# A Stupid, Insensitive, Sanctimonious D*ck



## Jac-in-a-Box (Nov 9, 2002)

...just about sums the attitude of one of the two policemen who came to charge my boy with dangerous driving :x

The story is; I'm on my way to Aberdeen and my son is returning to work. Travelling along a busy dual carriageway and overtaking a large lorry, at legal speed, his bonnet flies open.
His windscreen is shattered, the shock of the bonnet folding over his roof dislodges his rear view mirror and he's totally blind and cr*****g himself.
Somehow he manages to make it to the nearside carriageway without being rear ended or hitting anyone else.

He manages to make it to a slip road and a car stops to check the boy is OK and helps him tie his bonnet down (thank god there are some caring people about)
By this time he had phoned me, a quick U turn and we find him parked in a bus stop and out of danger, very distressed and in shock.
A friend had also turned up to help...and so had the oh so helpful Tayside police. Not to offer any assistance - just to drive past and then park themselves across the road on a steep incline giving them a good vantage point to sit and watch (I kid you not! )

Having calmed my lad down and realising the bus stop was not the best place to be parked, we decided that we will escort him home, friend at the back, boy in the middle and me at front.
No more than a 3 mile trip home at a slow speed. As soon as we started moving so did plod...he followed us all the way home and made no attempt to stop us.

So, we're all back and the two plods jump out their car, one of them can't wait to get his book out. Asks the obvious - been in an accident? (they didn't see what happened)
The kid is standing there close to tears and shaking. Plod then in no uncertain terms, tells junior he's calling the traffic police with a view to charging him with dangerous driving...FGS

Gobsmacked! Get a lecture on the fact that it's school hols and young kids are about and driving with a shattered windscreen is dangerous (begs the question as to why they didn't stop us earlier)
Refuses to recognise that we had him "sandwiched" between two cars and we had applied a little common sense in getting home safely...appeals to him to apply a little common sense in administering the law falls on deaf ears.
By this time Plod No2 is looking distinctly embarrassed, while Dave is now nose to nose with Plod No1. Had visions of hubby getting arrested before long (didn't know the old bugger had it in him!)

Too much for me, and I return to the house murmuring f**k,f**k,f**k under my breath only to find the sensible plod with his arm around the kids shoulder ...calming him down! A touch of humanity at last!

Anyway the outcome; plod No2 speaks to his apprentice, Plod No 1, the call for the traffic police is cancelled and son is given a "notice to repair" within 21 days.

Considering the "disappointments" we've experienced in recent years (burglaries, kid being mugged and last month having his car stolen and trashed) it's little wonder that we've just about ran out of support for our police force.
Today was a prime example of how not to police...and highlights their eagerness to go after the "soft targets"
To rub salt into the wound, an hour later son gets a call from the police in relation to his car being stolen last month, telling him they "feel certain" they now know who has got his old cars engine but they "can't do" anything about it...it really is an upside down world we live in 

Rant over...and I'm still seething...stupid t***s (well, at least one of them!)

Jackie x


----------



## ronin (Sep 6, 2003)

What a total COCK!
Someone was after a few more stripes by the sound of it. Given their lack of interest when your son had the car stolen, was quite expecting to read a story with a different outcome :wink: 
Gotta feel for your son - but hopefully its all on the up from now


----------



## vlastan (May 6, 2002)

Not much luck this young son!

Keep him away from any car till good times come back again.

At least we know why support for the police is constantly disappearing and the public don't have any confidence in them.


----------



## Dont I Recognise You (Oct 10, 2003)

sorry to hear this - you are having a pretty naff time of it at the moment 

glad to hear your lad is ok 

completly speechless tho on the actions of the cops :evil:


----------



## Jac-in-a-Box (Nov 9, 2002)

> Gotta feel for your son


Thanks Ronin...I'm feeling for my purse  The kid is now building up a debt to me that would easily match that of a national debt of a third world country!

Jackie x


----------



## John C (Jul 5, 2002)

Jackie - FFS what more can the lad take, and you and Dave for that matter! Run of bad luck or what?

I would be temped to take this story to the Senior Police Person (Chief Super or whatever they are called) and just ask 'why the series of actions?'

Why the stop and look?
Why the follow home?
Why the good cop bad cop?
Why no assistance at the scene?
What is the policy?
Why see you all convoying home without question?
Why? Why? Why?

I am sure we are not the only ones who think that this whole thing doesn't make any sense :?


----------



## paulatt (Oct 28, 2002)

What an appalling story. I thought the police were supposed to uphold the law and help us citizens when in trouble :x 
I feel so sorry for your lad.

