OAP whose car window was smashed up in Usk, slams ex-PC's ‘obscene’ payout

SPEAKING OUT: Robert Whatley, whose window ex-Gwent PC Mike Baillon smashed in Usk, claims ‘the law has failed’

PAYOUT: Ex-Gwent policeman Mike Baillon

VIDEO: PC Mike Baillon in the yellow jacket, during the incident which was found to have caused his being hounded out of his job

First published in News
Last updated

A PENSIONER whose car was smashed up by a Gwent police officer after a chase said that “the law has failed”, as the officer is set to receive a payout of over £400,000.

The video of former traffic cop Mike Baillon, 42, hitting the car window of 73-year-old Robert Whatley 15 times in Usk went viral on the internet, being viewed more than 30 million times on YouTube.

This led to Mr Baillon quitting the force after he became the butt of daily jokes.

But following a tribunal, he is to be awarded £429,434.64 for loss of pension, and will receive a further sum for loss of earnings since leaving the force.

Mr Whatley said: “I consider myself the victim of his actions as he was in a position of authority. It’s an obscene figure to be awarded and on this occasion the law has let the public down.”

The incident happened in 2009, where Mr Whatley was seen driving without a seat belt, which resulted in a pursuit after Mr Whatley drove off.

He was found guilty of not wearing a seat belt and failing to stop, but won a payout from the police over the damage caused to his vehicle.

Mr Whatley claims that he didn’t realise the police wanted him to pull over.

He said: “I suffered an acute stroke previously and was in recovery so I was trying to get home to take my medication.

“It was bang out of order what happened that day.”

Following the events, Mr Baillon was taken out of his traffic police role, as Gwent Police chiefs claimed he had become “obsessed” with “the Whatley incident”.

He resigned in August 2012 after he became the victim of unpleasant comments from other police officers and on one occasion his locker was defaced.

He won a constructive dismissal claim at a Cardiff employment tribunal and at a remedy hearing on Wednesday, his solicitor Nick Smith criticised Gwent police force.

He said: “Mr Baillon was removed from a job he loved and it was a gross abuse of power by the police.”

Following the decision, a Gwent Police spokesman said: “We will now reflect on the judgment.”

Speaking to the BBC, Mr Baillon said he felt let down by Gwent Police.

He said: “I felt to draw a line under the incident, I needed to make the organisation aware of how they dealt with the incident and the effect that had on me and my family.

Referring to Gwent Police, he added: “They’ve cost me my job and they’ve cost the taxpayer an awful lot of money. I was highly trained and highly committed, but it counted for nothing in the end.”

After leaving the force, Mr Baillon set up a company called Celtic Woodcraft.

Video of the incident in Usk in 2009:

Comments (65)

Please log in to enable comment sorting

7:47am Fri 7 Feb 14

insider2 says...

Mr whatley is right - the law has failed - he should have been banned from driving for his actions .
All he had to do was stop and face the music for his illegality - just like the rest of us !
Mr whatley is right - the law has failed - he should have been banned from driving for his actions . All he had to do was stop and face the music for his illegality - just like the rest of us ! insider2
  • Score: 36

7:56am Fri 7 Feb 14

davidcp says...

Blue lit police car behind, one choice - stop or get out of the way by pulling over. Whatley is an arrogant man who thinks he is above the law.
Blue lit police car behind, one choice - stop or get out of the way by pulling over. Whatley is an arrogant man who thinks he is above the law. davidcp
  • Score: 34

8:04am Fri 7 Feb 14

Woodgnome says...

If he'd had a stroke and was recovering I'm surprised this man was driving at all. He should have a test retake.
If he'd had a stroke and was recovering I'm surprised this man was driving at all. He should have a test retake. Woodgnome
  • Score: 28

8:25am Fri 7 Feb 14

ladymalpas1963 says...

Mike ballon was an excellent police office and his payout is justified, unlike the actions of Mr Whatley, this, of course is just my opinion, if you see blue lights you stop not keep going.... All the best to you Mike Baillon!
Mike ballon was an excellent police office and his payout is justified, unlike the actions of Mr Whatley, this, of course is just my opinion, if you see blue lights you stop not keep going.... All the best to you Mike Baillon! ladymalpas1963
  • Score: 15

8:32am Fri 7 Feb 14

rightsideup says...

Perhaps he should not have been driving until he had fully recovered from his 'accute stroke'............
Perhaps he should not have been driving until he had fully recovered from his 'accute stroke'............ rightsideup
  • Score: 33

8:39am Fri 7 Feb 14

Tim NPT says...

What upsets me is Whatley who caused all this in the first place apparently received £20,000 for damage to his car !!!!!
What upsets me is Whatley who caused all this in the first place apparently received £20,000 for damage to his car !!!!! Tim NPT
  • Score: 19

8:50am Fri 7 Feb 14

GrumpyOM says...

I agree with all the comments posted here. There is a general attitude today that no-one is prepared to take the consequences of their actions. In this case Mr Whatley's inaction, not wearing a seat belt, and actions in driving off after being stopped. He should have received penalty points and/ or a ban.
The other party here at fault are the police authorities who seem frequently fail to stand by their men and will kowtow to media pressure and sacrfice an officer's career just to appease a baying public and politicians who have no idea what it is like to have to deal day after day with the most troublesome members of our society.
In this case it has cost the public purse dearly on both counts.
I agree with all the comments posted here. There is a general attitude today that no-one is prepared to take the consequences of their actions. In this case Mr Whatley's inaction, not wearing a seat belt, and actions in driving off after being stopped. He should have received penalty points and/ or a ban. The other party here at fault are the police authorities who seem frequently fail to stand by their men and will kowtow to media pressure and sacrfice an officer's career just to appease a baying public and politicians who have no idea what it is like to have to deal day after day with the most troublesome members of our society. In this case it has cost the public purse dearly on both counts. GrumpyOM
  • Score: 26

8:55am Fri 7 Feb 14

Woodgnome says...

rightsideup wrote:
Perhaps he should not have been driving until he had fully recovered from his 'accute stroke'............
Correct, a friend of mind suffered an "acute stroke" and he had to inform the DVLA and was not allowed to drive for months by law.
[quote][p][bold]rightsideup[/bold] wrote: Perhaps he should not have been driving until he had fully recovered from his 'accute stroke'............[/p][/quote]Correct, a friend of mind suffered an "acute stroke" and he had to inform the DVLA and was not allowed to drive for months by law. Woodgnome
  • Score: 23

8:59am Fri 7 Feb 14

TK355 says...

Oh this man is an absolute joke.
Go to 07.50 on this video and listen to what he says. He did not think he was being escorted home. His solicitor told him to say it. When is the SWA going to realise this man is an uncredible person? When is the SWA going to ask Gwent Police why they paid him £67,000, not £20,000 as he keeps saying? When is the SWA going to ask Gwent Police why they bullied this officer out of his job?
http://www.youtube.c
om/watch?v=N4569wp5f
Ig
This is now in danger of becoming an absolute farce!
Oh this man is an absolute joke. Go to 07.50 on this video and listen to what he says. He did not think he was being escorted home. His solicitor told him to say it. When is the SWA going to realise this man is an uncredible person? When is the SWA going to ask Gwent Police why they paid him £67,000, not £20,000 as he keeps saying? When is the SWA going to ask Gwent Police why they bullied this officer out of his job? http://www.youtube.c om/watch?v=N4569wp5f Ig This is now in danger of becoming an absolute farce! TK355
  • Score: 28

9:31am Fri 7 Feb 14

Jonnytrouble says...

Referring to Gwent Police, he added: “They’ve cost me my job and they’ve cost the taxpayer an awful lot of money. I was highly trained and highly committed, but it counted for nothing in the end.”

Highly trained ???
Over trained the way you acted ????
Referring to Gwent Police, he added: “They’ve cost me my job and they’ve cost the taxpayer an awful lot of money. I was highly trained and highly committed, but it counted for nothing in the end.” Highly trained ??? Over trained the way you acted ???? Jonnytrouble
  • Score: 6

9:37am Fri 7 Feb 14

jimmysmith says...

ladymalpas1963 wrote:
Mike ballon was an excellent police office and his payout is justified, unlike the actions of Mr Whatley, this, of course is just my opinion, if you see blue lights you stop not keep going.... All the best to you Mike Baillon!
An excellent police officer and his pay out is justified ? your as crazed as he obviously was .you aint related or possibly married to him are you ? i sincerely hope that theres some intervention by higher powers and this obscene and vulgar misuse of tax payers money is halted asap
[quote][p][bold]ladymalpas1963[/bold] wrote: Mike ballon was an excellent police office and his payout is justified, unlike the actions of Mr Whatley, this, of course is just my opinion, if you see blue lights you stop not keep going.... All the best to you Mike Baillon![/p][/quote]An excellent police officer and his pay out is justified ? your as crazed as he obviously was .you aint related or possibly married to him are you ? i sincerely hope that theres some intervention by higher powers and this obscene and vulgar misuse of tax payers money is halted asap jimmysmith
  • Score: -6

9:48am Fri 7 Feb 14

Over-by-yer says...

Once again this story is becoming a smoke screen for the real facts in this case. Why doesn't the argus look into whatley's background or dig for the reason why senior officers 'pandered' to Whatley the day after the incident before the full facts were even known by them, offering an interim payment for damages (the day after) and then the way Mr Baillon and his family were dealt with the following two years. Senior management were bending over backwards in their willingness to appear open and accountable but they got it drastically wrong! There is a hell of a lot more to this story but the general public is unfortunately never going to know about it, but why let the facts get in the way of a good story!!
Once again this story is becoming a smoke screen for the real facts in this case. Why doesn't the argus look into whatley's background or dig for the reason why senior officers 'pandered' to Whatley the day after the incident before the full facts were even known by them, offering an interim payment for damages (the day after) and then the way Mr Baillon and his family were dealt with the following two years. Senior management were bending over backwards in their willingness to appear open and accountable but they got it drastically wrong! There is a hell of a lot more to this story but the general public is unfortunately never going to know about it, but why let the facts get in the way of a good story!! Over-by-yer
  • Score: 24

10:20am Fri 7 Feb 14

coalpicker says...

