforcement. Oh wait a minute one of you lives in Lancashire and the other in London and thats two completely different forces. Oh no.... that must mean that all the British police forces and every one of the officers are corrupt and conspiring together to make the UK into a police state... so that they can stop people having fun by flying.

Goodness maybe they are also in league with the CAA as I thought that was what they were attempting to do. Come to think of it I think I remember that being in the national policing priorities somewhere:

1. Reduce drug crime
2. Reduce terrorism
3. Reduce burglary
4. Reduce crimes of violence
5. Reduce pilots fun by introducing flying restrictons for no reason.

Yes thats it its one of the top priorities for policing to hassle poor pilots. Let me think......what will Lancs ASU be doing next? Pulling over aircraft for speeding and check their tyres and tax discs? After all they will have nothing better to do......

Pleeeese :D :D :D

IC

TOT

1st Apr 2006, 02:18

which notam refers to this?

thanks

topendtorque

1st Apr 2006, 04:30

I don’t savvy the bits about Brazilian tube and xxxx, if it was outside the area.

I guess we have to believe that you hadn’t a habit of over-flying / perving on Jack’s back yard and so the reason for the plod door-knock was as you say.

I agree that writing to any public servant can be exasperating, they may well be duty bound to respond to a letter but where is a rulebook that says how or when? Unless you have a 'tricky dicky' over there then the ombudsman may be an answer.

Perhaps you could have invited them in for a nice friendly cup of tea so they could see that there was no MPMG or rocket launcher behind the front door just waiting to be clipped to said Enstrom and invited them to use your phone to help verify the legalities of their assertions.

I had once the same problem, although the cup of tea invite wasn’t quite delivered with grace and came after a long and angry discourse; I was 2nm’s ouside a restricted area. It was something like;
getyerf’narsedownereanseeferyerf’nself.

Before they arrived, my wife had created a lovely snack of scones etc and had extracted –err forced—from me an admission that there were to be no smart arse comments about how our pilots can find their f’n way to any point on a wac map without radar, INS, gps or anything etc.

Understandably, she was most attentive during the morning pleasantries where we discussed the wx and everything - except - navigation.

I was coy enough to note (without comment again!) that they had a full S76 load of gents most with three or more shoulder bars and what looked like birds feathers all over their shirts.
I guess the S76 driver must have been real glad about having all those navigation trained blokes on board especially as the biggest feathered one of the lot sat up front with him to show him the way!

My wife must have been the smartest of all as guess what? I never had another prob with clearances.

on21

1st Apr 2006, 04:33

Let these guys know on the link what went on, take it from me, people complain at the drop of a hat about what the police do legitametly I know, but this is out of order, if they wanted a bigger TRA they should have got one, and not turned up heavy handed. Incidents like this don't do anybody any favors.
http://www.ipcc.gov.uk/

PANews

1st Apr 2006, 05:00

Perhaps Gaseous should look it another way.:)

For years we have complained that the modern p'lice have lost the plot and yet here we have a clear example of the police knowing he had a flying machine and then finding his house - and before the TRA expired!

Well I suppose they cheated - there were two of them!

[email protected]

1st Apr 2006, 05:01

This has got cock-all to do with the police - they are just implementing (probably unhappily) the will of the Government. The Americans will have insisted on the highest levels of security for Condoleeza's visit and, as ever, the govt will have rolled over and played bitch.
The police are in the front line and always take the flak for unfortunate situations brought on by politicians looking to curry favour with other countries (remember the Chinese visit).

Gaseous did the right thing not going flying even though he would have been within his rights to do so - why stir up a hornets nest just because you can?

headsethair

1st Apr 2006, 06:30

Take it from me, the TRA (which is still active today) was unusually issued as 3000ft AGL. This even confused the Lancs police pilot who kept referring (in his exchanges with Warton ATC) to 3000ft altitude.

Blackburn was the centre of the TRA and the ground level varies from 500-800ft within the TRA. Manchester airspace starts at 4500 on 1013mb. So trying to stay legal above the TRA was not an easy thing to do.

And you have to question the whole reason why the TRA was established. It didn't even cover the Salmesbury BAe site where Dr Rice made her first speech - so anyone could have legally flown over this old airfield using the 500ft rule!

Later the same day there were no TRAs for Liverpool where the good doctor made further appearances. So why the Blackburn TRA ???

Nice shot of Lancs ASU EC135 on BBC News 24 yesterday! Couldn't see whether the pilot was one of the famed members of this Forum.......and he probably won't own up now given the "altitude" problem.

In answer to the original query, the Police do not police the skies - that is the job of the CAA. If anyone from CAA or DAP knocks on your door, pay attention. But to send a (presumably) non-aviation police officer to you - outside the TRA - is just not on. Draw the TRA and your site on your chart and file a complaint with DAP at Holborn.

Gaseous

1st Apr 2006, 06:39

TOT Notam (J1161/06)

topend torque.

I did invite them in and show them the notam. I also had the TRA ready plotted on a chart which they agreed was correct. It was after this that they offered the 'advice.' Throughout they were friendly and courteous.

To me it appears that the TRA had been made too small as Ms Rice visited BAE at Samlesbury which is also outside the TRA. This smacks of the authorities covering themselves. XXXX is where she spent the night. Hoghton Tower in fact. I did not want to name this until it had been announced in the media. I dont want another visit from plod.

Call me a softy by all means but yes, I am intimidated.

PA news. They indeed knew what they were doing as they addressed me by my name. Someone appears to know how G-info works and I dont think it was the two individuals who turned up.

edit to correct spelling of Samlesbury.

Colonal Mustard

1st Apr 2006, 07:03

TOT Notam (J1161/06)
topend torque.
I did invite them in and show them the notam. I also had the TRA ready plotted on a chart which they agreed was correct. It was after this that they offered the 'advice.' Throughout they were friendly and courteous.
To me it appears that the TRA had been made too small as Ms Rice visited BAE at Salmsbury which is also outside the TRA. This smacks of the authorities covering themselves. XXXX is where she spent the night. Hoghton Tower in fact. I did not want to name this until it had been announced in the media. I dont want another visit from plod.
Call me a softy by all means but yes, I am intimidated.
PA news. They indeed knew what they were doing as they addressed me by my name. Someone appears to know how G-info works and I dont think it was the two individuals who turned up.

But remember, every time you use a pc you leave a trace.

think about this
go to here and put your reg in,
http://www.caa.co.uk/application.aspx?categoryid=60&pagetype=65&applicationid=1

then go to here
http://www.b4usearch.com/

click the people tab and enter your name and town and voila, we know all about your occupants AND your neighbours

Simple really:eek:

helicopter-redeye

1st Apr 2006, 07:06

Gaseous, you only need REALLY worry if they call you by your Prune Name ....

h-r;)

Autostart Abort

1st Apr 2006, 09:56

Islandcrazy

Before you enjoy yourself too much with laughing, have another read of the post.

The vast majority of the police join up relatively daft but honest, and the majority remain honest to some extent. However over time dishonesty becomes normal and gradually the line of where honesty and dishonesty start slowly moves.

For instance, I know a copper who regularly encourages witness for the prosecution for lie in their statements to enable an easier conviction. This is done is the belief that he is doing the right thing in protection the public..so is this dishonest? The intention may be good? Ok he may have a greater success in getting convictions but what if he makes a mistake?

Island crazy - The police have guidelines that are recommended by the Lord Chief Justice, this applies to all Police forces. These guidelines can be easily manipulated and interpreted to hide police dishonesty and corruption.
Bottom line is any police officer with a small amount of experience will know how to use the guidelines to their advantage. The IPCC have no teeth and are hopeless.

Ignore any threats at your peril!

Agaricus bisporus

1st Apr 2006, 10:30

Gaseous, I think it is appalling that they intimidated you like that. If you are a whole mile outside the zone you are outside it, pure and simple, and they utterly exceeded their authority if they used coercion ot threats, real or implicit, to prevent you from doing what was legal. What would you make of a cop telling you not to even think of doing 20 in a 30 limit...You'd laugh in his face, wouldn't you! Having said that they clearly did intimidate you, and I think that is grounds for a formal complaint. I'm also a bit surprised at the suggestion someone made that they can "fit you up". How? If you've done nothing wrong they can't. The whole point is their threats were empty, and they knew it, they had no way of preventing you going flying at all. I would be intercepted by Lancs ASU - or worse!So what if the police helo "intercepts" you. What is it going to do, except take photos? It has no right or ability to force you down or divert your course. How could it if you are clear of the TRA? The "Or worse?" is more worrying, and I would take that as a direct threat to my physical safety, which is probably a criminal offence.

