Fatal accident in Penge 31/8/16

At some point recently a 23 year old male decided to take a car which didn't belong to him, for a drive.
In the time following this decision, the vehicle had been reported stolen, spotted by the police, and requested to stop by a marked police road traffic unit.
Subsequently the male decided today was not a good day to stop and be arrested, so failed to stop. With two marked Met Police road traffic units behind him, the man decided to lead them on a chase through the streets of South London, and eventually lost control on Lennard Road in Penge, SE London.

Tragically, he struck a number of pedestrians as he lost control, killing two instantly, and injuring a number more, who required hospitalisation. From a simple failing to stop and possible TWoC, to death by dangerous driving. Tonight family and friends of the victims of this event will be desperately looking for answers. Why their loved ones, how did this happen, who they should blame?

The majority of law abiding citizens will have it clear in their heads. A crime was committed, the police took action, it ended tragically. A car thief failed to stop, drove like an idiot, and killed their friends or family. Critically there is the point of the thief was only driving like this because he was being pursued. Or was he? Maybe his erratic driving is what drew their attention to him in the first place. Maybe he was fleeing an offence he had just committed. Whatever the case, it doesn't change the facts of what happened.

There are also others involved in this, and affected by it. The 23 year old male who now has this action playing over and over in his mind, and the guilt already eating away at him. The officers and other first responders, as well as the public who all assisted at the scene. A scene like this is not one you are about to forget quickly. One moment, dozens of lives affected for a long time.

So who do you blame, and how do you decide that?
If the guy didn't steal the car, it would not have happened.
If he stopped for the police, it would not have happened.
If he hadn't lost control, it would not have happened.
If they had not been standing there,it would not have happened.
If the police had not chased him, it would not have happened.
If they had aborted the chase, it would not have happened.

Lot's of if's there. But the fact of the matter is, it DID happen, and both parties must stand accountable for their roles in the events of today.
When you compare the sequence of events, one certainly looks worse than the other. The 23yr old male decided to take a car, uninsured, not belonging to him, and drive it around. No protocols, no rules. Just do as he pleases. When challenged by Met Police officers he made the decision not to stop, and began to flee. At this point a pursuit begins.
Over to the police.
On identifying and targeting the stolen vehicle, a stop would be put in. Lights and maybe sirens, directing the vehicle to stop. Meanwhile they would contact the control room and advise they have made contact with a stolen vehicle, and no failing to stop. As commentary begins, the inspector in the control room would observe and authorise or call off the pursuit. The officers would advise of the road conditions, speeds, driving manner. Conditions for the day, dry, clear, and average to low traffic volumes, this would usually dictate safe to pursue.
As it progressed a number of trained and experienced officers would continually make assessment, and decide to continue or abort. With 2 cars in pursuit, that is an extra opinion.

With all this in mind, it is quite mind boggling that in this day and age, so many people have taken to Twitter and other forms of social media to attack and blame the police. Stating it wasn't necessary, a car isn't worth a life, unjustified, excessive and many other ways of saying the police were wrong to chase a car, on what the media describe as a "quiet residential area" which is also a bus route (go figure)

Of course it is easy to look on in retrospect, with no responsibility in the matter and say coulda, shoulda, woulda. But the truth is, none of us were involved in those decisions. Very few people know the actual situation front to back. Had the car been involved in something else, was there a more pressing reason to get the vehicle stopped.

Now it is great to see that many people are aware of NPAS, and their ability to control a pursuit. But even based at the nearest location, their flight time is a few minutes from lifting, I have seen them in action, it's quick but not instantaneous. How long was the pursuit from start to finish, was there even time to request NPAS, if so, where was the nearest aircraft, was it even available. It is so easy to assume all resources are available at the drop of a hat, and look back with hindsight and say how a matter should have been handled. But the raw facts remain. A car was stolen, spotted, and requested to stop. It decided not to, and the police have a job to do.

Some of the responses on Twitter have ranged from making me angry at the ignorance or direct hatred of the police, to making me worry for the mental welfare of the people writing these things. I know some seeme as "pro police" or a mindwashed follower, but I have always tried to see both sides, especially when on the wrong side myself. On this occasion, to me at least, it is clear as day who is in the wrong.

So lets have a look at some of the tweets about the decision the police made today.

