I'm very proud of my son

Flashman said:
Makes you wonder how many people have fallen for this before and how much trouble they have ended up in as a consequence... scary!
Click to expand...

But this sounds like purely a statement of complaint from the above, just missing out key elements of the incident? In itself not incriminating but with possible consequences should it have gone to trial against Bill.

It does sound very strange, at least the way it's being described anyway.
 
MIssed the original thread, and these 6 pages (and various links out) have made for an incredible read.

Cutting through the crap in this thread, it seems there are 2 main areas of downfall... the behaviour of the senior officers, and the CPS handling. Both of which I can believe.

Garry, I think your son would have unprecedented support for his actions, but it is very sad to hear that this is just going to drag on prolonging the pain (and inconvenience) for the next 'x' months.

On a similar note, not sure if you read books at all, but have a lok at "The Crime Factory", it's by an ex police officer and his career through force through various ranks, and their dealings with the CPS - so many times he states that despite having overwhelming evidence, the CPS will opt for a lesser charge or a slap on the wrist, with bureaucracy taking over facts and common sense..... seems to ring home to your story.
 
Just when you thought it was all over...

The PCC went on live radio and said that Bill did something of serious concern that endangered the public and which isn’t in the public domain, during the high speed chase, and that she can’t talk about it.

Taking the charitable view, maybe she got confused. Or maybe someone in the police force has fed her false info that she not only swallowed, hook line and sinker but also then told the world – or at least the listeners of Radio York – about.

Neither Bill nor I have any idea what this is about. Nor apparently do the police, because they didn’t raise this issue, whatever it is, during his interview. It’s false.

All that Bill wanted to do was to get a bit of publicity in the hope that other people get treated better in the future, but it now looks like a complaint of serious misconduct, which nobody wanted.
 
Oh Wow, not good :(

I would assume said PCC is trying to draw doubt over Bills version of events, maybe due to some process failure by the same PCC. (all speculation)

Good luck :(
 
Garry Edwards said:
Just when you thought it was all over...

The PCC went on live radio and said that Bill did something of serious concern that endangered the public and which isn’t in the public domain, during the high speed chase, and that she can’t talk about it.

Taking the charitable view, maybe she got confused. Or maybe someone in the police force has fed her false info that she not only swallowed, hook line and sinker but also then told the world – or at least the listeners of Radio York – about.

Neither Bill nor I have any idea what this is about. Nor apparently do the police, because they didn’t raise this issue, whatever it is, during his interview. It’s false.

All that Bill wanted to do was to get a bit of publicity in the hope that other people get treated better in the future, but it now looks like a complaint of serious misconduct, which nobody wanted.
Click to expand...

Could it be that he had his shotgun in the car during the high speed chase?
 
joescrivens said:
Could it be that he had his shotgun in the car during the high speed chase?
Click to expand...
He did, it was unloaded and in the back of the car. As a shooter myself, I know that this is the proper way of transporting a gun in a car, so it can't be that.
 
Back of the car or the boot? Could they be angling that had you crashed a member of the public could have got access to a firearm?

Clutching at straws I know.
 
Is there anything in law that allows a civilian in a private vehicle to engage in a "high speed chase" on the public road?

Even trained police traffic officers have to be in a suitable vehicle,be suitably trained and authorised by senior officers before pursuing suspects.
 
overbez said:
Is there anything in law that allows a civilian in a private vehicle to engage in a "high speed chase" on the public road?

Even trained police traffic officers have to be in a suitable vehicle,be suitably trained and authorised by senior officers before pursuing suspects.
Click to expand...

I would imagine that would be it.

By pursuing the van he could have endangered the public.
 
He was using his car as a de facto police car. First, he caught up, then he followed it at a safe distance. His mother was giving a running commentary. The police joined in after about 6 miles and forced the van to stop. There was nothing illegal about that and anyway I come back to my original point - he was not asked anything in interview about anything that happened after they and the attacker left his land, so he has to assume that there was nothing to ask him about.

Assuming that the PCC hasn't just got it wrong, this must be a false statement intended to smear him.It stinks.
 
joescrivens said:
Back of the car or the boot? Could they be angling that had you crashed a member of the public could have got access to a firearm?

Clutching at straws I know.
Click to expand...

The car doesn't have a boot, it's an estate. There is no requirement for guns to be in a boot.
My 4 x 4 doesn't have a boot either, it's very common for shooters to have similar cars.
 
Garry Edwards said:
He was using his car as a de facto police car. First, he caught up, then he followed it at a safe distance. His mother was giving a running commentary. The police joined in after about 6 miles and forced the van to stop. There was nothing illegal about that and anyway I come back to my original point - he was not asked anything in interview about anything that happened after they and the attacker left his land, so he has to assume that there was nothing to ask him about.

