Family call for death crash police officer to be sacked

Police officer Stuart Chalmers

Police officer Stuart Chalmers

First published in News
Last updated
by

A POLICE officer cleared of wrongdoing after killing a young man in his sports car has been accused of driving without an MOT or insurance.

The families of the young men killed and seriously injured by Sussex traffic officer Stuart Chalmers have called for him to be sacked and forced to apologise.

PC Chalmers was cleared of causing the death of Luke Bland, from Uckfield, after he struck him in his Lotus sports car on the A26 on his way home from a shift. PC Chalmers was given a new Porsche and allowed to return to his job as a Sussex traffic officer after the crash in February 2009.

The 20-year-old was killed instantly when he was knocked over a fence and into an icy pond, while his friend Ben Blackford suffered injuries he will never recover from.

Yesterday Mr Chalmers refused an invitation by The Argus to apologise to the victim’s families as Sussex Police said they would consider a new independent investigation.

Speaking in Parliament, the families’ MP Charles Hendry described PC Chalmers as a “rotten apple” who had not told “the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth”.

Despite claiming in court he was a good driver, Mr Hendry said that four months before the accident Chalmers’ Lotus had failed its MOT for unsafe tyres and had then been driven 455 miles – without a valid MOT or insurance – before being replaced.

Mr Hendry also accused the Police Federation of acting “ferociously” in trying to prevent PC Chalmers’ arrest – including threatening the arresting officer with legal action. New policing minister Mike Penning said individual Police Federation offers would be investigated.

Mr Hendry said: “What remains for Mr and Mrs Bland and Mrs Browning is a searing sense that justice has not been done. Justice was not blind, as it seems to have been applied differently to a police officer than it would have been to any other member of the public. A police officer gave partial evidence in a court of law, with no action taken against him.

“Sussex police should review again the civil case to consider prosecuting Mr Chalmers, or they must explain how they can still have confidence in Mr Chalmers as a serving officer.”

Luke’s mother, Sally Bland, told The Argus yesterday that no words could describe her loss.

She added: “When you have made promises to your child that you will get the truth, that is what you have to do.

“We have two other children and I want their confidence to be restored in the police, but at the moment that isn’t possible.”

MOT was valid

ASSISTANT Chief Constable of Sussex Police Steve Barry said off-duty cases are not referred to the Independent Police Complaints Commision.

He said: “Stewart Chalmers was found not guilty. To have pursued misconduct proceedings there would have needed to be evidence suggesting that on the balance of probabilities his actions fell below that required according to our standards of professional behaviour. Evidence of this was not found.

"We investigated the validity of the MOT at the time of the collision. It was valid. Should further information come to light regarding offences then the relevant evidence tests for court proceedings and/or misconduct proceedings would be applied.

“Asking an independent body to investigate can help maintain a family’s confidence. For on-duty incidents of the most serious nature there is a formal mechanism to refer the matter to the IPCC. There isn’t such a process for off-duty cases.

“We have not maintained the full confidence of the family in this case and in light of that I would now consider a similar off-duty incident being investigated by another force."

Sussex Police Federation we were unable to comment.

Comments (86)

Please log in to enable comment sorting

7:20am Wed 23 Jul 14

Logicsays says...

Well well well what have we here then - I smell not just a rat but a whole barrel full of them. Rare to find an honest copper these days!
Well well well what have we here then - I smell not just a rat but a whole barrel full of them. Rare to find an honest copper these days! Logicsays
  • Score: -55

7:33am Wed 23 Jul 14

firemanste says...

plenty honest coppers and only takes one rotten one to taint the rest.only yesterday we were being told about an honest one who refused a cup of coffee.good and bad in every walk of life or the world would be perfect.
plenty honest coppers and only takes one rotten one to taint the rest.only yesterday we were being told about an honest one who refused a cup of coffee.good and bad in every walk of life or the world would be perfect. firemanste
  • Score: 81

7:41am Wed 23 Jul 14

Peppers I says...

Nothing surprises me anymore.

BTW Argus get another proof reader.
individual Police Federation offers would be investigated.
Nothing surprises me anymore. BTW Argus get another proof reader. individual Police Federation offers would be investigated. Peppers I
  • Score: -35

7:49am Wed 23 Jul 14

hyram77 says...

Very sad indeed for the family of the young man who lost his life, however, the police officer was off duty at the time of the accident with a road worthy vehicle and has been found not guilty in a court of law. Not grounds to be sacked in my view.
Very sad indeed for the family of the young man who lost his life, however, the police officer was off duty at the time of the accident with a road worthy vehicle and has been found not guilty in a court of law. Not grounds to be sacked in my view. hyram77
  • Score: 58

7:51am Wed 23 Jul 14

chrismilo says...

Another copper gets away with murder !
Another copper gets away with murder ! chrismilo
  • Score: -81

8:12am Wed 23 Jul 14

Trickee says...

He was found not guilty by the court. The family paper to be confusing justice and revenge I'm afraid. The mp is lucky to hold parliamentary privilege otherwise I would suggest that his comments amount to liable and defamation of character.
He was found not guilty by the court. The family paper to be confusing justice and revenge I'm afraid. The mp is lucky to hold parliamentary privilege otherwise I would suggest that his comments amount to liable and defamation of character. Trickee
  • Score: 52

8:13am Wed 23 Jul 14

Trickee says...

Trickee wrote:
He was found not guilty by the court. The family paper to be confusing justice and revenge I'm afraid. The mp is lucky to hold parliamentary privilege otherwise I would suggest that his comments amount to liable and defamation of character.
Sorry typo.. Read 'appear' for 'paper'
[quote][p][bold]Trickee[/bold] wrote: He was found not guilty by the court. The family paper to be confusing justice and revenge I'm afraid. The mp is lucky to hold parliamentary privilege otherwise I would suggest that his comments amount to liable and defamation of character.[/p][/quote]Sorry typo.. Read 'appear' for 'paper' Trickee
  • Score: -2

9:34am Wed 23 Jul 14

stevo!! says...

firemanste wrote:
plenty honest coppers and only takes one rotten one to taint the rest.only yesterday we were being told about an honest one who refused a cup of coffee.good and bad in every walk of life or the world would be perfect.
He wasn't being 'honest'......he was being pathetic.

Yes, there are plenty of decent coppers out there doing the job we pay them to do, but that shouldn't stop the bad ones from receiving punishment for their failings.
[quote][p][bold]firemanste[/bold] wrote: plenty honest coppers and only takes one rotten one to taint the rest.only yesterday we were being told about an honest one who refused a cup of coffee.good and bad in every walk of life or the world would be perfect.[/p][/quote]He wasn't being 'honest'......he was being pathetic. Yes, there are plenty of decent coppers out there doing the job we pay them to do, but that shouldn't stop the bad ones from receiving punishment for their failings. stevo!!
  • Score: -66

9:57am Wed 23 Jul 14

spa301 says...

PC Chalmers was given a new Porsche and allowed to return to his job as a Sussex traffic officer after the crash in February 2009.

Who gave him a new Porsche? If he wasn't insured then it can't be his insurance company. Was it the Police? Am I missing something?
PC Chalmers was given a new Porsche and allowed to return to his job as a Sussex traffic officer after the crash in February 2009. Who gave him a new Porsche? If he wasn't insured then it can't be his insurance company. Was it the Police? Am I missing something? spa301
  • Score: 54

10:22am Wed 23 Jul 14

tinker111 says...

spa301 wrote:
PC Chalmers was given a new Porsche and allowed to return to his job as a Sussex traffic officer after the crash in February 2009.

Who gave him a new Porsche? If he wasn't insured then it can't be his insurance company. Was it the Police? Am I missing something?
Only thing you are missing is the fact that there is law depending on who you are ??
[quote][p][bold]spa301[/bold] wrote: PC Chalmers was given a new Porsche and allowed to return to his job as a Sussex traffic officer after the crash in February 2009. Who gave him a new Porsche? If he wasn't insured then it can't be his insurance company. Was it the Police? Am I missing something?[/p][/quote]Only thing you are missing is the fact that there is law depending on who you are ?? tinker111
  • Score: -59

11:48am Wed 23 Jul 14

Bsxking1 says...

What the argus don't tell you at the time of the accident there was a leaking water pipe which had been left for almost 3 weeks, causing the road to have sever amounts of black ice every night at this time of year, I know this as I nearly came of the road at exactly the same point a week before. The real people to blame are the water works company for not fixing the pipe that was causing a leak. What the argus also doesn't tell you is that the officer tradicaly hit someone but they had also crashed their car just moments before on the same spot of black ice where the officer came of the road.
What the argus don't tell you at the time of the accident there was a leaking water pipe which had been left for almost 3 weeks, causing the road to have sever amounts of black ice every night at this time of year, I know this as I nearly came of the road at exactly the same point a week before. The real people to blame are the water works company for not fixing the pipe that was causing a leak. What the argus also doesn't tell you is that the officer tradicaly hit someone but they had also crashed their car just moments before on the same spot of black ice where the officer came of the road. Bsxking1
  • Score: 82

11:51am Wed 23 Jul 14

Bsxking1 says...

This is a tragic accident that could have been advoided had the water company fixed the leak instead of keeping the profits for themselves!!!
This is a tragic accident that could have been advoided had the water company fixed the leak instead of keeping the profits for themselves!!! Bsxking1
  • Score: 77

12:58pm Wed 23 Jul 14

FatherTed11 says...

The family are just out for revenge. How disgraceful.
The family are just out for revenge. How disgraceful. FatherTed11
  • Score: 39

1:26pm Wed 23 Jul 14

ThinkBrighton says...

FatherTed11 wrote:
The family are just out for revenge. How disgraceful.
What would you do in the same situation? give the corrupt cop a big kiss!
There is nothing worse than a bad cop, but it's amazing how the force protect their own, and usually they walk away scot free.
As for the police federation threatening the arresting officer with legal action, it's like having the Mafia look after it's members
[quote][p][bold]FatherTed11[/bold] wrote: The family are just out for revenge. How disgraceful.[/p][/quote]What would you do in the same situation? give the corrupt cop a big kiss! There is nothing worse than a bad cop, but it's amazing how the force protect their own, and usually they walk away scot free. As for the police federation threatening the arresting officer with legal action, it's like having the Mafia look after it's members ThinkBrighton
  • Score: -47

2:57pm Wed 23 Jul 14

ThinkBrighton says...

Bsxking1 wrote:
What the argus don't tell you at the time of the accident there was a leaking water pipe which had been left for almost 3 weeks, causing the road to have sever amounts of black ice every night at this time of year, I know this as I nearly came of the road at exactly the same point a week before. The real people to blame are the water works company for not fixing the pipe that was causing a leak. What the argus also doesn't tell you is that the officer tradicaly hit someone but they had also crashed their car just moments before on the same spot of black ice where the officer came of the road.
NO! the real person to blame is the person who killed/murdered an innocent person, seriously injured another, and was driving in a vehicle in a dubious state of repair
[quote][p][bold]Bsxking1[/bold] wrote: What the argus don't tell you at the time of the accident there was a leaking water pipe which had been left for almost 3 weeks, causing the road to have sever amounts of black ice every night at this time of year, I know this as I nearly came of the road at exactly the same point a week before. The real people to blame are the water works company for not fixing the pipe that was causing a leak. What the argus also doesn't tell you is that the officer tradicaly hit someone but they had also crashed their car just moments before on the same spot of black ice where the officer came of the road.[/p][/quote]NO! the real person to blame is the person who killed/murdered an innocent person, seriously injured another, and was driving in a vehicle in a dubious state of repair ThinkBrighton
  • Score: -40

3:44pm Wed 23 Jul 14

getThisCoalitionOut says...

If your tyres are defective and you are involved in an accident - wouldn't the police normally arrest you? Especially if you had been aware of your defective tyres for some time - ie 3 weeks? So why hasn't this POLICE OFFICER been arrested?

Are the police above the law? Seems to me this is proof that they are.

I feel extremely sorry for the families involved in this as they have lost the life of a beloved son - that is bad enough but to then have this on top makes it even worse. To not get justice is very hard to take.

The other family have to cope with their person being left perm' injured - so they have got added trauma with trying to cope with that AND having to fight to get the person involved taken to court. How wrong is that - VERY.

Sussex police are the most corrupt bar stewards out. Freemasons rule don't they.
If your tyres are defective and you are involved in an accident - wouldn't the police normally arrest you? Especially if you had been aware of your defective tyres for some time - ie 3 weeks? So why hasn't this POLICE OFFICER been arrested? Are the police above the law? Seems to me this is proof that they are. I feel extremely sorry for the families involved in this as they have lost the life of a beloved son - that is bad enough but to then have this on top makes it even worse. To not get justice is very hard to take. The other family have to cope with their person being left perm' injured - so they have got added trauma with trying to cope with that AND having to fight to get the person involved taken to court. How wrong is that - VERY. Sussex police are the most corrupt bar stewards out. Freemasons rule don't they. getThisCoalitionOut
  • Score: -41

3:47pm Wed 23 Jul 14

lindaf says...

FatherTed11 wrote:
The family are just out for revenge. How disgraceful.
No not revenge...JUSTICE ...
[quote][p][bold]FatherTed11[/bold] wrote: The family are just out for revenge. How disgraceful.[/p][/quote]No not revenge...JUSTICE ... lindaf
  • Score: -44

3:48pm Wed 23 Jul 14

Andy R says...