@EmeraldCityTrax  6h6 hours ago

@SkyNews How it's still deemed sensible to chase stolen cars at incredibly high speeds through build up areas is beyond me

@Nolfem  4h4 hours ago

@SkyNews why do Police insist on chasing these low life scumbags, risking our lives they should use intell to find them we know who they r..

@lewisbaker12345  6h6 hours ago

@SkyNews why are 2 police giving chase at them speeds at this time I'n the day on school holidays #stupid

@lewisbaker12345  6h6 hours ago

@AndrewY13422686 @SkyNews I'm sure we wil find out but I'm sure there told not to give chase on school holidays full of pedestrian

@Finlaybob301  4h4 hours ago

@SkyNews police have a duty off care.. Even when in police pursuits! Bottom line is innocents have died! Unnacceptable

So as you can see, some people certainly think the police are in the wrong. Fair to have an opinion of course, and fair play for airing it. 

Whatever you think about the matter, whatever your opinion. Please take a minute to think of the friends and families of ALL of those involved in today's events in Penge. 

For me, its plain and simple. Tragic, heartbreaking, but the results of the decisions an unnamed 23 yr old male made today. The police carried out their job, which will be scrutinised, dash cam footage reviewed, witnesses sought and interviewed by the IPCC, and a full investigation carried out on anyone who made a decision on that side of the fence during the event. The 23yr old male, well, I am sure he will have a compelling story to the delight of those wanting to find blame in the police trying to do their jobs.  

I wonder if the media can bring race into this at some point.

My thoughts on the referendum results.

I haven't said too much really since the results were released, mainly because I am already sick and tired of the insults and infighting the result has caused. I can't help but wonder if it would be identical if it had gone the other way. Would the Leave camp be demanding a re-run, and saying how un-democratic the first one was? Would the media be saying how terrible the road ahead is now that we were remaining in the EU?

To a degree, I am sure that which ever way it went, there was always a whole host of scaremongering stories, and bullshit facts to try and make people feel it went the wrong way. Some peoples reactions have been depressingly hilarious (yes, that's a real thing!). Depressing that they voted the way they did, based on their hilariously stupid level of intelligence. "If I knew we would really leave, I would have voted stay". Right... Remove these peoples right to vote immediately, and forever more!

I am also impressed at the number of experts, who have already predicted the future of the UK, and can already tell us we WILL go into recession, we WILL struggle to trade, as well as many other guaranteed outcomes. I am however shocked that the same people don't actively have a role in politics or the economy. Such a waste, so talented and knowledgeable, yet only ever show their true abilities when they have something to complain about.

One thing I do know for certain is the immediate future is uncertain. And all the certainties touted about by worriers and scaremongerers is nothing but over hyped bullshit, worded to make it sound like the end of the world is nigh! Yes, the markets have taken a fall, and the £ against the $. But truth be told, they always wobble at times of uncertainty, and usually mainly caused by the media and the huge money moguls making sure they profit from everyone elses panic. Regardless of the impact, there is a quick buck to be made.

In the meantime, everyone is at each others throats, hatred is burning brightly, and people are being judged on a decision they made as an individual. A democratic vote, and expression of their opinion. Probably one of the simplest and fairest votes that has happened in a few generations. IN or OUT. Plain and simple. The majority said OUT, and so it was.... Or so it should have been.
Instead we have people wanting to rewrite the meaning of democracy, the meaning of majority, and begging for a second crack at the whip, and having a second vote to make sure the outcome was fair next time around.
Suggestions of vote tampering, stupid viral panics like "take a pen so they can't rub your vote out" have filled news feeds, and sadly, VERY sadly, lots of people have fallen for this shit, and run with it. Yup, these people were allowed to vote too. Scary isn't it.

Thankfully, the outcome of the vote makes it clear that there are more normal people than nutters, and most of the votes on both sides were cast with a mildly educated mind. Don't think for one minute I am suggesting that any remain voter is somehow mentally inadequate, even if the same was suggested about those voting the other way. See this is how childish it all gets. Name calling. SERIOUSLY !!
There was a vote, it was decided, one side didn't win, so resorted to name calling? I just don't get it. I would understand it more of the future of either direction was known, and we were all sure that we had just voted to have dinner in the gunk tank or something. But I can guarantee, not ONE person can actually guarantee what the future holds. Nothing solid anyway. But in the absence of any information, lets all be terribly civilised and call each other names until we know for sure. Then when we do see the road ahead, one group will pretend they never said a word, and the other will scream "I told you so!"

