General News Thread

[Parafox]

5 hours ago, BKLFox said:

Part of the d’heads defence was that he (they) had “been taken by surprise” and believed they were being attacked as the police officers didn't identify themselves as police officers…ffs I hope the jury laughed at that bit

 

So wearing a distinctive police uniform, carrying a weapon and taser whilst chasing down and grappling with the defendants didn't identify them as police?

 

AFAIK the police shout out their presence when they are entering a property to use the element of surprise, disorientate and subdue the occupants involved, not when they're trying to suppress a violent, public incident.

 

Ridiculous attempt by the defence to deflect.

 

 

[Parafox]

7 hours ago, leicsmac said:

What commentators on here "would" have done in the situation described above is irrelevant and a red herring, IMO. I don't think that anyone on here is a frontline copper with that kind of associated power and responsibility.

 

Speaking personally, though, I'm glad if the guidelines for this kind of thing are rather strict because history shows very clearly that a boot to the head of someone who "deserves it" from the fuzz leads in very short order to a boot to the head of someone who really doesn't "deserve it".

 

I don't recall anyone suggesting "what they would have done". And if they did, why is it a red herring? It wouldn't be distracting from anything about this incident or people's views on it.

 

If you're referring to my post earlier, I challenged the poster to say what they would have done in that situation.

 

They didn't respond.

Edited 11 July 2025 by Parafox

[leicsmac]

2 minutes ago, Parafox said:

 

I don't recall anyone suggesting "what they would have done".

 

If you're referring to my post earlier, I challenged the poster to say what they would have done in that situation.

 

They didn't respond.

Nah, I wasn't singling out your post in particular, just talking about the general flow of the thread.

 

It's certainly a really fraught topic as it goes into the very basis of the theory and practice of justice. I stand by my own take on the topic, but I'm not going to say that other takes are wrong. 

[st albans fox]

11 minutes ago, Parafox said:

 

So wearing a distinctive police uniform, carrying a weapon and taser whilst chasing down and grappling with the defendants didn't identify them as police?

 

AFAIK the police shout out their presence when they are entering a property to use the element of surprise, disorientate and subdue the occupants involved, not when they're trying to suppress a violent, public incident.

 

Ridiculous attempt by the defence to deflect.

 

 

Pleading not guilty carries a cost - if found guilty then will get a longer sentence. Clearly the defence believes they can try and wangle their way out of this via procedural issues on the arrest or subsequent events with evidence. 
 

can’t believe that with the cctv evidence available, they have pled NG (unless they feel they have a good chance  of getting off on a technicality) . 

[Parafox]

5 minutes ago, leicsmac said:

Nah, I wasn't singling out your post in particular, just talking about the general flow of the thread.

 

It's certainly a really fraught topic as it goes into the very basis of the theory and practice of justice. I stand by my own take on the topic, but I'm not going to say that other takes are wrong. 

 

On the plus side, our police don't usually summarily put to death someone who is a "perceived" threat, on the street.

[Parafox]

9 minutes ago, st albans fox said:

Pleading not guilty carries a cost - if found guilty then will get a longer sentence. Clearly the defence believes they can try and wangle their way out of this via procedural issues on the arrest or subsequent events with evidence. 
 

can’t believe that with the cctv evidence available, they have pled NG (unless they feel they have a good chance  of getting off on a technicality) . 

 

Sadly that is not an uncommon result. That's another reason why policing is so difficult. Every single action has to be correct and all  t's crossed and i's dotted.

[leicsmac]

9 minutes ago, Parafox said:

 

On the plus side, our police don't usually summarily put to death someone who is a "perceived" threat, on the street.

A fact for which I'm sure almost all of us are glad. 

 

And I'm also sure that the vast majority of people wouldn't want the fuzz to start down that road, which is why such intense scrutiny is so important. 

[Super_horns]

Sounds like the pilot might have caused the Indian plane crash .

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/cx20p2x9093t

[st albans fox]

25 minutes ago, Super_horns said:

Sounds like the pilot might have caused the Indian plane crash .

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/cx20p2x9093t

Could have been the Co pilot 

very strange 

 

EDIT: the report doesn’t state that a pilot was responsible - just that the fuel flow to the engines was cut. 

Edited 11 July 2025 by st albans fox

[ian__marshall]

23 minutes ago, Super_horns said:

Sounds like the pilot might have caused the Indian plane crash .