Trickee wrote:
He was found not guilty by the court. The family paper to be confusing justice and revenge I'm afraid. The mp is lucky to hold parliamentary privilege otherwise I would suggest that his comments amount to liable and defamation of character.
MP's are pretty slow to invoke parliamentary privilege because they know they'd lose it if they were constantly getting up and making allegations against individuals. It happens very rarely. In this case it seems like a good use of the power in order to say what needed saying, beyond the reach of the increasingly discredited and thuggish Police Federation and their threats.
[quote][p][bold]Trickee[/bold] wrote: He was found not guilty by the court. The family paper to be confusing justice and revenge I'm afraid. The mp is lucky to hold parliamentary privilege otherwise I would suggest that his comments amount to liable and defamation of character.[/p][/quote]MP's are pretty slow to invoke parliamentary privilege because they know they'd lose it if they were constantly getting up and making allegations against individuals. It happens very rarely. In this case it seems like a good use of the power in order to say what needed saying, beyond the reach of the increasingly discredited and thuggish Police Federation and their threats. Andy R
  • Score: -41

4:13pm Wed 23 Jul 14

MuammarQaddafi says...

As I understand it, whatever the status of PC Chalmers' car's MOT, he is also said to have been driving without insurance. The last time I checked, that was an offence, for which as a traffic officer PC Chalmers has probably handed out plenty of tickets to others. Was he not fined for that? And who DID give him that new Porsche anyway?
As I understand it, whatever the status of PC Chalmers' car's MOT, he is also said to have been driving without insurance. The last time I checked, that was an offence, for which as a traffic officer PC Chalmers has probably handed out plenty of tickets to others. Was he not fined for that? And who DID give him that new Porsche anyway? MuammarQaddafi
  • Score: -28

5:18pm Wed 23 Jul 14

spa301 says...

Very surprised by the large number of thumbs down to ANY comments slightly criticising the police. On this site that's quite unusual. Can it be that a large number of new voters are somehow suddenly reading this story. Wonder where they came from?
Very surprised by the large number of thumbs down to ANY comments slightly criticising the police. On this site that's quite unusual. Can it be that a large number of new voters are somehow suddenly reading this story. Wonder where they came from? spa301
  • Score: -32

5:39pm Wed 23 Jul 14

stevo!! says...

Bsxking1 wrote:
What the argus don't tell you at the time of the accident there was a leaking water pipe which had been left for almost 3 weeks, causing the road to have sever amounts of black ice every night at this time of year, I know this as I nearly came of the road at exactly the same point a week before. The real people to blame are the water works company for not fixing the pipe that was causing a leak. What the argus also doesn't tell you is that the officer tradicaly hit someone but they had also crashed their car just moments before on the same spot of black ice where the officer came of the road.
In that case, why hasn't Chalmers expressed any sorrow for the death and misery?

Any normal person losing control after hitting a patch of ice would be distraught at any injuries caused to others as a result.

And why all this fuss about the vehicles roadworthiness? The police know in an instant if documentation is in order at the precise moment an accident occurs.

The whole incident stinks, with a distinctly porcine flavour.
[quote][p][bold]Bsxking1[/bold] wrote: What the argus don't tell you at the time of the accident there was a leaking water pipe which had been left for almost 3 weeks, causing the road to have sever amounts of black ice every night at this time of year, I know this as I nearly came of the road at exactly the same point a week before. The real people to blame are the water works company for not fixing the pipe that was causing a leak. What the argus also doesn't tell you is that the officer tradicaly hit someone but they had also crashed their car just moments before on the same spot of black ice where the officer came of the road.[/p][/quote]In that case, why hasn't Chalmers expressed any sorrow for the death and misery? Any normal person losing control after hitting a patch of ice would be distraught at any injuries caused to others as a result. And why all this fuss about the vehicles roadworthiness? The police know in an instant if documentation is in order at the precise moment an accident occurs. The whole incident stinks, with a distinctly porcine flavour. stevo!!
  • Score: -36

5:56pm Wed 23 Jul 14

Bsxking1 says...

ThinkBrighton wrote:
Bsxking1 wrote:
What the argus don't tell you at the time of the accident there was a leaking water pipe which had been left for almost 3 weeks, causing the road to have sever amounts of black ice every night at this time of year, I know this as I nearly came of the road at exactly the same point a week before. The real people to blame are the water works company for not fixing the pipe that was causing a leak. What the argus also doesn't tell you is that the officer tradicaly hit someone but they had also crashed their car just moments before on the same spot of black ice where the officer came of the road.
NO! the real person to blame is the person who killed/murdered an innocent person, seriously injured another, and was driving in a vehicle in a dubious state of repair
The car was hardly non drivable lets be honest here a slightly bald tyre or two okay, not acceptable by any means but whatever car came down that road that night was going to come crashing off as did the car before his, their car was road legal still crashed.
[quote][p][bold]ThinkBrighton[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Bsxking1[/bold] wrote: What the argus don't tell you at the time of the accident there was a leaking water pipe which had been left for almost 3 weeks, causing the road to have sever amounts of black ice every night at this time of year, I know this as I nearly came of the road at exactly the same point a week before. The real people to blame are the water works company for not fixing the pipe that was causing a leak. What the argus also doesn't tell you is that the officer tradicaly hit someone but they had also crashed their car just moments before on the same spot of black ice where the officer came of the road.[/p][/quote]NO! the real person to blame is the person who killed/murdered an innocent person, seriously injured another, and was driving in a vehicle in a dubious state of repair[/p][/quote]The car was hardly non drivable lets be honest here a slightly bald tyre or two okay, not acceptable by any means but whatever car came down that road that night was going to come crashing off as did the car before his, their car was road legal still crashed. Bsxking1
  • Score: 28

6:00pm Wed 23 Jul 14

Bsxking1 says...

stevo!! wrote:
Bsxking1 wrote:
What the argus don't tell you at the time of the accident there was a leaking water pipe which had been left for almost 3 weeks, causing the road to have sever amounts of black ice every night at this time of year, I know this as I nearly came of the road at exactly the same point a week before. The real people to blame are the water works company for not fixing the pipe that was causing a leak. What the argus also doesn't tell you is that the officer tradicaly hit someone but they had also crashed their car just moments before on the same spot of black ice where the officer came of the road.
In that case, why hasn't Chalmers expressed any sorrow for the death and misery?

Any normal person losing control after hitting a patch of ice would be distraught at any injuries caused to others as a result.

And why all this fuss about the vehicles roadworthiness? The police know in an instant if documentation is in order at the precise moment an accident occurs.

The whole incident stinks, with a distinctly porcine flavour.
I'm sure the fact of what has happened will affect him for the rest of his life, it was a tragic accident, it could have been any one driving down the road that night.
The water company should be held responsible for not fixing the leak only after the accident was it repaired!
[quote][p][bold]stevo!![/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Bsxking1[/bold] wrote: What the argus don't tell you at the time of the accident there was a leaking water pipe which had been left for almost 3 weeks, causing the road to have sever amounts of black ice every night at this time of year, I know this as I nearly came of the road at exactly the same point a week before. The real people to blame are the water works company for not fixing the pipe that was causing a leak. What the argus also doesn't tell you is that the officer tradicaly hit someone but they had also crashed their car just moments before on the same spot of black ice where the officer came of the road.[/p][/quote]In that case, why hasn't Chalmers expressed any sorrow for the death and misery? Any normal person losing control after hitting a patch of ice would be distraught at any injuries caused to others as a result. And why all this fuss about the vehicles roadworthiness? The police know in an instant if documentation is in order at the precise moment an accident occurs. The whole incident stinks, with a distinctly porcine flavour.[/p][/quote]I'm sure the fact of what has happened will affect him for the rest of his life, it was a tragic accident, it could have been any one driving down the road that night. The water company should be held responsible for not fixing the leak only after the accident was it repaired! Bsxking1
  • Score: 18

6:05pm Wed 23 Jul 14

stevo!! says...

Bsxking1 wrote:
stevo!! wrote:
Bsxking1 wrote:
What the argus don't tell you at the time of the accident there was a leaking water pipe which had been left for almost 3 weeks, causing the road to have sever amounts of black ice every night at this time of year, I know this as I nearly came of the road at exactly the same point a week before. The real people to blame are the water works company for not fixing the pipe that was causing a leak. What the argus also doesn't tell you is that the officer tradicaly hit someone but they had also crashed their car just moments before on the same spot of black ice where the officer came of the road.
In that case, why hasn't Chalmers expressed any sorrow for the death and misery?

Any normal person losing control after hitting a patch of ice would be distraught at any injuries caused to others as a result.

And why all this fuss about the vehicles roadworthiness? The police know in an instant if documentation is in order at the precise moment an accident occurs.

The whole incident stinks, with a distinctly porcine flavour.
I'm sure the fact of what has happened will affect him for the rest of his life, it was a tragic accident, it could have been any one driving down the road that night.
The water company should be held responsible for not fixing the leak only after the accident was it repaired!
Chalmer's response has shown that the accident didn't affect him in any way, as I've just pointed out.

The fact that the family want to force him to apologise shows that he hasn't expressed to them any remorse.

The water company is responsible for any leaks. That isn't the issue here. An accident has occurred for which Chalmers is blameless, yet he treats the victims' families with utter contempt.

It suggests to me that there is all lot more to this than we've been told. Add to that the threats to the arresting officers, and there is plainly something going on.

Oh, and don't make the mistake of claiming to know how someone else feels about something until they tell you how they feel, OK? It suggests you're more involved than being a mere bystander.
[quote][p][bold]Bsxking1[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]stevo!![/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Bsxking1[/bold] wrote: What the argus don't tell you at the time of the accident there was a leaking water pipe which had been left for almost 3 weeks, causing the road to have sever amounts of black ice every night at this time of year, I know this as I nearly came of the road at exactly the same point a week before. The real people to blame are the water works company for not fixing the pipe that was causing a leak. What the argus also doesn't tell you is that the officer tradicaly hit someone but they had also crashed their car just moments before on the same spot of black ice where the officer came of the road.[/p][/quote]In that case, why hasn't Chalmers expressed any sorrow for the death and misery? Any normal person losing control after hitting a patch of ice would be distraught at any injuries caused to others as a result. And why all this fuss about the vehicles roadworthiness? The police know in an instant if documentation is in order at the precise moment an accident occurs. The whole incident stinks, with a distinctly porcine flavour.[/p][/quote]I'm sure the fact of what has happened will affect him for the rest of his life, it was a tragic accident, it could have been any one driving down the road that night. The water company should be held responsible for not fixing the leak only after the accident was it repaired![/p][/quote]Chalmer's response has shown that the accident didn't affect him in any way, as I've just pointed out. The fact that the family want to force him to apologise shows that he hasn't expressed to them any remorse. The water company is responsible for any leaks. That isn't the issue here. An accident has occurred for which Chalmers is blameless, yet he treats the victims' families with utter contempt. It suggests to me that there is all lot more to this than we've been told. Add to that the threats to the arresting officers, and there is plainly something going on. Oh, and don't make the mistake of claiming to know how someone else feels about something until they tell you how they feel, OK? It suggests you're more involved than being a mere bystander. stevo!!
  • Score: -23

6:07pm Wed 23 Jul 14

stevo!! says...

spa301 wrote:
Very surprised by the large number of thumbs down to ANY comments slightly criticising the police. On this site that's quite unusual. Can it be that a large number of new voters are somehow suddenly reading this story. Wonder where they came from?
I've noticed that, too.

Cut one, they all bleed, apparently.

It doesn't alter the facts of the case in the slightest.
[quote][p][bold]spa301[/bold] wrote: Very surprised by the large number of thumbs down to ANY comments slightly criticising the police. On this site that's quite unusual. Can it be that a large number of new voters are somehow suddenly reading this story. Wonder where they came from?[/p][/quote]I've noticed that, too. Cut one, they all bleed, apparently. It doesn't alter the facts of the case in the slightest. stevo!!
  • Score: -23

6:13pm Wed 23 Jul 14

Bsxking1 says...

stevo!! wrote:
Bsxking1 wrote:
stevo!! wrote:
Bsxking1 wrote:
What the argus don't tell you at the time of the accident there was a leaking water pipe which had been left for almost 3 weeks, causing the road to have sever amounts of black ice every night at this time of year, I know this as I nearly came of the road at exactly the same point a week before. The real people to blame are the water works company for not fixing the pipe that was causing a leak. What the argus also doesn't tell you is that the officer tradicaly hit someone but they had also crashed their car just moments before on the same spot of black ice where the officer came of the road.
In that case, why hasn't Chalmers expressed any sorrow for the death and misery?

Any normal person losing control after hitting a patch of ice would be distraught at any injuries caused to others as a result.

And why all this fuss about the vehicles roadworthiness? The police know in an instant if documentation is in order at the precise moment an accident occurs.

The whole incident stinks, with a distinctly porcine flavour.
I'm sure the fact of what has happened will affect him for the rest of his life, it was a tragic accident, it could have been any one driving down the road that night.
The water company should be held responsible for not fixing the leak only after the accident was it repaired!
Chalmer's response has shown that the accident didn't affect him in any way, as I've just pointed out.

The fact that the family want to force him to apologise shows that he hasn't expressed to them any remorse.

The water company is responsible for any leaks. That isn't the issue here. An accident has occurred for which Chalmers is blameless, yet he treats the victims' families with utter contempt.

It suggests to me that there is all lot more to this than we've been told. Add to that the threats to the arresting officers, and there is plainly something going on.