From their point of view I can only guess that the Gold Commander had seen how twitched the US security people got even when they saw anything in the sky at all, and knowing they pack tools that reach some way beyond a mere 3 mile exclusion zone decided to make sure no-one got an excuse to become a little over-zealous.

Makes you wonder why they didn't make it a 5 mile zone...

Slap in a formal complaint mate! It's a shameful state of affairs when an honest citizen is put in fear of his own police force by being threatened not to something that he is perfectly entitled to do. :( :( :(

relatively daft but honest I loved that bit! And yes, they just go down from there.

lup

1st Apr 2006, 13:58

A friend of mine was once a police officer, and a good example springs to mind.
You may be aware that there is no law of trespass in this country, except for British rail and HM dockyard where there are statutes that cover trespass.
In other words, if someone enders your land or house for that matter (without criminal intent) you the owner of said land have the common law right to ask them to leave, and if they refuse,to use minimum force,(take them by the arm and eject them off your land).

To relate this to this situation, when a police officer is called to a restaurant where some drunken yobs are causing trouble but not commiting any offence, he uses his uniform and the sure fact that the said yobs do not know the law of trespass, to tell them to leave, after asking the owner to also ask them to leave.
If they refuse, the officer will usually assist the owner in ejecting them, What happens on the street in a public place is then up to the officer, the police and criminal evidence act 1984 and public order offences will give him further options, (In the interest of the public).

My point is this, the septic tanks were probably the ones who were over the top about a helicopter based nearby, the secret service distrust everyone, they demanded to our spooks that you did not fly.
That was eventually pased to Gold (senior officer IC and responsible for the TRA)
Gold who has much more to worry about than a little helicopter near his TRA, passes it down to the local senior officer, who would not know a TRA if it bit him in the neck,passes it to his inspector.
Eventually two beat officers get told to tell Mr X not to fly, everybody knows they have no right to do this, so the best course of action is to relate it to the yobs in the restaurant.
They would have driven away, snorting "he fell for that one" and the message would have got back to the spooks that everything was sorted.

This is unacceptable, TRA's are a power that the police can abuse, and the CAA won't stick up for us against them.
But in this case, they had absolutely no right to intimidate you into letting some area commander off the hook.
They would have sort the advise of the Air Support Unit, who would or should have told him that you were well within your rights to fly, but that would not have been good enough!

I had an incident at a hotel landing site where on landing,the manager produced a special branch form for the passenger names,where we are going etc.

When I asked him why,he informed me that SB had told him that as he had helicopter movements from time to time they needed a record of who was flying where with whom.
I advised him of when these forms were needed to be completed and that what they told him was a load of b%*!&^$t.
But there you have it, the old trespass chestnut again.
We need to complain otherwise the freedoms we enjoy in the uk helicopter world will slowly but surely be eroded.

Although you may not be a member of the HAB, they represent our industry and at least have the power to raise issues with the CAA, who usually reply to these issues.
Posting it here was probably the best thing you could have done, believe me, police pilots read this stuff and so does the CAA!

Before the negative comments come flooding in, I am in general pro police and think overall they carry out a good and difficult job.

Heliport

1st Apr 2006, 14:11

topendtorque

I don’t savvy the bits about Brazilian tube and xxxx, if it was outside the area.
Gaseous was pointing out that being in the right/not doing anything wrong is no consolation if you're dead.

In July last year, Police in London shot a Brazilian on his way to work - apparently in the mistaken belief he was a terrorist.

After some initial Police announcements to the contrary, and some allegations about his behaviour which turned out to be untrue, we now know he had no connection whatsoever with terrorism. He was just an electrican on his way to work.
There's an ongoing investigation into the shooting - we don't yet know what led the police to make such a tragic mistake.

H.

Gaseous

1st Apr 2006, 14:40

Update.
I haven't flown.

Today the level of security around here has been awesome. I have been out but my neighbour tells me a patrol car has been past my house about every 20 minutes or so. The road is a dead end. Lancs ASU has been over 'quite a lot'. I counted 2 police bikes, 2 cars and 2 Range Rovers within half a mile of my house on my way out this morning. I dont think it was an empty threat. I dont know what would have happened if I had attempted to take off. I have never seen anything like it. I suspect the moment I hit the start button the place would have been crawling with gentlemen offering more advice. I dont for a minute think any of this was aimed at me personally. My helicopter just happens to be in the wrong place and they dont want it flying. Forget whats legal.

The whole thing is outrageous but it appears the security has been orchestrated from the top level. Yes I will complain but I expect it will be brushed aside.

It says a lot about the powers that run (abuse) this country and its law abiding citizens.

Edit. My wife has just been past the local church yard which is packed with numerous Police vehicles and 2 ambulances. A big sign proclaims 'Decontamination unit'.

WTF is going on???

No more visitors like Dr Rice, please Mr Straw.

Letsby Avenue

1st Apr 2006, 15:38

One does wonder why that twerp of a Foreign Secretary thinks that taking the world's most powerful woman to Blackburn is a good idea? Could he be appeasing his own voters by giving them an opportunity to vent their collective spleens at her?

With regards to Gaseous's plight - Disgusting, I would have phoned the Daily Mail and took off with a reporter on board:yuk: Did you get the collar No's?

lup

1st Apr 2006, 15:43

Gaseous, my post appeared in the first page.
I think you made the right choice, and I think the senior police officer was praying you did not fly, as he would have looked like a muppet.

You sound like a guy who, if the police asked you if you wouldn't mind not flying dispite not being affected by the TRA, you would have said no problem, I know I would in your situation.
The way they went about it was, in my opinion wrong, and someone should be advised, so that similar situations don't happen again, good on you.
It's the BHAB, typo on my first post, they are there for commercial operators, but worth a try.

Gaseous

1st Apr 2006, 15:54

I'm a member of the AOPA. They seem pretty active on pilots rights etc. Ill give them a call. My wife is frantically writing to MPs now!

lup

1st Apr 2006, 16:26

I was affected by the TRA the day after the bombs went off in London.
They told me that it would be lifted at 1000 local.
I called West Drayton(WD) at 1005, they said "yep all been lifted".
Just to make sure I called the police liason just to make sure.
They said as far as they were concerned it was still in place, (made the mistake of telling the passengers defore I checked with the police), but hey WD were most insistant.
I recalled WD, took about 5 minutes to get through to the controller I had first spoken to.
He told me he was sorry, it had been lifted, but funny old thing he had just received a call from the police puting it back in place untill further notice.

Good liason eh!:confused:

Thomas coupling

1st Apr 2006, 16:48

I sometimes wonder if I'm the odd one out (no cryptic comments plz:) ) but does the general public really think they have any say in matters like this?
There is a lot of veneer with most governments. That is to say they indoctrinate the public by various political means. But underneath it all, it's a different matter. I happen to think this country is one of the luckier ones but at the end of the day the GOVERNMENT (any government) has the power to do whatever it likes (provided it doesn't get caught!). The public might think the exact opposite but what goes on behind closed doors with (for instance):
arms trading
destabilising other countries
brokering deals
oil
TERRORISM
will never see daylight for decades to come. The government of a country does what it has to do to either jostle for global (economic/financial/military) positioning or (with other unlucky countries) asset stripping and plundering.

This Lancashire example is a molecular snippet of what really goes on behind the scenes. Rice is a level 1 target and the machinery rolls into action.
Gaseous's flying activities are perceived as a possible fragment (a speck) of security fallout which can be cleared up quickly and easily with avisit from the lads - job done.

Letters to BHAB / local MP / papers are numbingly ineffective and simply serve to remind us all - the naivity of such an action. Does anyone honestly believe that the right honourable george formby (Lancs) is going to have any sway in his supporting statement for your complaints in the house? It's about as relevant as what type of biscuits there are in their coffee break!

Accept that "the machinery" is being used for good and not (unlike some places) against the general public for some sinister evil reasons.