TK355 wrote:
Oh this man is an absolute joke.
Go to 07.50 on this video and listen to what he says. He did not think he was being escorted home. His solicitor told him to say it. When is the SWA going to realise this man is an uncredible person? When is the SWA going to ask Gwent Police why they paid him £67,000, not £20,000 as he keeps saying? When is the SWA going to ask Gwent Police why they bullied this officer out of his job?
http://www.youtube.c

om/watch?v=N4569wp5f

Ig
This is now in danger of becoming an absolute farce!
Showing this level of aggression why was this officer not dismissed with immediate effect ? I have no doubt had this pictorial evidence not come to light there would have been an entirely different slant put on this incident.
I can only congratulate the person who made these graphics available to
the trusting public. This incident has been commented on national TV and has brought an excellent part of the police service into disrepute.
[quote][p][bold]TK355[/bold] wrote: Oh this man is an absolute joke. Go to 07.50 on this video and listen to what he says. He did not think he was being escorted home. His solicitor told him to say it. When is the SWA going to realise this man is an uncredible person? When is the SWA going to ask Gwent Police why they paid him £67,000, not £20,000 as he keeps saying? When is the SWA going to ask Gwent Police why they bullied this officer out of his job? http://www.youtube.c om/watch?v=N4569wp5f Ig This is now in danger of becoming an absolute farce![/p][/quote]Showing this level of aggression why was this officer not dismissed with immediate effect ? I have no doubt had this pictorial evidence not come to light there would have been an entirely different slant put on this incident. I can only congratulate the person who made these graphics available to the trusting public. This incident has been commented on national TV and has brought an excellent part of the police service into disrepute. coalpicker
  • Score: -16

10:39am Fri 7 Feb 14

hellsbelle73 says...

personally I think that Mr Whatley was in the wrong, for failure to stop, however, just because Mr Baillon was wearing a police uniform it did not give him the right to smash hell out of Mr Whatley's vehicle. Mr Baillon chose to leave the force, due to bullying fair enough, however, I personally would not class that as constructive dismissal. I was bullied out of a job I enjoyed 7 years ago, I was advised that I could not take it any further so was unable to make any claims against the person or the company. Mr Baillon should not have acted like an animal in the first place and perhaps then he would not have been bullied by his peers. No wonder some people have no faith or respect for the law if this is how they behave /
personally I think that Mr Whatley was in the wrong, for failure to stop, however, just because Mr Baillon was wearing a police uniform it did not give him the right to smash hell out of Mr Whatley's vehicle. Mr Baillon chose to leave the force, due to bullying fair enough, however, I personally would not class that as constructive dismissal. I was bullied out of a job I enjoyed 7 years ago, I was advised that I could not take it any further so was unable to make any claims against the person or the company. Mr Baillon should not have acted like an animal in the first place and perhaps then he would not have been bullied by his peers. No wonder some people have no faith or respect for the law if this is how they behave / hellsbelle73
  • Score: 12

12:56pm Fri 7 Feb 14

username2 says...

Some very strange comments here. Clearly Mr Whatley was in the wrong but if you really think that after this case, the poor police officer (please again look at him smashing the hell out of what he could then see to be an OAP's car) deserves £400,000 then you need to seriously question your values. Whoever said - All the best - to the police officer must be related. Crazed policing and then an obscene payout. Nothing to celebrate here.
Some very strange comments here. Clearly Mr Whatley was in the wrong but if you really think that after this case, the poor police officer (please again look at him smashing the hell out of what he could then see to be an OAP's car) deserves £400,000 then you need to seriously question your values. Whoever said - All the best - to the police officer must be related. Crazed policing and then an obscene payout. Nothing to celebrate here. username2
  • Score: 17

1:58pm Fri 7 Feb 14

regaturn says...

Over-by-yer wrote:
Once again this story is becoming a smoke screen for the real facts in this case. Why doesn't the argus look into whatley's background or dig for the reason why senior officers 'pandered' to Whatley the day after the incident before the full facts were even known by them, offering an interim payment for damages (the day after) and then the way Mr Baillon and his family were dealt with the following two years. Senior management were bending over backwards in their willingness to appear open and accountable but they got it drastically wrong! There is a hell of a lot more to this story but the general public is unfortunately never going to know about it, but why let the facts get in the way of a good story!!
Totally agree, this story is really about the inept and arrogant senior officers of Gwent police and the the HR department.In a couple of months time Gwent police could be making more payments to ex officers who were dismissed under regulation A19 after 30 years service, only this week this action was found to be unlawful
[quote][p][bold]Over-by-yer[/bold] wrote: Once again this story is becoming a smoke screen for the real facts in this case. Why doesn't the argus look into whatley's background or dig for the reason why senior officers 'pandered' to Whatley the day after the incident before the full facts were even known by them, offering an interim payment for damages (the day after) and then the way Mr Baillon and his family were dealt with the following two years. Senior management were bending over backwards in their willingness to appear open and accountable but they got it drastically wrong! There is a hell of a lot more to this story but the general public is unfortunately never going to know about it, but why let the facts get in the way of a good story!![/p][/quote]Totally agree, this story is really about the inept and arrogant senior officers of Gwent police and the the HR department.In a couple of months time Gwent police could be making more payments to ex officers who were dismissed under regulation A19 after 30 years service, only this week this action was found to be unlawful regaturn
  • Score: 17

2:16pm Fri 7 Feb 14

Dai Rear says...

insider2 wrote:
Mr whatley is right - the law has failed - he should have been banned from driving for his actions .
All he had to do was stop and face the music for his illegality - just like the rest of us !
Oh please. You're a copper (I suspect you are, but hypothetically) and you see an old geezer not wearing a seat belt and he won't get out of his motor.
Do you (a) shout to him "Ok mate, you're getting a summons for no seatbelt" or (b) commit an offence under Section 3 of the Public Order Act?
Although a no brainer I guess your answer would be (b) with the rider "and collect loads of dosh"
Thank you officer.
[quote][p][bold]insider2[/bold] wrote: Mr whatley is right - the law has failed - he should have been banned from driving for his actions . All he had to do was stop and face the music for his illegality - just like the rest of us ![/p][/quote]Oh please. You're a copper (I suspect you are, but hypothetically) and you see an old geezer not wearing a seat belt and he won't get out of his motor. Do you (a) shout to him "Ok mate, you're getting a summons for no seatbelt" or (b) commit an offence under Section 3 of the Public Order Act? Although a no brainer I guess your answer would be (b) with the rider "and collect loads of dosh" Thank you officer. Dai Rear
  • Score: 8

2:22pm Fri 7 Feb 14

Dai Rear says...

There are more coppers posting on here than have ever been seen on the beat, or ever will. Your answer to "Plebgate"?
If you coppers really think not wearing a seatbelt is worth behaving like a bl**dy lunatic then God help any of us who you catch smoking in a bus shelter.
There are more coppers posting on here than have ever been seen on the beat, or ever will. Your answer to "Plebgate"? If you coppers really think not wearing a seatbelt is worth behaving like a bl**dy lunatic then God help any of us who you catch smoking in a bus shelter. Dai Rear
  • Score: 21

2:41pm Fri 7 Feb 14

bobmech1 says...

I suspect that mr Whatley is miffed at the payout he received
Mind you he shouldn't have driven off after being stopped, failed to stop and failed to wear a seatbelt
He hasn't lost his job, his pension etc
I suspect that mr Whatley is miffed at the payout he received Mind you he shouldn't have driven off after being stopped, failed to stop and failed to wear a seatbelt He hasn't lost his job, his pension etc bobmech1
  • Score: 8

4:41pm Fri 7 Feb 14

Woodgnome says...

Pathetic, if you have a balanced view on the facts and disagree with Whatley you must be a copper!! Well I can categorically state that I'm not one. I think the whole affair is scandalous and worthy of a proper independent investigation, starting with the incident itself, the treatment of Baillon by his colleagues, why the senior officers at the station did not control the situation and whether Baillon's so called constructive dismissal was justified. A lot of public money has been spent and the public are entitled to know why it was spent in this way. If Baillon minconducted himself why didn't the police deal with it? As they did not presumably he did nothing wrong.
Pathetic, if you have a balanced view on the facts and disagree with Whatley you must be a copper!! Well I can categorically state that I'm not one. I think the whole affair is scandalous and worthy of a proper independent investigation, starting with the incident itself, the treatment of Baillon by his colleagues, why the senior officers at the station did not control the situation and whether Baillon's so called constructive dismissal was justified. A lot of public money has been spent and the public are entitled to know why it was spent in this way. If Baillon minconducted himself why didn't the police deal with it? As they did not presumably he did nothing wrong. Woodgnome
  • Score: 20

5:32pm Fri 7 Feb 14

andrew57 says...

police officer should of been charged with criminal damage
police officer should of been charged with criminal damage andrew57
  • Score: 3

6:03pm Fri 7 Feb 14

ladymalpas1963 says...

jimmysmith wrote:
ladymalpas1963 wrote:
Mike ballon was an excellent police office and his payout is justified, unlike the actions of Mr Whatley, this, of course is just my opinion, if you see blue lights you stop not keep going.... All the best to you Mike Baillon!
An excellent police officer and his pay out is justified ? your as crazed as he obviously was .you aint related or possibly married to him are you ? i sincerely hope that theres some intervention by higher powers and this obscene and vulgar misuse of tax payers money is halted asap
No I'm not related or married to him, I would ask you the same question regarding Whatley . How would you know if mr Baillon is an excellent officer or not, you have no idea whatsoever what you are talking about, there are two sides to every story, do you know both sides or just the side that has been forced upon the general public? Get a grip and try reading up on the whole story not just the pictures
[quote][p][bold]jimmysmith[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]ladymalpas1963[/bold] wrote: Mike ballon was an excellent police office and his payout is justified, unlike the actions of Mr Whatley, this, of course is just my opinion, if you see blue lights you stop not keep going.... All the best to you Mike Baillon![/p][/quote]An excellent police officer and his pay out is justified ? your as crazed as he obviously was .you aint related or possibly married to him are you ? i sincerely hope that theres some intervention by higher powers and this obscene and vulgar misuse of tax payers money is halted asap[/p][/quote]No I'm not related or married to him, I would ask you the same question regarding Whatley . How would you know if mr Baillon is an excellent officer or not, you have no idea whatsoever what you are talking about, there are two sides to every story, do you know both sides or just the side that has been forced upon the general public? Get a grip and try reading up on the whole story not just the pictures ladymalpas1963
  • Score: 2

6:21pm Fri 7 Feb 14

andrew57 says...

every picture tells a story disgusting improper behavior by the copper
every picture tells a story disgusting improper behavior by the copper andrew57
  • Score: 9

6:24pm Fri 7 Feb 14

Oldnightrun says...

As I have already said on another site. Has Mr Baillon ever noticed that on most motor cars, there is a funny little thing called a handle, and if one pulls it it usually opens the door, or did they not show him that when he was given his expert police training?
As I have already said on another site. Has Mr Baillon ever noticed that on most motor cars, there is a funny little thing called a handle, and if one pulls it it usually opens the door, or did they not show him that when he was given his expert police training? Oldnightrun
  • Score: 3

6:30pm Fri 7 Feb 14

Jkke16 says...

