MR LOVELL’S letter (Chase dangers, June 2) makes references to the so-called “chase” by police cars ending in a crash that injured some of the passengers.

MR LOVELL'S letter (Chase dangers, June 2) makes references to the so-called "chase" by police cars ending in a crash that injured some of the passengers.

He makes reference to reports with regard to police chases, but Mr Lovell has got his facts completely inaccurate as there is no such thing as a police chase.

For years now reference to the word chase in police vocabulary was dropped for several reasons. They are now referred to as either a pursuit or a follow, which gives a very different aspect to what happened. His idea on what happens on pursuits leaves a lot to be desired, and he would be better off finding out the facts before making such assumptions.

He should also look at the other side of the coin. Why did the driver not just pull up when requested? Has he something to hide, was he drunk/on drugs, was the vehicle without consent? Police officers are not mind readers.

I know a lot of my ex-colleagues would be very angry at what this letter referred to and are unable to reply to the inaccuracies.

As a retired police officer I know how they would have felt reading the letter as it seems to be from someone who doesn't know what the job entails.

DJ TURNER

St Ives