Police officers are legally entitled to attack people physically, hit them, knock them over, restrain them in handcuffs, shoot them, forcibly put them in cells, etc in ways which would otherwise amount to assault and battery, provided this is done reasonably in the execution of their duty. Use of violent force to effect arrests has always been legal, and remains legal today. This has nothing whatever to do with the "60s", "universities", or "socialism". The point under discussion concerns use of motor vehicles specifically. Police officers are not and never have been authorised to use a motor vehicle physically to attack a fugitive (unlike using their fists, boots, truncheons, or firearms which are so authorised). In my opinion this is an anomaly which ought to be corrected. Feel free to agree or disagree. Or post vague, irrelevant waffle if you prefer.
relevant to this thread - met two members of "BikerBiker" at Boxhill today:- https://twitter.com/bikerbiker_?lang=en
ffs Pete, even you must of heard of sec 3 criminal law act....in fact find out and tell me what it says...
If your pubes died, they'f fall out and match your bonce. I do think you should dye them though, it might keep you off here for a bit.
Oh dear. OK, who woke up Old King Log? Do you mind addressing the points in my post, instead of launching upon a verbose essay filled with talking points we already (mostly) agree on and which you somehow want me to argue against? I can wait.
I understand your point on Vehicles, however the Police have used their vehicles to stop other vehicles since the use of horses.... so what is so different now (Moped muggers) that it requires additional laws? My specific point being they aren't running over pedestrian muggers, just those on two wheeled transport?
Good news. Up until; Member of the public gets hit by a flying moped and or rider. Plod decides he has PDSD and goes off on the sick.