Mr Watley is exactly what's wrong with this country. The guy broke the law and thinks he's a victim. Parasites bleeding society dry like this needs to be dealt with.
As for the PC good luck to you. It's a huge amount of money but the fact your employers didn't stand by you and allowed this idiot pensioner to call the shots is shocking.
Mr Watley is exactly what's wrong with this country. The guy broke the law and thinks he's a victim. Parasites bleeding society dry like this needs to be dealt with. As for the PC good luck to you. It's a huge amount of money but the fact your employers didn't stand by you and allowed this idiot pensioner to call the shots is shocking. Jkke16
  • Score: 11

6:31pm Fri 7 Feb 14

Lizwerry says...

If you ever get the chance to go for a drive in a Range Rover, watch how the doors automatically lock when it drives away and they don't unlock until the driver wants them to. Maybe that's why he didn't try the handle....
If you ever get the chance to go for a drive in a Range Rover, watch how the doors automatically lock when it drives away and they don't unlock until the driver wants them to. Maybe that's why he didn't try the handle.... Lizwerry
  • Score: 16

6:32pm Fri 7 Feb 14

grumpyandopinionated says...

Absolute joke.

The police officer in question acted acording to the book, as far as I know it is police policy that any vehicle that fails to stop and subsequently comes to a halt the police have the powers to do what they did, seems brutal but it is effective at what it does. It is intended to disorientate the occupants of the vehicle so they can be extracted from the vehicle without harm coming to the officers. How could the police not know if the reason why the driver did not stop was because he was possibly getting what ever heapon he could have had ready and then when he stops he uses it. What happens if the police just walked up to the vehicle and politly asks the occupant to get out of the vehicle and then get a gun or knife in the face, or even the driver then drives off and runs over some kids crossing the road. As far as I'm concerned the police officers were in the right even if it isn't policy to do what they did.

The payout is a bit high but then again I would consider this to be high because of the treatment that the officer recived and no doubt there are things in this case that we do not know about and will probably not know about.

For me it seems like the officer that jumped on the bonnet has never been mentioned. Did he get the same treatment as in anyones eyes he was just as bad. This whole thing stinks to high water.

Would a yobbo being chased through the street get compo or is this the outcome because obviously this driver in the range rover can afford a solicitior to tell him exactly what to say. I would not be suprised if he was not stopping because he was on the phone to his solicitor.
Absolute joke. The police officer in question acted acording to the book, as far as I know it is police policy that any vehicle that fails to stop and subsequently comes to a halt the police have the powers to do what they did, seems brutal but it is effective at what it does. It is intended to disorientate the occupants of the vehicle so they can be extracted from the vehicle without harm coming to the officers. How could the police not know if the reason why the driver did not stop was because he was possibly getting what ever heapon he could have had ready and then when he stops he uses it. What happens if the police just walked up to the vehicle and politly asks the occupant to get out of the vehicle and then get a gun or knife in the face, or even the driver then drives off and runs over some kids crossing the road. As far as I'm concerned the police officers were in the right even if it isn't policy to do what they did. The payout is a bit high but then again I would consider this to be high because of the treatment that the officer recived and no doubt there are things in this case that we do not know about and will probably not know about. For me it seems like the officer that jumped on the bonnet has never been mentioned. Did he get the same treatment as in anyones eyes he was just as bad. This whole thing stinks to high water. Would a yobbo being chased through the street get compo or is this the outcome because obviously this driver in the range rover can afford a solicitior to tell him exactly what to say. I would not be suprised if he was not stopping because he was on the phone to his solicitor. grumpyandopinionated
  • Score: 15

6:36pm Fri 7 Feb 14

andrew57 says...

thinks he;s robo cop
thinks he;s robo cop andrew57
  • Score: -8

6:44pm Fri 7 Feb 14

grumpyandopinionated says...

andrew57 wrote:
thinks he;s robo cop
Not robo cop, was just doing his job. Don't get the negative comments towards the police officer in this situation. What is the difference between the driver of the range rover and a driver of a stolen car that has been in a chase through town. The police officer has to assume that the car is not stopping because it is stolen etc etc. So has to act accordingly. When a vehicle doesn't stop it is commiting an offence, in doing what the police did then they are protecting themselves from any potential useen circumstance. If the guy in the range rover had been armed and the poice casually tried to coax him out then he could have injured to police officer as he conceled the weapon before getting out. To me it's the only course of action they can and should take, I'm sorry but by not stopping you give up the right for the police to treat you like a law obiding citizen and request that you get out of the car rather than being drag out.

I'm in no way pro police, but in this circumstance the police officer is in the right, doesn't matter how old the driver is or what he's driving, you break the law then you pay the price for doing so.
[quote][p][bold]andrew57[/bold] wrote: thinks he;s robo cop[/p][/quote]Not robo cop, was just doing his job. Don't get the negative comments towards the police officer in this situation. What is the difference between the driver of the range rover and a driver of a stolen car that has been in a chase through town. The police officer has to assume that the car is not stopping because it is stolen etc etc. So has to act accordingly. When a vehicle doesn't stop it is commiting an offence, in doing what the police did then they are protecting themselves from any potential useen circumstance. If the guy in the range rover had been armed and the poice casually tried to coax him out then he could have injured to police officer as he conceled the weapon before getting out. To me it's the only course of action they can and should take, I'm sorry but by not stopping you give up the right for the police to treat you like a law obiding citizen and request that you get out of the car rather than being drag out. I'm in no way pro police, but in this circumstance the police officer is in the right, doesn't matter how old the driver is or what he's driving, you break the law then you pay the price for doing so. grumpyandopinionated
  • Score: 11

7:41pm Fri 7 Feb 14

Practicalmickey says...

Why have the Argus spoken to Mr Whatley, this is an employer employee issue. The Mr Whatley incident was dealt with. Typical Argus Negative reporting.
I think this should be a lesson to all employers, bullying in any form should not be tolerated and to be moved to a different position because he complained is clearly corporate bullying.
Why have the Argus spoken to Mr Whatley, this is an employer employee issue. The Mr Whatley incident was dealt with. Typical Argus Negative reporting. I think this should be a lesson to all employers, bullying in any form should not be tolerated and to be moved to a different position because he complained is clearly corporate bullying. Practicalmickey
  • Score: 10

8:06pm Fri 7 Feb 14

Limestonecowboy says...

the car was 'smashed up by the police officer' thought it was just the window this spoilt brat go in excess of £20,000 - if you don't know a police car wants you to stop then you shouldn't be driving.
the car was 'smashed up by the police officer' thought it was just the window this spoilt brat go in excess of £20,000 - if you don't know a police car wants you to stop then you shouldn't be driving. Limestonecowboy
  • Score: 5

8:28pm Fri 7 Feb 14

Jonnytrouble says...

Dai Rear wrote:
There are more coppers posting on here than have ever been seen on the beat, or ever will. Your answer to "Plebgate"?
If you coppers really think not wearing a seatbelt is worth behaving like a bl**dy lunatic then God help any of us who you catch smoking in a bus shelter.
It looks that way which is worrying !
If this is true ( what above is saying ) and they agree to behaving like those 2 officers, notice on the video the 3rd one DID NOT ! only 2 had to go before senior officers for there ' act of madness '
All I can say is im glad that everything is recorded !
But THINK,why did someone ' shop ' them ??? and it came to this EH !
My uncle ( deceased ) was a Police Sargent in Newport and he must be
' rolling ' in his grave if HE saw some of the stupid comments on here for support for those officers !
[quote][p][bold]Dai Rear[/bold] wrote: There are more coppers posting on here than have ever been seen on the beat, or ever will. Your answer to "Plebgate"? If you coppers really think not wearing a seatbelt is worth behaving like a bl**dy lunatic then God help any of us who you catch smoking in a bus shelter.[/p][/quote]It looks that way which is worrying ! If this is true ( what above is saying ) and they agree to behaving like those 2 officers, notice on the video the 3rd one DID NOT ! only 2 had to go before senior officers for there ' act of madness ' All I can say is im glad that everything is recorded ! But THINK,why did someone ' shop ' them ??? and it came to this EH ! My uncle ( deceased ) was a Police Sargent in Newport and he must be ' rolling ' in his grave if HE saw some of the stupid comments on here for support for those officers ! Jonnytrouble
  • Score: 7

8:55pm Fri 7 Feb 14

grumpyandopinionated says...

Jonnytrouble wrote:
Dai Rear wrote:
There are more coppers posting on here than have ever been seen on the beat, or ever will. Your answer to "Plebgate"?
If you coppers really think not wearing a seatbelt is worth behaving like a bl**dy lunatic then God help any of us who you catch smoking in a bus shelter.
It looks that way which is worrying !
If this is true ( what above is saying ) and they agree to behaving like those 2 officers, notice on the video the 3rd one DID NOT ! only 2 had to go before senior officers for there ' act of madness '
All I can say is im glad that everything is recorded !
But THINK,why did someone ' shop ' them ??? and it came to this EH !
My uncle ( deceased ) was a Police Sargent in Newport and he must be
' rolling ' in his grave if HE saw some of the stupid comments on here for support for those officers !
Utter utter nonsense.

Its not the police you have to worry about smoking in the bus station it's the yellow jacket wearing council heavys that deal with that.

I have been stopped so many times by the police for various reasons, mainly no insurance etc in my younger days but I never failed to stop for them, at the end of the day they are doing a job and I was doing wrong. Although I don't agree with the way some of the arrogant cops treat you.

For what ever reason this Driver was requested to stop he should have done so when requested. He did not, he was then pursued.

If you see the video footage then it is obvious that the only reason the driver stopped was because there was a cop car parked up in front, of which I can only assume that they had spike strips ready. So from this I can only make the assumption that the driver of the range rover only stopped to avoid going over spike strips etc. So from this you have to think that he is thinking clearly and knows what he is doing. The way the police acted is the way they have been trained when vehicles fail to stop. If you look more closely into this there is alot of debate on the use of excessive force and the hard stop tactics. But at the time of this inccident it was the way to do it. So bearing this in mind the officers did what they were trained to do.
[quote][p][bold]Jonnytrouble[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Dai Rear[/bold] wrote: There are more coppers posting on here than have ever been seen on the beat, or ever will. Your answer to "Plebgate"? If you coppers really think not wearing a seatbelt is worth behaving like a bl**dy lunatic then God help any of us who you catch smoking in a bus shelter.[/p][/quote]It looks that way which is worrying ! If this is true ( what above is saying ) and they agree to behaving like those 2 officers, notice on the video the 3rd one DID NOT ! only 2 had to go before senior officers for there ' act of madness ' All I can say is im glad that everything is recorded ! But THINK,why did someone ' shop ' them ??? and it came to this EH ! My uncle ( deceased ) was a Police Sargent in Newport and he must be ' rolling ' in his grave if HE saw some of the stupid comments on here for support for those officers ![/p][/quote]Utter utter nonsense. Its not the police you have to worry about smoking in the bus station it's the yellow jacket wearing council heavys that deal with that. I have been stopped so many times by the police for various reasons, mainly no insurance etc in my younger days but I never failed to stop for them, at the end of the day they are doing a job and I was doing wrong. Although I don't agree with the way some of the arrogant cops treat you. For what ever reason this Driver was requested to stop he should have done so when requested. He did not, he was then pursued. If you see the video footage then it is obvious that the only reason the driver stopped was because there was a cop car parked up in front, of which I can only assume that they had spike strips ready. So from this I can only make the assumption that the driver of the range rover only stopped to avoid going over spike strips etc. So from this you have to think that he is thinking clearly and knows what he is doing. The way the police acted is the way they have been trained when vehicles fail to stop. If you look more closely into this there is alot of debate on the use of excessive force and the hard stop tactics. But at the time of this inccident it was the way to do it. So bearing this in mind the officers did what they were trained to do. grumpyandopinionated
  • Score: 4

9:04pm Fri 7 Feb 14

grumpyandopinionated says...

