Pilots in court over 'sex tape'
"In the big scheme of things, this is a minor offence. If you are angry and upset about it, do some research on how many people get away with rape and murder, even though they are bang on guilty "
Anything is minor in the grand scheme of things. That doesn't make it irrelevant, and it certainly doesn't make those culpable any the less guilty.
Thank you, ShyTorque. I still find it very hard to believe that these pilots flew without being told where they were going or why, and without any knowledge at all of what was happening below them - but the jury believed they did, and they have access to more evidence than we do.
Anything is minor in the grand scheme of things. That doesn't make it irrelevant, and it certainly doesn't make those culpable any the less guilty.
Thank you, ShyTorque. I still find it very hard to believe that these pilots flew without being told where they were going or why, and without any knowledge at all of what was happening below them - but the jury believed they did, and they have access to more evidence than we do.
Well I guess that settles it once and for all - in so far as the English courts are concerned the front-seat crew are merely drivers and are neither in responsible for nor in charge of an aeroplane in flight.
So from a purely legal standpoint passengers are entitled to ignore what they say and (if they should try to use force to bully or coerce passengers into doing things they don't wish to do) take any and all proportionate actions to defend themselves against unlawful abuse by the aircrew.
I can't see any other interpretation that could flow from this judgement.
PDR
So from a purely legal standpoint passengers are entitled to ignore what they say and (if they should try to use force to bully or coerce passengers into doing things they don't wish to do) take any and all proportionate actions to defend themselves against unlawful abuse by the aircrew.
I can't see any other interpretation that could flow from this judgement.
PDR
Avoid imitations
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Wandering the FIR and cyberspace often at highly unsociable times
Posts: 14,573
Received 422 Likes
on
222 Posts
Thank you, ShyTorque. I still find it very hard to believe that these pilots flew without being told where they were going or why, and without any knowledge at all of what was happening below them - but the jury believed they did, and they have access to more evidence than we do.
I wrote that the pilot doesn't necessarily know where the camera is being pointed and whether or not recording is taking place.
It appears that you believe that the SY police helicopter was launched specifically to look at naked people "going about their business" as it were. I'd be extremely surprised if that could ever take place. It certainly couldn't have occurred at the ASU I worked at. The hierarchy of one police force I flew for put up some road signs stating "police helicopter speed enforcement". The biggest objectors were the police at the ASU. The helicopter never "patrolled" for any reason, let alone specifically for speed enforcement, because the flying hours were very strictly controlled and the reasons for launch logged, in some detail. The last thing needed was for the public to think they were being "spied on" without good reason.
Pogmore was a known deviant, his 'colleagues' knew this for years.
Each time these incidents took place you can bet your bottom dollar that all / some of the crew on board knew what he was doing. Even if the pilot couldn't see the footage (which I doubt), the crew would be talking about what was going on - bit of banter - lads talk - nudge nudge......
They probably ran the tapes after getting back to base for some further titilation.
Only, this unit got caught - simples. And the CPS decided to make an example of them but it didn't quite turn out to be a full blown 'clean sweep'.
It might not be a big case in the grand scheme of things but it is the thin end of the wedge and if cops of all people were allowed to get away with this sort of behaviour - what next?
Each time these incidents took place you can bet your bottom dollar that all / some of the crew on board knew what he was doing. Even if the pilot couldn't see the footage (which I doubt), the crew would be talking about what was going on - bit of banter - lads talk - nudge nudge......
They probably ran the tapes after getting back to base for some further titilation.
Only, this unit got caught - simples. And the CPS decided to make an example of them but it didn't quite turn out to be a full blown 'clean sweep'.
It might not be a big case in the grand scheme of things but it is the thin end of the wedge and if cops of all people were allowed to get away with this sort of behaviour - what next?
Thread Starter
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Liverpool based Geordie, so calm down, calm down kidda!!
Age: 60
Posts: 2,051
Likes: 0
Received 17 Likes
on
6 Posts
No no no no no no!
I'm not trying to say this type of offence should be ignored, the police should be condemned even more for any offence committed.
Some people have ZERO idea about police aviation. Let's put it simply for those of less knowledge. The observers take a job, the pilot doesn't NEED to know any details, other than a location. The observers say where they need to be geographically. If the pilot can do it aviation legally and safely, he does, if not he doesn't and says why. He doesn't need to know ANYTHING about the job. Many undercover type jobs are like this. This doesn't mean he isn't in command of the aircraft, he most absolutely IS in command. He is not the mission commander. There is a huge difference.
Do I THINK they knew what was going on??? Yup!
Was there a scenario where they may not have known??? Yup!
Can you say with 100% certainty they knew??? Nope!