Oh, and don't make the mistake of claiming to know how someone else feels about something until they tell you how they feel, OK? It suggests you're more involved than being a mere bystander.
Clearly is an issue had the water company actually bothered to fix the leaking water main their car wouldn't have crashed off the road and nor would have PC Chalmers, okay he is a policeman but remember at that time he was just another member of the public driving his car home from work.
[quote][p][bold]stevo!![/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Bsxking1[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]stevo!![/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Bsxking1[/bold] wrote: What the argus don't tell you at the time of the accident there was a leaking water pipe which had been left for almost 3 weeks, causing the road to have sever amounts of black ice every night at this time of year, I know this as I nearly came of the road at exactly the same point a week before. The real people to blame are the water works company for not fixing the pipe that was causing a leak. What the argus also doesn't tell you is that the officer tradicaly hit someone but they had also crashed their car just moments before on the same spot of black ice where the officer came of the road.[/p][/quote]In that case, why hasn't Chalmers expressed any sorrow for the death and misery? Any normal person losing control after hitting a patch of ice would be distraught at any injuries caused to others as a result. And why all this fuss about the vehicles roadworthiness? The police know in an instant if documentation is in order at the precise moment an accident occurs. The whole incident stinks, with a distinctly porcine flavour.[/p][/quote]I'm sure the fact of what has happened will affect him for the rest of his life, it was a tragic accident, it could have been any one driving down the road that night. The water company should be held responsible for not fixing the leak only after the accident was it repaired![/p][/quote]Chalmer's response has shown that the accident didn't affect him in any way, as I've just pointed out. The fact that the family want to force him to apologise shows that he hasn't expressed to them any remorse. The water company is responsible for any leaks. That isn't the issue here. An accident has occurred for which Chalmers is blameless, yet he treats the victims' families with utter contempt. It suggests to me that there is all lot more to this than we've been told. Add to that the threats to the arresting officers, and there is plainly something going on. Oh, and don't make the mistake of claiming to know how someone else feels about something until they tell you how they feel, OK? It suggests you're more involved than being a mere bystander.[/p][/quote]Clearly is an issue had the water company actually bothered to fix the leaking water main their car wouldn't have crashed off the road and nor would have PC Chalmers, okay he is a policeman but remember at that time he was just another member of the public driving his car home from work. Bsxking1
  • Score: 17

6:15pm Wed 23 Jul 14

Logicsays says...

Logicsays wrote:
Well well well what have we here then - I smell not just a rat but a whole barrel full of them. Rare to find an honest copper these days!
A minus 48 score and yet the nations favourite red top (The Sun) carries at least three reports about bent coppers today alone. Have I missed the announcement of lets big up a bobby day. Its simple the old saying that the met was the best police force money could buy now appears to apply to them all. Giles York you have one enormous job to do.
[quote][p][bold]Logicsays[/bold] wrote: Well well well what have we here then - I smell not just a rat but a whole barrel full of them. Rare to find an honest copper these days![/p][/quote]A minus 48 score and yet the nations favourite red top (The Sun) carries at least three reports about bent coppers today alone. Have I missed the announcement of lets big up a bobby day. Its simple the old saying that the met was the best police force money could buy now appears to apply to them all. Giles York you have one enormous job to do. Logicsays
  • Score: -21

6:18pm Wed 23 Jul 14

stevo!! says...

" he is a policeman but remember at that time he was just another member of the public driving his car home from work."

And he killed someone.

Members of the public get arrested as a matter of course for doing that, yet the Fed tried to stop that happening. Clearly *somebody* considered him to be enough of a policeman to protect him from due process.
" he is a policeman but remember at that time he was just another member of the public driving his car home from work." And he killed someone. Members of the public get arrested as a matter of course for doing that, yet the Fed tried to stop that happening. Clearly *somebody* considered him to be enough of a policeman to protect him from due process. stevo!!
  • Score: -27

6:26pm Wed 23 Jul 14

Bsxking1 says...

His case went to court and the evidence proved that it wasn't his fault
His case went to court and the evidence proved that it wasn't his fault Bsxking1
  • Score: 25

7:05pm Wed 23 Jul 14

stevo!! says...

Bsxking1 wrote:
His case went to court and the evidence proved that it wasn't his fault
So what stopped him from expressing remorse as soon as the accident had happened?

Oh, and failing to be convicted doesn't always mean that there were no grounds for conviction ;-)
[quote][p][bold]Bsxking1[/bold] wrote: His case went to court and the evidence proved that it wasn't his fault[/p][/quote]So what stopped him from expressing remorse as soon as the accident had happened? Oh, and failing to be convicted doesn't always mean that there were no grounds for conviction ;-) stevo!!
  • Score: -31

7:11pm Wed 23 Jul 14

Ambo Guy says...

stevo!! wrote:
" he is a policeman but remember at that time he was just another member of the public driving his car home from work."

And he killed someone.

Members of the public get arrested as a matter of course for doing that, yet the Fed tried to stop that happening. Clearly *somebody* considered him to be enough of a policeman to protect him from due process.
'The Fed' !!

Ok so you're either:
a) A chav
b) About 12 years old
c) Both of the above

Anyone who uses the term 'the fed' to refer to the Police gives up any right to be taken seriously.
[quote][p][bold]stevo!![/bold] wrote: " he is a policeman but remember at that time he was just another member of the public driving his car home from work." And he killed someone. Members of the public get arrested as a matter of course for doing that, yet the Fed tried to stop that happening. Clearly *somebody* considered him to be enough of a policeman to protect him from due process.[/p][/quote]'The Fed' !! Ok so you're either: a) A chav b) About 12 years old c) Both of the above Anyone who uses the term 'the fed' to refer to the Police gives up any right to be taken seriously. Ambo Guy
  • Score: 81

7:29pm Wed 23 Jul 14

Clouded Judgement says...

What not has been reported is HOW the first accident took place.

Was that vehicle dangerous, MOT'd, Insured, Driver had a drink, vehicle driven too fast for the conditions that resulted in the crash ??? ....

But what doe the Highway Code say about break downs and accidents? Get out the vehicle and move to the side of the road in a safe place. Was this done by the victims?

Yes it is a sad accident and we should feel sad for the families loss and the inured man who can't recover but look at all the facts before casting judgement.

Was the leak on the road explained in court? If so, where is the repair log by Southern Water. vicarious liability may apply.

I'm sure the Police officer didn't finish work and say to himself "I'm gonna kill someone now". But I'm sure he joined the Police to help people and he couldn't. How does that make him feel? Life long sentence of guilt knowing he killed someone accidentally.

The full facts have again not been covered in The Argus. So to them, well done I making the faith in the Police stronger.
What not has been reported is HOW the first accident took place. Was that vehicle dangerous, MOT'd, Insured, Driver had a drink, vehicle driven too fast for the conditions that resulted in the crash ??? .... But what doe the Highway Code say about break downs and accidents? Get out the vehicle and move to the side of the road in a safe place. Was this done by the victims? Yes it is a sad accident and we should feel sad for the families loss and the inured man who can't recover but look at all the facts before casting judgement. Was the leak on the road explained in court? If so, where is the repair log by Southern Water. vicarious liability may apply. I'm sure the Police officer didn't finish work and say to himself "I'm gonna kill someone now". But I'm sure he joined the Police to help people and he couldn't. How does that make him feel? Life long sentence of guilt knowing he killed someone accidentally. The full facts have again not been covered in The Argus. So to them, well done I making the faith in the Police stronger. Clouded Judgement
  • Score: 33

7:30pm Wed 23 Jul 14

spa301 says...

spa301 wrote:
Very surprised by the large number of thumbs down to ANY comments slightly criticising the police. On this site that's quite unusual. Can it be that a large number of new voters are somehow suddenly reading this story. Wonder where they came from?
-31 in just over 2 hours kind of backs up my first comment.
[quote][p][bold]spa301[/bold] wrote: Very surprised by the large number of thumbs down to ANY comments slightly criticising the police. On this site that's quite unusual. Can it be that a large number of new voters are somehow suddenly reading this story. Wonder where they came from?[/p][/quote]-31 in just over 2 hours kind of backs up my first comment. spa301
  • Score: -25

7:43pm Wed 23 Jul 14

stevo!! says...

Ambo Guy wrote:
stevo!! wrote:
" he is a policeman but remember at that time he was just another member of the public driving his car home from work."

And he killed someone.

Members of the public get arrested as a matter of course for doing that, yet the Fed tried to stop that happening. Clearly *somebody* considered him to be enough of a policeman to protect him from due process.
'The Fed' !!

Ok so you're either:
a) A chav
b) About 12 years old
c) Both of the above

Anyone who uses the term 'the fed' to refer to the Police gives up any right to be taken seriously.
It was a reference to the Police Federation, but you're too stupid to have worked that out.

FYI the term used in the US to describe federal agents is FedSSSSSSSS.
[quote][p][bold]Ambo Guy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]stevo!![/bold] wrote: " he is a policeman but remember at that time he was just another member of the public driving his car home from work." And he killed someone. Members of the public get arrested as a matter of course for doing that, yet the Fed tried to stop that happening. Clearly *somebody* considered him to be enough of a policeman to protect him from due process.[/p][/quote]'The Fed' !! Ok so you're either: a) A chav b) About 12 years old c) Both of the above Anyone who uses the term 'the fed' to refer to the Police gives up any right to be taken seriously.[/p][/quote]It was a reference to the Police Federation, but you're too stupid to have worked that out. FYI the term used in the US to describe federal agents is FedSSSSSSSS. stevo!!
  • Score: -49

7:46pm Wed 23 Jul 14

Ambo Guy says...

Sad little chav, we all know what you meant.

Still, what did we expect from a sad racist March For England supporter? They're not known for their intelligence are they?

At least it's clear why you hate the Police. You and your MFE thugs must get arrested and thrown in the cells on quite a regular basis.
Sad little chav, we all know what you meant. Still, what did we expect from a sad racist March For England supporter? They're not known for their intelligence are they? At least it's clear why you hate the Police. You and your MFE thugs must get arrested and thrown in the cells on quite a regular basis. Ambo Guy
  • Score: 55

7:52pm Wed 23 Jul 14

spa301 says...

spa301 wrote:
spa301 wrote:
Very surprised by the large number of thumbs down to ANY comments slightly criticising the police. On this site that's quite unusual. Can it be that a large number of new voters are somehow suddenly reading this story. Wonder where they came from?
-31 in just over 2 hours kind of backs up my first comment.
getting an idea of how stevo feels now!!
For the record a close relation is in the police does that help me?? All very strange. Voting on this frivolous little site really doesn't actually help any involved in this tragedy one way or the other. If anything the speed of the down thumbs might strengthen the conspiracy theorists.
[quote][p][bold]spa301[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]spa301[/bold] wrote: Very surprised by the large number of thumbs down to ANY comments slightly criticising the police. On this site that's quite unusual. Can it be that a large number of new voters are somehow suddenly reading this story. Wonder where they came from?[/p][/quote]-31 in just over 2 hours kind of backs up my first comment.[/p][/quote]getting an idea of how stevo feels now!! For the record a close relation is in the police does that help me?? All very strange. Voting on this frivolous little site really doesn't actually help any involved in this tragedy one way or the other. If anything the speed of the down thumbs might strengthen the conspiracy theorists. spa301
  • Score: -16

7:54pm Wed 23 Jul 14

stevo!! says...

Ambo Guy wrote:
Sad little chav, we all know what you meant.

Still, what did we expect from a sad racist March For England supporter? They're not known for their intelligence are they?

At least it's clear why you hate the Police. You and your MFE thugs must get arrested and thrown in the cells on quite a regular basis.
Oh, you 'know' after being told, lol.

How mature you sound!

I have nothing but praise for those who policed the MFE - they behaved both professionally and in a friendly manner.
[quote][p][bold]Ambo Guy[/bold] wrote: Sad little chav, we all know what you meant. Still, what did we expect from a sad racist March For England supporter? They're not known for their intelligence are they? At least it's clear why you hate the Police. You and your MFE thugs must get arrested and thrown in the cells on quite a regular basis.[/p][/quote]Oh, you 'know' after being told, lol. How mature you sound! I have nothing but praise for those who policed the MFE - they behaved both professionally and in a friendly manner. stevo!!
  • Score: -43

8:13pm Wed 23 Jul 14

stevo!! says...

Reading reports from the Court case, it becomes clear that Chalmers was partially to blame for the death.

His judgement is called into question, both with regard to the weather conditions and his driving.

It was stated in court that he had indicated to police at the scene he was travelling at something like 55mph, which was 5mph over the speed limit. Witnesses said his Lotus Exige sounded "like an aeroplane coming in to land".

So he must have been tanking it.

He later changed that to a claim that he had no idea how fast he was travelling. A further question of his judgement.

Unfortunately the tyre tracks from the earlier crash made it impossible for investigators to pinpoint his actual speed, neatly letting him off the speed aspect.

However, the fact remains that Chalmers didn't judge that the night was freezing, and therefore did not adjust his driving accordingly. Plus, as that ice had been present for two weeks prior to the accident, it is impossible to believe that he hadn't noticed it previously.

As he approached the scene, he claims he swerved to avoid an oncoming vehicle, and that even whilst skidding he thought the other vehicle was moving.

It wasn't.

It was the Peugeot that had crashed minutes before.

The fact that he thought a stationary vehicle was coming towards him shows that he was speeding far in excess of the speed limit, even if the road conditions were 'perfect'.......or was this just something he made up later in a bid to deflect from his actions?

The fact remains that he wasn't driving according to the prevailing weather conditions.

There is also the fact that the road had earlier been gritted at that point. Shouldn't the sight of grit on the road alert him to the possibility of frozen conditions ahead?

And why the threat to the arresting officers?
Reading reports from the Court case, it becomes clear that Chalmers was partially to blame for the death. His judgement is called into question, both with regard to the weather conditions and his driving. It was stated in court that he had indicated to police at the scene he was travelling at something like 55mph, which was 5mph over the speed limit. Witnesses said his Lotus Exige sounded "like an aeroplane coming in to land". So he must have been tanking it. He later changed that to a claim that he had no idea how fast he was travelling. A further question of his judgement. Unfortunately the tyre tracks from the earlier crash made it impossible for investigators to pinpoint his actual speed, neatly letting him off the speed aspect. However, the fact remains that Chalmers didn't judge that the night was freezing, and therefore did not adjust his driving accordingly. Plus, as that ice had been present for two weeks prior to the accident, it is impossible to believe that he hadn't noticed it previously. As he approached the scene, he claims he swerved to avoid an oncoming vehicle, and that even whilst skidding he thought the other vehicle was moving. It wasn't. It was the Peugeot that had crashed minutes before. The fact that he thought a stationary vehicle was coming towards him shows that he was speeding far in excess of the speed limit, even if the road conditions were 'perfect'.......or was this just something he made up later in a bid to deflect from his actions? The fact remains that he wasn't driving according to the prevailing weather conditions. There is also the fact that the road had earlier been gritted at that point. Shouldn't the sight of grit on the road alert him to the possibility of frozen conditions ahead? And why the threat to the arresting officers? stevo!!
  • Score: -18

8:16pm Wed 23 Jul 14

Logicsays says...