The issue is not what the officers actually did on an individual basis but if this practice should be allowed by the force itself and train the officers accordingly.

In my opinion Gwent Police decided to cough up to the driver of the range rover in an attempt to avoid the issue of it's own practice of stopping vehicles.

I personally do not see anything wrong in the way that they acted as the driver had commited an offense. An act which is showing aggression on it's own by not stopping. I feel that the police should be allowed to protect themselves and by doing what they did is a way of making sure they scare the driver into not attempting to fight them when they try to arrest the person. If he didn't fail to stop this would not have happend so it's his own fault.

There is no excuse for not stopping for police when directed, obviously different for those securcor vans etc.

These police officers have my full support now and always. Because those that moan about this will also be quick enough to moan when police do nothing and then latter find out that the vehicle that failed to stop was involved in a fatality of someone completly innocent.
The issue is not what the officers actually did on an individual basis but if this practice should be allowed by the force itself and train the officers accordingly. In my opinion Gwent Police decided to cough up to the driver of the range rover in an attempt to avoid the issue of it's own practice of stopping vehicles. I personally do not see anything wrong in the way that they acted as the driver had commited an offense. An act which is showing aggression on it's own by not stopping. I feel that the police should be allowed to protect themselves and by doing what they did is a way of making sure they scare the driver into not attempting to fight them when they try to arrest the person. If he didn't fail to stop this would not have happend so it's his own fault. There is no excuse for not stopping for police when directed, obviously different for those securcor vans etc. These police officers have my full support now and always. Because those that moan about this will also be quick enough to moan when police do nothing and then latter find out that the vehicle that failed to stop was involved in a fatality of someone completly innocent. grumpyandopinionated
  • Score: 4

10:39pm Fri 7 Feb 14

slice_of_life says...

The video is rather misleading and it is obvious that a lot of people havent researched the entire story. The chap had been stopped and talked to in his car, he then drove off before the police had finished questioning him. he eventually stopped when spikes were laid in the road. other videos on youtube show all the footage and there is even an interesting one with footage the incident with an overlay of an inquest where Mr Watley would appear to give some inconsistent statements regarding why he drove off after he was first stopped.
The video is rather misleading and it is obvious that a lot of people havent researched the entire story. The chap had been stopped and talked to in his car, he then drove off before the police had finished questioning him. he eventually stopped when spikes were laid in the road. other videos on youtube show all the footage and there is even an interesting one with footage the incident with an overlay of an inquest [if it is real, over an hour long] where Mr Watley would appear to give some inconsistent statements regarding why he drove off after he was first stopped. slice_of_life
  • Score: 7

10:51pm Fri 7 Feb 14

endthelies says...

Ive just watched that myself s.o.l and its interesting to say the least.
Ive just watched that myself s.o.l and its interesting to say the least. endthelies
  • Score: 4

11:14pm Fri 7 Feb 14

mart19902004 says...

Jonnytrouble wrote:
Dai Rear wrote:
There are more coppers posting on here than have ever been seen on the beat, or ever will. Your answer to "Plebgate"?
If you coppers really think not wearing a seatbelt is worth behaving like a bl**dy lunatic then God help any of us who you catch smoking in a bus shelter.
It looks that way which is worrying !
If this is true ( what above is saying ) and they agree to behaving like those 2 officers, notice on the video the 3rd one DID NOT ! only 2 had to go before senior officers for there ' act of madness '
All I can say is im glad that everything is recorded !
But THINK,why did someone ' shop ' them ??? and it came to this EH !
My uncle ( deceased ) was a Police Sargent in Newport and he must be
' rolling ' in his grave if HE saw some of the stupid comments on here for support for those officers !
i had dealing with police numerous times , and most of them think above the law , lied under oath no police office it trustworthy, i love to go public with all my evidence i have collect over the years but scared of being victimized and harassed by them , they work on targets !!! ( tell me how that ethically right ) , the ipcc are ex police officer they protect themselves.

it cost my dad and arm and leg to get the best solicitor for me , for something i did not do , i was charged and taken to court on fictional evidence and make up statement, by the police and the so called victim , my solicitor managed to shame the police and the other parties within court ,

but outside the officer were really unprofessional staring at me and making joke and trying to make me feel uncomfortable .

ipcc are a waste because the officers involved didn t intentionally do it , it was ok, really?

police should be able to held account for there actions , and be able to brought before a criminal court for there action , the ipcc should be selected by the public.

i could keep going but it would take to long .....
[quote][p][bold]Jonnytrouble[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Dai Rear[/bold] wrote: There are more coppers posting on here than have ever been seen on the beat, or ever will. Your answer to "Plebgate"? If you coppers really think not wearing a seatbelt is worth behaving like a bl**dy lunatic then God help any of us who you catch smoking in a bus shelter.[/p][/quote]It looks that way which is worrying ! If this is true ( what above is saying ) and they agree to behaving like those 2 officers, notice on the video the 3rd one DID NOT ! only 2 had to go before senior officers for there ' act of madness ' All I can say is im glad that everything is recorded ! But THINK,why did someone ' shop ' them ??? and it came to this EH ! My uncle ( deceased ) was a Police Sargent in Newport and he must be ' rolling ' in his grave if HE saw some of the stupid comments on here for support for those officers ![/p][/quote]i had dealing with police numerous times , and most of them think above the law , lied under oath no police office it trustworthy, i love to go public with all my evidence i have collect over the years but scared of being victimized and harassed by them , they work on targets !!! ( tell me how that ethically right ) , the ipcc are ex police officer they protect themselves. it cost my dad and arm and leg to get the best solicitor for me , for something i did not do , i was charged and taken to court on fictional evidence and make up statement, by the police and the so called victim , my solicitor managed to shame the police and the other parties within court , but outside the officer were really unprofessional staring at me and making joke and trying to make me feel uncomfortable . ipcc are a waste because the officers involved didn t intentionally do it , it was ok, really? police should be able to held account for there actions , and be able to brought before a criminal court for there action , the ipcc should be selected by the public. i could keep going but it would take to long ..... mart19902004
  • Score: 5

11:31pm Fri 7 Feb 14

Casnewydd lad says...

You thought the police were escorting you home????? With blue lights going and the police car behind you?? You either drive off when a police car pulls up behind you with its blue lights flashing or you pull over, simple everyone knows that also the police are trained to use shock tactics when a vehicle is stopped after a pursuit, this is evident on fly on the wall programms that are on our tele almost daily, you do get good police officers and ones who think they are it the same as any job really, I have followed your story from the beginning and I ask other people to look over the video and statements givin to the press over the course of this case and in my eyes you were in the wrong not the police officer in thism case and gwent police should not of payed out for your vehicle, you broke the law and once a police officer stops you after a pursuit they have a few seconds to act as they don't know what they are dealing with so it's best to go in hard, hindsight is a wonderful thing but we don't have that foresight at the time, I wish you and the police officer well and hopefully this episode can be left in the past now.
You thought the police were escorting you home????? With blue lights going and the police car behind you?? You either drive off when a police car pulls up behind you with its blue lights flashing or you pull over, simple everyone knows that also the police are trained to use shock tactics when a vehicle is stopped after a pursuit, this is evident on fly on the wall programms that are on our tele almost daily, you do get good police officers and ones who think they are it the same as any job really, I have followed your story from the beginning and I ask other people to look over the video and statements givin to the press over the course of this case and in my eyes you were in the wrong not the police officer in thism case and gwent police should not of payed out for your vehicle, you broke the law and once a police officer stops you after a pursuit they have a few seconds to act as they don't know what they are dealing with so it's best to go in hard, hindsight is a wonderful thing but we don't have that foresight at the time, I wish you and the police officer well and hopefully this episode can be left in the past now. Casnewydd lad
  • Score: 4

11:38pm Fri 7 Feb 14

Casnewydd lad says...

Oldnightrun wrote:
As I have already said on another site. Has Mr Baillon ever noticed that on most motor cars, there is a funny little thing called a handle, and if one pulls it it usually opens the door, or did they not show him that when he was given his expert police training?
I bet the police officers who have died on duty after being hit by stolen cars tried the handles too!!, they are not trained to open does nicely they are trained to use shock tactics, what ever next?. The police knocking on a drug dealers door asking him to open the door for the them?.
[quote][p][bold]Oldnightrun[/bold] wrote: As I have already said on another site. Has Mr Baillon ever noticed that on most motor cars, there is a funny little thing called a handle, and if one pulls it it usually opens the door, or did they not show him that when he was given his expert police training?[/p][/quote]I bet the police officers who have died on duty after being hit by stolen cars tried the handles too!!, they are not trained to open does nicely they are trained to use shock tactics, what ever next?. The police knocking on a drug dealers door asking him to open the door for the them?. Casnewydd lad
  • Score: -4

11:53pm Fri 7 Feb 14

Jonnytrouble says...

mart19902004 wrote:
Jonnytrouble wrote:
Dai Rear wrote:
There are more coppers posting on here than have ever been seen on the beat, or ever will. Your answer to "Plebgate"?
If you coppers really think not wearing a seatbelt is worth behaving like a bl**dy lunatic then God help any of us who you catch smoking in a bus shelter.
It looks that way which is worrying !
If this is true ( what above is saying ) and they agree to behaving like those 2 officers, notice on the video the 3rd one DID NOT ! only 2 had to go before senior officers for there ' act of madness '
All I can say is im glad that everything is recorded !
But THINK,why did someone ' shop ' them ??? and it came to this EH !
My uncle ( deceased ) was a Police Sargent in Newport and he must be
' rolling ' in his grave if HE saw some of the stupid comments on here for support for those officers !
i had dealing with police numerous times , and most of them think above the law , lied under oath no police office it trustworthy, i love to go public with all my evidence i have collect over the years but scared of being victimized and harassed by them , they work on targets !!! ( tell me how that ethically right ) , the ipcc are ex police officer they protect themselves.