I also agree with jakTT225.
I too would want an explanation of the police actions in this case. I'm sure they will 'protect their own' but you should get some sort of an explanation and then maybe these 2 plods will get a b*****king off their boss.

They may then actually help someone else in a similar situation in the future.


----------



## garyc (May 7, 2002)

Does everyone think that it is safe and acceptable to drive a car with a shattered windscreen? :? Forgetting debris (and yes triplex laminate still sheds bits), what about visibility, or if the laminate failed (not unknown) and the whole lot popped inwards

imho the car should have been either towed or windscreen fixed in situ.


----------



## John C (Jul 5, 2002)

garyc said:


> Does everyone think that it is safe and acceptable to drive a car with a shattered windscreen? :? Forgetting debris (and yes triplex laminate still sheds bits), what about visibility, or if the laminate failed (not unknown) and the whole lot popped inwards
> 
> imho the car should have been either towed or windscreen fixed in situ.


Gary - can't disagree however Jackie and her son must of thought it was an acceptable risk. Knowing Jackie I am sure she would not have put her son at obvious danger, but I guess the point is if the Police thought the same way as you why did they not stop the car as soon as it started to move?


----------



## Jac-in-a-Box (Nov 9, 2002)

> Does everyone think that it is safe and acceptable to drive a car with a shattered windscreen? Forgetting debris (and yes triplex laminate still sheds bits), what about visibility, or if the laminate failed (not unknown) and the whole lot popped inwards


Difficult to disagree in "black and white" terms. 
However, a decision was made (rightly or wrongly) based on conditions at the time...the risks were minimal, had it been another area it wouldn't have happened.

Plods knew what we were going to do, they didn't make any attempt to help or stop us driving away...just let him (aided and abetted by us) commit the "offence" for 3 miles and 20 minutes....dangerous driving? B*ll**ks.

Just c**p, poorly targetted and over zealous policing 

Jackie x


----------



## SaulTTR (Apr 30, 2003)

Just a jumped up copper, the state of some of the cars i see driving about day in day out and nothing is done about it, you do it once to help your lad and are bang in trouble :twisted: Hope things get better for him 

Saul.


----------



## jampott (Sep 6, 2003)

Maybe (just maybe) your previous comments about the local police force have been (how shall I put this...) "taken on board", and the actions you describe above are simply them flexing their muscles...


----------



## garyc (May 7, 2002)

jackiestt said:


> > Does everyone think that it is safe and acceptable to drive a car with a shattered windscreen? Forgetting debris (and yes triplex laminate still sheds bits), what about visibility, or if the laminate failed (not unknown) and the whole lot popped inwards
> 
> 
> Difficult to disagree in "black and white" terms.
> ...


As you say it sounds over-zealous on part of the Law. I was just giving a counterpoint and obviously was not there to know full circumstances.

One of those things sent to test you. :wink:


----------



## Jac-in-a-Box (Nov 9, 2002)

> Maybe (just maybe) your previous comments about the local police force have been (how shall I put this...) "taken on board", and the actions you describe above are simply them flexing their muscles...


You mean be a "victim" a few times and then we'll lean on you? (without subtlety and in a heavy handed way)...difficult to believe, but perhaps not quite beyond the realms of fantasy.

Scary thought tho', we all go to sleep at night under our nice little blanket of security thinking all is well - our local constabulary will see to that.
However when you wake up and find all is not quite as rosy as you'd like, because some sh**s have raided your house. Well, it's not nice but it's only happened once.
But when it happens again and those that are supposed to help are just not interested, anger is fairly natural.

When your kid gets mugged, a kicking and his bike pinched (and not by kids ) - and the response is the same, I do feel entitled to squeal and I'll squeal to who ever listens and I really don't give a s**t if Mr Plod hears just how poorly I think he and his colleagues perform.

My little blanket of security is exteremely threadbare and tattered :x

If the consequences of my speaking out result in heavy handed treatment from our custodians of the law...well I'm not going to be bullied into silence

Jackie x


----------



## jampott (Sep 6, 2003)

jackiestt said:


> > Maybe (just maybe) your previous comments about the local police force have been (how shall I put this...) "taken on board", and the actions you describe above are simply them flexing their muscles...
> 
> 
> You mean be a "victim" a few times and then we'll lean on you? (without subtlety and in a heavy handed way)...difficult to believe, but perhaps not quite beyond the realms of fantasy.
> ...


Quite right too... but simple human nature determines how criticism is perceived, and therefore the ensuing reaction it causes.

*IF* (and this was just an explanation I put forward) your local "police" have read your previous comments, it is possible they may:

1) think "ooh, we've let these people down. We MUST try harder next time" or

2) think "what right do these folk have to criticise us - we'll show them!!"