What is nice to see is that this isn't a UK trait. Far from it in fact. With the big wigs of the EU vowing to make the UK suffer for their decision, and make it an unfriendly separation, it is clear to see that this display of pettiness is a very human thing indeed, and anyone who feels aggrieved by the outcome of something, can just be childish and immature just to spite the other side.
Displays like this are very worrying indeed, and make you question what sort of people we actually want to be in any sort of relationship with.
Not for one second am I saying that most politicians are great, I'm not that stupid! But to see a face slapping head of an organisation as big as the EU, spit his dummy and vow to destroy a country for daring to want out...... I can't take someone like that seriously.

Either way, back to the main subject, the road ahead.
I am optimistic about it. Not expecting everyone to become multi millionaires by the end of 2020, nor expecting the social and financial tiers of the country to somehow merge in the coming years. But neither do I think we will unwind and collapse in a broken mess on the bottom of the sea, with no quality of life.

I will go out on a limb here and say the following.
As many are predicting, Boris will run for leadership, then hold a GE in the hope of becoming the legitimate PM. Voted in democratically (whatever definition of that we have by then). Naturally this would be the position needed to really drive the exit (renegotiate) from the EU, so the sooner the better, as we can really start to get stuck into the ins and outs of what it means.
Now I put renegotiate in brackets, because something deep inside of me feels that this is all the referendum was every really intended to cause. The threat of an exit, the hope we will stay, leading to a very strongly worded remain negotiation taking place. Forcing the hand, and making sure that certain aspects of the EU which have had many people on edge for years now, being negotiated away. And the EU agreement returning to its roots of trade and movement, with some genuine, hard hitting legislation staying in place.

This guess is backed up by the other countries who have seemingly joined the queue for the exit. Stating their interests in holding a national  referendum for their own countrymen who may also want their say. Maybe it isn't such a bad thing to have a generational democratic vote. Rather than one decision made 40+ years ago just ploughing on even though it is becoming something our parents understood it to be in 1973.
The other countries considering a referendum is also on the list of things I predicted would happen. I believe in reality, like having a bad boss at work. All the workers in the office have been sick of it for a while now, and as soon as Bob stood up and downed tools, everyone else sees their chance and copies. It doesn't mean everyone will quit. Some will, some just want a raise or more holidays, but the UK is the catalyst in a movement here, and as the weeks go on, we could see the EU listening very closely to a few of its unhappy members. And with numbers comes power.
Can the head of the EU really treat whole countries like dirt for daring to want change? Especially if there is more than one country?

Anyway, this wasn't meant to be a full on rant, just venting my thoughts on the matter.
I know many will disagree, however just know I am exercising my democratic right to voice my opinion, and ignore anyone else, and the facts they wish to present to me in argument of my opinions.

One other thing before I get, something I don't get.
Jeremy Corbyn. He is being torn to pieces for not getting behind the remain campaign. So I have two questions....
1/ Would more people really have gone out and voted remain if a single man had endorsed the campaign. Are people really that narrow minded that they need telling by ONE person how to vote?
and
2/ I don't understand how a shadow cabinet, a group of mature and trusted adults, chosen for their beliefs and abilities, can overnight turn their back on the person THEY among others voted in as their leader. Making scathing remarks about their ability to lead. They were fine yesterday, but now that a vote went the wrong way, the person isn't fit for purpose? Strange to me.

Anyway, I'm done now, that is far more than I originally had to say.
Only other thing to say is it is SUCH a shame that what was a simple (while very deep rooted) question became about race, nationality, wealth, religion, and politics. Shame on anyone who has used any form of hate to try and get across their disappointment of the outcome of the referendum,

Ban the Burqa!!............Why?

OK, so while I am on a roll for controversial blog posts, I thought I would go with this one.
A few years back people started chanting 'ban the burka' and rightfully so... Or was it?

With the rise of Britain First and all the other UK supremacy oriented Facebook groups, Twitter accounts and other such stuff, the ban the burqa thing has really made a comeback. With pictures of 'please remove crash helmets' signs side by side with a woman wearing a burqa, asking why one and not the other. So today I want to look at this.

Let me start by saying I am thinking and considering all this on the fly, so if I contradict myself it is because I have made sense of something while writing (unlikely but possible).