it cost my dad and arm and leg to get the best solicitor for me , for something i did not do , i was charged and taken to court on fictional evidence and make up statement, by the police and the so called victim , my solicitor managed to shame the police and the other parties within court ,

but outside the officer were really unprofessional staring at me and making joke and trying to make me feel uncomfortable .

ipcc are a waste because the officers involved didn t intentionally do it , it was ok, really?

police should be able to held account for there actions , and be able to brought before a criminal court for there action , the ipcc should be selected by the public.

i could keep going but it would take to long .....
Excellent stuff mart19902004
But remember there are Good one's and bad one's like in any job !
I can't say too much, but over 15 years ago approx. being at the now defunct Police training school that was in Cwmbran would have opened your eyes..!
[quote][p][bold]mart19902004[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Jonnytrouble[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Dai Rear[/bold] wrote: There are more coppers posting on here than have ever been seen on the beat, or ever will. Your answer to "Plebgate"? If you coppers really think not wearing a seatbelt is worth behaving like a bl**dy lunatic then God help any of us who you catch smoking in a bus shelter.[/p][/quote]It looks that way which is worrying ! If this is true ( what above is saying ) and they agree to behaving like those 2 officers, notice on the video the 3rd one DID NOT ! only 2 had to go before senior officers for there ' act of madness ' All I can say is im glad that everything is recorded ! But THINK,why did someone ' shop ' them ??? and it came to this EH ! My uncle ( deceased ) was a Police Sargent in Newport and he must be ' rolling ' in his grave if HE saw some of the stupid comments on here for support for those officers ![/p][/quote]i had dealing with police numerous times , and most of them think above the law , lied under oath no police office it trustworthy, i love to go public with all my evidence i have collect over the years but scared of being victimized and harassed by them , they work on targets !!! ( tell me how that ethically right ) , the ipcc are ex police officer they protect themselves. it cost my dad and arm and leg to get the best solicitor for me , for something i did not do , i was charged and taken to court on fictional evidence and make up statement, by the police and the so called victim , my solicitor managed to shame the police and the other parties within court , but outside the officer were really unprofessional staring at me and making joke and trying to make me feel uncomfortable . ipcc are a waste because the officers involved didn t intentionally do it , it was ok, really? police should be able to held account for there actions , and be able to brought before a criminal court for there action , the ipcc should be selected by the public. i could keep going but it would take to long .....[/p][/quote]Excellent stuff mart19902004 But remember there are Good one's and bad one's like in any job ! I can't say too much, but over 15 years ago approx. being at the now defunct Police training school that was in Cwmbran would have opened your eyes..! Jonnytrouble
  • Score: 13

12:14am Sat 8 Feb 14

Lizwerry says...

Why don't the SWA listen to the tapes of Whatley admitting he only drove off because he didn't want to be arrested and only said he was being escorted home because his solicitor told him to do so?
In case you're Rae wondering, google YouTube Clive Hartley mark James James and listen to th two videos yourself.
I apologise if the SWA think this is offensive and send me another email to say so but it is the truth. Clice Whatley was found guilty because he lied. Mike baillon wasn't because he didn't.
I hope Gwent police senior officers are cringing over this because they are the ones to hold accountable but trial by media to uninformed people is so much easier
Why don't the SWA listen to the tapes of Whatley admitting he only drove off because he didn't want to be arrested and only said he was being escorted home because his solicitor told him to do so? In case you're Rae wondering, google YouTube Clive Hartley mark James James and listen to th two videos yourself. I apologise if the SWA think this is offensive and send me another email to say so but it is the truth. Clice Whatley was found guilty because he lied. Mike baillon wasn't because he didn't. I hope Gwent police senior officers are cringing over this because they are the ones to hold accountable but trial by media to uninformed people is so much easier Lizwerry
  • Score: 0

12:17am Sat 8 Feb 14

Lizwerry says...

Sorry, spell check took over.
Google Clive Whatley mark jame and the then Clive Whatley jame Wales.
There is soooooooo much more to this than meets the eyes.
Have an open mind, listen to both sides of the story, then make up your own mind.
Sorry, spell check took over. Google Clive Whatley mark jame and the then Clive Whatley jame Wales. There is soooooooo much more to this than meets the eyes. Have an open mind, listen to both sides of the story, then make up your own mind. Lizwerry
  • Score: -4

12:19am Sat 8 Feb 14

Lizwerry says...

JAMES!!! Blinking spell check
JAMES!!! Blinking spell check Lizwerry
  • Score: -1

12:53am Sat 8 Feb 14

grumpyandopinionated says...

mart19902004 wrote:
Jonnytrouble wrote:
Dai Rear wrote:
There are more coppers posting on here than have ever been seen on the beat, or ever will. Your answer to "Plebgate"?
If you coppers really think not wearing a seatbelt is worth behaving like a bl**dy lunatic then God help any of us who you catch smoking in a bus shelter.
It looks that way which is worrying !
If this is true ( what above is saying ) and they agree to behaving like those 2 officers, notice on the video the 3rd one DID NOT ! only 2 had to go before senior officers for there ' act of madness '
All I can say is im glad that everything is recorded !
But THINK,why did someone ' shop ' them ??? and it came to this EH !
My uncle ( deceased ) was a Police Sargent in Newport and he must be
' rolling ' in his grave if HE saw some of the stupid comments on here for support for those officers !
i had dealing with police numerous times , and most of them think above the law , lied under oath no police office it trustworthy, i love to go public with all my evidence i have collect over the years but scared of being victimized and harassed by them , they work on targets !!! ( tell me how that ethically right ) , the ipcc are ex police officer they protect themselves.

it cost my dad and arm and leg to get the best solicitor for me , for something i did not do , i was charged and taken to court on fictional evidence and make up statement, by the police and the so called victim , my solicitor managed to shame the police and the other parties within court ,

but outside the officer were really unprofessional staring at me and making joke and trying to make me feel uncomfortable .

ipcc are a waste because the officers involved didn t intentionally do it , it was ok, really?

police should be able to held account for there actions , and be able to brought before a criminal court for there action , the ipcc should be selected by the public.

i could keep going but it would take to long .....
Oh don't get me started on officers making up stuff and lying under oath. I was taken to court for something that I did do but the only evidence was a false account by the police officer, who to see what she said she had seen was to be able to see through metal. Was the only reason why I went not guilty but my solicitor didn't have the spine to completly challenge the officer, did go as far as to ask why her notebook was only updated with my discription only after I had been arrested. My whole point in court was the fact that the police officer had lied and how can I be found guilty on a lie.

But saying that not every police officer is a bad egg and the one in question now was doing his job. In light of what has now been said in the comments if I was the officer I'd have tased him just for taking the mick.

But its obvious that he didn't want to get into trouble so the police had every right to do what they did. Its just that the force itself didn't have the bottle to stand upto the guy and deffend it's officer.

Really annoying that they will deffend a copper who lies through thier teeth but hangs one out to dry that was doing his job.
[quote][p][bold]mart19902004[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Jonnytrouble[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Dai Rear[/bold] wrote: There are more coppers posting on here than have ever been seen on the beat, or ever will. Your answer to "Plebgate"? If you coppers really think not wearing a seatbelt is worth behaving like a bl**dy lunatic then God help any of us who you catch smoking in a bus shelter.[/p][/quote]It looks that way which is worrying ! If this is true ( what above is saying ) and they agree to behaving like those 2 officers, notice on the video the 3rd one DID NOT ! only 2 had to go before senior officers for there ' act of madness ' All I can say is im glad that everything is recorded ! But THINK,why did someone ' shop ' them ??? and it came to this EH ! My uncle ( deceased ) was a Police Sargent in Newport and he must be ' rolling ' in his grave if HE saw some of the stupid comments on here for support for those officers ![/p][/quote]i had dealing with police numerous times , and most of them think above the law , lied under oath no police office it trustworthy, i love to go public with all my evidence i have collect over the years but scared of being victimized and harassed by them , they work on targets !!! ( tell me how that ethically right ) , the ipcc are ex police officer they protect themselves. it cost my dad and arm and leg to get the best solicitor for me , for something i did not do , i was charged and taken to court on fictional evidence and make up statement, by the police and the so called victim , my solicitor managed to shame the police and the other parties within court , but outside the officer were really unprofessional staring at me and making joke and trying to make me feel uncomfortable . ipcc are a waste because the officers involved didn t intentionally do it , it was ok, really? police should be able to held account for there actions , and be able to brought before a criminal court for there action , the ipcc should be selected by the public. i could keep going but it would take to long .....[/p][/quote]Oh don't get me started on officers making up stuff and lying under oath. I was taken to court for something that I did do but the only evidence was a false account by the police officer, who to see what she said she had seen was to be able to see through metal. Was the only reason why I went not guilty but my solicitor didn't have the spine to completly challenge the officer, did go as far as to ask why her notebook was only updated with my discription only after I had been arrested. My whole point in court was the fact that the police officer had lied and how can I be found guilty on a lie. But saying that not every police officer is a bad egg and the one in question now was doing his job. In light of what has now been said in the comments if I was the officer I'd have tased him just for taking the mick. But its obvious that he didn't want to get into trouble so the police had every right to do what they did. Its just that the force itself didn't have the bottle to stand upto the guy and deffend it's officer. Really annoying that they will deffend a copper who lies through thier teeth but hangs one out to dry that was doing his job. grumpyandopinionated
  • Score: 9

10:16am Sat 8 Feb 14

Cymru Am Beth says...