Save your pen and ink for something really important like getting the troops out of IRAQ.:ooh:

NLJ

1st Apr 2006, 16:54

I thought I'd join this forum to set the record straight concerning the Blackburn TRA. I was the duty Lancs ASU Pilot both today and yesterday, and can assure Gaseous that he would not have been intercepted had he got airborne from his site as he was clearly outside the boundary of the TRA, and as far as I and the two Police Observers on board were concerned was free to come and go as he pleased. If the Op's planning department of Lancashire Constabulary can't sort out the dimensions of a TRA that would cover all sites to be visited by the Principal, that's their problem. Lancashire Constabulary have had air support for just over 11 years now and still don't know how to use us properly. We weren't even included in the Operational Order!! If I tell you that they originally asked for an upper limit of 9000' for the TRA you can see how far their understanding of aviation goes.
I don't know who headsethair is but for the record I always knew what the dimensions of the TRA were and never actually had a discussion with Wartion ATC on the matter. You must have been listening in on someone elses conversations!

Dantruck

1st Apr 2006, 16:59

Helpful suggestion follows for all such instances.

Recently I have had two similar experiences...one with H.M. Customs; the second with VOSA (the UK's commercial Vehicle and Operator Services Agency). Both situations concerned the legal operation of a large truck.

Having been challenged on a legal point about which I knew I was on solid ground I uttered the following:

"Certainly officer...but I will trouble you to state your request in writing."

On profering pen and paper both uniformed herberts took on a remarkably similar appearance. Both suddenly developed a fascination with their own shoelaces. This was quickly followed by furtive glances at their colleagues, rapidly accompanied by incohenrent muttering and, finally, by backward steps and various chuntering along the lines of 'Let that be a warning to you.'

On both occasions I am pleased to report I resisted the retort to "Go and takle a flying **** at a rolling doughnut," or something silmilar, but either way, have not been troubled since.

Police state?...Only if you let them

lup

1st Apr 2006, 18:23

Thomas coupling,you are very odd!!!
It's a government thing, oh well we should let them get away with anything they like and it's useless to complain,why waste our ink!!!!!!

Let's use our time better by getting the troops out of Iraq eh, well from what you say,if it is true, what chance have we got of that happening from mere mortals like us?

Bring back HenryVIII:uhoh:

Gaseous

1st Apr 2006, 19:12

Thanks to NLJs post and a few other snippets I can now piece together what I think happened here. In my opinion it goes something like this.

1)Risk assesment for Dr Rice's visit identifies sites and threats.

2)G-BDKD identified as a very minor threat. (My aircraft)

3)TRA planned as there is some percieved airborne threat. Lancs police to organise it.

4) Lancs Police Ops cock up the TRA dimensions missing off some sites visited and G-BDKD. Not too serious and probably too much trouble or too late to update the TRA. The only minor issue is G-BDKD which is not grounded by the TRA.

5) Easy fix is to send the boys round and put the frighteners on the owner to stop him flying.

Job done.

And it worked.

The only harm done is one pilot pi$$ed off and a few civil liberties trampled into the mud.

Lancashire Constabulary in the clear.

And no, it was not Lancs ASU I was concerned about. I know I was legally in the clear. I told them so.
It was the other veiled threat, trigger happy security services, however unlikely, that stopped me flying.

edited to remove my assumption that the security services would be American. See SASless's post below.

NLJ

1st Apr 2006, 20:13

Glad my previous post has helped. If you knew how many headless/ill-informed chickens there were rushing around the place over the past two days you would laugh your head off.
Still, it's over now, until the next time!

NLJ.

SASless

1st Apr 2006, 21:20

trigger happy Americans

How you reckon GAS?

The outer security was all British wasn't it? If you managed to get so lost as to pose a threat to the USSOS and be shot by a few handguns carried by her PSD team, then you would probably deserve shooting.

Until that bit of sniping I was on your side....now maybe we know why Plod paid you a visit.

lup

1st Apr 2006, 22:34

Oh no! not sasless again!
Leave him alone, if he owns his own helicopter, he is not the worlds expert on everything like you and all the military expressions you come up with won't mean a thing to him.

You were on his side up untill that point lol
What he believed would happen to him is not the point of his post.

topendtorque

1st Apr 2006, 23:36

Thanks, of course I should have twigged to that, it did figure in news items way out in the colonies as well.

Constructive thread ESP NLJ’s good tips and gas’s frank admissions revealed the same old core problem a la Brazilian tube. Little seems to have been done Govt wise to change an out of control officialdom ‘what has no idea how to handle a gun what it has licence to carry.’

Not the two pros at the door as gas pointed out. The airspace organisers may need to take heed and usurp these probs somewhat by pulling a bit more airspace perhaps.
But not only in Blighty.

Reminds me of very sad event on bondi beach a few years ago, where three very fit thugs dressed in blue and with guns a’blazing demolished a poor defenceless but slightly unstable frenchman of obviously insignificant physical threat to them. He was wielding a knife, but the video clips easily portrayed that this was no pro knife fighter.

I mean why couldn’t the three big bullies have kicked sand in his face?

The same occurrence is seen all too often, shoot first and to kill instead of to render harmless while more resources or time can be had.

In the meantime congrats to gas, he has;
1. Polarized our fraternity, surely at least one reader will have the chance to whisper into a pink ear of one of jack’s senior helpers and,
2. Demonstrated good helicopter attitude in an emerg, think first, before acting.
I have always noticed that it is wise to consider the reaction of those close to you, ESP wife, disregard her gut reaction at your peril!

headsethair

2nd Apr 2006, 05:37

NLJ :I always knew what the dimensions of the TRA were and never actually had a discussion with Wartion ATC on the matter. You must have been listening in on someone elses conversations!

Thanks for the posting and your honest assessment - but you definitely used the expression "altitude" twice mid-morning Friday. You may have also heard another aircraft querying this with Warton and confirming that the TRA was AGL.

But that's no crime. I only make the point because the TRA was badly and confusingly drawn - and this should not be the case when there appears to be a threat of armed response to anyone entering that airspace. You've got to admit that it's very wierd to have a TRA with a top that follows ground undulations.

If you had spotted an aircraft apparently inside the TRA, what proof could you offer that the "invader" was less than 3000ft AGL ? I have a feeling that a rad alt reading would not please a judge or a clever barrister. And who was it who decided to put a TRA under Class A airspace, which starts at 4500 on 1013mb ? In places there was less than a 700ft "gap" between the TRA and the Class A.

You have succintly outlined the cock-up factors which exist in the drawing-up of the TRAs and their interpretation. Some of what you write is funny - until you wonder if the same attitudes you describe pervade other areas of policing.

For what it's worth, I think Police ASUs are a fantastic resource being abused by bad management. For instance, you state that the TRA was the responsibility of a non-aviation area of Lancs Constabulary. Yet in other parts of the UK it's the ASU that draws-up the TRA. Why such variance in what should be a nationwide SOP ?

Bronx

2nd Apr 2006, 08:02

Thanks for the background NLJ. :ok:
I wouldnt worry what headsethair says, you'll get accustomed to him.
He's still sore because someone said his ENG R44 busts the London helo routes clearances to get pixx.

B.

ShyTorque

2nd Apr 2006, 08:51

"Edit. My wife has just been past the local church yard which is packed with numerous Police vehicles and 2 ambulances. A big sign proclaims 'Decontamination unit'.

WTF is going on???

No more visitors like Dr Rice, please Mr Straw."

A decontamination unit? Jack Straw had Rice in at home? That'll be it then.

PANews

2nd Apr 2006, 09:42

Gaseous, in view of BDKD's illustrious past as a front line police aircraft perhaps it was perceived as a greater threat than it deserved, baggage and all that:)

NLJ

2nd Apr 2006, 11:03

Thanks for that Bronx, now I know who it was who kept activating my TCAS whilst we were carrying out perimeter checks around Salmesbury!