That said, moving the car (even in the manner you describe) *may* have been a dangerous act. If you KNOW the police were sitting watching you do this, a reasonable person might have suspected that (by not helping you) they were waiting for you to commit an offence. It wouldn't have taken more than a minute or two to knock on their patrol car and ask the question "Is it OK to move this car 'in convoy'" - and any response from them could be taken onboard before moving it...

Of course, if you didn't see the police waiting there, then obviously ignore this bit - but reading through your post, it isn't entirely clear.


----------



## L8_0RGY (Sep 12, 2003)

Typical police.

My mum told me at the w/e that a copper tried to arrest her for nearly going down a one way street  :x She didn't go down it as she saw the sign that told her it was one way but no sooner had she seen than a policeman pulled her over

Seriously pigs, have you not got anything better to do than summons innocent people for simple mistakes / accidents that are not their fault???


----------



## westty (Jan 3, 2004)

Would it have hurt the police to have offered to escort Jackies lad home or at least tell them they can't move the car? instead of just watching and following. Makes it pretty clear they wanted to pull you
PUBLIC SERVANTS supposedly


----------



## Marque (Jun 4, 2003)

I sympathise totally (see post on 1000 more Gatso's).

I am reminded of a couple of choice lines from the favoured classic Judge Dredd.
In respone to falt being taken over by gun toting hooligans & this being 50 floors up & being found at the scene of a crime

Public "What did you want me to do, throw myself off the balcony?"
JD"It would have been legal"

And in a seperate Scene
Gov'ner "You stepped over the line when you started killing innocent people Rico"
Rico (Fallen Judge) " The difference betwenn guilt & innocence is purely a matter of timing"

Welcome to the "Future" of British Policing.

Not worth the Council tax if discretion is not applied in common sense cases.

WE NEED A COMMON SENSE POLITICIAL PARTY IN THIS COUNTRY!
Rant over....

(but still brooding over this)
Regards
M


----------



## StuarTT (May 7, 2002)

westty said:


> Would it have hurt the police to have offered to escort Jackies lad home or at least tell them they can't move the car? instead of just watching and following. Makes it pretty clear they wanted to pull you
> PUBLIC SERVANTS supposedly


Based on Jackie's story I'm surprised that the coppers didn't try and nick her son and eveyone else for parking on a bus stop when everyone stopped there to see what could be done.


----------



## andy761 (Jul 27, 2003)

I take it you didnt get his collar number? if you did report him....... sounds out of order to me!


----------



## garvin (May 7, 2002)

jackiestt said:


> Anyway the outcome; plod No2 speaks to his apprentice, Plod No 1, the call for the traffic police is cancelled and son is given a "notice to repair" within 21 days.


It would be nice to assume that compassion came into this somewhere but perhaps Plod No 2 was just explaining to his apprentice that having not stopped a supposed offence at the earliest point they could i.e. as soon as you started to move the car, then any decent lawyer at the ensuing court case would have his 'guts for garters' and the duty Seargant would have him cleaning out the loos for the rest of the week!


----------



## Hannibal (Dec 1, 2003)

jampott said:


> That said, moving the car (even in the manner you describe) *may* have been a dangerous act. If you KNOW the police were sitting watching you do this, a reasonable person might have suspected that (by not helping you) they were waiting for you to commit an offence. It wouldn't have taken more than a minute or two to knock on their patrol car and ask the question "Is it OK to move this car 'in convoy'" - and any response from them could be taken onboard before moving it...


I take your point, but communication is two way and yes Jackie could have asked, but plod could have come and said 'hope you're not thinking of moving that....' thus PREVENTING a 'crime' and ensuring the local population were not subjected to 'dangerous driving'.

I think the issue here is more one of why didn't they act immediately if they felt it was dangerous, rather than whether it was or was not dangerous (as none of us were actually there, it's hard to pass comment). Jackie clearly felt it was safe enough to do (I don't know anyone who would knowingly put their child at risk) and also within the law (there aren't many people on the planet blessed with so little inteligence as to commit a crime in view of the police), plod clearly weren't sure and after taking 20 mins to think it was dangerous, then decided it wasn't all that bad after all and handed out a producer.

I would like to think that policemen who feel someone is driving dangerously in my area would catch them up and stop them from doing so, rather than let them drive dangerously for 20 mins!

H :?


----------



## Jac-in-a-Box (Nov 9, 2002)

Hmm, hindsight is a wonderful thing and, yes on reflection, it would have been wise for me to ask if it was OK to move the car.