Woodgnome wrote:
If he'd had a stroke and was recovering I'm surprised this man was driving at all. He should have a test retake.
I agree, too much information there.
I think that he would have been wise not to use that fact to justify his actions.
[quote][p][bold]Woodgnome[/bold] wrote: If he'd had a stroke and was recovering I'm surprised this man was driving at all. He should have a test retake.[/p][/quote]I agree, too much information there. I think that he would have been wise not to use that fact to justify his actions. Cymru Am Beth
  • Score: -10

10:25am Sat 8 Feb 14

Cymru Am Beth says...

coalpicker wrote:
TK355 wrote:
Oh this man is an absolute joke.
Go to 07.50 on this video and listen to what he says. He did not think he was being escorted home. His solicitor told him to say it. When is the SWA going to realise this man is an uncredible person? When is the SWA going to ask Gwent Police why they paid him £67,000, not £20,000 as he keeps saying? When is the SWA going to ask Gwent Police why they bullied this officer out of his job?
http://www.youtube.c


om/watch?v=N4569wp5f


Ig
This is now in danger of becoming an absolute farce!
Showing this level of aggression why was this officer not dismissed with immediate effect ? I have no doubt had this pictorial evidence not come to light there would have been an entirely different slant put on this incident.
I can only congratulate the person who made these graphics available to
the trusting public. This incident has been commented on national TV and has brought an excellent part of the police service into disrepute.
I think that both were to an extent culpable.
I don't see how you can heap all the blame on the Police Officer, as the driver clearly failed to stop and kept ignoring repeated attempts to get him to do so.
I do agree that the Officer was a bit 'over the top' with his actions.
But surely, this could have been dealt with better by Gwent Police, so avoiding a ridiculous waste of public money.
[quote][p][bold]coalpicker[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]TK355[/bold] wrote: Oh this man is an absolute joke. Go to 07.50 on this video and listen to what he says. He did not think he was being escorted home. His solicitor told him to say it. When is the SWA going to realise this man is an uncredible person? When is the SWA going to ask Gwent Police why they paid him £67,000, not £20,000 as he keeps saying? When is the SWA going to ask Gwent Police why they bullied this officer out of his job? http://www.youtube.c om/watch?v=N4569wp5f Ig This is now in danger of becoming an absolute farce![/p][/quote]Showing this level of aggression why was this officer not dismissed with immediate effect ? I have no doubt had this pictorial evidence not come to light there would have been an entirely different slant put on this incident. I can only congratulate the person who made these graphics available to the trusting public. This incident has been commented on national TV and has brought an excellent part of the police service into disrepute.[/p][/quote]I think that both were to an extent culpable. I don't see how you can heap all the blame on the Police Officer, as the driver clearly failed to stop and kept ignoring repeated attempts to get him to do so. I do agree that the Officer was a bit 'over the top' with his actions. But surely, this could have been dealt with better by Gwent Police, so avoiding a ridiculous waste of public money. Cymru Am Beth
  • Score: -8

10:34am Sat 8 Feb 14

Cymru Am Beth says...

mart19902004 wrote:
Jonnytrouble wrote:
Dai Rear wrote:
There are more coppers posting on here than have ever been seen on the beat, or ever will. Your answer to "Plebgate"?
If you coppers really think not wearing a seatbelt is worth behaving like a bl**dy lunatic then God help any of us who you catch smoking in a bus shelter.
It looks that way which is worrying !
If this is true ( what above is saying ) and they agree to behaving like those 2 officers, notice on the video the 3rd one DID NOT ! only 2 had to go before senior officers for there ' act of madness '
All I can say is im glad that everything is recorded !
But THINK,why did someone ' shop ' them ??? and it came to this EH !
My uncle ( deceased ) was a Police Sargent in Newport and he must be
' rolling ' in his grave if HE saw some of the stupid comments on here for support for those officers !
i had dealing with police numerous times , and most of them think above the law , lied under oath no police office it trustworthy, i love to go public with all my evidence i have collect over the years but scared of being victimized and harassed by them , they work on targets !!! ( tell me how that ethically right ) , the ipcc are ex police officer they protect themselves.

it cost my dad and arm and leg to get the best solicitor for me , for something i did not do , i was charged and taken to court on fictional evidence and make up statement, by the police and the so called victim , my solicitor managed to shame the police and the other parties within court ,

but outside the officer were really unprofessional staring at me and making joke and trying to make me feel uncomfortable .

ipcc are a waste because the officers involved didn t intentionally do it , it was ok, really?

police should be able to held account for there actions , and be able to brought before a criminal court for there action , the ipcc should be selected by the public.

i could keep going but it would take to long .....
Police Officers lying under oath?
So Solicitors and Barristers don't instruct their clients (in private) to be somewhat economical with the truth then?
By the way, were you educated in the Eastern Bloc as you seem to miss out a lot of essential vowels?
Of course Police Officers bend the truth, but so do legal representatives, that is why we have a jury system to hear and evaluate evidence and to come to a conclusion who was telling the most truths.
[quote][p][bold]mart19902004[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Jonnytrouble[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Dai Rear[/bold] wrote: There are more coppers posting on here than have ever been seen on the beat, or ever will. Your answer to "Plebgate"? If you coppers really think not wearing a seatbelt is worth behaving like a bl**dy lunatic then God help any of us who you catch smoking in a bus shelter.[/p][/quote]It looks that way which is worrying ! If this is true ( what above is saying ) and they agree to behaving like those 2 officers, notice on the video the 3rd one DID NOT ! only 2 had to go before senior officers for there ' act of madness ' All I can say is im glad that everything is recorded ! But THINK,why did someone ' shop ' them ??? and it came to this EH ! My uncle ( deceased ) was a Police Sargent in Newport and he must be ' rolling ' in his grave if HE saw some of the stupid comments on here for support for those officers ![/p][/quote]i had dealing with police numerous times , and most of them think above the law , lied under oath no police office it trustworthy, i love to go public with all my evidence i have collect over the years but scared of being victimized and harassed by them , they work on targets !!! ( tell me how that ethically right ) , the ipcc are ex police officer they protect themselves. it cost my dad and arm and leg to get the best solicitor for me , for something i did not do , i was charged and taken to court on fictional evidence and make up statement, by the police and the so called victim , my solicitor managed to shame the police and the other parties within court , but outside the officer were really unprofessional staring at me and making joke and trying to make me feel uncomfortable . ipcc are a waste because the officers involved didn t intentionally do it , it was ok, really? police should be able to held account for there actions , and be able to brought before a criminal court for there action , the ipcc should be selected by the public. i could keep going but it would take to long .....[/p][/quote]Police Officers lying under oath? So Solicitors and Barristers don't instruct their clients (in private) to be somewhat economical with the truth then? By the way, were you educated in the Eastern Bloc as you seem to miss out a lot of essential vowels? Of course Police Officers bend the truth, but so do legal representatives, that is why we have a jury system to hear and evaluate evidence and to come to a conclusion who was telling the most truths. Cymru Am Beth
  • Score: -10

11:02am Sat 8 Feb 14

grumpyandopinionated says...

Cymru Am Beth wrote:
mart19902004 wrote:
Jonnytrouble wrote:
Dai Rear wrote:
There are more coppers posting on here than have ever been seen on the beat, or ever will. Your answer to "Plebgate"?
If you coppers really think not wearing a seatbelt is worth behaving like a bl**dy lunatic then God help any of us who you catch smoking in a bus shelter.
It looks that way which is worrying !
If this is true ( what above is saying ) and they agree to behaving like those 2 officers, notice on the video the 3rd one DID NOT ! only 2 had to go before senior officers for there ' act of madness '
All I can say is im glad that everything is recorded !
But THINK,why did someone ' shop ' them ??? and it came to this EH !
My uncle ( deceased ) was a Police Sargent in Newport and he must be
' rolling ' in his grave if HE saw some of the stupid comments on here for support for those officers !
i had dealing with police numerous times , and most of them think above the law , lied under oath no police office it trustworthy, i love to go public with all my evidence i have collect over the years but scared of being victimized and harassed by them , they work on targets !!! ( tell me how that ethically right ) , the ipcc are ex police officer they protect themselves.

it cost my dad and arm and leg to get the best solicitor for me , for something i did not do , i was charged and taken to court on fictional evidence and make up statement, by the police and the so called victim , my solicitor managed to shame the police and the other parties within court ,

but outside the officer were really unprofessional staring at me and making joke and trying to make me feel uncomfortable .

ipcc are a waste because the officers involved didn t intentionally do it , it was ok, really?

police should be able to held account for there actions , and be able to brought before a criminal court for there action , the ipcc should be selected by the public.

i could keep going but it would take to long .....
Police Officers lying under oath?
So Solicitors and Barristers don't instruct their clients (in private) to be somewhat economical with the truth then?
By the way, were you educated in the Eastern Bloc as you seem to miss out a lot of essential vowels?
Of course Police Officers bend the truth, but so do legal representatives, that is why we have a jury system to hear and evaluate evidence and to come to a conclusion who was telling the most truths.
But isn't part of being a police officer to be the most upstanding, honest and integral members of society. As far as Solicitors instructing clients to bend the truth this is only applicable to those that can afford the best solicitors. Most solicitors will not instruct you to lie just avoid telling the truth :) but this should not be the case for police officers as they are the first line of collecting evidence and this evidence should be the truth.

As far as being educated in an Eastern Bloc I don't see why punctuation and spelling etc should ever be commented on and it's annoying.
[quote][p][bold]Cymru Am Beth[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]mart19902004[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Jonnytrouble[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Dai Rear[/bold] wrote: There are more coppers posting on here than have ever been seen on the beat, or ever will. Your answer to "Plebgate"? If you coppers really think not wearing a seatbelt is worth behaving like a bl**dy lunatic then God help any of us who you catch smoking in a bus shelter.[/p][/quote]It looks that way which is worrying ! If this is true ( what above is saying ) and they agree to behaving like those 2 officers, notice on the video the 3rd one DID NOT ! only 2 had to go before senior officers for there ' act of madness ' All I can say is im glad that everything is recorded ! But THINK,why did someone ' shop ' them ??? and it came to this EH ! My uncle ( deceased ) was a Police Sargent in Newport and he must be ' rolling ' in his grave if HE saw some of the stupid comments on here for support for those officers ![/p][/quote]i had dealing with police numerous times , and most of them think above the law , lied under oath no police office it trustworthy, i love to go public with all my evidence i have collect over the years but scared of being victimized and harassed by them , they work on targets !!! ( tell me how that ethically right ) , the ipcc are ex police officer they protect themselves. it cost my dad and arm and leg to get the best solicitor for me , for something i did not do , i was charged and taken to court on fictional evidence and make up statement, by the police and the so called victim , my solicitor managed to shame the police and the other parties within court , but outside the officer were really unprofessional staring at me and making joke and trying to make me feel uncomfortable . ipcc are a waste because the officers involved didn t intentionally do it , it was ok, really? police should be able to held account for there actions , and be able to brought before a criminal court for there action , the ipcc should be selected by the public. i could keep going but it would take to long .....[/p][/quote]Police Officers lying under oath? So Solicitors and Barristers don't instruct their clients (in private) to be somewhat economical with the truth then? By the way, were you educated in the Eastern Bloc as you seem to miss out a lot of essential vowels? Of course Police Officers bend the truth, but so do legal representatives, that is why we have a jury system to hear and evaluate evidence and to come to a conclusion who was telling the most truths.[/p][/quote]But isn't part of being a police officer to be the most upstanding, honest and integral members of society. As far as Solicitors instructing clients to bend the truth this is only applicable to those that can afford the best solicitors. Most solicitors will not instruct you to lie just avoid telling the truth :) but this should not be the case for police officers as they are the first line of collecting evidence and this evidence should be the truth. As far as being educated in an Eastern Bloc I don't see why punctuation and spelling etc should ever be commented on and it's annoying. grumpyandopinionated
  • Score: 5

11:32am Sat 8 Feb 14

Jonnytrouble says...