Thomas coupling

2nd Apr 2006, 16:01

Headsethair: most police ASU's wouldnt know how to set a TDA up let alone a TRA!! It is usually the OSD planning dept that controls this type of restriction and its application. As NLJ sated correctly, rarely are the aviators at the ASU contacted about aviation related aspects of police work:ouch:

If you had enetered my TRA and I was airborne at the time, I would have your height on my TCAS:E

Daft bat

2nd Apr 2006, 19:09

I have to agree with TC we are presuming that the decsion was made locally for the TRA. I would probally say the descion came from a lot higher up probally from central government.After all is that not the reson why they are trying group everything in to regions.Sadly the modern local "bobby" is no longer allowed to think for himself, he is just the messeger.The two local police officer may not have known what a TRA until about 15 minites earlier when they were given the task to deliver the message. The point is don't shoot the messenger. take it out of the corrupt politicians in the big house in the big smoke it probally came from them in the first place.

headsethair

3rd Apr 2006, 09:20

Bronx: Wind your neck in. Can we keep this intelligent and interesting ? Or are we sliding down the slippery path again ?

TC: I know of at least one police force where the ASU has input to the drawing-up of TRAs. In fact I know one UK force who put officers into civilian ATC for an event last year - clearing every aircraft, not just ones that wanted access to the TRA.

NLJ: The only one setting off your TCAS was you. The other aircraft was operating all the time around Salmesbury at 1500-1700 ft QNH - it couldn't go lower because it was transmitting a continuous live signal to a truck buried the other side of the hill in Blackburn (inside the TRA) and the signal would only hold together at 1500 or higher. You were the one doing the formate - it's entirely up to you how close you want to come. All I know is that at one point you came close enough on our starboard side that we could see you very clearly. You also popped up on our port and you sneeked up behind us at one point - but fortunately we have the world's best rear mirror. Our tail camera saw you. And most of it is on tape.
At no point did we hear any communication from you to Warton that may have been intended for us - if you were worried about your TCAS a simple call to ATC would have got our attention. Your PAOM allows you to operate much lower than any other civilian aircraft - and most times we come across ASU helis they are taking advantage of that freedom.
And for other readers of this thread (who are most likely beginning to nod off) let me just reaffirm - the airspace around Salmesbury was uncontrolled with no TRA and was a very uncongested area. If NLJ was getting TCAS alerts, he knew exactly where they were getting their hits because we were the only other aircraft around.
You know - it is possible for us all to get on. In other areas (like the Met) we enjoy a good relationship with the ASUs. We are even freely given some of their freqs so we can exchange air-to-air information. We are not the bad lads - we have a camera, lens, live link and 3+ hrs endurance that could be extremely useful in any security situation - I know this because we have had 2 approaches from security services whilst on tasks.
We are simply doing our freelance job legally in free airspace.
Although if you look back to the start of this thread you would wonder if I am being naive........
NLJ - if you want to talk please PM me with a number.

Daft bat

3rd Apr 2006, 09:41

The plain and simple fact is if you are operating outside the TRA that is published on NOTAMS, then you have nothing to worry about.For what ever reason the TRA is there is irrelavent, if you bust it then be prepared to face the music.Headsehair, so what if there is'nt a TRA at Liverpool or any other venue it could be down to somebody in that area not doing his job, or the fact that there was specific intelligence to a threat that required the TRA.
It sounds like you like to push the boundary's and occasionally cross them to get the best footage like any other press photographer. Sadly when your caught out a big umbrella suddenly goes up and it's somebody else's fault. :{

on21

3rd Apr 2006, 10:10

Why can't people just get on, your all in the same industry, let him who is without sin cast the first stone, it was an interesting thread till the everybody started having a go. Debate yes, personal snipes no.

headsethair

3rd Apr 2006, 10:10

Erm - Daft Bat - exactly what boundaries have been crossed ? Neither the original poster nor ourselves have crossed any boundaries - that was the whole point of the discussion.

Daft bat

3rd Apr 2006, 11:50

Quote: from headsethair
And you have to question the whole reason why the TRA was established. It didn't even cover the Salmesbury BAe site where Dr Rice made her first speech - so anyone could have legally flown over this old airfield using the 500ft rule!
Later the same day there were no TRAs for Liverpool where the good doctor made further appearances. So why the Blackburn TRA ???
It appears that it was you from an earlier post that was questioning why there was one TRA and not others that is why I tried to give an explanation as to why this may have occured.;)

Head Turner

3rd Apr 2006, 13:05

Please be very careful what you are putting down in print as for sure the CIA etc are reading all these posts and briefing the Secrtary of Defence who will advise the President (George) to take some form of military action to put down the rebelous individual/s. Watch out for an early morning (that's before midday) strike intended for whoever but navigation errors could cause any of us to be the recipients of balistic items.

I think our police were doing their best to advise the best course of action seeing that they are only there to carry out the requests of the government under the CAA advised rules, etc.....

Autostart Abort

3rd Apr 2006, 14:04

Daft bat

Your innocent view is quite refreshing. If only life was that simple.

In time you may well have a different opinion. Just because we live in the Uk, don't expect the authorities to be honest and fair.

From time to time events occur and authorities can behave in a disgustingly corrupt manor. Perhaps you will be fortunate enough not to experience this.

Corruption and dishonesty can occur for minor matters i.e. motoring offences to serious matters like the chap most likely fitted up for Jill Dandos murder.

The main thing is after these miscarriages of Justice occur, no one gives and damn and the authorities do their best to suppress all evidence.

Therefore in this case, it is just not worth the risk, dont fly. One way or another, if the old bill want to they'll have you. It has happened before and will happen again...nothing new.

NLJ

3rd Apr 2006, 14:51

headsethair, take a chill pill. I had no problem with the way you were operating on Friday, thats why you didn't hear me talk to Warton ATC about you. The mention of TCAS going off was "Tongue in Cheek" and in itself was a minor annoyance. When it goes off and you don't know where it's coming from :eek: is when life gets a bit more interesting. I knew all along it was an R44 that was setting it off, my reply to BRONX merely cofirmed that the penny had dropped and that I knew YOU were in the Robbo.
Yes ASU aircraft can fly very low (No closer than 50' from any Person, Vessel, Vehicle or Structure!) but as I consider myself to be an environmentally friendly pilot I don't take advantage of that freedom unless operationally necessary. Those occasions are very rare.

NLJ

ps: I bet my black cat is blacker than your black cat :}

10W

3rd Apr 2006, 15:18

In fact I know one UK force who put officers into civilian ATC for an event last year - clearing every aircraft, not just ones that wanted access to the TRA.

If it was the G8 conference, then you are correct that there was a police presence in ATC. However, the rest of the statement shows you were misinformed.

If it wasn't ..... disregard :ok:

headsethair

3rd Apr 2006, 15:52

NLJ : The mention of TCAS going off was "Tongue in Cheek"
Look - our lens is very good, but not that good that we could see your cheeks........just leaving a gap here for the obvious locker room retorts........

Very chilled. Good to hear from a pilot with altitude.

Sorry, attitude.:rolleyes::D

10W However, the rest of the statement shows you were misinformed.
Not strictly G8 (which was the Gleneagles TRA) - but the TRA for the Edinburgh area topped at 2000 QNH. No access was permitted except for the ASU helicopter. We and others chose to operate above the TRA in the Class D and we were given clearances which had passed through police permission first. On one occasion (the night of the Edinburgh Live 8 concert) my pilot was asked over the air by ATC for his full name before being given access. I bet that one isn't in the ATC manual.
This request was overheard by an incoming airliner whose pilot chipped in "Have you been speeding then ?"

Bronx

3rd Apr 2006, 16:12

headsethair

My neck's just fine, but thanks for your concern.

Just provided NLJ with some bait which he cast perfectly and you bit hard. :)

'Couldn't see whether the pilot was one of the famed members of this Forum.......and he probably won't own up now given the "altitude" problem.'
And you ask me to keep it "intelligent." :rolleyes:

10W

3rd Apr 2006, 16:13

Thanks for the extra info. There's a few ATC'ers at my unit who would have asked for the Plods to be forcibly removed from the Ops Room for causing a distraction, and therefore introducing a safety hazard :\

The authorities seem not to know that the airspace they specify is the only airspace they can legislate for entry. Operating right up to the vertical or horizontal limits is not only 'legal', it's a pilots right, should they wish to do so. Of course, allowing a reasonable avoidance margin of error to ensure you don't inadvertantly enter is probably a good piece of airmanship.

Bottom line is, if the authorities want you to stay clear of certain airspace, it's their responsibility to specify it correctly using a reasonable volume of airspace related to any threat or intelligence received. And not add on their own undefined buffers which they try to enforce by threats and bullying.

