Increasingly disillusioned with the police.

[Noodley]

I expected my concerns to be dealt with seriously, investigated properly and I would like to see the driver recieve a caution.

What needs to be properly investigated? It looks as if the Police believe you, albeit his attitude was not the best. And as Cubist states the Police act on CPS standards.

Is the real issue that you want to complain about the attitude of the officer?

 

[Sara_H]

What needs to be properly investigated? It looks as if the Police believe you, albeit his attitude was not the best. And as Cubist states the Police act on CPS standards.

Is the real issue that you want to complain about the attitude of the officer?

Yes, I am very disatisfied with th police officer concerned.

 

[sheddy]

The worrying trend these days is that even if the van driver had reversed and knocked down a child on the pavement, it is still likely that no prosecution would have taken place.

 

[Noodley]

Yes, I am very disatisfied with th police officer concerned.

IMO the only action you are likely to be successful with is to contact the Inspector for the area and state that you are not happy with the attitude of the officer. Highlight you are aware that CPS have standards which the Police follow, that the Police have a hard job, etc but that you expected to be treated with respect. He can then offer some waffle in response assure you the matter will be addressed.

Otherwise I think you could get yourself worked up and go to a lot of effort for bugger all return.

 

[GTTTM]

Well the precious PFB's (whatever they are) were walking more than 5 meters away from school, on a pavement when they nearly got squished by a transit van.

My son is nearly nine, I'm trying to promote a bit of independace by letting him cross with the crossing lady and meeting him halfway home - I thought it was safe as he had no further roads to croo - hadn't reckoned that I'd have to worry about police condoned pavement drivers.

PFB's are "precious first born'

Outside schools are rarely safe (I lived next door to one for 4yrs - literally next door, on a narrow street - the parents parking and driving was just as awful as the "joe bloggs" especially as the street in question would be totally impassible if drivers (residents included) didn't park up on the pavements on one side..........sadly the school side)"

I'm the next street along now where (generally speaking) there is no part pavement parking - but it's still an eye opener in the mornings!

 

[diapason]

Coming back to read this thread again this evening, after posting a brief comment during the morning, I am somewhat surprised (to put it mildly) at the posts which attack the OP and belittle her concerns. As cyclists, I'm sure that most of us are quick to condemn other cyclists who jump red lights and drivers who park on cycle lanes, encroach into ASLs etc. I'm sure that most of us are also drivers. In this case, we are told that a van driver reversed at speed, on a pavement, outside a school, when children were congregating. A veritable catalogue of offences, which he then compounded by verbally assaulting witnesses - including the OP. This is something which the police should be taking seriously. Nobody was injured on this accasion - more by luck than judgement. Who knows how many times this driver has done this before and how many times he will do it again? I'm sure that the OP did not expect the driver to be prosecuted. As she said, a caution would have been appropriate. What she was definitely entitled to - as a taxpayer - was to be treated with courtesy by the police - whom we all pay for - and to have her complaint acknowledged, together with an assurance that the offender would be interviewed. That was all that was necessary. In her place, I would make a complaint about the officer's attitude and expect to be correctly notified of the outcome of the police interview with the driver.

 

[Noodley]

In this case, we are told that a van driver reversed at speed, on a pavement, outside a school, when children were congregating.

Embellishment on your part.

You're one step away from telling us the A-Team jumped out!

 

[diapason]

I stand corrected - misquoting as I didn't take the time to go back and re-read the whole thread. The OP actually said (on page 2) "he drove blindly into a group of five people on a crowded street who only avoided injury because they ran out of his way".

 

[Noodley]

The OP actually said (on page 2) "he drove blindly into a group of five people on a crowded street who only avoided injury because they ran out of his way".

Which in itself is an assumption given the distance she was from the incident. I am not denying the pedestrians got a shock and may have "run away" but it may have been that the driver was not "blind" to them and undertook the reverse in the knowledge they were there and in anticipation of stopping before they became an 'obstacle'...unlikely but possible, no?

I am just trying to highlight that there is more than one side to a story, and simply accepting the OP (which was in my mind a rant with little structure, although subsequant posts have added some clarity) as posted is possibly not the best option.