Assuming that the PCC hasn't just got it wrong, this must be a false statement intended to smear him.It stinks.
Click to expand...

Who was insuring him during this time - your definition of a high speed chase implies (to me at least) an element of speed above the legal limits, and also an element of danger to the driving.

I would expect that a thief being pursued by a man with a gun who has shot at him a number of times already wouldn't be stopping at a red light for example, or waiting until it is clear before proceeding across a roundabout.

How differently this may have turned out had your son had a camera round his neck, rather than a gun.
 
overbez said:
Who was insuring him during this time - your definition of a high speed chase implies (to me at least) an element of speed above the legal limits, and also an element of danger to the driving.

I would expect that a thief being pursued by a man with a gun who has shot at him a number of times already wouldn't be stopping at a red light for example, or waiting until it is clear before proceeding across a roundabout.

How differently this may have turned out had your son had a camera round his neck, rather than a gun.
Click to expand...
You've got it wrong. The initial bit was on a single track road with national speed limit. The van in front of him pretty much guaranteed that there could be no oncoming vehicles, because if there were any then the van would have hit them.

How differently this may have turned out had your son had a camera round his neck, rather than a gun
Click to expand...
Yes, it would have ended very differently. He and his mum would have been either seriously injured or dead.
 
Garry Edwards said:
You've got it wrong. The initial bit was on a single track road with national speed limit. The van in front of him pretty much guaranteed that there could be no oncoming vehicles, because if there were any then the van would have hit them.
Click to expand...

Thereby potentially seriously injuring or killing the (innocent) occupants of that vehicle. And the fact your son was chasing them with a firearm would have been a major contributing factor.
 
overbez said:
Thereby potentially seriously injuring or killing the (innocent) occupants of that vehicle. And the fact your son was chasing them with a firearm would have been a major contributing factor.
Click to expand...

its likely that this is the angle they are going down. They may argue that had your son not been chasing the van he wouldn't have been going as fast as he was to get away from him

Ridiculous I know, but that very well could be it :shrug:
 
overbez said:
Thereby potentially seriously injuring or killing the (innocent) occupants of that vehicle. And the fact your son was chasing them with a firearm would have been a major contributing factor.
Click to expand...
If the police had any concerns over his actions then they were duty bound to raise them with him during interview. They didn't. Therefore, it's reasonable to assume that there were no concerns.

It was the police who did the chasing, my son was following, admittedly at high speed. It was very clear that the thief wasn't even aware that he was behind him (I doubt whether the thief will have been looking in his one remaining mirror)
As far as your 'contributions' to this thread are concerned, I give up.
 
Merely trying to present some arguments as to why they have said your son "did something of serious concern that endangered the public and which isn’t in the public domain, during the high speed chase"

Maybe further evidence has come to light - or a witness has come forward.
 
Garry, I've been following this quietly and am sorry to hear about the ordeal Bill and his Mother have been through.

Is the radio interview where this latest twist occurred available to listen to online?
 
ZoneV said:
Garry, I've been following this quietly and am sorry to hear about the ordeal Bill and his Mother have been through.

Is the radio interview where this latest twist occurred available to listen to online?
Click to expand...

Yes, it will be available on line for a few days here

It's a 3 hour programme, you may want to listen to what Bill's constituency MP., Robert Goodwill, has to say starting at 48:14. I have never been a great supporter of politicians but I have to say that Mr. Goodwill has been brilliant throughout this ordeal, and has tried to get the police to act correctly and to act within the law throughout.

The PCC, Julia Mulligan, starts her interview at 1:05 The worrying parts of what she said are towards the end of the clip and start after 1:12.
 
oh the Irony:
PCC Mulligan in her acceptance said:
Mrs Mulligan said: "I intend to work really hard to make sure I represent people fairly across all parts of North Yorkshire and without political prejudice."

"There have been some issues around understanding what this role is. It is my job to get out there and make sure that people see that this will make a big difference in their local areas."
Click to expand...
 
Garry Edwards said:
Yes, it will be available on line for a few days here

It's a 3 hour programme, you may want to listen to what Bill's constituency MP., Robert Goodwill, has to say starting at 48:14. I have never been a great supporter of politicians but I have to say that Mr. Goodwill has been brilliant throughout this ordeal, and has tried to get the police to act correctly and to act within the law throughout.

The PCC, Julia Mulligan, starts her interview at 1:05 The worrying parts of what she said are towards the end of the clip and start after 1:12.
Click to expand...

Thanks Garry, I'll have a listen later.
 