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/cx20p2x9093t

Tragic. I know absolutely nothing about how plane cockpits operate but on the face of it I don't understand how the planes systems allow the switches to be turned off in an ascent. At the very least if they were changed you'd expect that there would be an immediate warning or some sort of warning with a few second delay so that the issue could be remedied quickly and not adversely impact the plane.

 

The findings of the initial report do seem to tally with the video. There's a point shortly before the crash where you can momentarily see the plane regain some lift before dropping again. I guess this would be indicative of the single engine restarting, however clearly by that point the plane had lost too much air speed to climb. 

 

Really sad that so many people lost their lives seemingly unnecessarily. 

 

Edited 11 July 2025 by ian__marshall

[Zear0]

2 minutes ago, ian__marshall said:

Tragic. I know absolutely nothing about how plane cockpits operate but on the face of it I don't understand how the planes systems allow the switches to be turned off in an ascent. At the very least if they were changed you'd expect that there would be an immediate warning or some sort of warning with a few second delay so that the issue could be remedied quickly and not adversely impact the plane.

 

The findings of the initial report do seem to tally with the video. There's a point shortly before the crash where you can momentarily see the plane regain some lift before dropping again. I guess this would be indicative of the single engine restarting, however clearly by that point the plane had lost too much air speed to climb. 

 

Really sad that so many people lost their lives seemingly unnecessarily. 

 

For most high integrity or safety critical systems you actual tend to not implement lock out features such as disabling the ability to flick fuel feed cut off during certain transients. From a human factors perspective, it ends up being more reliable to give trained (key word) operators as much control over the systems they're operating. You'd think it would be more likely to have an engine fire than for the pilot to turn the fuel supply off to the engines. Bit like someone turning the car off on the motorway. 

 

MCAS is another case study on a system not allowing the pilots to operate the plane and causing two major accidents. 

 

It's such an odd things to happen though given they could run the take off procedure blindfolded. Human error regrettably seems the issue, much to the selfish relief of the man hoping on a 787 tomorrow morning. 

[Spiritwalker]

15 hours ago, st albans fox said:

I think we’re technically in a ‘monthly recession’ (albeit as small as it could be)  

 

not sure how that fits with the growth agenda of the govt ………

Technically a recession is defined as 3 months with negative growth not 1 month.

[Jattdogg]

Well that sounds like possible negligence by one of the pilots OR inadvertent manual switch off (not sure how that's possible) or they moved off via a malfunction on their own accord (seems most unlikely).

 

Either way, a terrible loss of life.

 

 

[Spiritwalker]

10 hours ago, Nalis said:

Reeves is so out of her depth. If this was happening under a Tory chancellor we'd all have the knives out.

 

She comes across as a nice person but thats not good enough, Starmer needs to bin her off.

To be fair Starmer is hanging her out to dry.

[VLC86]

1 hour ago, Super_horns said:

Sounds like the pilot might have caused the Indian plane crash .

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/cx20p2x9093t

Watched a YouTube video on this earlier and it explains it very well, I think the channel is called Captain Steve.

 

Basically, it’s nearly impossible to accidentally cut the fuel off due to how the switch works (it’s guarded and needs 3 separate actions to complete) and the only scenario where you would engage in this process is a check list completed by both pilots. He then goes on to speak about the mental health of pilots so it’s pretty clear what he thinks happened.

[ian__marshall]

46 minutes ago, Zear0 said:

For most high integrity or safety critical systems you actual tend to not implement lock out features such as disabling the ability to flick fuel feed cut off during certain transients. From a human factors perspective, it ends up being more reliable to give trained (key word) operators as much control over the systems they're operating. You'd think it would be more likely to have an engine fire than for the pilot to turn the fuel supply off to the engines. Bit like someone turning the car off on the motorway. 

 

MCAS is another case study on a system not allowing the pilots to operate the plane and causing two major accidents. 

 

It's such an odd things to happen though given they could run the take off procedure blindfolded. Human error regrettably seems the issue, much to the selfish relief of the man hoping on a 787 tomorrow morning. 

I agree with the logic makes perfect sense. 

[Super_horns]

1 hour ago, VLC86 said:

Watched a YouTube video on this earlier and it explains it very well, I think the channel is called Captain Steve.

