How the Police Tolerate Thuggery (Blasé Brit Bartlebys give victims the brush-off)

When Tony Blair last month hailed the latest meaningless British Crime Survey statistics — which claimed a drop in violent crime last year — he again parroted what has become his Government's mantra on the subject: it is not crime that we should worry about but the fear of crime.

Fear of crime is something that keeps chief constables and politicians awake at night. Why else would police forces up and down the country list reducing it as one of their priorities? Why else would virtually every large police station have its own "public relations manager" tasked with keeping as much information about criminal activity out of the public domain as possible?

This diversion from the fight against actual crime — despite real police statistics that show a relentless rise in violence — oozes from the Home Office and now infects nearly all of the upper echelons of the police. Until last week, I believed that our hard-pressed policemen, despite the spin and dissembling of their leaders, continued to fight thuggery with vigour.

I was disabused of this on Tuesday when I witnessed a road rage incident in Ashford, Kent. A man in his 50s in a Fiat ran into the back of a mother and her 16-year-old son in a Ford. There was an argument that ended with the man punching the boy hard in the mouth, drawing a substantial amount of blood. Apparently the teenager had given him "some lip". I was not the only independent witness: an off-duty special constable saw the attack and held the man while he called a patrol car.

What happened next proved highly dispiriting. Two officers arrived and after first checking that my tax disc was valid, questioned the victim. He was advised that "You can't give 'verbal' and not expect something in return". One of the policemen, his shoulders visibly drooping under the dreadful weight of a genuine crime, then directed me to Ashford police station to give a statement.

How the police tolerate thuggery

By Justin Williams - Sunday May 1 2005

When Tony Blair last month hailed the latest meaningless British Crime Survey statistics - which claimed a drop in violent crime last year - he again parroted what has become his Government's mantra on the subject: it is not crime that we should worry about but the fear of crime.

Fear of crime is something that keeps chief constables and politicians awake at night. Why else would police forces up and down the country list reducing it as one of their priorities? Why else would virtually every large police station have its own "public relations manager" tasked with keeping as much information about criminal activity out of the public domain as possible?

This diversion from the fight against actual crime - despite real police statistics that show a relentless rise in violence - oozes from the Home Office and now infects nearly all of the upper echelons of the police. Until last week, I believed that our hard-pressed policemen, despite the spin and dissembling of their leaders, continued to fight thuggery with vigour.

I was disabused of this on Tuesday when I witnessed a road rage incident in Ashford, Kent. A man in his 50s in a Fiat ran into the back of a mother and her 16-year-old son in a Ford. There was an argument that ended with the man punching the boy hard in the mouth, drawing a substantial amount of blood. Apparently the teenager had given him "some lip". I was not the only independent witness: an off-duty special constable saw the attack and held the man while he called a patrol car.

What happened next proved highly dispiriting. Two officers arrived and after first checking that my tax disc was valid, questioned the victim. He was advised that "You can't give 'verbal' and not expect something in return". One of the policemen, his shoulders visibly drooping under the dreadful weight of a genuine crime, then directed me to Ashford police station to give a statement.

There followed two frustrating hours during which the policeman tried to persuade me not to make his life more difficult. I was told that Kent Police did not want to waste my time and that the Fiat driver was probably going to be cautioned and released. I protested, saying that he had terrified the boy and his mother. More than 45 minutes later, and with no sign of anybody willing to take a statement, I was told that officers had "much more urgent matters to attend to" and was sent away.

On Wednesday over the phone, I was informed: "The man was charged with assault and cautioned. He fully admitted he lost it because of the verbal abuse of the young lad." And he added: "It was an understandable reaction."

So, an assault serious enough to cause a 16-year-old boy an injury, witnessed by two people - one a special constable - is not serious enough to warrant a prosecution and all the paperwork that would entail. Perhaps Ashford's policemen are not aware of recent case law which suggests that the ape in the Fiat should be grateful that he is not facing a short spell in prison: in 2003, the Court of Appeal ruled that a custodial sentence was almost inevitable in cases of road rage involving assault occasioning actual bodily harm even when the defendant was of previous good character.

However, in the Through the Looking Glass world of the police, this incident can be chalked up as a neat little success - a crime has been committed and quickly solved with none of that inconvenient going-to-court business; it will not appear in the British Crime Survey and a young man "got what he deserved".

Is it any wonder that so many of us have a fear of crime?

© Copyright of Telegraph Group Limited 2005

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.