Ambo Guy wrote:
stevo!! wrote:
" he is a policeman but remember at that time he was just another member of the public driving his car home from work."

And he killed someone.

Members of the public get arrested as a matter of course for doing that, yet the Fed tried to stop that happening. Clearly *somebody* considered him to be enough of a policeman to protect him from due process.
'The Fed' !!

Ok so you're either:
a) A chav
b) About 12 years old
c) Both of the above

Anyone who uses the term 'the fed' to refer to the Police gives up any right to be taken seriously.
The fed is simply shorthand for Police federation a trade union! nothing more nothing less.
[quote][p][bold]Ambo Guy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]stevo!![/bold] wrote: " he is a policeman but remember at that time he was just another member of the public driving his car home from work." And he killed someone. Members of the public get arrested as a matter of course for doing that, yet the Fed tried to stop that happening. Clearly *somebody* considered him to be enough of a policeman to protect him from due process.[/p][/quote]'The Fed' !! Ok so you're either: a) A chav b) About 12 years old c) Both of the above Anyone who uses the term 'the fed' to refer to the Police gives up any right to be taken seriously.[/p][/quote]The fed is simply shorthand for Police federation a trade union! nothing more nothing less. Logicsays
  • Score: 69

8:28pm Wed 23 Jul 14

Ambo Guy says...

Logicsays wrote:
Ambo Guy wrote:
stevo!! wrote:
" he is a policeman but remember at that time he was just another member of the public driving his car home from work."

And he killed someone.

Members of the public get arrested as a matter of course for doing that, yet the Fed tried to stop that happening. Clearly *somebody* considered him to be enough of a policeman to protect him from due process.
'The Fed' !!

Ok so you're either:
a) A chav
b) About 12 years old
c) Both of the above

Anyone who uses the term 'the fed' to refer to the Police gives up any right to be taken seriously.
The fed is simply shorthand for Police federation a trade union! nothing more nothing less.
Incorrect. The Police Federation have never been known as 'The Fed' in any of their history. Source - I've just asked 3 copper mates of mine. They did confirm that some people over here (normally the wrong uns) refer to them just as 'Fed' (note minus the S).
Oh second correction - The Police Federation are also not nor have ever been a Trade Union. Just a bit of info for you.
[quote][p][bold]Logicsays[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ambo Guy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]stevo!![/bold] wrote: " he is a policeman but remember at that time he was just another member of the public driving his car home from work." And he killed someone. Members of the public get arrested as a matter of course for doing that, yet the Fed tried to stop that happening. Clearly *somebody* considered him to be enough of a policeman to protect him from due process.[/p][/quote]'The Fed' !! Ok so you're either: a) A chav b) About 12 years old c) Both of the above Anyone who uses the term 'the fed' to refer to the Police gives up any right to be taken seriously.[/p][/quote]The fed is simply shorthand for Police federation a trade union! nothing more nothing less.[/p][/quote]Incorrect. The Police Federation have never been known as 'The Fed' in any of their history. Source - I've just asked 3 copper mates of mine. They did confirm that some people over here (normally the wrong uns) refer to them just as 'Fed' (note minus the S). Oh second correction - The Police Federation are also not nor have ever been a Trade Union. Just a bit of info for you. Ambo Guy
  • Score: 50

8:33pm Wed 23 Jul 14

stevo!! says...

" I've just asked 3 copper mates of mine. They did confirm that some people over here (normally the wrong uns) refer to them just as 'Fed' "

They also 'forgot' to tell you that 'Fed' is used on the Police Federation's own website. Funny, that.......
" I've just asked 3 copper mates of mine. They did confirm that some people over here (normally the wrong uns) refer to them just as 'Fed' " They also 'forgot' to tell you that 'Fed' is used on the Police Federation's own website. Funny, that....... stevo!!
  • Score: -28

8:40pm Wed 23 Jul 14

stevo!! says...

Count the times on THIS webpage that the Police Federation is referred to as 'The Fed' or 'Fed':

http://www.theguardi
an.com/uk-news/2014/
may/21/police-federa
tion-cornered-tory-h
ome-secretary-1980s-
trade-union

then perhaps AmboGay will stop trolling this thread.
Count the times on THIS webpage that the Police Federation is referred to as 'The Fed' or 'Fed': http://www.theguardi an.com/uk-news/2014/ may/21/police-federa tion-cornered-tory-h ome-secretary-1980s- trade-union then perhaps AmboGay will stop trolling this thread. stevo!!
  • Score: -29

8:40pm Wed 23 Jul 14

stevo!! says...

Count the times on THIS webpage that the Police Federation is referred to as 'The Fed' or 'Fed':

http://www.theguardi
an.com/uk-news/2014/
may/21/police-federa
tion-cornered-tory-h
ome-secretary-1980s-
trade-union

then perhaps AmboGay will stop trolling this thread.
Count the times on THIS webpage that the Police Federation is referred to as 'The Fed' or 'Fed': http://www.theguardi an.com/uk-news/2014/ may/21/police-federa tion-cornered-tory-h ome-secretary-1980s- trade-union then perhaps AmboGay will stop trolling this thread. stevo!!
  • Score: -24

8:58pm Wed 23 Jul 14

stevo!! says...

spa301 wrote:
spa301 wrote:
spa301 wrote:
Very surprised by the large number of thumbs down to ANY comments slightly criticising the police. On this site that's quite unusual. Can it be that a large number of new voters are somehow suddenly reading this story. Wonder where they came from?
-31 in just over 2 hours kind of backs up my first comment.
getting an idea of how stevo feels now!!
For the record a close relation is in the police does that help me?? All very strange. Voting on this frivolous little site really doesn't actually help any involved in this tragedy one way or the other. If anything the speed of the down thumbs might strengthen the conspiracy theorists.
As I've been pointing out for ever, a thumbs down from someone is an admission that your post is factually accurate and that they hate the fact that they cannot argue with it.

My record is 85.......quite a proud moment.
[quote][p][bold]spa301[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]spa301[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]spa301[/bold] wrote: Very surprised by the large number of thumbs down to ANY comments slightly criticising the police. On this site that's quite unusual. Can it be that a large number of new voters are somehow suddenly reading this story. Wonder where they came from?[/p][/quote]-31 in just over 2 hours kind of backs up my first comment.[/p][/quote]getting an idea of how stevo feels now!! For the record a close relation is in the police does that help me?? All very strange. Voting on this frivolous little site really doesn't actually help any involved in this tragedy one way or the other. If anything the speed of the down thumbs might strengthen the conspiracy theorists.[/p][/quote]As I've been pointing out for ever, a thumbs down from someone is an admission that your post is factually accurate and that they hate the fact that they cannot argue with it. My record is 85.......quite a proud moment. stevo!!
  • Score: -20

9:08pm Wed 23 Jul 14

Ambo Guy says...

stevo!! wrote:
" I've just asked 3 copper mates of mine. They did confirm that some people over here (normally the wrong uns) refer to them just as 'Fed' "

They also 'forgot' to tell you that 'Fed' is used on the Police Federation's own website. Funny, that.......
Ummmm except it isn't used.....not even once! If you're going to lie to try and win your arguments it shows me you've given up trying to post an intelligent comment.
I don't care what The Guardian say I just wanted to confirm to myself that you did in fact make it your 'fact'.
[quote][p][bold]stevo!![/bold] wrote: " I've just asked 3 copper mates of mine. They did confirm that some people over here (normally the wrong uns) refer to them just as 'Fed' " They also 'forgot' to tell you that 'Fed' is used on the Police Federation's own website. Funny, that.......[/p][/quote]Ummmm except it isn't used.....not even once! If you're going to lie to try and win your arguments it shows me you've given up trying to post an intelligent comment. I don't care what The Guardian say I just wanted to confirm to myself that you did in fact make it your 'fact'. Ambo Guy
  • Score: 34

9:13pm Wed 23 Jul 14

Ambo Guy says...

Oh and just to add that calling me Ambo Gay does not help your case or make anyone hate you any less.

Do you really want to be banned again? You've only just come on with this new username so you really want to get chucked off again do you?

MFE supporters eh! They must've been holding the door open for everyone else when God gave out the brains!!
Oh and just to add that calling me Ambo Gay does not help your case or make anyone hate you any less. Do you really want to be banned again? You've only just come on with this new username so you really want to get chucked off again do you? MFE supporters eh! They must've been holding the door open for everyone else when God gave out the brains!! Ambo Guy
  • Score: 47

9:21pm Wed 23 Jul 14

stevo!! says...

Ambo Guy wrote:
stevo!! wrote:
" I've just asked 3 copper mates of mine. They did confirm that some people over here (normally the wrong uns) refer to them just as 'Fed' "

They also 'forgot' to tell you that 'Fed' is used on the Police Federation's own website. Funny, that.......
Ummmm except it isn't used.....not even once! If you're going to lie to try and win your arguments it shows me you've given up trying to post an intelligent comment.
I don't care what The Guardian say I just wanted to confirm to myself that you did in fact make it your 'fact'.
Still trolling, AmboGay?

"Ummmm except it isn't used.....not even once! "

Is the search facility on that page too advanced for you to use?

If not, try using it.

I found this on it:

http://www.polfed.or
g/documents/Home_Sec
retary_Speech_to_Con
ference_2013_2.pdf

The third page has two uses of 'Fed' by the Home Sec.


How stupid do you and your three alleged coppers now feel?
[quote][p][bold]Ambo Guy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]stevo!![/bold] wrote: " I've just asked 3 copper mates of mine. They did confirm that some people over here (normally the wrong uns) refer to them just as 'Fed' " They also 'forgot' to tell you that 'Fed' is used on the Police Federation's own website. Funny, that.......[/p][/quote]Ummmm except it isn't used.....not even once! If you're going to lie to try and win your arguments it shows me you've given up trying to post an intelligent comment. I don't care what The Guardian say I just wanted to confirm to myself that you did in fact make it your 'fact'.[/p][/quote]Still trolling, AmboGay? "Ummmm except it isn't used.....not even once! " Is the search facility on that page too advanced for you to use? If not, try using it. I found this on it: http://www.polfed.or g/documents/Home_Sec retary_Speech_to_Con ference_2013_2.pdf The third page has two uses of 'Fed' by the Home Sec. How stupid do you and your three alleged coppers now feel? stevo!!
  • Score: -34

9:22pm Wed 23 Jul 14

stevo!! says...

Ambo Guy wrote:
Oh and just to add that calling me Ambo Gay does not help your case or make anyone hate you any less.

Do you really want to be banned again? You've only just come on with this new username so you really want to get chucked off again do you?

MFE supporters eh! They must've been holding the door open for everyone else when God gave out the brains!!
And yet one MFE supporter is making you look stupid.

I note that you haven't had the brains to discuss details of the topic.
[quote][p][bold]Ambo Guy[/bold] wrote: Oh and just to add that calling me Ambo Gay does not help your case or make anyone hate you any less. Do you really want to be banned again? You've only just come on with this new username so you really want to get chucked off again do you? MFE supporters eh! They must've been holding the door open for everyone else when God gave out the brains!![/p][/quote]And yet one MFE supporter is making you look stupid. I note that you haven't had the brains to discuss details of the topic. stevo!!
  • Score: -49

9:30pm Wed 23 Jul 14

jackthekipper says...

so why refuse to apologise,does that make him guilty if he says sorry.
an arseoil of the highest order
so why refuse to apologise,does that make him guilty if he says sorry. an arseoil of the highest order jackthekipper
  • Score: -3

9:32pm Wed 23 Jul 14

Ambo Guy says...

stevo!! wrote:
Ambo Guy wrote:
stevo!! wrote:
" I've just asked 3 copper mates of mine. They did confirm that some people over here (normally the wrong uns) refer to them just as 'Fed' "

They also 'forgot' to tell you that 'Fed' is used on the Police Federation's own website. Funny, that.......
Ummmm except it isn't used.....not even once! If you're going to lie to try and win your arguments it shows me you've given up trying to post an intelligent comment.
I don't care what The Guardian say I just wanted to confirm to myself that you did in fact make it your 'fact'.
Still trolling, AmboGay?

"Ummmm except it isn't used.....not even once! "

Is the search facility on that page too advanced for you to use?

If not, try using it.

I found this on it:

http://www.polfed.or

g/documents/Home_Sec

retary_Speech_to_Con

ference_2013_2.pdf

The third page has two uses of 'Fed' by the Home Sec.


How stupid do you and your three alleged coppers now feel?
Post a proper link you idiot. That isn't a link at all. If you need some help then just ask a responsible adult to help you. Did they not have a computer in the care home that you so clearly grew up in?

