Six-year-old Nathan Dodd was hit by a bike while playing on a footpath on January 24. The male rider, in his 20s, pedalled off after the accident without checking if the boy was okay.
Police were called to the scene, however Nathan's mother, Vicky Young, said officers later told her they would not investigate because Nathan had been hit by a bicycle rather than a motorised vehicle.What?!?
Durham Constabulary said they were aware of the incident and were examining the force's response.What’s to examine? Either it’s a crime or it’s not a crime, and aren’t you supposed to be the people that know about these things?
Your colleagues in Grantham seem to think it is, no matter who is doing it:
On returning home, both his wife, Emma, and mother-in-law, Margaret Stephenson, were shocked by the events, and after looking into the law themselves rang up Grantham police station only to get contradictory responses.
Mrs Stephenson said: “One said the law applied to everyone – no-one can ride a bike on the pavement. But another said it shouldn’t have happened, as it’s different with children.”Well, which is it? Or did you just get a brighter one, the second time around?
Lincolnshire Police have not yet identified any police officer involved, but said they are investigating.
A Lincolnshire Police spokesman said: “Safety is our priority and cycling on the pavement is illegal. However, common sense obviously prevails and in the case of young children, officers would use their discretion and offer the most appropriate advice for the circumstances.”That’s the problem with discretion – it gives people the discretion to be utter swines.
And that’d be OK, if the response to this from their employer was to rain opprobrium down on those who misused their discretion, pour encourager les autres. But it isn’t. It’s a mealy-mouthed PR statement.
And so another small sliver of trust & respect is removed from the public’s perception of the police force.
H/T: @IvorGrumble via Twitter
13 comments:
I don't know if it is actually a crime, but it's certainly a breach of the highway code, and given the someone was injured, that should be enough to throw the book at him.
But of course, cyclists get a free pass whatever the Highway Code says.
Discretion is often mentioned by the spokespersons or senior officer talking heads used to make such responses. In reality, discretion as a policing tool has long gone. In light of the nastiness emerging from the dark places right now maybe that is a good thing for the modern age? What is also lacking it seems is common sense and this response is just stupid - whatever the reasons
"Lincolnshire Police have not yet identified any police officer involved"
Yeah... it's funny how those control centre records go a bit funny when you really need them isn't it.
Perhaps the Super will resign instead because he can't run a call centre?
Seriously, knocked over by a bicycle? Come on Julia, it's hardly the Great Train Robbery is it?
Here in West Yorkshire, plod and pikey cultures are inseparable vis-à-vis honesty and work ethic.
Nothing happens until one of 'there' own sustains injury.
I recommend that any member of the public dissatisfied when the police decline to investigate something get the number of the officer involved, and the identity of the shift supervisor (or whatever they call themselves), type those up on a sheet of A4, get 20, or 50 or 100 copies made, and leaflet local houses, hand a few out on the street and send a copy to the Police and Crime Commissioner, the Chief Constable, the Chief Superintendent and the Member of Parliament.
Identify the decision maker, rather than let the authorities hide behind 'It has been decided..' or 'It is not our policy to..'
There will still be times when discretion is used and no action is taken, but lazy decisions, and politically correct decisions, will be reduced if those who make the decisions are known.
Readers should be aware that, in the interests of cost-cutting, all of the regional police training centres have been closed down. The national curriculum which ensured that all police recruits were taught the same syllabus to the same standard has been scrapped. Each of the 43 police forces now train their own recruits. There is some collaboration between adjoining forces but that's all. The standards of law training is appalling, it is no surprise to me to hear of such crap being fed to the public by authoritative sounding police officers, PCSOs and support staff.
More white noise from our resident rep from the radio rental community -
Weekend Yachtsman. FUCK the Highway code!
It is NOT the law!
It is a guide TO the laws, but NO bastard can be done for "breaking/Breaching the highway code!"
Here; XX The primary legislation which makes cycling on a footway an offence is section 72 of the 1835 Highways Act, this provides that a person shall be guilty of an offence if he “shall wilfully ride upon any footpath or causeway by the side of any road made or set apart for the use or accommodation of foot-passengers or shall wilfully lead or drive any carriage of any description upon any such footpath or causeway.”
Section 85 of the Local Government Act 1888 extended the definition of “carriage” to include “bicycles, tricycles, velocipedes and other similar machines.”
The object of Section 72 Highways Act 1835 was intended not to protect all footpaths, but only footpaths or causeways by the side of a road, and that this is still the case has been ruled in the high court. The legislation makes no exceptions for small wheeled or children’s cycles, so even a child riding on a footway is breaking the law. However, if they are under the age of criminal responsibility they cannot, of course, face prosecution. See below.
On 1st August 1999, new legislation came into force to allow a fixed penalty notice to be served on anyone who is guilty of cycling on a footway. However the Home Office issued guidance on how the new legislation should be applied, indicating that they should only be used where a cyclist is riding in a manner that may endanger others. XX
"Home office guidance" along with "judges findings," are the problems here.
A solicitor is paid to keep up with such on a daily basis.
Most of these rulings are never published outside of "Solicitor circles."
The Police are NOT solicitors, (and would apprieciate getting a solicitors pay packet,) and can not, therefore, be expected to keep up on every change and decission made at crown court, or even Government level. It can take months to filter through the system.
"But of course, cyclists get a free pass whatever the Highway Code says."
Lorries & tipper trucks don't seem to care... ;)
"What is also lacking it seems is common sense..."
It's really no longer common. We should change the name.
"Come on Julia, it's hardly the Great Train Robbery is it?"
Equality under the law isn't so strange a concept, is it?
"Identify the decision maker, rather than let the authorities hide behind 'It has been decided..' or 'It is not our policy to..'"
You'd have the book thrown at you for littering.
"Each of the 43 police forces now train their own recruits."
That decision's utterly insane!
"The Police are NOT solicitors, (and would apprieciate getting a solicitors pay packet,) and can not, therefore, be expected to keep up on every change and decission made at crown court, or even Government level."
In what other job would 'not having time to follow guidance' be acceptable excuse?
In what other job would it take months for that guidance to filter down through the system, half of it being superceeded even before it gets to the Copper on the beat?
(Although, one of may Uncles was a sparks, and he told of similar experiences with "new guidelines.")
Post a Comment