Saturday, 17 October 2009

Put Down The ‘My Little Pony’ And Come Out With Your Hands Up!

It seems only fitting that, in the month when the ‘Nightjack’ archives have been rekindled, we should hear of this tale of underclass conflict resolution:
A two-year-old girl accused of hitting a car with a stick was investigated by police on suspicion of vandalism.

The vehicle’s owner called the police claiming the child had deliberately damaged his car.

It has emerged that the toddler’s name and details are being held on file with Wiltshire Constabulary following the incident.
*sigh*

Are there any adults here in this story?
Officers say they were obliged to respond to the call-out, even though the toddler, who could barely walk, was too young to be arrested or even formally questioned about her actions.
It seems this is one of the running disputes that so tax modern police forces:
A spokesman for the force said the family had already been engaged in a dispute with their neighbours, who owned the car, so police visited the little girl at her home in Chippenham, Wiltshire, to prevent these long-running tensions boiling over.
Why not just let them fight it out amongst themselves?
Her details will not be added to the national police database but a force official admitted two was ‘an astonishingly young age’ to be visited by police.

They added: ‘Within a street a couple of families were at severe loggerheads and one of the youngsters did something to one of the other family’s property.

'Police were called, they defused the situation and relevant advice was given.’
One would hope that the ‘relevant advice’ was not to be so stupid next time…

But no. It appears not. In fact, it appears they have been encouraged to call the police, amazing as that might sound:
‘The previous advice given to the parties involved in this street was, “You don’t go and sort it out yourself, you call the police” .

‘As far as we are concerned, they did the right thing and the matter was resolved to the satisfaction of the people whose property was alleged to have been damaged. It was a mountain out of a molehill anyway.’
Well, certainly.

But you can’t complain about that when you’ve encouraged them to reclassify every small hillock as Mount Everest, can you?

One thing was a little disturbing, though:
He added: ‘We aren’t talking about the child being arrested, or interviewed – that can’t happen – and the child’s DNA was not taken as we have no lawful power to do that.’
Not ‘It would be immoral’ or ‘too authoritarian’ or ‘pointless’.

Because ‘We have no lawful power to do that…’

You can almost hear him think to himself ‘…yet!’, can’t you?
at

3 comments:

  1. Angry Exile17 October 2009 at 15:03

    Disturbing indeed, JuliaM.

    ...the child’s DNA was not taken as we have no lawful power to do that.’

    Because you're not allowed. Not because it would have been fucking excessive for some scratched paint. Not because it could follow her around her whole life when she's not at an age she almost certainly won't remember by the time she finishes school. Once again the retarded wheels that form the UK state machine think only of whether or not they have the legal power, and not whether exercise of the power would have been remotely sensible even if they did.

    Dickheads.

    ReplyDelete
  2. blueknight17 October 2009 at 23:47

    The problem is that any report of 'damage' with a known 'suspect' sets off a chain of events akin to a train rolling down hill.
    What sometimes happens is that a crime that has already been recorded is later found to have been committed by a child under age. In that case the 'crime' is 'detected'.
    Of course in this brave Nulabor world of meaningless targets, what also often happens is a crime is recorded even though it is obvious that a child under the age was responsible.
    In both cases, the only way the crime can be 'detected' is by recording the details of the 'offender', which seems to be what happened here.
    The rot had set in when I was still serving and we had discussions about what was and was not a crime.
    My point then and now is that if a child under the age of criminal responsibility, currently 10 yrs old, damages a car (or anything for that matter)it is not a crime and should not be recorded as such.
    To anyone who thinks that a child under the age of 10 yrs damaging a car is a crime, what about the baby who throws a rattle out of the pram and it hits someone on the head, - assault? Or the toddler that causes harassment, alarm and distress in Tesco's cafe by kicking his feet on the high chair.
    The Govt have ruined Policing with their National Crime Reporting Standards and all the other associated detection based crap.
    Someone still doing the job would be better placed to tell you how f***ed up it all is.

    ReplyDelete
  3. JuliaM18 October 2009 at 07:03

    "Once again the retarded wheels that form the UK state machine think only of whether or not they have the legal power, and not whether exercise of the power would have been remotely sensible even if they did."

    And they never stop to think how that power, once enshrined in law, may be turned upon them, do they?

    "The problem is that any report of 'damage' with a known 'suspect' sets off a chain of events akin to a train rolling down hill."

    Yes. Like the teeth of a python, these laws face backwards - once bitten, you're going to be swallowed. There's no 'reverse', no 'Oh, wait...' any more.

    ReplyDelete