Agaricus bisporus

3rd Apr 2006, 16:31

Don't you just love these conspiracy theorists? Object to one "miscarriage of justice" and recommend in the next breath that you accede to another. But I suppose consistancy is hard to achieve in never-never land.

it is just not worth the risk, dont fly. One way or another, if the old bill want to they'll have you.

Oooh! Wicked Plod!

Do us all a favour aa, and using the superior knowledge and judgement that allows you to see so clearly what an entire courtroom of people who were in posession of all the facts in the Dando case so clumsily missed, (not to mention the rest of the press and public who had access to just the same info as you) please enlighten us as to exactly how the Police would go about stitching up someone who did not fly through a TRA, and in the event of their stitch being related to aviation legislation, how their expertise, knowledge and authority in that field might be presented to a court so as to make their "evidence" credible. And just as importantly, why they might want to do this in the first place.

Go on, be as inventive as you like!

"Staffs Police Bust Terror Cell! Iraqui Sleeper-agent Caught Redhanded!

Church Going Locally Born English Businessman Bought Helicopter Five Years Ago In Hope Of High Level USGovt Visit Nearby.

Brainwashed In Local Tandoori!

Lethal Swiss Army Knife Found On Board!

Ploice Believe Scores More Embedded Helicopters At Large.

Whirlygig

3rd Apr 2006, 16:37

courtroom of people who were in posession of all the facts
The operative word here is ALL the facts. Try telling that to all the miscarriages of justice that have happened over the years let alone those who never have the chance to see a courtroom.

Cheers

Whirls

Daft bat

3rd Apr 2006, 16:53

Corruption and dishonesty can occur for minor matters i.e. motoring offences to serious matters like the chap most likely fitted up for Jill Dandos murder.
AA slightly over the top with this one, You did'nt get pulled over for speeding on the way home today?. I have managed to get to the ripe old age of 42 without a conviction apart form a speeding ticket which I deserved as I broke the limit(damn Cameras). I don't believe that all Plods are corrupt because of a mistake by myself.However if the two Bobbies that turned up at Gaseous did make threats, then they are out of order a polite bit of advice to the location of the TRA would have been sufficient.Sorry Gasesous if this spoilt your day and intimidated you enough not to get airborne.A nice letter from Lanc's police wouldn't go a miss explaining there actions to one of their residents.We go as far as inviting people to visit our unit when we they have complaint. It gives them the chance to see what,why,and how we operate most people go away less ignorant and more understanding

volrider

3rd Apr 2006, 18:48

Autostar seems hell bent on the "hate compaign" against coppers doesnt he:rolleyes: This and another thread shows Autostart to be having problems and I do wonder at his generalisation of the Police in the UK. I would ask Auto, whom he would call if he was threatened, burgled had property taken , who faces the man with the knife while he sits in comfort at home, whom sadly as we have recently seen gives their lives for the protection of others...your comments are disrespectful of the brave ones no longer here.Just remember one bad experience you may have had does not mean all that is blue is bad;)

Gaseous

3rd Apr 2006, 18:59

Bottom line is, if the authorities want you to stay clear of certain airspace, it's their responsibility to specify it correctly using a reasonable volume of airspace related to any threat or intelligence received. And not add on their own undefined buffers which they try to enforce by threats and bullying.

Well put sir.

Incidently, I just found out that the 2 PCs also went to the local Microlight Centre, another mile from the TRA and told them not to fly over Hoghton Tower.

Autostart Abort

3rd Apr 2006, 19:26

Daft Bat

Ok lets put it another way, it is most likely if the veiled threat was ignored nothing would happen...however one cannot be sure.

For centuries governments and authorities have misbehaved, not much has really changed. In many ways things have got worse.

You know, early this century the Brits bombed the Kurds in Iraq for ten years, using delayed timed bombs into the villages. There are many injustices in the world carried out by governments and authorities.

It really is good advice not to mess with the authorities! You may be ok, but equally you may come a cropper.

It is never black and white, i.e. the law will not necessarily protect you even if you are in the right.

My advice..if some copper advises you..listen and take notice..even if you are in the right…you really have no protection.

Volrider

OK, i'll repeat..most coppers are relatively honest, perhaps relatively daft but certainly not deserving of any "hate campaign" that you mention. Evidence is changed routinely and I know this from a current serving officer. He believes it is doing a public service to help the courts obtain convictions so his motives may be good...but it is dishonest. But this is not the point of this thread and you are sidetracking the issue.

Well I have been burgled at knifepoint and police were not interested, my car has been broken into and again no interest..but this is not the point.

The point is do not antagonise the police, if they ask/ advise you not to fly..you would be sensible to take the advice. If decide not to follow this advice you may be in alot of trouble!!

Daft bat

3rd Apr 2006, 20:07

Evidence is changed routinely and I know this from a current serving officer. He believes it is doing a public service to help the courts obtain convictions so his motives may be good...but it is dishonest.
AA,Yes this is a sidetrack however if you know this officer and it is true what you have said above,you have to report him and if you don't your as dishonest as he is to allow him to serve as a Police officer.gaesous sorry for hijacking your thread on this issue,but this is a serious allegation being thrown around.

Autostart Abort

3rd Apr 2006, 20:28

Daft bat

Yes, I agree I don’t want to start a red herring here, but this goes on all the time. I used to completely agree with fitting up some scum that has robbed and beaten up an old lady etc, but now my view has changed to some extent. However if the motive of the officer is correct then perhaps he has a point. If he doesn’t get a conviction…who will be the next victim?

But then a culture of lying develops and then where do you draw the line?

I have some background knowledge on the workings on the IPCC and Standards, and I am quite sure my comments/ complaints would serve no purpose. The Police do protect themselves and the IPCC have no teeth whatsoever.

Another one, chasing a stolen car...and having crashed into it causing serious injury. The rather senior officer in the back suggested the other driver hit them in reverse. This was not true but this is how it was reported!

Events like happen all the time, every day. No one is very interested in letters/ complaints. The other day, one paper advised that the police would only respond to homophobic and racism, burglary and assault were not considered important enough.

The point I am making is not criticism of the Police, but rather caution in ignoring a warning. Personally I go for the easy option…go fly another day.

As far as making reports to police re corruption, suggest you read “Untouchables, dirty cops, bent justice and racism in Scotland yard”

You will not change anything and will only expose your self to agro!

Gaseous

3rd Apr 2006, 22:19

Er.. yes, This is way off track. AA. What you suggest is a mile from the incident which started this thread.

In post 1 I asked 'What the hell is this country coming to?' The answer is not much has changed really.

I didnt understand why the police had come to visit me or why they had forbidden me to fly.

Thanks to the input on this thread, and elsewhere, a lot of it from police pilots and police, I now understand a lot more and am reassured that it was a slightly dirty way of tidying up a loose end caused by a simple mistake, probably high up in the command chain, setting the TRA.

The PCs who came were simply doing the job they were sent to do. They clearly knew very little about aviation and had probably been sent to advise me of the TRA and make sure I didnt fly. They almost certainly were not expecting me to argue and when I did, they raised the stakes to get the job done. When they left I was still determined to fly and told them so. They will have reported this back to their superior. Maybe my insistance led to the OTT security outside my house. Maybe I was perceived as a threat to CR. These things I will never know.

But i'm pretty damn sure it aint the end of society as I know it. Nor is it wholesale police corruption.

In this instance nobody died. I drove to the pub instead.

edit for spelling, Oh and to add I still think someone should have their knuckles rapped.

MD900 Explorer

4th Apr 2006, 01:00

Edited because of National Security.

Man if i hear the word SECURITY i will scream

MD

sicky

4th Apr 2006, 02:04

jayteeto

4th Apr 2006, 08:30

This has been a poorly handled situation by the authorities. I work just down the road at another Police Asu involved in this job. Let me throw a possible theory into the equation, this is my opinion only, not based on any fact. A few years ago, a certain president visited N Ireland with a small army of agents and security. This was MASSIVE and all before the current increased threat to US officials. In one incident, a SS agent stepped out onto an active runway with a commercial jet coming in to land at Belfast. He was uncertain if his 'principal' was far enough away, so he held up his hand to the jet and called into his radio 'send that plane away'. The jet went round!! My question: What would have happened if it continued??
The USSS are (rightly) terrified of an attack on a government official. They don't request TRAs, they TELL people what they will have. If they arrive and are not happy with arrangements, they will not mess around with talks, they will suggest that they may deal with it themselves. Heavy handed, maybe, but they look after their own. Although you probably had the right to fly, you did the absolute right thing by going to the pub.
As an aside, in the future give us a call or arrange a visit if you have any police v aviation problems. We often have disagreements with the bosses as well, so we know the correct people to talk to. At worst, you will get a free cup of coffee.