Garry, I suggest you look at the new updates to code G of The Police and Criminal Evidence Act. In essence, police now have to have reasonable grounds to believe that an arrest is necessary. There are all sorts of grounds under that criteria whereby an arrest is justified and I would suggest that the arrest of your son could easily fall within those grounds. However, the purpose of the changes to the code is to deal with matters whereby persons were legtimately acting in self defence, teachers dealing with unruly pupils etc.

Having said that, I am fairly certain that any officer who did not arrest your son, in the circumstances as they appeared at the time would probably face disciplinary action for neglect of duty.
As regards the arrest of your wife. That is definitely a harder one to call.
 
Forgot to mention, none of the changes to the Police and Criminal Evidence Act negate the necessity for the police to be able to interview a suspect. For example, grounds to arrest a person may be whereby it is obvious that person will not agree to be voluntarily interviewed, could dispose of evidence, other persons require interviewing, forensics need to be undertaken etc.
 
duggiebee said:
Forgot to mention, none of the changes to the Police and Criminal Evidence Act negate the necessity for the police to be able to interview a suspect. For example, grounds to arrest a person may be whereby it is obvious that person will not agree to be voluntarily interviewed, could dispose of evidence, other persons require interviewing, forensics need to be undertaken etc.
Click to expand...
Thanks for that.
As far as my son is concerned, we accept that the police officers had the right to arrest him, and it was convenient for them to do so. It would have been better for him if they had said something like "I need you to come with me to the police station now, so that you can be interviewed, and if you refuse to do that I will have to arrest you" If he had not been arrested then this whole sorry episode would not be permanently on file and would not show up on an enhanced CRB check.

But it isn't about the arrest, it's about their treatment by the police, and the attitude of certain police officers.

As I keep saying, most of the police officers, including all those wearing uniforms, were great. But some were not.
 
Garry Edwards said:
Thanks for that.
As far as my son is concerned, we accept that the police officers had the right to arrest him, and it was convenient for them to do so. It would have been better for him if they had said something like "I need you to come with me to the police station now, so that you can be interviewed, and if you refuse to do that I will have to arrest you" If he had not been arrested then this whole sorry episode would not be permanently on file and would not show up on an enhanced CRB check.

But it isn't about the arrest, it's about their treatment by the police, and the attitude of certain police officers.

As I keep saying, most of the police officers, including all those wearing uniforms, were great. But some were not.
Click to expand...

Even voluntary attendance is usually accompanied by an arrest if the interviewee is a suspect, Gary. They have to be read their rights prior to questioning.
 
Garry Edwards said:
Thanks for that.
As far as my son is concerned, we accept that the police officers had the right to arrest him, and it was convenient for them to do so. It would have been better for him if they had said something like "I need you to come with me to the police station now, so that you can be interviewed, and if you refuse to do that I will have to arrest you" If he had not been arrested then this whole sorry episode would not be permanently on file and would not show up on an enhanced CRB check.

But it isn't about the arrest, it's about their treatment by the police, and the attitude of certain police officers.

As I keep saying, most of the police officers, including all those wearing uniforms, were great. But some were not.
Click to expand...

Garry do you forsee a time when Bill will need an enhanced CRB? does he intend to work with children?
 
joescrivens said:
Garry do you forsee a time when Bill will need an enhanced CRB? does he intend to work with children?
Click to expand...
He is only 21 years old, who knows what he might want to do in the future?
 
Garry Edwards said:
He is only 21 years old, who knows what he might want to do in the future?
Click to expand...

I was just wondering if it had been something he was planning that was making you mention it or if he sees his future very much in the farming world
 
Further to the above Garry, a voluntary interview has to be accompanied with the words to the effect 'you have the right to legal advice' ' You are not under arrest' 'You have the right to leave at any time' as well as the caution.

The only way an interview can be enforced is after arrest.

I would also point out that it is good practice for police officers to write a witnesses statement for them. That is why it can take hours sometimes for a written statement to be taken. Going over what happened several times. The reasons an officer writes it, is simply that the courts require the evidence to be presented in a certain way. For example : it is necessary that heresay is excluded, times, weather conditions, distances, lighting conditions relevant at the time have to be explained. Thought processes have to be explained. This is not something that can usually be accomplished by someone who has never written a witness statement before. I have seen witness statements written by members of the public themselves and to be honest, they are a waste of time. I also have to say that I have seen dreadful witness statements written by police officers leading to cases collapsing.
Knowing what I know now, I would never let a member of the public write their own statements. They are always signed at the beginning with a declaration that the information contained is true to the best of their knowledge and belief.

Anyway, just some general points!!!
 
joescrivens said:
I was just wondering if it had been something he was planning that was making you mention it or if he sees his future very much in the farming world
Click to expand...
I very much doubt whether he will ever want to do a different type of work, but who knows? What if he has an injury or loses his physical strength? What if he wants to become a teacher? What if this had happened to a teacher?
 
