The Mail reports on a story of a shopkeeper who, catching a youth stealing some grapes from his store then drove the offender home and handed him over to his father. Using the word "frogmarched" in the headline does rather stretch journalistic licence even for the Mail, but I digress. The Daily Telegraph also reports on this story (not on-line) and this would appear to be a precis of the Mail story.
What strikes me as rather odd and worrying is the fact that having been informed that this case did not warrant court proceedings a senior police officer appealed the decision and proceeded on the basis that the disparity of ages made the shopkeeper's action "intolerable". "Intolerable"? On what basis? One person is an adult and the other a child - is it not for adults to admonish children who misbehave?
Couple this with the fact that as a result of this senior police officer's decision a totally unecessary fine of £250 was incurred by the adult and the case cost the taxpayer £50,000. On the facts presented, perhaps this senior police officer needs to become a junior police officer?
Our society is fast presenting a wealth of opportunity for those indoctrinated with political correctness to "make hay". In the Daily Telegraph, just below the story related above, is another article illustrating this fact. A community campaigner bought a camera to gather evidence of bad behaviour in her neighbourhood. When asking her housing association, Liverpool Mutual Homes, for advice on how to use it she was informed that she could be putting herself at risk from a health & safety perspective; that she could run the risk of breaching privacy laws and lastly that filming young people could open up a completely different set of problems. Countering the statement from Merseyside police spokesman who said they welcomed video footage as it assisted in criminal investigations, Angela Forshaw, the housing director of LMH, said it took anti-social behaviour "very seriously".
Afterthought: I wonder whether it is an infringment of my human rights to be denied the opportunity of administering a good, old fashioned, clip round the ear to errant youths? Oh hang on, don't bother answering that..................
10 comments:
The senior police officer was probably trying to meet targets. It is my firm belief that the only targets that should apply to the police, schools and hospitals should be a measure of the number of complaints for poor service.
k: Can't fault that comment!
"..perhaps this senior police officer needs to become a junior police officer"
I'd say this senior police officer needs to be kicked out of the police force, probably along with a large number of other uselessly expensive politically correct senior officers.
This story is an extension of the law-abiding slowly being rendered powerless as pc police attempt to reserve action against crime to themselves alone, which in real life means letting criminals do what they want as they mostly avoid police when committing crimes.
DP: Can't actually fault your kicking out suggestion.....!
The police attempting to reserve the right to decide whether to prosecute means a police state, were they to succeed. That is the danger!
In my irritation I missed that danger.
Now you've mentioned it I wonder if we're slipping into the Bureaucratic State?
It hardly matters which of the Con/Lab/Lib are in power due to virtually identical outcomes. And I recently saw that late night Andrew Neil political show where part of the discussion was about policies the public wanted contrasted against policies the politicians would allow, and I'd say the politicians seem removed from the concerns of ordinary lives.
DP: "policies the public wanted contrasted against policies the politicians would allow"
Like that phrase very much and will use in a post shortly! Thank You!
that she could run the risk of breaching privacy laws
Fascinating. Can any one name the Statute or Case Law ? I doubt it.
The police attempting to reserve the right to decide whether to prosecute means a police state, were they to succeed. That is the danger!
Not a danger, we are already there as the warnings given to the community campaigner reported in the post demonstrates.
In my youth the sequence of events would have been the local bobby delivering a swift clip around the ear, then escort home followed by another swift clip around the ear from dad who would have also offered restitution for the grapes had they failed to survive the incident.
TT: so do I but we have to accept that they have to adhere to their mantra of thou shalt not, whether they have 'grounds' or not.......
PC: I know we are there - I was just trying to jog the minds of those who dont realize it....
Totally agree with your second para....
"A totally unnecessary fine of £250 was incurred by the adult and the case cost the taxpayer £50,000."
In which case the costs should be recovered from the senior police officer...
Post a Comment