What Limits

4th Apr 2006, 10:37

And I have heard that it is the worst cup of coffee in England!

Interestingly, why did none of us leave aviation when we found out how corrupt and dishonest it all is?

volrider

4th Apr 2006, 10:45

I know of someone who recently left the police force due to their disgust when they realised just how corrupt it actually is.
Ummm more like the usual excuse when you can't do a job ...blame someone or something else!
I find it amusing this Police battering:) Maybe some of you would put your trust in the Lawyers....they are decent and honest and would never never bend the rules at all.....:E But then again it's easy to knock an institution isn't it....can't win if you do, can't win if you don't! Thankfully the majority of lawabiding people support the Police and obey the laws etc, thankfully the likes of Autosart are few and far between..otherwise what would the World come to???

Autostart Abort

4th Apr 2006, 15:03

Volrider

You are mistaken, this is not "police battering". But you do need to wise up a little.

The simple fact is we do not live in a perfect world and although the UK is better than most, there is no such thing as perfect justice. We do not have a perfect government, police, CPS or court system. Go and have a look at the workings of the High Court – useless - unless you have a spare couple of million and even if you win there is no guarantee of receiving a payment from a court order.

Also you may one day notice, there is no perfect organisation in the UK of any sort, and the police are no exception. However it is a fact that a former commissioner said "Corruption was beyond repair in the Met" and many changes are desperately needed.

For that reason it is very unwise to suggest ignoring the warning of authorities. Just because you feel you are in the right and obeying all laws is no guarantee that you will not be screwed.

There are many countries far far worse than the UK. No country has a perfect system of Justice. Not even the UK.

The bottom line is, without wanting to be sidetracked again, just because you are in the right and you are breaking no law does not mean you will be in the clear.

In this case, without doubt the most sensible course of action was taken.

Ask yourself, what doI have to gain and what do I have to loose. Was the flight really that important? The downside potential is very high, simply not worth it.

If you are ever in a similar situation, I hope you make the right decision. Pause before you decide to challenge your right and ask yourself, is it really worth it? Do you really want to expose yourself to a whole lot of hassle? Best option is the easy option. Relax and go fly another day.

Colonal Mustard

4th Apr 2006, 15:18

However it is a fact that a former commissioner said "Corruption was beyond repair in the Met"

Was the met involved in this or did the north west police force deal with the threat assessment themselves and your using the met quote in order to generalise. you can`t tar "THE POLICE" with the same brush, that`s like me having a rough flight due to the Pilot being poor at navigation and then generalising that ALL PILOTS are awful at nav.

i take what your saying that you feel unfairly treated with regards to the TRA and it would be worthy of writing in a freindly way to the Chief of the police force involved and asking what the threat assessment levels were and why your address was deemed as worthy of a visit.:8

Daft bat

4th Apr 2006, 18:12

The bottom line is, without wanting to be sidetracked again, just because you are in the right and you are breaking no law does not mean you will be in the clear.
AA, You really are a bitter man,I dare say if you are pulled over again it will be a big conspiracy because what you said on this thread ;) ,
Gaseous,go on give the ASU at warton a ring I'm sure post event they may shed a bit of light on the situation for you.They'll probally welcome a fellow aviator with open arms :)

Flying Lawyer

4th Apr 2006, 20:11

Autostart Abort

You say:
"We do not have a perfect government, police, CPS or court system" and "there is no perfect organisation in the UK of any sort, and the police are no exception."
You're right of course.
The difference is no-one has rose-tinted views about politicians or lawyers.

FL

mlc

4th Apr 2006, 21:30

volrider

5th Apr 2006, 08:59

The difference is no-one has rose-tinted views about politicians or lawyers.

Spot on there FL we all know what to expect when lawyers or politicians speaks;)
AA I think the Police service in this country is the finest, try going to some of the other countries around us and see what levels of corruption and disregard for peoples rights are like!

Autostart Abort

5th Apr 2006, 14:47

Mlc

Change can only occur when the problems are realised. I am sure you would not believe that the UK police is perfect. Individuals come in all shapes and sizes and just because they join the police service does not automatically mean they are incorruptible. Do you really think that no evidence is suppressed by the police or no evidence is changed just a little? Do you really think no improvements are needed?

You expect me to answer in a short posting? Have a read of "Untouchables, dirty cops, bent justice and racism in scotland yard" written by a couple of Guardian journo's.

The book highlights that the list of victims of police misconduct is a long one. The number of police officers who have been prosecuted for such crimes is very low.

It is a very good read and the two authors were unflinchingly backed by the National union of journalists. The book describes how they put themselves in great danger uncovering corruption!

My view, which has resulted from discussions with serving members of the police is that dishonesty gradually appears but the motivation is good.

An example that has actually occurred in the last few weeks. The officer realised that a particular individual is guilty of a series of burglaries but you know the case is week. This individual is going to cause more distress and trouble and by putting him away you are doing society a good service.

So the evidence is changed just a little. It went along these lines “did the burglar actually come in the house?” “no but he would have done” “ok say lets say he did come in the house just over the door step” This small change between which side of the doorstep makes a huge difference.

I used to fully agree, but now I feel this is wrong.

The culture of dishonesty spreads and the line between honesty and dishonesty moves. Dishonesty can then become acceptable, provided it is done for a good reason. But what if the reason is not good?

What if an officer realises that he can easily get away with fabricating evidence to “punish” someone who has pissed him off. Mlc, do you really think this does not happen? Are you absolutely sure if the flight got airborne no one would be tempted just a little? You suggest that there is not one officer that would ever fabricate evidence to punish someone? Say if I joined the police force, you suggest there is no possibility I could act dishonestly?

This is a game of evidence, admissible evidence, fabricated evidence, inadmissible evidence and non disclosed evidence (which should be).

MLC read the book, by becoming aware of the problems you may be able to do something positive. I have a good knowledge of the workings of the standards dept and the IPCC. The IPCC have no teeth whatever. The standards dept in many many cases exist to put on a show that complaints are investigated. They use every trick in the book to not investigate. If you want details pm me and I would be happy to advise as I don’t want to sidetrack in further.

My bottom line again is, if threatened by the police/ or any intelligence services for that matter, don’t push your luck. If you decide to ignore the warning you could be in deep sh*t.

volrider

5th Apr 2006, 15:27

The standards dept in many many cases exist to put on a show that complaints are investigated. They use every trick in the book to not investigate.
That comment just shows how limited your knowledge is!! You should really stop watching Sky News you know:E
The "rubber heels squad" are not a nice bunch of people to get the wrong side of. I have seen this department at work and any "dodgy" coppers would be fearful of this mob, you see they don't adhere to PACE like the run of the mill bobby does, well not in the form you could understand, if you really knew what goes on you would be eating humble pie instead of moaning on all the time ..A little knowledge is dangerous;)

Daft bat

5th Apr 2006, 16:14

You expect me to answer in a short posting? Have a read of "Untouchables, dirty cops, bent justice and racism in scotland yard" written by a couple of Guardian journo's.
Volrider. I can confirm your last comments,professional standards as they are called these days,when they investigate a complaint about an officer they leave no stone unturned. I have no problem with this as if nothing untowards has been done you have nothing to worry about.There are bad eggs's in every basket. I am happy when one is found in the police basket, as it show's we will not tolerate it and want rid of them.
AA, You also work on the theory that everybody that makes a complaint about an officer is telling the truth, and not just lieing to get a bit of compo.
Your above comments sum up your knowledge taken from books that have been written by Ex policemen/women to make a buck or two.everybody knows these people write these books then the publishers then fill it full of Non fiction just to make the book sell,as we all like a bit of scandal.
AA This is one big wind up or you have to be the saddest and most narrowed minded bloke I know ? Come on move on and just pay the ticket.

Autostart Abort

5th Apr 2006, 16:53

daft bat and Volrider

I don't think we're going to make much further progress and I think others may be bored with our discussion.