If there is any doubt, there is no doubt. Not Guilty
My quote about the big scheme of things was totally misunderstood. Kim Jong Un / Mugabe / ISIS are carrying out genocide and people aren't arsed. This cop was making naughty videos, many subjects were happy to perform. It's wrong, but it's what it is.
The fact is, these people were found not guilty, guess what??? That means they are actually not guilty. I'm sure anyone who says they are may actually be committing an offence.........
I'm not trying to say this type of offence should be ignored, the police should be condemned even more for any offence committed.
Some people have ZERO idea about police aviation. Let's put it simply for those of less knowledge. The observers take a job, the pilot doesn't NEED to know any details, other than a location. The observers say where they need to be geographically. If the pilot can do it aviation legally and safely, he does, if not he doesn't and says why. He doesn't need to know ANYTHING about the job. Many undercover type jobs are like this. This doesn't mean he isn't in command of the aircraft, he most absolutely IS in command. He is not the mission commander. There is a huge difference.
Do I THINK they knew what was going on??? Yup!
Was there a scenario where they may not have known??? Yup!
Can you say with 100% certainty they knew??? Nope!
If there is any doubt, there is no doubt. Not Guilty
My quote about the big scheme of things was totally misunderstood. Kim Jong Un / Mugabe / ISIS are carrying out genocide and people aren't arsed. This cop was making naughty videos, many subjects were happy to perform. It's wrong, but it's what it is.
The fact is, these people were found not guilty, guess what??? That means they are actually not guilty. I'm sure anyone who says they are may actually be committing an offence.........
Jayteeto.
It's TC you're talking to hear - I know exactly what goes on in them thar choppers!
Why do you insist on repeating they were all not guilty. Incorrect, Pogmore resigned once the cat was out of the bag so as to distance himself from the Service. He was a COP when he broke the law. He was a civvy when he was found guilty. Semantics.
And be careful about making the public out to be eejit's. They know very well the scale of the incident compared to Mugabe - FFS.
It is the principle of the matter that is in focus here.
Those we hold uppermost in our respect - should be seen to be whiter than white.
I say again - thin end of the wedge.
It's TC you're talking to hear - I know exactly what goes on in them thar choppers!
Why do you insist on repeating they were all not guilty. Incorrect, Pogmore resigned once the cat was out of the bag so as to distance himself from the Service. He was a COP when he broke the law. He was a civvy when he was found guilty. Semantics.
And be careful about making the public out to be eejit's. They know very well the scale of the incident compared to Mugabe - FFS.
It is the principle of the matter that is in focus here.
Those we hold uppermost in our respect - should be seen to be whiter than white.
I say again - thin end of the wedge.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Liverpool based Geordie, so calm down, calm down kidda!!
Age: 60
Posts: 2,051
Likes: 0
Received 17 Likes
on
6 Posts
Pogmore? I'm not talking about him, or the cops. I'm talking about the pilots. The cops can see the screen and can see if the video is running. The two who got off STILL got off and that means not guilty, despite what you think/know about what goes on.
"Heathcliff, please don't try to twist what I wrote. I never said that, nor did I infer it. Obviously the pilot of a police helicopter knows where he is going and why!"
Sorry, I didn't mean to do that. But the pilot will have been directed to fly to a certain place, and hover for a certain amount of time. Presumably a reason is given for this? There will have been some communication from the police in the aircraft? As for Pogmore being a 'deviant', it is concerning his colleagues did not express concern about this earlier.
"It appears that you believe that the SY police helicopter was launched specifically to look at naked people "going about their business" as it were. I'd be extremely surprised if that could ever take place."
I would hope it wouldn't, but in the case of the extrovert couple, they knew they were being filmed, and Pogmore knew when they would be *ahem* in the act. Perhaps he just happened to be in the air, and then somehow managed to divert the pilot over the teddy bears in the woods by claiming one of them was a hiding criminal. It would be interesting if there were any cockpit recordings of these flights!
"The last thing needed was for the public to think they were being "spied on" without good reason. "
But they were - in these many incidences.
"This cop was making naughty videos, many subjects were happy to perform. It's wrong, but it's what it is."
One couple. The others weren't. The fact worse things happen does not belittle what has happened here - by those we - foolishly or otherwise - trust to enforce and uphold the law.
As I said, the jury will see and hear evidence we never will, so they must have had a good reason for finding the pilots not guilty of collusion. From my own experience, much more goes on in a court room than gets into the papers!
Sorry, I didn't mean to do that. But the pilot will have been directed to fly to a certain place, and hover for a certain amount of time. Presumably a reason is given for this? There will have been some communication from the police in the aircraft? As for Pogmore being a 'deviant', it is concerning his colleagues did not express concern about this earlier.
