It wasn't enough that you then held him for 12 hours - it took that long to check out the story? Seriously? - while his mother lay close to death in the hospital.
But now, you can't even let him have his property?
He can't go back to his house or get his clothes or his phone.OK, it's a crime scene. Everyone knows that. We watch 'CSI' and 'The Bill'.
But you can't spare someone to take this lad - the innocent victim, not the perpetrator - back to his house to collect his belongings while ensuring he doesn't affect it?
Not for the sake of simple humanity, if the modern police 'service' lacks that (it clearly seems to, at times), but for some good PR..?
What, is there no target for it?
8 comments:
I like how the article mentions - twice - that the victims' home is worth £600,000. How is that relevant, exactly?
I have had some dealings with Hertfordshire CID on a couple of occasions relating to a couple of matters within my family. The treatment we have received was appalling and our complaints were never resolved but we were certainly made to jump through a variety of hoops. The junior officers seemed incompetent and badly trained, first level line managers were equally incompetent and senior CID officers patronising bullies. Common sense no longer seems to exist - a fact often mentioned in Gadget and other police blogs, let alone some actual knowledge of law and police procedure. This clearly can't just be a Herts Constabulary problem but I do have anecdotal evidence from other friends and former colleagues about how incompetent they are. I just think it is a general problem within the modern police (non)Service and I speak as a member of a family with a combined total of some 150 years policing experience in London and the Home Counties (not Herts). What had actually happened must have been fairly obvious at a very early stage, and this young lad should have been released and given a lot of care and support instead of being treated in this appalling way. It is a disgrace.
"you didn't look too hard before telling that to the press"
No; they just lied, because they need to justify their disgraceful behaviour. In much the same way, we learned all about the man in the padded jacket running on the Underground.
Humanity? We're kidding ourselves.
I have been complaining for a long time about the 'right' of police to incarcerate a 'suspect' for many, many hours, without any form of accountability. It is used, I'm sure, as a police 'punishment' towards a person, especially when that person is subsequently released without charge!
This is the mark of the jobsworth and small-time authoritarian throughout our history: they do it because they can. If they couldn't, they wouldn't: if there were consequences visited on them for this sort of behaviour (like being sacked, for instance) they wouldn't. And which political party is promising us relief from this crapola? Why, surprise, surprise, none of them!
I used to be friendly with a local cop - one of the old school, who (at least privately) would offer the same opinions as the rest of us regarding the state of policing now.
I haven't seen him for a while, but I'm having increasing difficulty trying to decide how to react if our paths do cross again.
I imagine he's just trying to keep his head down until he can retire, but I now have the nagging doubt that he may have been "got at", and anything I might say could result in a knock on the door....
Thanks, Gordon - this climate of fear is what you've done to MY COUNTRY, not yours, you snot munching retard.
"I like how the article mentions - twice - that the victims' home is worth £600,000. How is that relevant, exactly?"
That's a combination of the 'Daily Fail's' less-than-subtle 'They're well off, this shouldn't happen to them!' message and the English fascination with how much everyone's houses are worth.
The 'Express' probably would have bemoaned that fact that having loony neighbours would impact negatively on house prices...
"Common sense no longer seems to exist - a fact often mentioned in Gadget and other police blogs..."
Indeed. I'm beginning to think they are very much in a minority as far as modern police go.
Contrast his treatment with that meted out to young thugs in impromptu seiges or rooftop demonstrations...
"It is used, I'm sure, as a police 'punishment' towards a person, especially when that person is subsequently released without charge!"
You may well be right. Though I can't see how the circumstances here weren't immediately apparent, so what's the reason?
"I imagine he's just trying to keep his head down until he can retire, but I now have the nagging doubt that he may have been "got at", and anything I might say could result in a knock on the door...."
That's the thing, isn't it? You never really know.
Post a Comment