As Robbie and Gary sang: "Well there’s three versions of this story mine, yours and then the truth"...

 

[diapason]

Fair enough, but then, surely, when a complaint is made, we pay Plod to get out of his nice warm nick, go out and take statements from the witnesses and then get the driver's version. It shouldn't take Sherlock Holmes to decide whether said driver then needs to have his collar felt. The point the OP is making is that Plod didn't treat her with courtesy or take her complaint seriously.

 

[Noodley]

Fair enough, but then, surely, when a complaint is made, we pay Plod to get out of his nice warm nick, go out and take statements from the witnesses and then get the driver's version. It shouldn't take Sherlock Holmes to decide whether said driver then needs to have his collar felt. The point the OP is making is that Plod didn't treat her with courtesy or take her complaint seriously.

I agree that Plod (as you call him) did not treat SaraH with due respect if her version is accurate, and I am not questioning her integrity.

Perhaps the public have expectations of 'the law' which exceed reality?

 

[LosingFocus]

Fair enough, but then, surely, when a complaint is made, we pay Plod to get out of his nice warm nick, go out and take statements from the witnesses and then get the driver's version. It shouldn't take Sherlock Holmes to decide whether said driver then needs to have his collar felt. The point the OP is making is that Plod didn't treat her with courtesy or take her complaint seriously.

But he did. He was going to follow it up with the driver.

 

[diapason]

I agree that Plod (as you call him) did not treat SaraH with due respect if her version is accurate, and I am not questioning her integrity.

Perhaps the public have expectations of 'the law' which exceed reality?

I used the term 'Plod' as a colloquial version of Police Officer - no disrespect intended. I think we all have 'expectations' of how the Police (and other official bodies) will behave, and, for those of us of a certain age, these are based on nostalgia. Things have moved on from 'Evenin' All' of Dixon of Dock Green (and I guess that many people these days will never have heard of George Dixon). But, and it perhaps an important 'but', SaraH clearly felt that the police response was inadequate, and, reading between the lines, this was down to the attitude of the officer (or perhaps civilian receptionist). 'Losing Focus' says that the police were going to follow it up. Yes they were, but SaraH was obviously not left with much confidence as the officer/civilian gave her the impression that he sided with the driver before any investigations had taken place. It really comes down to communication. George Dixon would not have behaved in that way, and, despite the passing of years, we EXPECT the police to be courteous, polite, non-judgemental servants of the public. Old fashioned? Yes, and proud of it!

 

[growingvegetables]

You have approached the Police and they are ... going to go round and have a word with the driver about his driving and behaviour; plus they will issue him with a formal warning if he as abusive towards the Police as he was on the street.

Isnt that what you want to happen?

+ 1


There are two kinds of (van) driver in the world. One is so embarrassed at the police car turning up at his front door (neighbours' curtains twitching) that he'll make damn sure he doesn't get into that situation again. The other is so aggrieved that his virility driver's rights have been curtailed, that he'll make a complete and utter fool of himself, leading to much more serious police action.

I'll grant you, Sara, (from a very long and much nastier experience) it sounds like you've met a police officer with a fine line in "seen-it-all-before" .... and probably patronising into the bargain. There's more than a few of them - but I have to say from harsher experience than yours, don't write them off. And he's done as much as he can.

You need to keep perspective - it sounds as if there is a bit of a traffic/parking problem around the school. Work with other parents, the school, the PTA, and the governors to record incidents/concerns and get the council to improve/police traffic restrictions around the school. Don't get sidetracked, either by one silly dangerous van driver or one world weary police constable.

 

[Noodley]

Things have moved on from 'Evenin' All' of Dixon of Dock Green

Thankfully, he got shot!!

And the Police in the days of Dixon onwards were not "Dixon-esque" at all...you are much more likely now to find someone who gives a shoot.

This particular officer did not offer SaraH the service she expected or deserved. However the end result would have been the same if he had offered her a cup of tea and chatted about how her kid was getting on at school etc...tutted, sucked his teeth, and went "oh that sounds terrible"...

In the 'grand scheme' it is a matter which requires 'a word'.