And you have to understand that calling me AmboGay does not make me look stupid it just makes you look homophobic as well as a racist biggoted fool.
[quote][p][bold]stevo!![/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ambo Guy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]stevo!![/bold] wrote: " I've just asked 3 copper mates of mine. They did confirm that some people over here (normally the wrong uns) refer to them just as 'Fed' " They also 'forgot' to tell you that 'Fed' is used on the Police Federation's own website. Funny, that.......[/p][/quote]Ummmm except it isn't used.....not even once! If you're going to lie to try and win your arguments it shows me you've given up trying to post an intelligent comment. I don't care what The Guardian say I just wanted to confirm to myself that you did in fact make it your 'fact'.[/p][/quote]Still trolling, AmboGay? "Ummmm except it isn't used.....not even once! " Is the search facility on that page too advanced for you to use? If not, try using it. I found this on it: http://www.polfed.or g/documents/Home_Sec retary_Speech_to_Con ference_2013_2.pdf The third page has two uses of 'Fed' by the Home Sec. How stupid do you and your three alleged coppers now feel?[/p][/quote]Post a proper link you idiot. That isn't a link at all. If you need some help then just ask a responsible adult to help you. Did they not have a computer in the care home that you so clearly grew up in? And you have to understand that calling me AmboGay does not make me look stupid it just makes you look homophobic as well as a racist biggoted fool. Ambo Guy
  • Score: 57

9:42pm Wed 23 Jul 14

Voice of Brighton says...

Ambo please just give up!
Other people have pointed out (in fact so have you) that arguing with Stevo is pointless. Have you not noticed it's like arguing with a 5 year old? People question his intelligence so he just calls them stupid back, you called him a racist (he clearly is btw!) so he calls you a racist back. It's just the mentality of a child. All this stuff about loving the thumbs down is probably true as he's just a troll and loves the 'importance' he feels it gives him. I doubt he's ever been on a MFE march in his life. He spends all day every day on this forum looking for trouble. He gets banned over and over then comes back again as he has nothing else in his life.
For the love of god don't give him the satisfaction! I won't be posting on here again today as unlike Stevo I have better things to do.
Ambo please just give up! Other people have pointed out (in fact so have you) that arguing with Stevo is pointless. Have you not noticed it's like arguing with a 5 year old? People question his intelligence so he just calls them stupid back, you called him a racist (he clearly is btw!) so he calls you a racist back. It's just the mentality of a child. All this stuff about loving the thumbs down is probably true as he's just a troll and loves the 'importance' he feels it gives him. I doubt he's ever been on a MFE march in his life. He spends all day every day on this forum looking for trouble. He gets banned over and over then comes back again as he has nothing else in his life. For the love of god don't give him the satisfaction! I won't be posting on here again today as unlike Stevo I have better things to do. Voice of Brighton
  • Score: 74

9:58pm Wed 23 Jul 14

19frenchie87 says...

This scum should not be on the beat !!!! You dirty pig
This scum should not be on the beat !!!! You dirty pig 19frenchie87
  • Score: -36

9:59pm Wed 23 Jul 14

To baldly go says...

Reading what you lot have put on hear shows none of you give a **** about the tragic death, just trying to up yourselves.
There is bad (for want of a better word) in everyone to some extent, regardless of what profession they are in, it's being man enough to hold your hands up and admit guilt when it goes wrong that is the sign of being a man, in this case the policeman has not owned up to *chancing* it on the way home! The Lotus car he was driving is a car used for track days! nothing else, the tyres were probably the virtual slick type, just about road legal on a dry day as they have very little tread cut into them and would have performed very badly on a cold winters day!
Police, although they do a fantastic job, it's when they go home that they forget what the rules are! They stop people for doing 5mph over the speed limit when on duty but then break the speed limit on their way home, sometimes on the same roads they have caught and fined others on, how do I know? My sister got caught for that very thing and even though she was in uniform, at least the copper that stopped her still booked her!
Something clearly is not right in this case, but will the truth ever come out? Probably not. All I will do is wish ALL involved the best, hope they can move on and learn from what has happened.
Reading what you lot have put on hear shows none of you give a **** about the tragic death, just trying to up yourselves. There is bad (for want of a better word) in everyone to some extent, regardless of what profession they are in, it's being man enough to hold your hands up and admit guilt when it goes wrong that is the sign of being a man, in this case the policeman has not owned up to *chancing* it on the way home! The Lotus car he was driving is a car used for track days! nothing else, the tyres were probably the virtual slick type, just about road legal on a dry day as they have very little tread cut into them and would have performed very badly on a cold winters day! Police, although they do a fantastic job, it's when they go home that they forget what the rules are! They stop people for doing 5mph over the speed limit when on duty but then break the speed limit on their way home, sometimes on the same roads they have caught and fined others on, how do I know? My sister got caught for that very thing and even though she was in uniform, at least the copper that stopped her still booked her! Something clearly is not right in this case, but will the truth ever come out? Probably not. All I will do is wish ALL involved the best, hope they can move on and learn from what has happened. To baldly go
  • Score: 9

10:08pm Wed 23 Jul 14

19frenchie87 says...

Another case of scumbag dirty pig gets away with murder !!!!! Sussex police should be ashamed
Another case of scumbag dirty pig gets away with murder !!!!! Sussex police should be ashamed 19frenchie87
  • Score: -33

10:08pm Wed 23 Jul 14

Quiterie says...

Very interesting how this morning all the anti police comments had loads of "thumbs up" and they now all have loads of "thumbs down". I smell a rat - once again the police mobilising themselves to distort the truth.
Very interesting how this morning all the anti police comments had loads of "thumbs up" and they now all have loads of "thumbs down". I smell a rat - once again the police mobilising themselves to distort the truth. Quiterie
  • Score: -32

11:20pm Wed 23 Jul 14

spurious warnings says...

stevo!! wrote:
spa301 wrote:
spa301 wrote:
spa301 wrote:
Very surprised by the large number of thumbs down to ANY comments slightly criticising the police. On this site that's quite unusual. Can it be that a large number of new voters are somehow suddenly reading this story. Wonder where they came from?
-31 in just over 2 hours kind of backs up my first comment.
getting an idea of how stevo feels now!!
For the record a close relation is in the police does that help me?? All very strange. Voting on this frivolous little site really doesn't actually help any involved in this tragedy one way or the other. If anything the speed of the down thumbs might strengthen the conspiracy theorists.
As I've been pointing out for ever, a thumbs down from someone is an admission that your post is factually accurate and that they hate the fact that they cannot argue with it.

My record is 85.......quite a proud moment.
From the voice of the sad person with narcissistic personality disorder! Really Stevo, you should get help except your delusions are quite entertaining in a pathetic -now boring- kind of way
[quote][p][bold]stevo!![/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]spa301[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]spa301[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]spa301[/bold] wrote: Very surprised by the large number of thumbs down to ANY comments slightly criticising the police. On this site that's quite unusual. Can it be that a large number of new voters are somehow suddenly reading this story. Wonder where they came from?[/p][/quote]-31 in just over 2 hours kind of backs up my first comment.[/p][/quote]getting an idea of how stevo feels now!! For the record a close relation is in the police does that help me?? All very strange. Voting on this frivolous little site really doesn't actually help any involved in this tragedy one way or the other. If anything the speed of the down thumbs might strengthen the conspiracy theorists.[/p][/quote]As I've been pointing out for ever, a thumbs down from someone is an admission that your post is factually accurate and that they hate the fact that they cannot argue with it. My record is 85.......quite a proud moment.[/p][/quote]From the voice of the sad person with narcissistic personality disorder! Really Stevo, you should get help except your delusions are quite entertaining in a pathetic -now boring- kind of way spurious warnings
  • Score: 24

11:21pm Wed 23 Jul 14

Goodsense says...

chrismilo wrote:
Another copper gets away with murder !
What a disgusting comment on every level. Disrespectful to all serving officers who do a fantastic job. Disrespectful to the families of all parties involved.
No-one 'got away' with anything. Everyone's lives have been changed by that day. Show some respect!
[quote][p][bold]chrismilo[/bold] wrote: Another copper gets away with murder ![/p][/quote]What a disgusting comment on every level. Disrespectful to all serving officers who do a fantastic job. Disrespectful to the families of all parties involved. No-one 'got away' with anything. Everyone's lives have been changed by that day. Show some respect! Goodsense
  • Score: 21

1:08am Thu 24 Jul 14

stevo!! says...

Goodsense wrote:
chrismilo wrote:
Another copper gets away with murder !
What a disgusting comment on every level. Disrespectful to all serving officers who do a fantastic job. Disrespectful to the families of all parties involved.
No-one 'got away' with anything. Everyone's lives have been changed by that day. Show some respect!
But he DID kill someone, right?


Questions HAVE been asked about the state of his vehicle, right?
[quote][p][bold]Goodsense[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]chrismilo[/bold] wrote: Another copper gets away with murder ![/p][/quote]What a disgusting comment on every level. Disrespectful to all serving officers who do a fantastic job. Disrespectful to the families of all parties involved. No-one 'got away' with anything. Everyone's lives have been changed by that day. Show some respect![/p][/quote]But he DID kill someone, right? Questions HAVE been asked about the state of his vehicle, right? stevo!!
  • Score: -20

1:10am Thu 24 Jul 14

stevo!! says...

Voice of Brighton wrote:
Ambo please just give up!
Other people have pointed out (in fact so have you) that arguing with Stevo is pointless. Have you not noticed it's like arguing with a 5 year old? People question his intelligence so he just calls them stupid back, you called him a racist (he clearly is btw!) so he calls you a racist back. It's just the mentality of a child. All this stuff about loving the thumbs down is probably true as he's just a troll and loves the 'importance' he feels it gives him. I doubt he's ever been on a MFE march in his life. He spends all day every day on this forum looking for trouble. He gets banned over and over then comes back again as he has nothing else in his life.
For the love of god don't give him the satisfaction! I won't be posting on here again today as unlike Stevo I have better things to do.
Wow...all that, and NOT ONE WORD arguing against what I've written about this case.
[quote][p][bold]Voice of Brighton[/bold] wrote: Ambo please just give up! Other people have pointed out (in fact so have you) that arguing with Stevo is pointless. Have you not noticed it's like arguing with a 5 year old? People question his intelligence so he just calls them stupid back, you called him a racist (he clearly is btw!) so he calls you a racist back. It's just the mentality of a child. All this stuff about loving the thumbs down is probably true as he's just a troll and loves the 'importance' he feels it gives him. I doubt he's ever been on a MFE march in his life. He spends all day every day on this forum looking for trouble. He gets banned over and over then comes back again as he has nothing else in his life. For the love of god don't give him the satisfaction! I won't be posting on here again today as unlike Stevo I have better things to do.[/p][/quote]Wow...all that, and NOT ONE WORD arguing against what I've written about this case. stevo!!
  • Score: -18

1:11am Thu 24 Jul 14

stevo!! says...

Ambo Guy wrote:
stevo!! wrote:
Ambo Guy wrote:
stevo!! wrote:
" I've just asked 3 copper mates of mine. They did confirm that some people over here (normally the wrong uns) refer to them just as 'Fed' "

They also 'forgot' to tell you that 'Fed' is used on the Police Federation's own website. Funny, that.......
Ummmm except it isn't used.....not even once! If you're going to lie to try and win your arguments it shows me you've given up trying to post an intelligent comment.
I don't care what The Guardian say I just wanted to confirm to myself that you did in fact make it your 'fact'.
Still trolling, AmboGay?

"Ummmm except it isn't used.....not even once! "

Is the search facility on that page too advanced for you to use?

If not, try using it.

I found this on it:

http://www.polfed.or


g/documents/Home_Sec


retary_Speech_to_Con


ference_2013_2.pdf

The third page has two uses of 'Fed' by the Home Sec.


How stupid do you and your three alleged coppers now feel?
Post a proper link you idiot. That isn't a link at all. If you need some help then just ask a responsible adult to help you. Did they not have a computer in the care home that you so clearly grew up in?

And you have to understand that calling me AmboGay does not make me look stupid it just makes you look homophobic as well as a racist biggoted fool.
How is calling you AmboGay 'racist'?

All those posts, and you STILL haven't argued against any of the facts about this case.
[quote][p][bold]Ambo Guy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]stevo!![/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ambo Guy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]stevo!![/bold] wrote: " I've just asked 3 copper mates of mine. They did confirm that some people over here (normally the wrong uns) refer to them just as 'Fed' " They also 'forgot' to tell you that 'Fed' is used on the Police Federation's own website. Funny, that.......[/p][/quote]Ummmm except it isn't used.....not even once! If you're going to lie to try and win your arguments it shows me you've given up trying to post an intelligent comment. I don't care what The Guardian say I just wanted to confirm to myself that you did in fact make it your 'fact'.[/p][/quote]Still trolling, AmboGay? "Ummmm except it isn't used.....not even once! " Is the search facility on that page too advanced for you to use? If not, try using it. I found this on it: http://www.polfed.or g/documents/Home_Sec retary_Speech_to_Con ference_2013_2.pdf The third page has two uses of 'Fed' by the Home Sec. How stupid do you and your three alleged coppers now feel?[/p][/quote]Post a proper link you idiot. That isn't a link at all. If you need some help then just ask a responsible adult to help you. Did they not have a computer in the care home that you so clearly grew up in? And you have to understand that calling me AmboGay does not make me look stupid it just makes you look homophobic as well as a racist biggoted fool.[/p][/quote]How is calling you AmboGay 'racist'? All those posts, and you STILL haven't argued against any of the facts about this case. stevo!!
  • Score: -16

1:11am Thu 24 Jul 14

stevo!! says...

Ambo Guy wrote:
stevo!! wrote:
Ambo Guy wrote:
stevo!! wrote:
" I've just asked 3 copper mates of mine. They did confirm that some people over here (normally the wrong uns) refer to them just as 'Fed' "

They also 'forgot' to tell you that 'Fed' is used on the Police Federation's own website. Funny, that.......
Ummmm except it isn't used.....not even once! If you're going to lie to try and win your arguments it shows me you've given up trying to post an intelligent comment.
I don't care what The Guardian say I just wanted to confirm to myself that you did in fact make it your 'fact'.
Still trolling, AmboGay?

"Ummmm except it isn't used.....not even once! "

Is the search facility on that page too advanced for you to use?

If not, try using it.