 

Basically, it’s nearly impossible to accidentally cut the fuel off due to how the switch works (it’s guarded and needs 3 separate actions to complete) and the only scenario where you would engage in this process is a check list completed by both pilots. He then goes on to speak about the mental health of pilots so it’s pretty clear what he thinks happened.

A deliberate error or from someone not totally focused on the job in hand ?

[VLC86]

5 hours ago, Super_horns said:

A deliberate error or from someone not totally focused on the job in hand ?

He didn’t really want to say it but he obviously thought it could only be deliberate.

[The Bear]

That's mad if both pilots wanted the exact same thing though. Easier ways to do it than take a whole plane full of people with you. 

 

Occams razor would suggest something else tbh.

[st albans fox]

9 hours ago, Spiritwalker said:

Technically a recession is defined as 3 months with negative growth not 1 month.

isn’t it two consecutive quarters of neg growth ? 
that’s why I wrote ‘monthly recession’.  We’ve  now had two consecutive months of neg growth. I highlighted it because labour’s whole strategy in govt was based upon growth. I recall the interviews where starmer was asked ‘how can you be sure that you’ll drive growth’ ?
 

58 minutes ago, The Bear said:

That's mad if both pilots wanted the exact same thing though. Easier ways to do it than take a whole plane full of people with you. 

 

Occams razor would suggest something else tbh.

Afaik, the report doesn’t state that one of the pilots was responsible for the fuel cut offs being activated.  Now that maybe because there is no possibility for the  auto systems to do that without pilot intervention. I’m not that well informed on that!

Edited 12 July 2025 by st albans fox

[VLC86]

54 minutes ago, The Bear said:

That's mad if both pilots wanted the exact same thing though. Easier ways to do it than take a whole plane full of people with you. 

 

Occams razor would suggest something else tbh.

You don’t need both pilots to do it and the cockpit recording has the other pilot saying “why have you just cut off the fuel”.

 

Its either a really strange, horrendous error by someone I believe they said was experienced or it’s a deliberate action.

 

Ive just spoken to someone I know who trains pilots and he’s said the same, impossible to accidentally cut the fuel off and they have either got their checklists completely messed up or it’s deliberate.

[potter3]

1 hour ago, The Bear said:

That's mad if both pilots wanted the exact same thing though. Easier ways to do it than take a whole plane full of people with you. 

 

Occams razor would suggest something else tbh.

It didn't sound like they were both in on it - if it was indeed deliberate - on the cockpit recording one of the pilots is heard asking why the fuel flow was cut off, and it was subsequently switched back on, unfortunately it was too late by that point.

 

 

[bmt]

21 hours ago, Tommy G said:

There is always someone retrospectively calling what a police officer ''should of done''....like they've been in this situation before themselves.

 

The police are there to use reasonable force to ensure any form of threat is neutralised, off the back off in this instance a violent and cowardly assault on a female police officer.

 

He should of booted him a few more times. 

To be fair one of my mates is a firearms officer and he thought the police officer was massively in the wrong but okay

[bmt]

14 hours ago, Parafox said:

 

I don't recall anyone suggesting "what they would have done". And if they did, why is it a red herring? It wouldn't be distracting from anything about this incident or people's views on it.

 

If you're referring to my post earlier, I challenged the poster to say what they would have done in that situation.

 

They didn't respond.

I was at the cricket mate - but yes what I would have done is completely irrelevant. Its not the police's job to be kicking anyone's head, or failing to stamp on anyone's head.

[ian__marshall]

1 hour ago, VLC86 said:

You don’t need both pilots to do it and the cockpit recording has the other pilot saying “why have you just cut off the fuel”.

 

Its either a really strange, horrendous error by someone I believe they said was experienced or it’s a deliberate action.

 

Ive just spoken to someone I know who trains pilots and he’s said the same, impossible to accidentally cut the fuel off and they have either got their checklists completely messed up or it’s deliberate.

Looks like there's now a third possibility that there could have been a technical issue with the switches locking system not engaging. Apparently the FAA issued a bulletin for the 737 which uses the same switch, but it was only advisory and not a mandatory requirement. The suggestion is Air India did not perform the necessary inspections. Whether that had any bearing on what happened time will tell. Seems unlikely given the number of years the model has been in service and flight hours it has accrued, but I guess you never know. 

 

It will be very interesting to see what conclusion the investigators come to when the final report is eventually published. Either way it appears that this incident was preventable and a lot of people have tragically lost their lives unnecessarily.