"It appears that you believe that the SY police helicopter was launched specifically to look at naked people "going about their business" as it were. I'd be extremely surprised if that could ever take place."
I would hope it wouldn't, but in the case of the extrovert couple, they knew they were being filmed, and Pogmore knew when they would be *ahem* in the act. Perhaps he just happened to be in the air, and then somehow managed to divert the pilot over the teddy bears in the woods by claiming one of them was a hiding criminal. It would be interesting if there were any cockpit recordings of these flights!
"The last thing needed was for the public to think they were being "spied on" without good reason. "
But they were - in these many incidences.
"This cop was making naughty videos, many subjects were happy to perform. It's wrong, but it's what it is."
One couple. The others weren't. The fact worse things happen does not belittle what has happened here - by those we - foolishly or otherwise - trust to enforce and uphold the law.
As I said, the jury will see and hear evidence we never will, so they must have had a good reason for finding the pilots not guilty of collusion. From my own experience, much more goes on in a court room than gets into the papers!
Thread Starter
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Liverpool based Geordie, so calm down, calm down kidda!!
Age: 60
Posts: 2,051
Likes: 0
Received 17 Likes
on
6 Posts
My comments on the eejits are nothing to do with Mugabe, that was a separate comment. I'm talking about the "experts" commenting on who is MISSION commander and what the pilots MUST have known.
Sometimes I didn't know what the job was...........
On Air Ambulance, they don't tell us the job to prevent us pushing the limits if it is a sensitive task (child for instance)
Sometimes I didn't know what the job was...........
On Air Ambulance, they don't tell us the job to prevent us pushing the limits if it is a sensitive task (child for instance)
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: 'oop North
Posts: 156
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
My comments on the eejits are nothing to do with Mugabe, that was a separate comment. I'm talking about the "experts" commenting on who is MISSION commander and what the pilots MUST have known.
Sometimes I didn't know what the job was...........
On Air Ambulance, they don't tell us the job to prevent us pushing the limits if it is a sensitive task (child for instance)
Sometimes I didn't know what the job was...........
On Air Ambulance, they don't tell us the job to prevent us pushing the limits if it is a sensitive task (child for instance)
jayteeto - you're getting all emotional now! Since when do the lads keep info away from the pilot due to sensitivities?
Is it in case your pilots can't cope emotionally if it involves kids and might turn it down because they'd burst into tears perhaps?
Where I came from laddy - the pilot expected to be told at the very least the outline of the job and everything short of top secret doo - doo's (which was very rare).
Can't do your job properly - half cocked.
Is it in case your pilots can't cope emotionally if it involves kids and might turn it down because they'd burst into tears perhaps?
Where I came from laddy - the pilot expected to be told at the very least the outline of the job and everything short of top secret doo - doo's (which was very rare).
Can't do your job properly - half cocked.
Running an interhospital transfer system we operated a strict Chinese wall whenever we could; pilots not told clinical details, medical team not told weather, crew duty hours etc. Not because we would burst into tears, but so each side did their job thoroughly and safely and didnt push it. AAs that dont when they can reduce safety IMHO. As to police operations, I have no opinion because I have never flown those missions
However, this isnt really important or relevant. If the charges reflected what occurred it would have been wrong and the public would have a right to feel aggrieved. The reputation of the police would be diminished. However senior police and the CPS brought charges - correctly - and after a trial the verdict was not guilty. Justice has been done and hopefully no other observers will be tempted and the public can be reassured.
Whether a number of posters on this thread believe they know better and do not accept the verdict of the courts is totally unimportant
However, this isnt really important or relevant. If the charges reflected what occurred it would have been wrong and the public would have a right to feel aggrieved. The reputation of the police would be diminished. However senior police and the CPS brought charges - correctly - and after a trial the verdict was not guilty. Justice has been done and hopefully no other observers will be tempted and the public can be reassured.
Whether a number of posters on this thread believe they know better and do not accept the verdict of the courts is totally unimportant
Thread Starter
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Liverpool based Geordie, so calm down, calm down kidda!!
Age: 60
Posts: 2,051
Likes: 0
Received 17 Likes
on
6 Posts
You are still twisting my words. If they said they didn't always know, like I didn't, then they have a slim, but valid, excuse. Since when has the truth mattered in British courts???????
Emotional?? Really?
Emotional?? Really?
Thread Starter
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Liverpool based Geordie, so calm down, calm down kidda!!
Age: 60
Posts: 2,051
Likes: 0
Received 17 Likes
on
6 Posts
Burst into tears?
If you are heading to a baby in cardiac arrest, you don't cry. You MIGHT push the weather limits though. It's called human nature.