I found this on it:

http://www.polfed.or


g/documents/Home_Sec


retary_Speech_to_Con


ference_2013_2.pdf

The third page has two uses of 'Fed' by the Home Sec.


How stupid do you and your three alleged coppers now feel?
Post a proper link you idiot. That isn't a link at all. If you need some help then just ask a responsible adult to help you. Did they not have a computer in the care home that you so clearly grew up in?

And you have to understand that calling me AmboGay does not make me look stupid it just makes you look homophobic as well as a racist biggoted fool.
How is calling you AmboGay 'racist'?

All those posts, and you STILL haven't argued against any of the facts about this case.
[quote][p][bold]Ambo Guy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]stevo!![/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ambo Guy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]stevo!![/bold] wrote: " I've just asked 3 copper mates of mine. They did confirm that some people over here (normally the wrong uns) refer to them just as 'Fed' " They also 'forgot' to tell you that 'Fed' is used on the Police Federation's own website. Funny, that.......[/p][/quote]Ummmm except it isn't used.....not even once! If you're going to lie to try and win your arguments it shows me you've given up trying to post an intelligent comment. I don't care what The Guardian say I just wanted to confirm to myself that you did in fact make it your 'fact'.[/p][/quote]Still trolling, AmboGay? "Ummmm except it isn't used.....not even once! " Is the search facility on that page too advanced for you to use? If not, try using it. I found this on it: http://www.polfed.or g/documents/Home_Sec retary_Speech_to_Con ference_2013_2.pdf The third page has two uses of 'Fed' by the Home Sec. How stupid do you and your three alleged coppers now feel?[/p][/quote]Post a proper link you idiot. That isn't a link at all. If you need some help then just ask a responsible adult to help you. Did they not have a computer in the care home that you so clearly grew up in? And you have to understand that calling me AmboGay does not make me look stupid it just makes you look homophobic as well as a racist biggoted fool.[/p][/quote]How is calling you AmboGay 'racist'? All those posts, and you STILL haven't argued against any of the facts about this case. stevo!!
  • Score: -20

1:13am Thu 24 Jul 14

getThisCoalitionOut says...

Obviously Sussex Police haven't got any important work to do - they're too busy reading this every two minutes and giving the thumbs down to anything that remotely goes against them.

As I said before, they are corrupt to the core and totally untrustworthy.
Obviously Sussex Police haven't got any important work to do - they're too busy reading this every two minutes and giving the thumbs down to anything that remotely goes against them. As I said before, they are corrupt to the core and totally untrustworthy. getThisCoalitionOut
  • Score: -7

1:22am Thu 24 Jul 14

stevo!! says...

Can any of the police apologists on this thread explain why Sussex Police stated at the time that they wanted to speak to the driver of a silver BMW?

The Polegate Road Policing Unit wanted to trace him.

Why?

Why is his testimony so important?

He stopped at the scene for an unspecified period. For which incident? The first, or the second?

If it was the first, then there is nothing he could add - Blackford lost control after driving under the influence was a fact that was never contested.

If it was for the second, why did he stop and then drive off?

If he was approaching the second incident from the east, he couldn't possibly add anything to the investigation.

But if he were driving from the west and following Chalmers, wouldn't he be able to give investigators an insight into how Chalmers was driving prior to the crash?

After all, wouldn't it be terrible if the silver BMW had seen Chalmers driving like a maniac, saw him lose control and hit two people, pull over to offer himself as a witness, blame Chalmers for the death, be told by Chalmers that he was a police officer and that he should 'go on his way' or face 'consequences, and drive off never to be traced?
Can any of the police apologists on this thread explain why Sussex Police stated at the time that they wanted to speak to the driver of a silver BMW? The Polegate Road Policing Unit wanted to trace him. Why? Why is his testimony so important? He stopped at the scene for an unspecified period. For which incident? The first, or the second? If it was the first, then there is nothing he could add - Blackford lost control after driving under the influence was a fact that was never contested. If it was for the second, why did he stop and then drive off? If he was approaching the second incident from the east, he couldn't possibly add anything to the investigation. But if he were driving from the west and following Chalmers, wouldn't he be able to give investigators an insight into how Chalmers was driving prior to the crash? After all, wouldn't it be terrible if the silver BMW had seen Chalmers driving like a maniac, saw him lose control and hit two people, pull over to offer himself as a witness, blame Chalmers for the death, be told by Chalmers that he was a police officer and that he should 'go on his way' or face 'consequences, and drive off never to be traced? stevo!!
  • Score: -18

1:23am Thu 24 Jul 14

stevo!! says...

Goodsense wrote:
chrismilo wrote:
Another copper gets away with murder !
What a disgusting comment on every level. Disrespectful to all serving officers who do a fantastic job. Disrespectful to the families of all parties involved.
No-one 'got away' with anything. Everyone's lives have been changed by that day. Show some respect!
Respect to who?

A bent copper, or the family of the deceased?
[quote][p][bold]Goodsense[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]chrismilo[/bold] wrote: Another copper gets away with murder ![/p][/quote]What a disgusting comment on every level. Disrespectful to all serving officers who do a fantastic job. Disrespectful to the families of all parties involved. No-one 'got away' with anything. Everyone's lives have been changed by that day. Show some respect![/p][/quote]Respect to who? A bent copper, or the family of the deceased? stevo!!
  • Score: -26

1:26am Thu 24 Jul 14

stevo!! says...

"Something clearly is not right in this case, but will the truth ever come out? "

No, the truth won't come out anywhere where it might matter, but Chalmers was clearly to blame for that death, and too many pigs ensured that he wasn't held to account.
"Something clearly is not right in this case, but will the truth ever come out? " No, the truth won't come out anywhere where it might matter, but Chalmers was clearly to blame for that death, and too many pigs ensured that he wasn't held to account. stevo!!
  • Score: -17

1:37am Thu 24 Jul 14

stevo!! says...

19frenchie87 wrote:
Another case of scumbag dirty pig gets away with murder !!!!! Sussex police should be ashamed
They won't be ashamed.

Many of them have been reading this thread, marking adverse comments 'down', hoping that somehow means something.

PC Bsxking1 in particular has defended his colleagues all the way......what's the betting that he's Chalmers?
[quote][p][bold]19frenchie87[/bold] wrote: Another case of scumbag dirty pig gets away with murder !!!!! Sussex police should be ashamed[/p][/quote]They won't be ashamed. Many of them have been reading this thread, marking adverse comments 'down', hoping that somehow means something. PC Bsxking1 in particular has defended his colleagues all the way......what's the betting that he's Chalmers? stevo!!
  • Score: -17

8:03am Thu 24 Jul 14

spa301 says...

Quiterie wrote:
Very interesting how this morning all the anti police comments had loads of "thumbs up" and they now all have loads of "thumbs down". I smell a rat - once again the police mobilising themselves to distort the truth.
spot on
[quote][p][bold]Quiterie[/bold] wrote: Very interesting how this morning all the anti police comments had loads of "thumbs up" and they now all have loads of "thumbs down". I smell a rat - once again the police mobilising themselves to distort the truth.[/p][/quote]spot on spa301
  • Score: -21

8:49am Thu 24 Jul 14

Watchdog50 says...

stevo!! wrote:
19frenchie87 wrote:
Another case of scumbag dirty pig gets away with murder !!!!! Sussex police should be ashamed
They won't be ashamed.

Many of them have been reading this thread, marking adverse comments 'down', hoping that somehow means something.

PC Bsxking1 in particular has defended his colleagues all the way......what's the betting that he's Chalmers?
Oh for goodness sake stevo, give it a rest. We know you hate the police. The occasional positive comment (when there really isn't any other option) won't change that. Just accept the fact that you're in the minority. There is no conspiracy. There is no hoard of police officers mobilizing to give you the thumbs down to try and prove you wrong. Just ordinary people who seem to see this whole sorry case for what it probably was. A tragic accident. I use the terms 'seem to' and 'probably' as other than what I've read here, I know very little about the case and won't try and fill in the gaps with my own version of what happened. That's also the reason that I won't 'argue with any of the points you've raised' as you seem to constantly accuse others of failing to do. All the points of the case have already been argued in court and a fully informed jury have given their finding. No more argument is necessary.
[quote][p][bold]stevo!![/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]19frenchie87[/bold] wrote: Another case of scumbag dirty pig gets away with murder !!!!! Sussex police should be ashamed[/p][/quote]They won't be ashamed. Many of them have been reading this thread, marking adverse comments 'down', hoping that somehow means something. PC Bsxking1 in particular has defended his colleagues all the way......what's the betting that he's Chalmers?[/p][/quote]Oh for goodness sake stevo, give it a rest. We know you hate the police. The occasional positive comment (when there really isn't any other option) won't change that. Just accept the fact that you're in the minority. There is no conspiracy. There is no hoard of police officers mobilizing to give you the thumbs down to try and prove you wrong. Just ordinary people who seem to see this whole sorry case for what it probably was. A tragic accident. I use the terms 'seem to' and 'probably' as other than what I've read here, I know very little about the case and won't try and fill in the gaps with my own version of what happened. That's also the reason that I won't 'argue with any of the points you've raised' as you seem to constantly accuse others of failing to do. All the points of the case have already been argued in court and a fully informed jury have given their finding. No more argument is necessary. Watchdog50
  • Score: 22

9:20am Thu 24 Jul 14

stevo!! says...

Watchdog50 wrote:
stevo!! wrote:
19frenchie87 wrote:
Another case of scumbag dirty pig gets away with murder !!!!! Sussex police should be ashamed
They won't be ashamed.

Many of them have been reading this thread, marking adverse comments 'down', hoping that somehow means something.

PC Bsxking1 in particular has defended his colleagues all the way......what's the betting that he's Chalmers?
Oh for goodness sake stevo, give it a rest. We know you hate the police. The occasional positive comment (when there really isn't any other option) won't change that. Just accept the fact that you're in the minority. There is no conspiracy. There is no hoard of police officers mobilizing to give you the thumbs down to try and prove you wrong. Just ordinary people who seem to see this whole sorry case for what it probably was. A tragic accident. I use the terms 'seem to' and 'probably' as other than what I've read here, I know very little about the case and won't try and fill in the gaps with my own version of what happened. That's also the reason that I won't 'argue with any of the points you've raised' as you seem to constantly accuse others of failing to do. All the points of the case have already been argued in court and a fully informed jury have given their finding. No more argument is necessary.
Thank you for admitting that you cannot argue against any of my points.

You claim you know nothing about the case yet also claim that there was no conspiracy - you cannot claim both, lol.

Save yourself a lot of typing in future.
[quote][p][bold]Watchdog50[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]stevo!![/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]19frenchie87[/bold] wrote: Another case of scumbag dirty pig gets away with murder !!!!! Sussex police should be ashamed[/p][/quote]They won't be ashamed. Many of them have been reading this thread, marking adverse comments 'down', hoping that somehow means something. PC Bsxking1 in particular has defended his colleagues all the way......what's the betting that he's Chalmers?[/p][/quote]Oh for goodness sake stevo, give it a rest. We know you hate the police. The occasional positive comment (when there really isn't any other option) won't change that. Just accept the fact that you're in the minority. There is no conspiracy. There is no hoard of police officers mobilizing to give you the thumbs down to try and prove you wrong. Just ordinary people who seem to see this whole sorry case for what it probably was. A tragic accident. I use the terms 'seem to' and 'probably' as other than what I've read here, I know very little about the case and won't try and fill in the gaps with my own version of what happened. That's also the reason that I won't 'argue with any of the points you've raised' as you seem to constantly accuse others of failing to do. All the points of the case have already been argued in court and a fully informed jury have given their finding. No more argument is necessary.[/p][/quote]Thank you for admitting that you cannot argue against any of my points. You claim you know nothing about the case yet also claim that there was no conspiracy - you cannot claim both, lol. Save yourself a lot of typing in future. stevo!!
  • Score: -34

9:36am Thu 24 Jul 14

Voice of Brighton says...

Watchdog50 wrote:
stevo!! wrote:
19frenchie87 wrote:
Another case of scumbag dirty pig gets away with murder !!!!! Sussex police should be ashamed
They won't be ashamed.

Many of them have been reading this thread, marking adverse comments 'down', hoping that somehow means something.

PC Bsxking1 in particular has defended his colleagues all the way......what's the betting that he's Chalmers?
Oh for goodness sake stevo, give it a rest. We know you hate the police. The occasional positive comment (when there really isn't any other option) won't change that. Just accept the fact that you're in the minority. There is no conspiracy. There is no hoard of police officers mobilizing to give you the thumbs down to try and prove you wrong. Just ordinary people who seem to see this whole sorry case for what it probably was. A tragic accident. I use the terms 'seem to' and 'probably' as other than what I've read here, I know very little about the case and won't try and fill in the gaps with my own version of what happened. That's also the reason that I won't 'argue with any of the points you've raised' as you seem to constantly accuse others of failing to do. All the points of the case have already been argued in court and a fully informed jury have given their finding. No more argument is necessary.
As I've said before , arguing with Stevo is like arguing with a child. He has no valid points to make and just wants a reaction from people. Look at how often he posts on here, there's a man with no life.
Save yourself time and don't even try to reason with him. I'm afraid we all have to accept that this forum has been lost to trolls like him.
[quote][p][bold]Watchdog50[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]stevo!![/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]19frenchie87[/bold] wrote: Another case of scumbag dirty pig gets away with murder !!!!! Sussex police should be ashamed[/p][/quote]They won't be ashamed. Many of them have been reading this thread, marking adverse comments 'down', hoping that somehow means something. PC Bsxking1 in particular has defended his colleagues all the way......what's the betting that he's Chalmers?[/p][/quote]Oh for goodness sake stevo, give it a rest. We know you hate the police. The occasional positive comment (when there really isn't any other option) won't change that. Just accept the fact that you're in the minority. There is no conspiracy. There is no hoard of police officers mobilizing to give you the thumbs down to try and prove you wrong. Just ordinary people who seem to see this whole sorry case for what it probably was. A tragic accident. I use the terms 'seem to' and 'probably' as other than what I've read here, I know very little about the case and won't try and fill in the gaps with my own version of what happened. That's also the reason that I won't 'argue with any of the points you've raised' as you seem to constantly accuse others of failing to do. All the points of the case have already been argued in court and a fully informed jury have given their finding. No more argument is necessary.[/p][/quote]As I've said before , arguing with Stevo is like arguing with a child. He has no valid points to make and just wants a reaction from people. Look at how often he posts on here, there's a man with no life. Save yourself time and don't even try to reason with him. I'm afraid we all have to accept that this forum has been lost to trolls like him. Voice of Brighton
  • Score: 24

9:45am Thu 24 Jul 14

stevo!! says...