I have personal experience of bent cops, they do exist, standards did a good cover up the and the IPCC said the whole investigation by standards was flawed. Justice did not prevail.

I accept no justice process can be perfect, you also need to be aware of this, otherwise you are unbelievably daft.

Volrider

You say The "rubber heels squad" are not a nice bunch of people to get the wrong side of.

For us normal civilians, perhaps you police are also not a nice bunch of people to get the wrong side of!

So the decision was right NOT TO FLY as perhaps the pilot may have come across "not a nice bunch of people" !!!

oh and by the way my comments have not come from ex coppers books!! the book untouchables is not fiction, rather than narrowmindedly dismissing it, why not enlighten yourself. Seems you have your heads stuck in the sand..insisting everything is just perfect!

The events I have described are real events which occured in Kingsbury approx two weeks ago. I know the officer and where he works. He genuinely thinks he is doing the right thing as the two characters who were fitted up deserved to as thet had done several other houses and could scare an old lady to death!

But you two are so innocent in your perfect little police club that you can't believe anything like that could happen. Well it did happen so there!!

Autostart Abort

5th Apr 2006, 17:22

vol and daft

If a complaint is made about one of you lot, following a "police fit up";

The investigation will not begin until after the hearing. If the hearing goes in the police favour, then no investigation takes place as "the evidence has been tested in court."

Therefore a bent copper only has to hope his evidence is believed in court and then no investigation will take place.

Even if dozens are police witnesses are available to dispute the fabricated officers statement, no investigation will take place.

If the case is lost by the police, years will have passed and standards will then say..police witnesses are hard to trace and or their memory of the event will be poor (due to their self imposed time lapse.)

How convenient! this is one example of how police suppress evidence of their bad apples.

The more you probe into police misconduct and procedures the more worrying it gets.

Brian Abraham

6th Apr 2006, 03:32

One of the questions asked on my military psych test was "Would you trust a member of the police force?" I'll leave you to ponder the answer they wanted.

volrider

6th Apr 2006, 07:41

AA your right we are going round in circles and I take offence to some of your derogatory comments thrown my way, however I firmly believe in free speech and you are entitled to your opinion. I wont be visiting this thread anymore as I have nothing further to add, thankfully the majority of the general public do not share your views. You are ill informed and see things from the "outside" and are obviously listening to stories from people who have a grievance against the Police.
I know things are not perfect and there are bad apples however these are being found and removed, maybe some of those bad apples are the ones giving you the information you base your flawed case on?
Re the fitting up...I would be disapointed if the only way to get a conviction is by this method. We have advanced in this country in the ways we gather evidence and have the use of some very high tech methods of detecting the offenders. Maybe the officers you know need to look at how they detect crime and how their skill base can be improved. I would think a half decent lawyer would rip holes in any case that had a hint of a "fit up" to it. So this task would be a peice of cake;)
All the best Volrider

hangnail

6th Apr 2006, 14:28

AA

Whilst I agree with Volrider I am not too blinkered to believe that we live in a free or just society but I think one thing is being overlooked here.

You claim, in more than one entry, to have personal knowledge of corruption - and not just police officers but also members of the public who are (according to you) signing false declarations and by default committing perjury when these cases go to court.

FL may disagree but my Readers Digest Book of Criminal Law suggests that, at the very least, the officer and witness(es) are guilty of conspiracy to pervert the course of justice and you - yes you, with all this knowledge of police procedures you have, are also culpable because you choose to do nothing. These are serious matters which you are alleging and to hide behind the cloak of 'it's a waste of time reporting it' tells me everything about your integrity and moral values.

If you choose to sit on the fence and do nothing so be it - but by doing nothing your credibility is zero rated. I would have a lot more respect for you if you had stated that you had reported this matter. Didn't someone once say that society gets the police force it deserves.

If the Commissioner who you continue to quote was Robert Mark please note that he retired in the early seventies - a generation ago and yes I have read that one as well.

Regards
HN

Autostart Abort

6th Apr 2006, 17:42

Volrider

Well I am impressed you believe in free speech and accept that other opinions than your own exist and may well be equally valid. However I do not think you are in a position to say what the majority of the public think. It is a shame that you demonstrate you narrow mindedness by refusing to visit this thread again. However in case you do read this, your head in the sand attitude is understandable as your beliefs have been challenged.

My view and it is a view, is that that majority of the public are all too aware of the imperfections of the police service. I guess we both will never know for sure.

I think you also are not understanding my posts very well as I have not suggested all convictions are obtained unfairly, merely that unfairness does exist, and that the public need to be careful of the police and not blindly accept we live in a fair and just state.

There are many victims of police misconduct that would take great offence to you having the view that wrong cannot possible exist in your club.

For info, a court take only take a view on the evidence it has before it. If the police suppress evidence, what can the court do? Nothing!

If law and justice was a piece of cake, there would be no need for appeals!

Vol...we do not live in a perfect world and your police service is no different !

hangnail

Change needs to come within the police force. I am not putting my neck on the block again for principals. I have already paid dearly for principals! I was blackmailed by the police and when refused to give in they "fitted me up". You can write and complain as much as you like. I have written to MP’s, Chief Justice, Ian Blair, etc etc and no one gives a damn provided they get their monthly pay check! Principals have cost me close to £100K, I cannot afford principals. Would you like to underwite my legal costs if counter complaints are made against me? You now have knowledge of this corruption, it is now your duty to do something? You now know that I was fitted up by the police, why don't you make a complaint that I was fitted up? If you choose to sit on the fence doing nothing you're credability is also zero. "Society gets the police force it deserves" There is apathy everywhere, no one gives a damn, not the lawyers, not the police, politicians or anyone!

A complaint made by me will be completely ignored. I have no hard evidence and if it is my word against an officer...who obviously will be believed? Far more serious dishonesty exists in the police force, and at least in the case I mentioned someone dodgy is off the street and won’t break into my place. The chap who nicked a car and was hit by a police car may think twice about nicking a car again!

I have personal experience of trying for years to encourage standards to investigate. They come out with endless excuses and still do nothing when advised by the IPCC that their lack of investigation is flawed. They try every trick in the book to sweep the complaint under the carpet. It really is utterly unreal, if you want more info PM me, I would be pleased to bore you with the story! It borders on the comical how dishonest they have behaved. I have nearly a hundred letters/ phone conversations which are clearly, without any doubt at all clear proof that a cover and sham investigation took place…and no one cares whatsoever, so much for principals.

Also hangnail, principals are very costly and dangerous. What will I gain and what do I stand to loose? Do I want to antagonise the local old bill? Do I want to cause trouble? The police need to police themselves. It’s like arguing with your examiner on a pilot proficiency check, you won’t win, far better to say “you are right, quite agree, etc”

If police ever blackmail me again, I will say certainly sir, whatever you like!

Early this century 4 million or so died in the Gulag’s. Many of those died for their principals. Yes I want an easy life, that’s why I firmly say do not antagonise the authorities.

I cannot remember which commissioner, perhaps paul condom, but it was within the last 10 years or so. He was campaigning for improved police pay saying that would reduce corruption.

Brian Abraham

Would I trust a member of the police force?

No more or less than anyone else would be my answer. A police officer does not have inbuilt qualities to be any more trustworthy or untrustworthy than any one else. However there is an age old saying “power corrupts”, so the police service needs to be careful that they do not abuse the power that society has given them.

The bottom line is, if the police or authorities make a threat or give a warning. It needs to be taken seriously. No authority in any country acts with complete fairness and Justice. Just because you are abiding by the law is no guarantee that the law will protect you.

And finally, the right decision was not to fly. Never wave a red rag to a bull!

Colonal Mustard

6th Apr 2006, 18:08

Any chance of getting back to the original post, (Q to moderator) can we have an anti law folder created?:ok:

Colonal Mustard

6th Apr 2006, 18:09

Any chance of getting back to the original post, (Q to moderator) can we have an anti law folder created?,seems that it`ll be used quite a lot:ok:

morris1

6th Apr 2006, 18:44

For info, a court take only take a view on the evidence it has before it. If the police suppress evidence, what can the court do? Nothing!

