Plod

There are times when, even though I have been publishing stories on this site for over two years now, even I am flabbergasted (can I say flabbergasted on a public site?) at the boneheadeness of the Nanny state.

Well over a year ago, Jane Furnival was involved in a minor road accident in Hackney. Using her common sense, in order to ensure that the insurance companies etc were happy, she took some photos of the accident.

Unfortunately for her, the other driver and his girlfriend appear to have been off their heads. Ms Furnival claims that the driver's girlfriend violently attacked her.

Needless to say, Ms Furnival reported the incident to plod and provided some photos of the alleged assailant.

As Steve McGarret used to say:

"Book 'em Danno"

Unfortunately not, for you see dear reader this is Nanny Britain. Ms Furnival was told by a police officer:

"You brought this on yourself

people round here don't like being photographed."

Now correct me if I am wrong, but is Britain not infested with CCTV?

Do we not have the largest number of cameras, following our every move, per head of the population?

Does not an audience of dimwits sit down on a daily basis, to watch a bunch of sad losers sit in house being filmed 24 hours a day?

Do not youths with mobiles take pictures of attacks and other moronic actions for their amusement, and the amusement of their moronic friends?

Therefore how can plod say that "You brought this on yourself"?

We, as a nation, are perpetually on film and being watched!

Anyhoo, bringing the story up to the present time period, plod has not interviewed, arrested or charged anybody...btw Ms Furnival also produced the car's registration number.

Fear not, justice of a sort will be done, the other driver has now lodged a counter claim against Ms Furnival's insurance company. These details could be used by plod to aid their "investigation".

Oh sorry, my mistake, plod has said that the matter has been closed because there is a six-month statutory limit on investigations into common assault, and they 'ran out of time'.

Ms Furnival's account of the incident should have, I would have thought, caused plod to do some form of police work...any ideas why not?

Quote:

"The driver, a man of Asian appearance, went mad,

crouching on the road and screaming, 'No photos, no photos.'

His girlfriend punched me twice on the face.

I suffered severe bruising.

I was stunned and I pleaded with passers-by to be witnesses,

but nobody would agree.

Both the driver and his girlfriend were racially abusing me,

calling me 'white trash' and 'a fat bitch'.

It was like something from a Quentin Tarantino movie.

I called the police.

When I gave a statement at Stoke Newington police station

the officer told me, 'You were foolish to take pictures.

That's why you got hit.

Nobody round here likes having their photos taken.

You brought it on yourself'" .

A spokesman for the Metropolitan Police in Hackney said:

"Both offences were thoroughly investigated.

Officers were able to trace the registered vehicle,

identify the driver and pass all relevant details

to the victim to ensure she could pursue the matter

through the relevant insurance channels.

In relation to the assault, officers identified an address

for the driver and visited it to arrest him.

But he no longer resided at that address

and there was no forwarding address."

Norman Brennan of the Victims of Crime Trust hits the nail on the head:

"It is bizarre that the insurance company

can liaise with this man but the police have seemed unable to do so."

Sounds to me as though the police did not want to pursue this.

Can anyone tell me exactly what the point of the law is now anymore?

Once people lose faith in the rule of law, the country is finished.