"As I've said before , arguing with Stevo is like arguing with a child. He has no valid points to make and just wants a reaction from people. Look at how often he posts on here, there's a man with no life.
Save yourself time and don't even try to reason with him. I'm afraid we all have to accept that this forum has been lost to trolls like him."

Yes, we know you've said it before.

This is the second time you've come on this thread to admit that you have nothing to contribute to the discussion and are therefore trolling it.

How long until your third admission?

If a thread is beyond you, walk away.

HTH
"As I've said before , arguing with Stevo is like arguing with a child. He has no valid points to make and just wants a reaction from people. Look at how often he posts on here, there's a man with no life. Save yourself time and don't even try to reason with him. I'm afraid we all have to accept that this forum has been lost to trolls like him." Yes, we know you've said it before. This is the second time you've come on this thread to admit that you have nothing to contribute to the discussion and are therefore trolling it. How long until your third admission? If a thread is beyond you, walk away. HTH stevo!!
  • Score: -30

10:01am Thu 24 Jul 14

stevo!! says...

FOR ANYONE INTERESTED IN DISCUSSING THE ARGUS REPORT'S CONTENT, HERE'S A FEW POINTS I'VE RAISED THAT NO-ONE IS ABLE TO EXPLAIN/COUNTER/ANSW
ER.

Reading reports from the Court case, it becomes clear that Chalmers was partially to blame for the death.

His judgement is called into question, both with regard to the weather conditions and his driving.

It was stated in court that he had indicated to police at the scene he was travelling at something like 55mph, which was 5mph over the speed limit. Witnesses said his Lotus Exige sounded "like an aeroplane coming in to land".

So he must have been tanking it.

He later changed that to a claim that he had no idea how fast he was travelling. A further question of his judgement.

Unfortunately the tyre tracks from the earlier crash made it impossible for investigators to pinpoint his actual speed, neatly letting him off the speed aspect.

However, the fact remains that Chalmers didn't judge that the night was freezing, and therefore did not adjust his driving accordingly. Plus, as that ice had been present for two weeks prior to the accident, it is impossible to believe that he hadn't noticed it previously.

As he approached the scene, he claims he swerved to avoid an oncoming vehicle, and that even whilst skidding he thought the other vehicle was moving.

It wasn't.

It was the Peugeot that had crashed minutes before.

The fact that he thought a stationary vehicle was coming towards him shows that he was speeding far in excess of the speed limit, even if the road conditions were 'perfect'.......or was this just something he made up later in a bid to deflect from his actions?

The fact remains that he wasn't driving according to the prevailing weather conditions.

There is also the fact that the road had earlier been gritted at that point. Shouldn't the sight of grit on the road alert him to the possibility of frozen conditions ahead?

And why the threat to the arresting officers?


Can any of the police apologists on this thread explain why Sussex Police stated at the time that they wanted to speak to the driver of a silver BMW?

The Polegate Road Policing Unit wanted to trace him.

Why?

Why is his testimony so important?

He stopped at the scene for an unspecified period. For which incident? The first, or the second?

If it was the first, then there is nothing he could add - Blackford lost control after driving under the influence was a fact that was never contested.

If it was for the second, why did he stop and then drive off?

If he was approaching the second incident from the east, he couldn't possibly add anything to the investigation.

But if he were driving from the west and following Chalmers, wouldn't he be able to give investigators an insight into how Chalmers was driving prior to the crash?

After all, wouldn't it be terrible if the silver BMW had seen Chalmers driving like a maniac, saw him lose control and hit two people, pull over to offer himself as a witness, blame Chalmers for the death, be told by Chalmers that he was a police officer and that he should 'go on his way' or face 'consequences, and drive off never to be traced?
FOR ANYONE INTERESTED IN DISCUSSING THE ARGUS REPORT'S CONTENT, HERE'S A FEW POINTS I'VE RAISED THAT NO-ONE IS ABLE TO EXPLAIN/COUNTER/ANSW ER. Reading reports from the Court case, it becomes clear that Chalmers was partially to blame for the death. His judgement is called into question, both with regard to the weather conditions and his driving. It was stated in court that he had indicated to police at the scene he was travelling at something like 55mph, which was 5mph over the speed limit. Witnesses said his Lotus Exige sounded "like an aeroplane coming in to land". So he must have been tanking it. He later changed that to a claim that he had no idea how fast he was travelling. A further question of his judgement. Unfortunately the tyre tracks from the earlier crash made it impossible for investigators to pinpoint his actual speed, neatly letting him off the speed aspect. However, the fact remains that Chalmers didn't judge that the night was freezing, and therefore did not adjust his driving accordingly. Plus, as that ice had been present for two weeks prior to the accident, it is impossible to believe that he hadn't noticed it previously. As he approached the scene, he claims he swerved to avoid an oncoming vehicle, and that even whilst skidding he thought the other vehicle was moving. It wasn't. It was the Peugeot that had crashed minutes before. The fact that he thought a stationary vehicle was coming towards him shows that he was speeding far in excess of the speed limit, even if the road conditions were 'perfect'.......or was this just something he made up later in a bid to deflect from his actions? The fact remains that he wasn't driving according to the prevailing weather conditions. There is also the fact that the road had earlier been gritted at that point. Shouldn't the sight of grit on the road alert him to the possibility of frozen conditions ahead? And why the threat to the arresting officers? Can any of the police apologists on this thread explain why Sussex Police stated at the time that they wanted to speak to the driver of a silver BMW? The Polegate Road Policing Unit wanted to trace him. Why? Why is his testimony so important? He stopped at the scene for an unspecified period. For which incident? The first, or the second? If it was the first, then there is nothing he could add - Blackford lost control after driving under the influence was a fact that was never contested. If it was for the second, why did he stop and then drive off? If he was approaching the second incident from the east, he couldn't possibly add anything to the investigation. But if he were driving from the west and following Chalmers, wouldn't he be able to give investigators an insight into how Chalmers was driving prior to the crash? After all, wouldn't it be terrible if the silver BMW had seen Chalmers driving like a maniac, saw him lose control and hit two people, pull over to offer himself as a witness, blame Chalmers for the death, be told by Chalmers that he was a police officer and that he should 'go on his way' or face 'consequences, and drive off never to be traced? stevo!!
  • Score: -20

12:13pm Thu 24 Jul 14

qm says...

Not wishing to participate in any contentious spats however in the interests of truth:

http://www.polfed.or
g/documents/Home_Sec
retary_Speech_to_Con
ference_2013_2.pdf is a valid link!

Excerpts as follows:

1. "So I would like you – the Fed leadership, delegates here today, and officers around the country – to tell me where this is happening and I will help you."

2. "I know that there were initially some doubts from the Fed about the College, but I am delighted that you are now fully behind the College’s goal of setting professional standards and helping officers to follow them."

3. "So I would like you – the Fed leadership, delegates here today, and officers around the country – to tell me where this is happening and I will help you."

Also, the Police Federation is not trade union. It is a staff association. However many of it's published attitudes and recommendations would suggest that it the former definition is closer to the mark, occasionally as insidious and odious as any trade union, far wide of the mark expected to remain a neutral influence in the maintenance of law and order and the retention of respect by the wider public.
Not wishing to participate in any contentious spats however in the interests of truth: http://www.polfed.or g/documents/Home_Sec retary_Speech_to_Con ference_2013_2.pdf is a valid link! Excerpts as follows: 1. "So I would like you – the Fed leadership, delegates here today, and officers around the country – to tell me where this is happening and I will help you." 2. "I know that there were initially some doubts from the Fed about the College, but I am delighted that you are now fully behind the College’s goal of setting professional standards and helping officers to follow them." 3. "So I would like you – the Fed leadership, delegates here today, and officers around the country – to tell me where this is happening and I will help you." Also, the Police Federation is not trade union. It is a staff association. However many of it's published attitudes and recommendations would suggest that it the former definition is closer to the mark, occasionally as insidious and odious as any trade union, far wide of the mark expected to remain a neutral influence in the maintenance of law and order and the retention of respect by the wider public. qm
  • Score: 4

12:35pm Thu 24 Jul 14

stevo!! . says...

How very sad to see that no one has taken up my offer to discuss the issues I raised on this. Ambo Gay has clearly gone off with his boyfriend for the day and can't be bothered. None of the other trolls have the intelligence to counter my arguments either.
How very sad to see that no one has taken up my offer to discuss the issues I raised on this. Ambo Gay has clearly gone off with his boyfriend for the day and can't be bothered. None of the other trolls have the intelligence to counter my arguments either. stevo!! .
  • Score: 0

12:48pm Thu 24 Jul 14

stevo!! says...

stevo!! . wrote:
How very sad to see that no one has taken up my offer to discuss the issues I raised on this. Ambo Gay has clearly gone off with his boyfriend for the day and can't be bothered. None of the other trolls have the intelligence to counter my arguments either.
Should I be flattered that you've chosen virtually the same username as mine?

Let's hope that the idiots can spot the full stop after the exclamation mark ;-)
[quote][p][bold]stevo!! .[/bold] wrote: How very sad to see that no one has taken up my offer to discuss the issues I raised on this. Ambo Gay has clearly gone off with his boyfriend for the day and can't be bothered. None of the other trolls have the intelligence to counter my arguments either.[/p][/quote]Should I be flattered that you've chosen virtually the same username as mine? Let's hope that the idiots can spot the full stop after the exclamation mark ;-) stevo!!
  • Score: -12

12:56pm Thu 24 Jul 14

Mrbrightside1 says...

stevo!! wrote:
stevo!! . wrote:
How very sad to see that no one has taken up my offer to discuss the issues I raised on this. Ambo Gay has clearly gone off with his boyfriend for the day and can't be bothered. None of the other trolls have the intelligence to counter my arguments either.
Should I be flattered that you've chosen virtually the same username as mine?

Let's hope that the idiots can spot the full stop after the exclamation mark ;-)
Hahaha brilliant, welcome steveo!!. I do hope you're here to show not everyone with the name steveo is a complete ****
[quote][p][bold]stevo!![/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]stevo!! .[/bold] wrote: How very sad to see that no one has taken up my offer to discuss the issues I raised on this. Ambo Gay has clearly gone off with his boyfriend for the day and can't be bothered. None of the other trolls have the intelligence to counter my arguments either.[/p][/quote]Should I be flattered that you've chosen virtually the same username as mine? Let's hope that the idiots can spot the full stop after the exclamation mark ;-)[/p][/quote]Hahaha brilliant, welcome steveo!!. I do hope you're here to show not everyone with the name steveo is a complete **** Mrbrightside1
  • Score: -4

1:05pm Thu 24 Jul 14

stevo!! says...

Mrbrightside1 wrote:
stevo!! wrote:
stevo!! . wrote:
How very sad to see that no one has taken up my offer to discuss the issues I raised on this. Ambo Gay has clearly gone off with his boyfriend for the day and can't be bothered. None of the other trolls have the intelligence to counter my arguments either.
Should I be flattered that you've chosen virtually the same username as mine?

Let's hope that the idiots can spot the full stop after the exclamation mark ;-)
Hahaha brilliant, welcome steveo!!. I do hope you're here to show not everyone with the name steveo is a complete ****
There's a steveo as well????
[quote][p][bold]Mrbrightside1[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]stevo!![/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]stevo!! .[/bold] wrote: How very sad to see that no one has taken up my offer to discuss the issues I raised on this. Ambo Gay has clearly gone off with his boyfriend for the day and can't be bothered. None of the other trolls have the intelligence to counter my arguments either.[/p][/quote]Should I be flattered that you've chosen virtually the same username as mine? Let's hope that the idiots can spot the full stop after the exclamation mark ;-)[/p][/quote]Hahaha brilliant, welcome steveo!!. I do hope you're here to show not everyone with the name steveo is a complete ****[/p][/quote]There's a steveo as well???? stevo!!
  • Score: -6

5:55pm Thu 24 Jul 14

FatherTed11 says...

lindaf wrote:
FatherTed11 wrote:
The family are just out for revenge. How disgraceful.
No not revenge...JUSTICE ...
Sorry I thought I read 'cleared of wrongdoing' in the very first paragraph. My mistake apparently.
[quote][p][bold]lindaf[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]FatherTed11[/bold] wrote: The family are just out for revenge. How disgraceful.[/p][/quote]No not revenge...JUSTICE ...[/p][/quote]Sorry I thought I read 'cleared of wrongdoing' in the very first paragraph. My mistake apparently. FatherTed11
  • Score: 3

6:10pm Thu 24 Jul 14

stevo!! says...

FatherTed11 wrote:
lindaf wrote:
FatherTed11 wrote:
The family are just out for revenge. How disgraceful.
No not revenge...JUSTICE ...
Sorry I thought I read 'cleared of wrongdoing' in the very first paragraph. My mistake apparently.
He hasn't been cleared of misconduct allegations, though.

Did you get as far as the fifth paragraph?