Lets start with crash helmets, at least most will understand the significance of these. Designed to protect the head in the event of an accident. However its important to realise that humans have used helmets of some form since 900BC. Protecting the head, a vital part of the human body has always taken priority for some reason. As the years went on, full face crash helmets for use on motorcycles became very popular.
Sadly some clever person had a long hard think about it, and realised it was the perfect normal looking, non suspicion raising items which could be worn in a street without causing alarm, then whip their sawn-off shot gun out of their bag and rob a bank. All the while, with their identity protected, and on the off chance of intervention, their head protected from the whack of a truncheon too.

Now, it was not until this point that businesses, mainly of a financial sort, started requesting their patrons removed their crash helmets when entering their premises. When these signs first started appearing there was no real noticeable uproar from the public about it. Lets face facts, its a little bit rude to try and hold any kind of person to person interaction with someone with a crash helmet on. Even by today's rude society standards, fast food delivery drivers lift their helmets to interact with the customer.

In short, the signs seen in public places asking you to remove your crash helmet have been around for years, decades in fact. If you want to blame anyone for this, or complain that its unfair, blame the blagging, bank robbing people of the 70's and 80's.

OK, so lets move on to that outrageous device, invented to irritate the UK, terror inducing, and fear provoking. THE BURQA !
Invented in 2001 just after 9/11, the burka was designed to give shelter to the evil Muslims of the world, and like ninja's, allow them to move around in society unseen, unidentifiable, and of course completely protected from any legal intervention. Protected by European law the burka leaves EVERYONE in the UK at severe risk of an imminent Muslim attack....

Oh hold on, sorry, that's UTTER BOLLOX ! I was quoting from LeftiePedia!
(no offence to Muslims intended :) )

Alright, seriously now. Firstly, the origins again. Harking back to the origins of the Islamic faith, but with no clear cut definition of its requirement or purpose, the burqa in short covers a woman from head to toe, allowing only a small gap over the eyes. In some cases even this is absent. With a thinner material or meshing over the eyes. Some belief it is for the sake of modesty, others that it allows only the husband of the wearer to see their true beauty.
However you look at the garment, one thing is clear. It has a LONG history, well documented, and one surrounded in faith, belief and tradition. It was around a long time before modern day terrorism, and even before most people in the UK had even used the word 'Muslim' or 'Islamic'.
One of the more surprising things the lack of robberies and crimes committed wearing one.  Yes of course there is record of some robberies using a burqa as a disguise, but then again stockings have been used for years, but ladies are not asked to remove them before entering a bank.
More info on the burqa here...The Burqa

Of course the burqa hides the identity of the wearer, as do many many other things worn in every day life, hoodies, beanie hats, sunglasses etc, they have all been used, but granted are not banned from being worn into a bank or other establishments.
As I said before, the crash helmet was the focus of attention because it suddenly played a big role in crimes, and was something that was practical to be asked to be removed. Most obliged, and still so, with no issue whatsoever.

So the burqa.... Apparently some in the UK feel a direct parallel should be drawn between the burqa and the crash helmet, and they too should be removed before entering places where crash helmets are banned. Fair enough, so lets look at that argument shall we.
First of, who is responsible for the request to remove helmets. The government of course. Oh no hold on, its UK Immigration policy of course.... Road Traffic Act..... NOPE! The owners and operators of the premises they are banned from. Private land owners, who have stipulated some rules for entering their premises. The same as McDonalds who display signs that shirts must be worn, clubs who say no trainers, and exclusive establishments which require you to wear a suit. Its no different, honestly its not! They are simple rules, set by people who want things done in a certain way on their premises. The list of examples is endless.

IF, the banks etc felt there was a serious enough threat, im sure some sort of guideline would be put in place to ensure the safety of the people in the buildings. Alas, poor bigots, as of yet, this has not become the case.

Instead it is left to the people with issues against Muslims, burqa's, people of other nationalities and faiths to some how draw parallels to the banning of crash helmets in banks, and somehow associate this with Islamic faith and traditional dress codes.

Lets flip it for a second, when was the last time someone went on holiday to an Islamic country, and was told to take off their 3/4 length combats, their garish coloured Primark special holiday t-shirt, and stop trying to grow a beard, because you look like a dick?
Yes its true, people in Dubai for example have been arrested for sunbathing topless, or shagging in the sea... but if you do that in most of the UK you will probably find you are arrested for that here too.. Shocker I know!