This news is out of hand now and I bet Mr Baillon, Mr Whatley and Gwent Police wil be glad when it becomes old news...
Everyone makes mistakes, we are only human....
We will NEVER no the truth !
There are Winners and the Losers
I believe over use of force was used judging the video... ( an act of madness ? ) costing Mr Baillion his job
The driver in my opinion broke the Law
The solicitors making loads of money out of it
The force failed when the video got out to ' Joe ' public ( who sent it breaking the Law ? was there an investigation ?, Mr Baillion I hope, pushed for it )
His so called fellow officers not supporting him, why ? ( Didn't they like him ? graffiti,jokes ect,ect... )
The other officer's involved now why is it they were not targeted too,like Mr
Baillion ???
If this was handled correctly from day one,maybe that vid would never have been released by ' who ' ? and WE the Tax payer would have had that wasted money used, having more dedicated officers looking after us from the Scum that lives amongst us,,,my final word on it..
Thumb me down,do I care ?
This news is out of hand now and I bet Mr Baillon, Mr Whatley and Gwent Police wil be glad when it becomes old news... Everyone makes mistakes, we are only human.... We will NEVER no the truth ! There are Winners and the Losers I believe over use of force was used judging the video... ( an act of madness ? ) costing Mr Baillion his job The driver in my opinion broke the Law The solicitors making loads of money out of it The force failed when the video got out to ' Joe ' public ( who sent it breaking the Law ? was there an investigation ?, Mr Baillion I hope, pushed for it ) His so called fellow officers not supporting him, why ? ( Didn't they like him ? graffiti,jokes ect,ect... ) The other officer's involved now why is it they were not targeted too,like Mr Baillion ??? If this was handled correctly from day one,maybe that vid would never have been released by ' who ' ? and WE the Tax payer would have had that wasted money used, having more dedicated officers looking after us from the Scum that lives amongst us,,,my final word on it.. Thumb me down,do I care ? Jonnytrouble
  • Score: -4

12:38pm Sat 8 Feb 14

username2 says...

Is this a police officer convention? I don't think anyone is questioning that the driver was in the wrong. The issue is the demented way in which an officer of the law lost his cool and smashed up the car, cried about the "bullying" he received AND WAS THEN AWARDED A FORTUNE of taxpayers money. Presumably as they had already stopped the driver they had realised he was an OAP and not a drug runner and so didn't need shock and awe tactics to stop him pulling out his AK-47.
Is this a police officer convention? I don't think anyone is questioning that the driver was in the wrong. The issue is the demented way in which an officer of the law lost his cool and smashed up the car, cried about the "bullying" he received AND WAS THEN AWARDED A FORTUNE of taxpayers money. Presumably as they had already stopped the driver they had realised he was an OAP and not a drug runner and so didn't need shock and awe tactics to stop him pulling out his AK-47. username2
  • Score: -1

2:47pm Sat 8 Feb 14

Petrus Barba says...

Let's not forget that this sensitive soul RESIGNED. Although he claimed his position was untenable due to being made an object of ridicule by his colleagues, what did he expect? I know full well, that had this happened when I was a serving officer, whoever was responsible would have been expected to soldier on regardless. Either that , or they would have resigned knowing that they wouldn't be entitled to any compensation of any sort!
Let's not forget that this sensitive soul RESIGNED. Although he claimed his position was untenable due to being made an object of ridicule by his colleagues, what did he expect? I know full well, that had this happened when I was a serving officer, whoever was responsible would have been expected to soldier on regardless. Either that , or they would have resigned knowing that they wouldn't be entitled to any compensation of any sort! Petrus Barba
  • Score: 7

5:58pm Sat 8 Feb 14

Dai Rear says...

The guy wasn't wearing a seat belt. The coppers would have put it on PNC and it was insured and not nicked, The driver was an old bloke, What on earth was the point of a hot pursuit for a belt? Had they too much time on their hands? Having stopped the car and having no reason to suspect anything other than the most trivial infraction they were required to behave with "proportionality" This copper would have been told that a thousand times. Like it or lump it the HRA has been law since 1997. His behaviour was totally disproportionate to the end to be achieved-reporting a driver for the most trivial offence in the book. As a result of his misconduct he left the Force with a £400K gift, Only in the public sector...........
The guy wasn't wearing a seat belt. The coppers would have put it on PNC and it was insured and not nicked, The driver was an old bloke, What on earth was the point of a hot pursuit for a belt? Had they too much time on their hands? Having stopped the car and having no reason to suspect anything other than the most trivial infraction they were required to behave with "proportionality" This copper would have been told that a thousand times. Like it or lump it the HRA has been law since 1997. His behaviour was totally disproportionate to the end to be achieved-reporting a driver for the most trivial offence in the book. As a result of his misconduct he left the Force with a £400K gift, Only in the public sector........... Dai Rear
  • Score: -1

9:27pm Sat 8 Feb 14

endthelies says...

The pensioner wasn't wearing a seatbelt, failed to stop for the police for 17 minutes, had illegal tinted windows and a non regulation registration number.
I think he should never have got compensation for what was his failure to stop personally. Then maybe the officer wouldn't have needed to resign and the issue of compensation would never have arisen at all. It all had a starting point.
Just in case any one says I haven't got my facts straight, here's the report.
http://news.uk.msn.c
om/police-pay-out-ov
er-smashed-window
The pensioner wasn't wearing a seatbelt, failed to stop for the police for 17 minutes, had illegal tinted windows and a non regulation registration number. I think he should never have got compensation for what was his failure to stop personally. Then maybe the officer wouldn't have needed to resign and the issue of compensation would never have arisen at all. It all had a starting point. Just in case any one says I haven't got my facts straight, here's the report. http://news.uk.msn.c om/police-pay-out-ov er-smashed-window endthelies
  • Score: 6

7:23am Sun 9 Feb 14

grumpyandopinionated says...

Dai Rear wrote:
The guy wasn't wearing a seat belt. The coppers would have put it on PNC and it was insured and not nicked, The driver was an old bloke, What on earth was the point of a hot pursuit for a belt? Had they too much time on their hands? Having stopped the car and having no reason to suspect anything other than the most trivial infraction they were required to behave with "proportionalit
y" This copper would have been told that a thousand times. Like it or lump it the HRA has been law since 1997. His behaviour was totally disproportionate to the end to be achieved-reporting a driver for the most trivial offence in the book. As a result of his misconduct he left the Force with a £400K gift, Only in the public sector...........
The guy wasn't wearing a seat belt, was pulled over for it along with some other trivial offenses and he drove off from the police.

Exactly at what point can anyone not see the resemblance to the reasons why police end up finding hauls of illegal drugs or weapons in cars, this is down to the fact that if someone is comitting one offence you can bet he's doing something else too. So they have to act on the suspicion that the could be concealing anything as it is not normal for someone to drive off when your still questioning them. The force used was appropriate and in my opinion the blame lies at the range rover drivers feet as like has been said if he had been totally with in the law then this would not have happened in the first place.

I don't see why people are making comments relating to the guys age etc a criminal is a criminal. Regardless of age, race or status and therefore can only be treated the same. I bet half the coments against the police officer would not be here if it was some scally wag from some run down housing estate.

What difference does a PNC check make, as the car could have been stolen mins earlier and no report made. Couild have been on false plates etc etc, but the guy didn't hang about for the police to finish with him and therefore raised the suspision. Pure arogance was probably the cause of it thinking he was better than everyone else, probably wished he'd have not acted that way when getting sprayed by broken glass though.
[quote][p][bold]Dai Rear[/bold] wrote: The guy wasn't wearing a seat belt. The coppers would have put it on PNC and it was insured and not nicked, The driver was an old bloke, What on earth was the point of a hot pursuit for a belt? Had they too much time on their hands? Having stopped the car and having no reason to suspect anything other than the most trivial infraction they were required to behave with "proportionalit y" This copper would have been told that a thousand times. Like it or lump it the HRA has been law since 1997. His behaviour was totally disproportionate to the end to be achieved-reporting a driver for the most trivial offence in the book. As a result of his misconduct he left the Force with a £400K gift, Only in the public sector...........[/p][/quote]The guy wasn't wearing a seat belt, was pulled over for it along with some other trivial offenses and he drove off from the police. Exactly at what point can anyone not see the resemblance to the reasons why police end up finding hauls of illegal drugs or weapons in cars, this is down to the fact that if someone is comitting one offence you can bet he's doing something else too. So they have to act on the suspicion that the could be concealing anything as it is not normal for someone to drive off when your still questioning them. The force used was appropriate and in my opinion the blame lies at the range rover drivers feet as like has been said if he had been totally with in the law then this would not have happened in the first place. I don't see why people are making comments relating to the guys age etc a criminal is a criminal. Regardless of age, race or status and therefore can only be treated the same. I bet half the coments against the police officer would not be here if it was some scally wag from some run down housing estate. What difference does a PNC check make, as the car could have been stolen mins earlier and no report made. Couild have been on false plates etc etc, but the guy didn't hang about for the police to finish with him and therefore raised the suspision. Pure arogance was probably the cause of it thinking he was better than everyone else, probably wished he'd have not acted that way when getting sprayed by broken glass though. grumpyandopinionated
  • Score: 6

1:24pm Sun 9 Feb 14

Magor says...

No wonder the countries in a mess public bodies just think they can spend taxpayers money how they want.
No wonder the countries in a mess public bodies just think they can spend taxpayers money how they want. Magor
  • Score: -4

5:14pm Sun 9 Feb 14

grumpyandopinionated says...

Magor wrote:
No wonder the countries in a mess public bodies just think they can spend taxpayers money how they want.
I don't think the issue is spending money how they like more about how public bodies manage personel.

I think regardless of what happened at the scene, the handling of this case should have been put before a commity based soley on idividuals who have no connection and are selected at random pretty much like a jury would at a court trial. Then after they have seen all the details of the incident they can then advise the public body on how to proceed. This would mean that there probably wouldn't have been a payout to the driver as he was in the wrong, the police officer would have been cleared of wrong doing and then if he was being treated unfairly he could have then gone to the commity to complain about the treatment that he is reciving and then the commity can look into the way it is being handled and instruct management on restructuring ie sack those that need to be sacked and disapline those that need to be. This will then cut down on the number of claims that are made to public bodies over unfair dismisals etc.