Please don't insult me like that
If you are heading to a baby in cardiac arrest, you don't cry. You MIGHT push the weather limits though. It's called human nature.
Please don't insult me like that
Thread Starter
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Liverpool based Geordie, so calm down, calm down kidda!!
Age: 60
Posts: 2,051
Likes: 0
Received 17 Likes
on
6 Posts
Before anyone takes offence at my British Court statement, I have attended the public gallery loads of times. It's actually so bad, it's amusing to watch. Try it before commenting, the truth is irrelevant
Ah c'mon jayteeto - we go back too far for you to assume I insutled you - shooting the breeze, that's all 
I have lost count of how many hems trips I did - 300 - 500? Perhaps 20% involved kids:
Suicides.
drownings.
shootings.
domestics.
mispers.
It goes on and on. Maybe the first half dozen tweak the heart strings but after that it's just another job. If you're telling me that as a hardened hems/AA driver you might still get suckered into making dodgy decisions because of the status of the child - you're in the wrong business.
The chinese wall situation Homonculus is on about may work during the outbound leg but what happens once on scene. Will the crew protect your emotions then? I think not. You will be privvy to the status of the patient - you process it and then you act professionally.
If you have been ex mil (you were - right?) you will know where I'm coming from.
Next people will be telling me they treat women differently if they are part of the crew.
Homonculus - I think the verdict is done and dusted. No question. But remember this, the cops look after themselves. Always have done, always will. If senior management found a fly in the ointment in this case (which they did), they sterilise it quickly (which they did) and remove guilty person from the Service to make it look like no cops were involved. That person went on to be prosecuted for illegal activity while in the line of duty.
A blunt instrument - but it has worked here it seems....................
I have lost count of how many hems trips I did - 300 - 500? Perhaps 20% involved kids:
Suicides.
drownings.
shootings.
domestics.
mispers.
It goes on and on. Maybe the first half dozen tweak the heart strings but after that it's just another job. If you're telling me that as a hardened hems/AA driver you might still get suckered into making dodgy decisions because of the status of the child - you're in the wrong business.
The chinese wall situation Homonculus is on about may work during the outbound leg but what happens once on scene. Will the crew protect your emotions then? I think not. You will be privvy to the status of the patient - you process it and then you act professionally.
If you have been ex mil (you were - right?) you will know where I'm coming from.
Next people will be telling me they treat women differently if they are part of the crew.
Homonculus - I think the verdict is done and dusted. No question. But remember this, the cops look after themselves. Always have done, always will. If senior management found a fly in the ointment in this case (which they did), they sterilise it quickly (which they did) and remove guilty person from the Service to make it look like no cops were involved. That person went on to be prosecuted for illegal activity while in the line of duty.
A blunt instrument - but it has worked here it seems....................
If pilots can't see the monitors and don't look down at the incident, how do they follow pursuits and other such incidents?
I thought pilots sat on the inside of orbits specifically so they could watch the incident and stay over the top?
I thought pilots sat on the inside of orbits specifically so they could watch the incident and stay over the top?
Thread Starter
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Liverpool based Geordie, so calm down, calm down kidda!!
Age: 60
Posts: 2,051
Likes: 0
Received 17 Likes
on
6 Posts
Pursuits?
They were shagging during pursuits?
SOME sensitive jobs are not briefed to all the crew. You just hover in an area and you get told left/right/forward/back. It's not difficult.
Look, I'm not saying they didn't know what was happening, read my posts properly. Yup means yes.......
And as for you TC......... I have no heart, I very rarely get upset at a scene. But some pilots will consider allowing a slightly lower limit if certain triggers are involved. Whilst the majority won't, it is easier to apply a blanket "blackout" to get a consistent standard. With a 490ft cloud base, it's hard to say stop, but we do in our company. No external pressures make the call easier. It might not be for you and me, but not everyone is you or me
They were shagging during pursuits?
SOME sensitive jobs are not briefed to all the crew. You just hover in an area and you get told left/right/forward/back. It's not difficult.
Look, I'm not saying they didn't know what was happening, read my posts properly. Yup means yes.......
And as for you TC......... I have no heart, I very rarely get upset at a scene. But some pilots will consider allowing a slightly lower limit if certain triggers are involved. Whilst the majority won't, it is easier to apply a blanket "blackout" to get a consistent standard. With a 490ft cloud base, it's hard to say stop, but we do in our company. No external pressures make the call easier. It might not be for you and me, but not everyone is you or me
Sorry to go off thread TC, but on the inbound leg the patient should have been stabilised. There is no indication for scoop and run. If the guys in the back cant cope then they should be replaced. The driver's only decision is then weather, and if the weather is a no no the boys in the back should be able to do a land transfer. I will stand by for flak