However, seeing your kid being LUCKY to be living and not a red smear across a dual carriageway (which could have so easily been the case) I think I will forgive myself for not having the immediate sense to ask the police.

I think it was patently obvious to the watching police that the kid was in some distress...must have spent at least 10 minutes just calming him down, reassuring him and doing all the "Mum things"
Maybe I'm being naive, but I don't think it was unreasonable to expect the police to at least get out of the car and check for themselves the situation and advise accordingly...would have no problem in complying with their advice.

The fact that they followed us home didn't raise any alarms...I simply and genuinely thought they were ensuring we got back safely. How wrong that assumption proved to be.

I've said it before...over zealous, thoughtless and insensitive policing, a thoroughly distasteful experience.

It's hard enough teaching youngsters to have respect for the police and the "law" Situations that we as a family over several years, and the boy in recent months have experienced make it...well, difficult.

Sad 

Jackie x


----------



## garyc (May 7, 2002)

jackiestt said:


> Hmm, hindsight is a wonderful thing and, yes on reflection, it would have been wise for me to ask if it was OK to move the car.
> 
> However, seeing your kid being LUCKY to be living and not a red smear across a dual carriageway (which could have so easily been the case) I think I will forgive myself for not having the immediate sense to ask the police.
> 
> ...


OK devil's advocaat time. :wink:

If any of you are unfortunate enough to have to experience the way the police handle serious road accidents, particularly dealing with the bereaved, you would know that the police can be incredibly sensitive, thoughtful and compassionate, in the way they carry out their duties.

Back in the 80s, I was pulled from a car in which 4 people died after a Big Accident. I was badly bashed up classed 'critical' and sent unconsious to intensive care with punctured lungs, fractured skull and heavy blood loss amongst my injuries. The police had to wake my dad at 3 in the morning and rush him to the hospital, as things did not look good. My dad still recounts the sensitive way with with they dealt with him at a time when he was quite confused and upset. They were exemplary.

In this event there was no more than a near miss, one of probably dozens they would have dealt with in that week, and nobody was hurt. They may also have taken the view that the bonnet should have been secured and safe in the first place, which might hint at poor maintenance, hence their less than sympathetic stance?

Just possibly their previous call involved something altogether more sobering....policing is not all about persecuting the motorist, although that's what they often seem to do at the begest of the politicians.


----------



## jampott (Sep 6, 2003)

garyc said:


> jackiestt said:
> 
> 
> > Hmm, hindsight is a wonderful thing and, yes on reflection, it would have been wise for me to ask if it was OK to move the car.
> ...


Ahhhh... Now all is clear about garyc 

We can safely put it down to a knock on the head ~20 years ago...


----------



## garyc (May 7, 2002)

jampott said:


> garyc said:
> 
> 
> > jackiestt said:
> ...


Aye. I used to be far less sensitive and tolerant...


----------



## StuarTT (May 7, 2002)

20 years ago, we were talking about a different generation of coppers.

I have never wanted to be a policeman, and as they do a job that I wouldn't want to they get my support and my respect but, in view of some of the things that are happening out there and are being reported, not only on this forum but also in the newspapers, I am gradually beginning to change my view.


----------



## coupe-sport (May 7, 2002)

Lot of biased reporting - bad Policing makes news. Good doesn't. Nobody's perfect.

James.


----------



## Hannibal (Dec 1, 2003)

garyc said:


> In this event there was no more than a near miss, one of probably dozens they would have dealt with in that week, and nobody was hurt. They may also have taken the view that the bonnet should have been secured and safe in the first place, which might hint at poor maintenance, hence their less than sympathetic stance?
> 
> Just possibly their previous call involved something altogether more sobering....


either of these 'may' be true but surely one would hope that if they were true then the coppers would have had enough nouse about them to prevent any dangerous situation arising. Trauma is one of the biggest causes of morbidity and mortality worldwide and prevention is better than a cure, so surely it's in everyone's interests to stop people early if they are worried about dangerous driving. If it wasn't dangerous they should bugger off and leave him alone, if it was dangerous, they shouldn't be following him for 20 mins before pulling him over, it should have been done at the bus stop and if they were pedants they'd have pulled him for being parked up in a bus stop - the only conclusion I can come to is that they were a few sandwiches short of a picnic.

H


----------



## garyc (May 7, 2002)

Hannibal said:


> garyc said:
> 
> 
> > In this event there was no more than a near miss, one of probably dozens they would have dealt with in that week, and nobody was hurt. They may also have taken the view that the bonnet should have been secured and safe in the first place, which might hint at poor maintenance, hence their less than sympathetic stance?
> ...


I know - I was just trying to give a counterpoint. Prevention is always better.


----------