Garry Edwards said:
I very much doubt whether he will ever want to do a different type of work, but who knows? What if he has an injury or loses his physical strength? What if he wants to become a teacher? What if this had happened to a teacher?
Click to expand...

as a former teacher he should be fine if this does happen. Yes the arrest will show up on the enhanced form but it was not to do with children and he was found not guilty so its irrelevant.

You cant stop the police arresting you for something, if you were found not guilty of it then it wont have an impact.
 
He was never charged so 'not guilty' doesn't come into it.
 
duggiebee said:
I would also point out that it is good practice for police officers to write a witnesses statement for them. That is why it can take hours sometimes for a written statement to be taken. Going over what happened several times. The reasons an officer writes it, is simply that the courts require the evidence to be presented in a certain way. For example : it is necessary that heresay is excluded, times, weather conditions, distances, lighting conditions relevant at the time have to be explained. Thought processes have to be explained. This is not something that can usually be accomplished by someone who has never written a witness statement before. I have seen witness statements written by members of the public themselves and to be honest, they are a waste of time. I also have to say that I have seen dreadful witness statements written by police officers leading to cases collapsing.
Knowing what I know now, I would never let a member of the public write their own statements. They are always signed at the beginning with a declaration that the information contained is true to the best of their knowledge and belief.

Anyway, just some general points!!!
Click to expand...

Whilst those are valid points, unless the 'witness' is very calm and very aware it is almost inevitable that the statement will reflect more of the police officer's requirements than the witnesses memory.
The declaration is meaningless in real life.
 
duggiebee said:
Further to the above Garry, a voluntary interview has to be accompanied with the words to the effect 'you have the right to legal advice' ' You are not under arrest' 'You have the right to leave at any time' as well as the caution.

The only way an interview can be enforced is after arrest.

I would also point out that it is good practice for police officers to write a witnesses statement for them. That is why it can take hours sometimes for a written statement to be taken. Going over what happened several times. The reasons an officer writes it, is simply that the courts require the evidence to be presented in a certain way. For example : it is necessary that heresay is excluded, times, weather conditions, distances, lighting conditions relevant at the time have to be explained. Thought processes have to be explained. This is not something that can usually be accomplished by someone who has never written a witness statement before. I have seen witness statements written by members of the public themselves and to be honest, they are a waste of time. I also have to say that I have seen dreadful witness statements written by police officers leading to cases collapsing.
Knowing what I know now, I would never let a member of the public write their own statements. They are always signed at the beginning with a declaration that the information contained is true to the best of their knowledge and belief.

Anyway, just some general points!!!
Click to expand...

Good practice yes, and I have absolutely no problem with a police officer helping a witness to write the statement in the needed format.

But writing a completely false statement and then trying to trick the witness into signing it is different.
Well it isn't, 'not guilty' requires a trial - a trial that may have a major impact on the future of the person found 'not guilty'.
Click to expand...
No innocent person wants to go through a trial, but if there is a trial and a not guilty verdict, then that person is innocent.

If there is no trial, and the CPS simply take no further action, this leaves a doubt that the person may be guilty but that there may not have been strong enough evidence to take it forward.
 
Garry Edwards said:
No innocent person wants to go through a trial, but if there is a trial and a not guilty verdict, then that person is innocent.

If there is no trial, and the CPS simply take no further action, this leaves a doubt that the person may be guilty but that there may not have been strong enough evidence to take it forward.
Click to expand...

I would rather have a CPS 'no action' than a jury 'not guilty' any day.
Having said that, the possible adverse publicity of a trial and subsequent 'not guilty' is a moot point in this case where publicity has been sought and seemingly backfired due to the PCC statement.
 
gramps said:
Well it isn't, 'not guilty' requires a trial - a trial that may have a major impact on the future of the person found 'not guilty'.
Click to expand...

:bonk:

in terms of the effect on the ability for Bill to get a job as a teacher it's the same difference is what I was saying :bang:
 
for once joe and i are in agrement - ive been arrested before, and i still have an enhanced crb - ditto my freind who i mentioned earlier who was arrested on suspicion of gbh who now works as a primary school teacher.

CRB is a red herring in this context - afterall it stands for criminal records bureau , so if bill doesnt have a criminal record theres not a problem
 
Last edited:
Garry,

I hope your son and his Mum are doing well coping with all the post-stress.



gramps said:
Well it isn't, 'not guilty' requires a trial - a trial that may have a major impact on the future of the person found 'not guilty'.
Click to expand...

Exactly!

Having been a plaintiff and a defendant in a horrid complex case that I initially instigated and eventually won (posted about the outcome a year ago), being questioned is one thing, having to defend oneself in court is a whole different ball game. The repercussions of each is life changing of different magnitudes.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top