Staff at public bodies seem to think that no matter what thier performance is they are intiled to keep the job they are in. Staff are not sacked because of fear of being sued and I just don't think that this is right. It wouldn't happen in the private sector so why in the public sector??
[quote][p][bold]Magor[/bold] wrote: No wonder the countries in a mess public bodies just think they can spend taxpayers money how they want.[/p][/quote]I don't think the issue is spending money how they like more about how public bodies manage personel. I think regardless of what happened at the scene, the handling of this case should have been put before a commity based soley on idividuals who have no connection and are selected at random pretty much like a jury would at a court trial. Then after they have seen all the details of the incident they can then advise the public body on how to proceed. This would mean that there probably wouldn't have been a payout to the driver as he was in the wrong, the police officer would have been cleared of wrong doing and then if he was being treated unfairly he could have then gone to the commity to complain about the treatment that he is reciving and then the commity can look into the way it is being handled and instruct management on restructuring ie sack those that need to be sacked and disapline those that need to be. This will then cut down on the number of claims that are made to public bodies over unfair dismisals etc. Staff at public bodies seem to think that no matter what thier performance is they are intiled to keep the job they are in. Staff are not sacked because of fear of being sued and I just don't think that this is right. It wouldn't happen in the private sector so why in the public sector?? grumpyandopinionated
  • Score: 0

4:17pm Mon 10 Feb 14

twizzlestick says...

they should have dragged the **** out through his window =D
they should have dragged the **** out through his window =D twizzlestick
  • Score: 0

1:33am Tue 11 Feb 14

grumpyandopinionated says...

twizzlestick wrote:
they should have dragged the **** out through his window =D
True, having looked at the video again I think it looks alot worse than it actually was. The copper only had to keep bashing the window because it didn't smash on the first hit. To be completley unbiased in my opinions I think although what the officer did was justified and most will argue that it was over the top and that he had lost his rag etc etc. It does seem that way but bearing in mind that this guy just drove off refused to stop for over 8 miles when they did finally manage to get the door open he still seemed to be defiant and remain in his vehicle. The guy in the range rover did this over pure arrogance and for no other reason, didn't want to accept what does seem petty over the fact that he wasn't wearing a seat belt etc so just drove off. I can't belive how the whole thing has been handled from day one.
[quote][p][bold]twizzlestick[/bold] wrote: they should have dragged the **** out through his window =D[/p][/quote]True, having looked at the video again I think it looks alot worse than it actually was. The copper only had to keep bashing the window because it didn't smash on the first hit. To be completley unbiased in my opinions I think although what the officer did was justified and most will argue that it was over the top and that he had lost his rag etc etc. It does seem that way but bearing in mind that this guy just drove off refused to stop for over 8 miles when they did finally manage to get the door open he still seemed to be defiant and remain in his vehicle. The guy in the range rover did this over pure arrogance and for no other reason, didn't want to accept what does seem petty over the fact that he wasn't wearing a seat belt etc so just drove off. I can't belive how the whole thing has been handled from day one. grumpyandopinionated
  • Score: 6

9:34am Tue 11 Feb 14

Cymru Am Beth says...

Petrus Barba wrote:
Let's not forget that this sensitive soul RESIGNED. Although he claimed his position was untenable due to being made an object of ridicule by his colleagues, what did he expect? I know full well, that had this happened when I was a serving officer, whoever was responsible would have been expected to soldier on regardless. Either that , or they would have resigned knowing that they wouldn't be entitled to any compensation of any sort!
Absolutely correct.
Despite being given a negative score, you are bang on the money.
(Excuse the pun).
[quote][p][bold]Petrus Barba[/bold] wrote: Let's not forget that this sensitive soul RESIGNED. Although he claimed his position was untenable due to being made an object of ridicule by his colleagues, what did he expect? I know full well, that had this happened when I was a serving officer, whoever was responsible would have been expected to soldier on regardless. Either that , or they would have resigned knowing that they wouldn't be entitled to any compensation of any sort![/p][/quote]Absolutely correct. Despite being given a negative score, you are bang on the money. (Excuse the pun). Cymru Am Beth
  • Score: -12

3:19pm Tue 11 Feb 14

endthelies says...

To be bullied out of your job is a terrible thing, especially if you've done nothing wrong. I think this policeman has just been made a scapegoat for whatever reason and they hoped he'd go away but they were wrong. Expensively wrong. I bet whoever leaked that video on to youtube is still in their job.
To be bullied out of your job is a terrible thing, especially if you've done nothing wrong. I think this policeman has just been made a scapegoat for whatever reason and they hoped he'd go away but they were wrong. Expensively wrong. I bet whoever leaked that video on to youtube is still in their job. endthelies
  • Score: -1

12:23am Wed 12 Feb 14

jimmysmith says...

Dai Rear wrote:
There are more coppers posting on here than have ever been seen on the beat, or ever will. Your answer to "Plebgate"?
If you coppers really think not wearing a seatbelt is worth behaving like a bl**dy lunatic then God help any of us who you catch smoking in a bus shelter.
you wont see this lot on the beat dai .they might be seen double parked outside a kebab shop .but after that its locked away in the police station phone of the hook and feet up .a laughing stock the lot of them these days
[quote][p][bold]Dai Rear[/bold] wrote: There are more coppers posting on here than have ever been seen on the beat, or ever will. Your answer to "Plebgate"? If you coppers really think not wearing a seatbelt is worth behaving like a bl**dy lunatic then God help any of us who you catch smoking in a bus shelter.[/p][/quote]you wont see this lot on the beat dai .they might be seen double parked outside a kebab shop .but after that its locked away in the police station phone of the hook and feet up .a laughing stock the lot of them these days jimmysmith
  • Score: 6

7:05am Wed 12 Feb 14

Milkmanofhumankindness says...

Dai Rear wrote:
insider2 wrote:
Mr whatley is right - the law has failed - he should have been banned from driving for his actions .
All he had to do was stop and face the music for his illegality - just like the rest of us !
Oh please. You're a copper (I suspect you are, but hypothetically) and you see an old geezer not wearing a seat belt and he won't get out of his motor.
Do you (a) shout to him "Ok mate, you're getting a summons for no seatbelt" or (b) commit an offence under Section 3 of the Public Order Act?
Although a no brainer I guess your answer would be (b) with the rider "and collect loads of dosh"
Thank you officer.
I agree with you Dai !!!!
Lots of Masonic tenticles reaching out here.
[quote][p][bold]Dai Rear[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]insider2[/bold] wrote: Mr whatley is right - the law has failed - he should have been banned from driving for his actions . All he had to do was stop and face the music for his illegality - just like the rest of us ![/p][/quote]Oh please. You're a copper (I suspect you are, but hypothetically) and you see an old geezer not wearing a seat belt and he won't get out of his motor. Do you (a) shout to him "Ok mate, you're getting a summons for no seatbelt" or (b) commit an offence under Section 3 of the Public Order Act? Although a no brainer I guess your answer would be (b) with the rider "and collect loads of dosh" Thank you officer.[/p][/quote]I agree with you Dai !!!! Lots of Masonic tenticles reaching out here. Milkmanofhumankindness
  • Score: 14

9:33am Wed 12 Feb 14

Milkmanofhumankindness says...

Milkmanofhumankindne
ss
wrote:
Dai Rear wrote:
insider2 wrote:
Mr whatley is right - the law has failed - he should have been banned from driving for his actions .
All he had to do was stop and face the music for his illegality - just like the rest of us !
Oh please. You're a copper (I suspect you are, but hypothetically) and you see an old geezer not wearing a seat belt and he won't get out of his motor.
Do you (a) shout to him "Ok mate, you're getting a summons for no seatbelt" or (b) commit an offence under Section 3 of the Public Order Act?
Although a no brainer I guess your answer would be (b) with the rider "and collect loads of dosh"
Thank you officer.
I agree with you Dai !!!!
Lots of Masonic tenticles reaching out here.
Typo error "tentacles"
[quote][p][bold]Milkmanofhumankindne ss[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Dai Rear[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]insider2[/bold] wrote: Mr whatley is right - the law has failed - he should have been banned from driving for his actions . All he had to do was stop and face the music for his illegality - just like the rest of us ![/p][/quote]Oh please. You're a copper (I suspect you are, but hypothetically) and you see an old geezer not wearing a seat belt and he won't get out of his motor. Do you (a) shout to him "Ok mate, you're getting a summons for no seatbelt" or (b) commit an offence under Section 3 of the Public Order Act? Although a no brainer I guess your answer would be (b) with the rider "and collect loads of dosh" Thank you officer.[/p][/quote]I agree with you Dai !!!! Lots of Masonic tenticles reaching out here.[/p][/quote]Typo error "tentacles" Milkmanofhumankindness
  • Score: 16

1:32am Fri 14 Feb 14

Spinflight says...

£400,000 because his mates took the mick? Whatever happened to free speech?


www.ukipnewport.com
£400,000 because his mates took the mick? Whatever happened to free speech? www.ukipnewport.com Spinflight
  • Score: 0

1:46pm Fri 14 Feb 14

Dai Rear says...

grumpyandopinionated wrote:
twizzlestick wrote: they should have dragged the **** out through his window =D
True, having looked at the video again I think it looks alot worse than it actually was. The copper only had to keep bashing the window because it didn't smash on the first hit. To be completley unbiased in my opinions I think although what the officer did was justified and most will argue that it was over the top and that he had lost his rag etc etc. It does seem that way but bearing in mind that this guy just drove off refused to stop for over 8 miles when they did finally manage to get the door open he still seemed to be defiant and remain in his vehicle. The guy in the range rover did this over pure arrogance and for no other reason, didn't want to accept what does seem petty over the fact that he wasn't wearing a seat belt etc so just drove off. I can't belive how the whole thing has been handled from day one.
2 offences fail to stop for PC, no seatbelt. Both trivial, non endorseable. Proportionality PC Lunatic. Heard of it? Arrogance is NOT an offence.
[quote][p][bold]grumpyandopinionated[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]twizzlestick[/bold] wrote: they should have dragged the **** out through his window =D[/p][/quote]True, having looked at the video again I think it looks alot worse than it actually was. The copper only had to keep bashing the window because it didn't smash on the first hit. To be completley unbiased in my opinions I think although what the officer did was justified and most will argue that it was over the top and that he had lost his rag etc etc. It does seem that way but bearing in mind that this guy just drove off refused to stop for over 8 miles when they did finally manage to get the door open he still seemed to be defiant and remain in his vehicle. The guy in the range rover did this over pure arrogance and for no other reason, didn't want to accept what does seem petty over the fact that he wasn't wearing a seat belt etc so just drove off. I can't belive how the whole thing has been handled from day one.[/p][/quote]2 offences fail to stop for PC, no seatbelt. Both trivial, non endorseable. Proportionality PC Lunatic. Heard of it? Arrogance is NOT an offence. Dai Rear
  • Score: 1

Comments are closed on this article.

Send us your news, pictures and videos

Most read stories

Local Info

Enter your postcode, town or place name

About cookies

We want you to enjoy your visit to our website. That's why we use cookies to enhance your experience. By staying on our website you agree to our use of cookies. Find out more about the cookies we use.

I agree