Truth of the matter is, somehow, maybe because of the initial fear put in us following 9/11 and 7/7, some of us became a little over sensitive to the whole 'who is that under there' and took it a little too far. Fired on by the scaremongering of the racist population, 'ban the burqa' grew momentum, and suddenly, rather than being an anti immigration, nationalist belief, it somehow found its way into the mainstream, and was seen as a fair comparison.

I will happily admit that I became more cautious following the attacks, and had moments of feeling a little threatened, various cases and scenarios, but none that I recall were caused by seeing a group dressed in burqa's. Lets be honest here, most people in the UK would feel more threatened by seeing a group of youths on the corner of a street wearing hoodies.

Speaking of hoodies..... They were banned from being worn in shopping centres and town centres too, seen as anti social and causing alarm, Safer neighbourhood teams were encouraged to get youths to remove them. Sensible adults applauded the move, and the habit faded out a little.
But even with this example of a garment which conceals an identity being discouraged from such places, the people screaming ban the burqa missed their chance to draw comparison, and open the debate if hoodies and burqa's posed the same threat.

Of course this would be a stupid debate for one reason, the same as the crash helmet. Both the hoodie and helmet have numerous records of use in ridiculous numbers of crimes, stereotyped in the movies and TV dramas, highlighted by the PM with his 'hug a hoodie' initiative (doh!) both caused enough genuine concern to receive serious attention, and be dealt with. Meanwhile the burqa remains a lifestyle choice, a tradition, and poses little risk to members of society, unless of course you are of a nervous disposition.


This subject came to mind this morning, driving into Croydon, and seeing a large number of women taking their children to school, mums in burqa's, kids in normal nursery and school clothes. No bias shown towards hiding identities, but their choice as a citizen of a pretty liberal country. One driven by any number of factors from fashion to faith. But who are we to question what they wear and why. How often do you see people on trains being asked why they have dared to wear green and pink in one outfit. Idiots who wear sunglasses bigger than ski goggles, covering 70% of their faces are not dragged from buses and banned from Costa Coffee. Rude boys wearing sunglasses at 11pm are looked at more with pity than fear..... But burqa's.......... They are the work of the devil!

Now to even the keel a little here.
While I bash the radicals in the UK, I too frown on the radicals of any country and faith who try and impose their beliefs on others in a foreign nation. A well established faith, national traditions, and rituals and activities belong in their homelands, and in other places WHERE INVITED.
I do not believe for one second that radicals of any country or faith should be allowed to demand the rights to conduct activities banned on the soil they are on, purely based on the fact that it is the done thing in the homeland. From domestic violence, to the preaching of hatred, which happens in all directions between every faith and nationality (lets be honest here)

I have very simple beliefs on these matters.
Behave within the law (in all walks of life, not just on this matter)
Respect others beliefs. You may not agree, but its legal, and their choice.
Do not impose your beliefs and lifestyles on others. Religion, drugs, alcohol, sexuality, they are all personal choices. If someone displays interest, go ahead, share. If not, enjoy YOUR choice, don't impose it.

Multicultural integration has worked for decades. I can remember people from Asia being an uncommon site, I can recall surprise in a Welsh town at seeing a black person. Most remember the great invasion of the Polish, but this has all become the norm now. Yes there are issues, of course there are clashes, but this happens between red blooded, pure 5th generation Brits every weekend once alcohol is introduced, so lets not be ignorant here.

We don't want the Irish banned from our favourite places based on the atrocities of the IRA back in the 79's , 80's and 90's. In fact most have either never heard of the IRA, or have long forgotten about it all. Now its them there Muslim folk! For those not familiar with the IRA, I have put this link in for you. The IRA

Not comparing actions in any sort of parallel, but just drawing attention to bombs, hatred and death imposed.

Not all Muslims are terrorists.
Not all terrorists are Muslim
None of the 7/7 or 9/11 terrorists wore burqa's, although some did use them to evade arrest, cant deny that. But then again  a hoodie or other disguise could have been used with ease. I will stereotype and guess that a burqa was to hand and suited purpose.

In short, to sum up... I think the burqa can be a beautiful garment, they are worn with pride, and in the name of belief in a tradition or faith. They are a lifestyle choice, and in fairness, given that most people would shy away from wearing one due to the restrictions wearing one can cause, I have respect for women choosing to wear one rather than the attire of the rest of the school run mums.


Concentrate on the nasty evil preaching radicals, and ease up on the burqa people, its not hurting anyone.

As usual, I am open to opinions, comments and all other observations on this blog, BUT I will remove anything seen as inflammatory or offensive .