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