" Sussex Police said they would consider a new independent investigation. "

HTH
[quote][p][bold]FatherTed11[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]lindaf[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]FatherTed11[/bold] wrote: The family are just out for revenge. How disgraceful.[/p][/quote]No not revenge...JUSTICE ...[/p][/quote]Sorry I thought I read 'cleared of wrongdoing' in the very first paragraph. My mistake apparently.[/p][/quote]He hasn't been cleared of misconduct allegations, though. Did you get as far as the fifth paragraph? " Sussex Police said they would consider a new independent investigation. " HTH stevo!!
  • Score: -6

6:11pm Thu 24 Jul 14

stevo!! says...

stevo!! . wrote:
How very sad to see that no one has taken up my offer to discuss the issues I raised on this. Ambo Gay has clearly gone off with his boyfriend for the day and can't be bothered. None of the other trolls have the intelligence to counter my arguments either.
It wasn't your offer, actually.

It was mine. Shame you had to be told it wasn't yours.
[quote][p][bold]stevo!! .[/bold] wrote: How very sad to see that no one has taken up my offer to discuss the issues I raised on this. Ambo Gay has clearly gone off with his boyfriend for the day and can't be bothered. None of the other trolls have the intelligence to counter my arguments either.[/p][/quote]It wasn't your offer, actually. It was mine. Shame you had to be told it wasn't yours. stevo!!
  • Score: -10

10:18pm Thu 24 Jul 14

Spongebobsbiatch says...

Corrupt police! Same crap another day yes true don't believe everything you read but this just does not surprise me at all! Poor family
Corrupt police! Same crap another day yes true don't believe everything you read but this just does not surprise me at all! Poor family Spongebobsbiatch
  • Score: 2

10:59pm Thu 24 Jul 14

jabbaj says...

i have a personal experience of mr chalmers,and believe me,he has no problem lying to a judge as the mp stated.in my case back in 2005,the judge then branded him a liar and after following this story over the years just goes to show that in my opinion he hasn't changed one bit.
i have a personal experience of mr chalmers,and believe me,he has no problem lying to a judge as the mp stated.in my case back in 2005,the judge then branded him a liar and after following this story over the years just goes to show that in my opinion he hasn't changed one bit. jabbaj
  • Score: 4

5:40pm Fri 25 Jul 14

Rhianna831 says...

Comments, such as "the family are on a witch hunt" and "confusing justice with revenge", etc., are straw-man arguments, used to misrepresent the victims' families position. It is a way for those who are either biased towards Chalmer's position, or ignorant of the facts, to avoid responding to valid points that have been made.

This isn't a witch hunt. It must be remembered that a young man lost his life, and another young man's life has been ruined, not to mention other family members, whose lives have changed forever.

I agree, there are no 'winners' here; indeed, Chalmers will have to live with the events of that night for the rest of his life; however, he has never shown any real concern for the victims families. This, combined with the way the case was handled, has compounded their grief.

While the jury found Mr Chalmers to be not guilty of causing death and injury by dangerous driving, it should be noted the jury it seems, were not privy to all the facts and this is the reason the families of the victims are perusing the matter.

Claims such as, " other details weren't mentioned because they are irrelevant" makes little sense. If that is the case, why not allow it to be presented, and let the jury decide what is relevant?

Yes, it was a terrible accident. PC Chalmers didn't leave work that day, planning to cause destruction and loss of life. However, his actions, and that of Sussex Police following the accident, are both dubious and concerning.

Yes, Chalmers was off duty, however, you don't stop being a policeman just because you're off duty. Is it wrong for the public to expect a higher standard from policemen?

I am not here to argue the point about whether Chalmers is guilty of murder - that has been decided by the jury, and it is a decision we must accept. However, his conduct and that of Sussex police should not be forgotten - for the sake of everyone in society.

All the families of the victims have ever asked for is a fair, transparent, investigation. No more, no less. And please avoid fallacious arguments, insinuating that the families of the victims' hate the police, and have no respect for their work. It is because the family hold the emergency services in such high regard that they are dumbfounded by the actions of one local police force.

Suggesting that pursing this matter amounts to revenge, is a crass insult to the victims' families. For them, there can be no just revenge. Nothing will bring Mr and Mrs Blands' beloved son back, nor the health of his friend.
Comments, such as "the family are on a witch hunt" and "confusing justice with revenge", etc., are straw-man arguments, used to misrepresent the victims' families position. It is a way for those who are either biased towards Chalmer's position, or ignorant of the facts, to avoid responding to valid points that have been made. This isn't a witch hunt. It must be remembered that a young man lost his life, and another young man's life has been ruined, not to mention other family members, whose lives have changed forever. I agree, there are no 'winners' here; indeed, Chalmers will have to live with the events of that night for the rest of his life; however, he has never shown any real concern for the victims families. This, combined with the way the case was handled, has compounded their grief. While the jury found Mr Chalmers to be not guilty of causing death and injury by dangerous driving, it should be noted the jury it seems, were not privy to all the facts and this is the reason the families of the victims are perusing the matter. Claims such as, " other details weren't mentioned because they are irrelevant" makes little sense. If that is the case, why not allow it to be presented, and let the jury decide what is relevant? Yes, it was a terrible accident. PC Chalmers didn't leave work that day, planning to cause destruction and loss of life. However, his actions, and that of Sussex Police following the accident, are both dubious and concerning. Yes, Chalmers was off duty, however, you don't stop being a policeman just because you're off duty. Is it wrong for the public to expect a higher standard from policemen? I am not here to argue the point about whether Chalmers is guilty of murder - that has been decided by the jury, and it is a decision we must accept. However, his conduct and that of Sussex police should not be forgotten - for the sake of everyone in society. All the families of the victims have ever asked for is a fair, transparent, investigation. No more, no less. And please avoid fallacious arguments, insinuating that the families of the victims' hate the police, and have no respect for their work. It is because the family hold the emergency services in such high regard that they are dumbfounded by the actions of one local police force. Suggesting that pursing this matter amounts to revenge, is a crass insult to the victims' families. For them, there can be no just revenge. Nothing will bring Mr and Mrs Blands' beloved son back, nor the health of his friend. Rhianna831
  • Score: 2

10:25am Tue 29 Jul 14

stevo!! says...

Rhianna831 wrote:
Comments, such as "the family are on a witch hunt" and "confusing justice with revenge", etc., are straw-man arguments, used to misrepresent the victims' families position. It is a way for those who are either biased towards Chalmer's position, or ignorant of the facts, to avoid responding to valid points that have been made.

This isn't a witch hunt. It must be remembered that a young man lost his life, and another young man's life has been ruined, not to mention other family members, whose lives have changed forever.

I agree, there are no 'winners' here; indeed, Chalmers will have to live with the events of that night for the rest of his life; however, he has never shown any real concern for the victims families. This, combined with the way the case was handled, has compounded their grief.

While the jury found Mr Chalmers to be not guilty of causing death and injury by dangerous driving, it should be noted the jury it seems, were not privy to all the facts and this is the reason the families of the victims are perusing the matter.

Claims such as, " other details weren't mentioned because they are irrelevant" makes little sense. If that is the case, why not allow it to be presented, and let the jury decide what is relevant?

Yes, it was a terrible accident. PC Chalmers didn't leave work that day, planning to cause destruction and loss of life. However, his actions, and that of Sussex Police following the accident, are both dubious and concerning.

Yes, Chalmers was off duty, however, you don't stop being a policeman just because you're off duty. Is it wrong for the public to expect a higher standard from policemen?

I am not here to argue the point about whether Chalmers is guilty of murder - that has been decided by the jury, and it is a decision we must accept. However, his conduct and that of Sussex police should not be forgotten - for the sake of everyone in society.

All the families of the victims have ever asked for is a fair, transparent, investigation. No more, no less. And please avoid fallacious arguments, insinuating that the families of the victims' hate the police, and have no respect for their work. It is because the family hold the emergency services in such high regard that they are dumbfounded by the actions of one local police force.

Suggesting that pursing this matter amounts to revenge, is a crass insult to the victims' families. For them, there can be no just revenge. Nothing will bring Mr and Mrs Blands' beloved son back, nor the health of his friend.
No, Chalmers isn't 'living' with the effects of the crash, because he doesn't feel he bears any of the blame for the accident.

The only thing he's worried about is if new evidence is presented which sees an end to his career.

The testimony of that BMW driver is crucial, but the very fact that he didn't remain at the scene after voluntarily stopping his car speaks volumes.

I was party to an incident back in the 90s where the chief witness to an accident involving an unmarked police bike and a motorcycle courier (for which the police officer was 100% to blame) was sent on his way BEFORE the cops could get there. The same happened to my mate in whose car I was a passenger. The chief witness told us (as we walked back to our vehicles)that the policeman told him that by walking away he was avoiding a heap of trouble. My mate was told something similar.

If Chalmers has been told he's a liar by a court, I have no doubt that he would lie to protect his own skin.
[quote][p][bold]Rhianna831[/bold] wrote: Comments, such as "the family are on a witch hunt" and "confusing justice with revenge", etc., are straw-man arguments, used to misrepresent the victims' families position. It is a way for those who are either biased towards Chalmer's position, or ignorant of the facts, to avoid responding to valid points that have been made. This isn't a witch hunt. It must be remembered that a young man lost his life, and another young man's life has been ruined, not to mention other family members, whose lives have changed forever. I agree, there are no 'winners' here; indeed, Chalmers will have to live with the events of that night for the rest of his life; however, he has never shown any real concern for the victims families. This, combined with the way the case was handled, has compounded their grief. While the jury found Mr Chalmers to be not guilty of causing death and injury by dangerous driving, it should be noted the jury it seems, were not privy to all the facts and this is the reason the families of the victims are perusing the matter. Claims such as, " other details weren't mentioned because they are irrelevant" makes little sense. If that is the case, why not allow it to be presented, and let the jury decide what is relevant? Yes, it was a terrible accident. PC Chalmers didn't leave work that day, planning to cause destruction and loss of life. However, his actions, and that of Sussex Police following the accident, are both dubious and concerning. Yes, Chalmers was off duty, however, you don't stop being a policeman just because you're off duty. Is it wrong for the public to expect a higher standard from policemen? I am not here to argue the point about whether Chalmers is guilty of murder - that has been decided by the jury, and it is a decision we must accept. However, his conduct and that of Sussex police should not be forgotten - for the sake of everyone in society. All the families of the victims have ever asked for is a fair, transparent, investigation. No more, no less. And please avoid fallacious arguments, insinuating that the families of the victims' hate the police, and have no respect for their work. It is because the family hold the emergency services in such high regard that they are dumbfounded by the actions of one local police force. Suggesting that pursing this matter amounts to revenge, is a crass insult to the victims' families. For them, there can be no just revenge. Nothing will bring Mr and Mrs Blands' beloved son back, nor the health of his friend.[/p][/quote]No, Chalmers isn't 'living' with the effects of the crash, because he doesn't feel he bears any of the blame for the accident. The only thing he's worried about is if new evidence is presented which sees an end to his career. The testimony of that BMW driver is crucial, but the very fact that he didn't remain at the scene after voluntarily stopping his car speaks volumes. I was party to an incident back in the 90s where the chief witness to an accident involving an unmarked police bike and a motorcycle courier (for which the police officer was 100% to blame) was sent on his way BEFORE the cops could get there. The same happened to my mate in whose car I was a passenger. The chief witness told us (as we walked back to our vehicles)that the policeman told him that by walking away he was avoiding a heap of trouble. My mate was told something similar. If Chalmers has been told he's a liar by a court, I have no doubt that he would lie to protect his own skin. stevo!!
  • Score: -5

11:29pm Sun 3 Aug 14

dudders1 says...

jackthekipper wrote:
so why refuse to apologise,does that make him guilty if he says sorry.
an arseoil of the highest order
Yes it does, actually. Say your sorry and you open yourself to a civil action immediately.
Furthermore, what is he to apologise for? He always denied driving dangerously and a jury agreed. He can't therefore apologise.
Perhaps the water company could apologise for taking so long to repair the leak. If they did, the parents could sue them.
How about Ben Blackford apologising for driving whilst drunk and with cocaine in his system? If he'd been responsible and not got in his car in that state, his mate wouldn't have got killed.
The police have already apologised for bad policy in the way they handled the whole affair, and have changed that policy for the future.
Apology is also due from that pompous MP - a lot of his Commons statement was untrue, eg: at the time of this crash Chalmers did have both MOT and insurance. That's why his car was replaced by the insurer.
If Chalmers had been a gardener there would have been none of this fuss. Bad luck for him he's a policeman - that's what it's all about.
[quote][p][bold]jackthekipper[/bold] wrote: so why refuse to apologise,does that make him guilty if he says sorry. an arseoil of the highest order[/p][/quote]Yes it does, actually. Say your sorry and you open yourself to a civil action immediately. Furthermore, what is he to apologise for? He always denied driving dangerously and a jury agreed. He can't therefore apologise. Perhaps the water company could apologise for taking so long to repair the leak. If they did, the parents could sue them. How about Ben Blackford apologising for driving whilst drunk and with cocaine in his system? If he'd been responsible and not got in his car in that state, his mate wouldn't have got killed. The police have already apologised for bad policy in the way they handled the whole affair, and have changed that policy for the future. Apology is also due from that pompous MP - a lot of his Commons statement was untrue, eg: at the time of this crash Chalmers did have both MOT and insurance. That's why his car was replaced by the insurer. If Chalmers had been a gardener there would have been none of this fuss. Bad luck for him he's a policeman - that's what it's all about. dudders1
  • Score: 7

3:30pm Mon 18 Aug 14

notslimjim says...

So many people appear to be on Chalmers's side on this, yet none of them were able to challenge the facts that show he was to blame for that death.
So many people appear to be on Chalmers's side on this, yet none of them were able to challenge the facts that show he was to blame for that death. notslimjim
  • 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