Just to clarify.... the police dont prosecute. They investigate. The crown Prosecution Service do the case file work and the actual prosecutions at court.
Further... The Disclosure of Information Act, has been in force for several years now. No information, no matter how inconsequential, can be withheld. It must be presented to the court. That includes any previous misconduct proceedings against all officers involved in the case.
However the defendant, generally speaking, does not have to disclose previous offences to the court.!
Its a miracle that anyone gets found guilty by a court in this country, with so much stacked against the prosecution.
I know of a man that lives down south, he's really narrow minded and quite dim. Therefore ALL southerners must be thick ! using principles put forward by AA..!

Autostart Abort

6th Apr 2006, 19:51

Colonel Q

Actually we are still discussing original post. The point I am making is don't ignore a threat from the authorities.

We are totally on the original thread here. Others can benefit from my experience. Certainly some pilots would have the view - I am legal, I am in the right, no copper can tell me what to do. Well this is dangerous thinking. I am advocating caution and cooperation.

I once had a chat with a CAA inspector just prior to getting airborne. He came over to helicopter (rotors running) and gave his opinion on a particular flight and said I could go ahead if I wanted. What did I do? I shut down, had a chat, accepted it was a grey area and did the right thing..flight cancelled.

He may be right, he may be wrong, but whats the point in being obstructive?

Hello Morris1

yes, "all info must be disclosed" thats quite correct in theory!

It seems you are reacting a little bit? I have given no indication that I have a stereotyped view of the police. It seems you are projecting your own stereotyped views.

It is entirely logical that a cross section of the police will have good and bad just like a cross section of society as a whole. And furthermore, I have stated several times that most police are honest.

Yes I agree so much is stacked against the prosecution, many guilty go free and sometimes innocent are guilty. The Justice system is not a perfect system and cannot ever be.

You need to be realistic and understand it is not anti-police, to be aware of the limitations of our Justice system. Relax!

Helicopters are not perfect machines, mechanical defects occur, mistakes happen and people die. This is not anti-helicopters, just the way it is.

However we need to be aware of the limitations and seek improvements.

I believe it is better for a guilty person to go free than an innocent to be found guilty. This has been a principal of Justice in the UK. However changes are taking place. Principals of the Magna Carta are being removed from British Justice. The rules of evidence in the Inquisition were more stringent than they are today. Then you needed two witnesses, today one witness will do.

I do not believe the UK Justice system is improving, nor is government. It seems there are rights for the guilty and no rights for the innocent.

In contrast, aviation on the other hand is making great improvements.

jayteeto

6th Apr 2006, 20:23

AA, although I disagree with a lot of what you say, you have actually hit the nail on the head, saying that better a guilty man goes free than an innocent to be guilty. I must be lucky, in that the bobbies I work with are all absolutely straight down the line. They are disappointed if we dont get a prosecution on a known 'bad lad', but they counter this by saying not to worry, he will do it again and we will catch him then. I found this really strange at first, but I understand what they mean now.
I think that the reason people (including me) get a bit upset with you, is because the vast majority of the force are straight. Yes, bad apples are there and we dont disagree, but rank and file show no sympathy to people who go bad and have no problems with disciplinary action against them. Your opinion is that IPCC and PSD cover up complaints. We all find that statement amazing!! They bloody well dont up here. In orders, all disciplinary actions are circulated monthly with harsh penalties including prosecution and sacking. If these are cover-ups, god help the bobbies when the system decides to go tougher!!
No system is perfect and I am certain mistakes happen and some people do not get the service they deserve at times, but I do not believe we are as far down the corruption line as you suggest.

Autostart Abort

6th Apr 2006, 21:28

Hello Jayteeto

Nice post, agreed most police are honest. It is encouraging to read a logical reply to my comments.

The IPCC have not covered up any compliant, they merely agreed with me that the police investigation (non investigation) was flawed and agreed since so much time has passed (several years) that it is now probably too late to do anything. (Standards still refuse to investigate, so IPCC have no teeth)

I was personally done up like a kipper, so I find it very offensive when your colleagues insist everything is just perfect. I am not that fussed with the officer in question as it is a fact of life that not everyone is honest. I am rather surprised to the lengths the standards dept go to, to NOT investgate. Endless procedures and guidelines are used as reasons. One of the reasons was because shortly afterwards she resigned! Other reasons were their interpretation of Chief Justice guidelines, etc, etc.You know how long it would take to investigate? An hour or two at the most. A CCTV tape of the incident was available for 28 days and several other police were witnesses. But the standards would rather spend two years of letter writing explaining reason why they will not investigate. And whats more no one gives a toss! not the lawyers, the police, MP's, Chief Justice...no one!

The simple fact is society does give authority to the police and this can and is sometimes abused (albeit rarely). If it was abused for a trivial matter like mine, it can certainly be abused for a more important matter.

Therefore the point I am making to fellow pilots is use caution when threatened or given a warning by any authority. The chances of being set up is minor, but the chance certainly exists.

We are prepared for engine failure on every departure, we brief it, we practice it every six months, however the chances of it happening are very small.

Likewise if we ignore the warning from authority, no matter how small the chance, the chance exists that we could come a cropper if we do not comply.

I am advocating caution. Being legal and in the right is no absolute guarantee of adverse consequences. I am sure you would agree.

Gaseous

6th Apr 2006, 21:45

To get back to the original subject. I have written to AOPA with the suggestion that their president, Lord Stevens, ex met commisioner and pilot may be interested in the circumstances. If I get a reply thats relevant I'll post it here.

I considered pulling this thread as It seemed to be getting out of hand with wild accusations with which I didnt want to be associated. I'm glad I didn't as reasoned debate appears to have followed.

AA. If I may be so bold to offer a little friendly advice re post 83. Try to Keep your posts a little shorter! I for one have the attention span of a gnat. I find myself scrolling past them.

I got the name Gaseous long before Pprune for being too verbose! I now try to fight the tendancy.

OK. I'll shut up now.

Autostart Abort

6th Apr 2006, 22:42

Gaseous

I am sure you will get a reply and look forward to it.

Martin Robinson and FL for that matter could tell a few good stories about CAA.

CAA also are meant to disclose evidence to the court and I remember a case in the west country where the magistrate told off the CAA for withholding evidence.

A CAA ops inspector wrote a note to CAA enforcement with his view that the flight in question was LEGAL! Now before anyway jumps to conclusions I am not criticising CAA or saying all CAA is corrupt, just the messenger here. So please - no CAA staff should react negatively to this!

I am really trying to restrain myself here, but there are many other CAA cases that have been quite unjust, which a certain eminent barrister has sussessfully defended. (and aren't most of the enforcement branch ex-coppers?)

My limited view is, the problem with courts is that both sides get too focussed on winning the case rather than the truth.

The prosecutor is trying to get a guilty verdict, the barrister not guilty. In my limited view, they are both too focussed on getting the result they want rather than the truth. But then who will hire a barrister if he helps the prosecution. Capitalism and values, can you have both?

CYHeli

6th Apr 2006, 23:49

GASEOUS Discretion before valour! A wise move.

AA I like your thinking re capitalism and courts. I agree that both sides are focussed on winning and not on the truth. Although this only goes part way, It is the truth as each side sees it!

The defendant is always innocent until proven guilty. If the defendant tells a lie often enough they might believe it (It becomes truth in their mind) and when did a barrister ever ask a client "Did you do it?" :eek:

Defense are being paid to do a job, to deliver a product. In this case freedom for their client. If they were interested in true justice for all then they would ask the hard questions, encourage their client to plead guilty and then simply try to get a reduced penalty. But no, "Lets pick as many holes in 'their' story (the prosecution) and we might get lucky."

Most coppers are after the truth, but they sometimes get blinkers on and forget that their job is to gather evidence, including evidence that may prove innocence.

Having been a copper for almost 19 years, I can tell you that it's easier to leave something out than it is to make something up or to plant evidence. Only the truely bent copper knows how or has the desire to do so. Other coppers who get it wrong are more likely doing their incompetent best or simply having a bad day. And haven't we all had one of those? I feel for the two who visited Gaseous, out of their depth, not quite sure how to handle it, and unable to tell the boss to 'S*d off Sir, it's not our job."

As for the coppers who do get it wrong when they are trying to do their job, let he who is without sin ... We all make mistakes in our jobs, some mistakes have bigger consequences than others. The scary question is "What was their intent?" The answer is the difference between corruption and error.