kids, police rant

[timwilky]

Well my son is a prat.

a neighbour (big history of malicious allegations from this prat) has accused David of damaging his wing mirror at about 11:30 Saturday night.

Well David only left the pub at 12:30 extremely hammered. with his girlfriend. Me and David were out when they came round so the wife deals with him. She tells them what time David came home and that he was covered in mud.

So when we get back David goes to see them. When I catch up, the neighbour is holding a hand shovel saying "Where I come from, we know how to deal with people like you". OK he is no angel, but I will not have anyone threaten my son, so I step in.


Q Why do you think it was David.
A Because we saw him.

Q What time
A 11:30PM

Car is parked on street. No nearby lighting, house about 8 yards from car. There is no way they could have identified anyone in the dark. And wouldn't they have said something at the time if they saw anyone attacking their car.

Q Was he alone
A No he was with his girlfriend
Q Well she came home 5 minutes ahead of him
A Yes she saw what he was doing and ran off.
Q What was he wearing
A we didn't see

They then state the mirror was covered in mud, which corresponds with what the wife said to them that David had come home covered in mud. What she was referring to was his trainers. The damage to the mirror is not consistent with a kick. it is more from a sharp edge like a door.



Q David, did you do it.
A No

So I tell him to walk away. The damage is to their mirror and it looks like it has been struck with a hard object from behind. There was no debris on the street where the car was parked.

I would guess the car has been hit by a door on a car park and they have only just noticed.

Well eventually Miss plod arrives and takes David into the lounge on his own. (David is 19 years old)

The upshot is that he says he cannot remember doing any damage on the way home as he was hammered. But the fool has accepted a fixed penalty £80 fine for criminal damage as he is scared of it going to court. To my mind he should not have been interviewed in the house without the opportunity of legal representation, any half decent solicitor would see that there is no evidence to prove David did this. I am in the belief he was bullied into accepting the fine as the "Easy way out".

OK I know he is no angel. If he did it in the first place he should have admitted it and saved the police getting involved. But when I let the plod into the house. We were of the opinion that she had already decided David was responsible for the damage when it was actually a case of the neighbours word against Davids.

Bloody kid. He knows his rights, (He is not the brightest spark in the box and has mild learning difficulties) yet he still allowed himself to be put in a position by the plod where he convicts himself. Simply because he did not want to be taken down to the police station where he could have been properly interviewed with legal representation present.

Is it worthwhile he demands his day in court. with the prospect of a higher fine and legal costs. Am I looking through rose tinted glasses and mummies little soldier is actually a hooligan. What scares me is that David will decide to get his revenge on the neighbour and do some stupid damage.

Originally Posted by timwilky

has accused David of damaging his wing mirror at about 11:30 Saturday night.

Well David only left the pub at 12:30 extremely hammered.

Am I missing something?

Neighbour has a history of false allegations (if Plod has been involved in the past these will ALL of been recorded, and will be available for years to come. David wasn't there, and more than likely has a number of people who can vouch for his whereabouts (other than immediate family). Also, talk to the pub, do they have CCTV that's likely to of caught him leaving (you won't be able to see this though unless you're friendly with the landlord, and I wouldn't ask anyway, in case it compromises your position).

On that basis, I would be going to court. I would also be asking why Plod insisted on talking to David in the lounge by himself (yes, he's 19, but this is a community matter at the end of the day, so why not directly involve the parents as well?).

My eldest has dyspraxia, which is a condition similar to autism, if he ended up in a similar situation, I'd be using the fact he had dyspraxia to be sat next to him, even if I was silent the entire time. At least I'd know what was said.

Did Plod do anything about the neighbour threatening to whack your lad with a shovel?

Far worse than anything that your son was alleged to have done.

[timwilky]

When they had finished with him. I tried to talk to them, to tell them there was a history of malicious allegation. They simply walked out the house saying that he had admitted that he didn't know what he did on his way home. (As if that is an admission of guilt). They had decided he was a scumbag and we were therefore scumbag parents.

They were already upset that Jasper had made his feeling towards them known. (As he does to any stranger, but is all noise) and asked me to remove him before they would step into the house. To my mind they guy with the shovel was guilty of at least threatening behavior, if not demands with menace.

I have no problems with the police. I am well aware of the difficult job that they do. However I do not agree that they should have the responsibility for apportioning blame and the right to convict and issue fines. That should be the duty of a court, in the cold light of day when all parties have had the ability to question the evidence.

The easy way out that they offered David, is easy for them. Not for him.

I'd try to appeal it especially as there is probably evidence that he couldn't of done it, not many pubs that don't have cctv these days.

If the words of the officer were "he admitted he didn't know what he was doing at the time" I'd be in touch ASAP with the police. Telling them that you're not happy & convince David that just because he can't remember, does not mean he did it. Of course (and I don't know your son, so please don't feel I'm judging him & think the is the case - I dont), it could be that he's telling you he can't remember it, when he can.

I thought we still had 'innocent until proven guilty.' Not remembering is definitely not proof.

As for Jasper, fair play on the copper. No-one should be intimidated (by an animal or otherwise) whilst doing the duties of their job. I'm guessing you removed him to another room at least, which would of been an ample solution to the situation.

[Biker Biggles]

This is probably more about police targets and clear up rates than anything else.
Crime is reported---police attend----crime is "solved" and ticket issued-----all targets met and the figures look good.
If it went to court,David would almost certainly be found not guilty.
It would probably never get that far as the CPS would bin it for lack of evidence.
Either way it would remain on file as unsolved and the figures would look bad.Quite insane,but that's the reality of target obsessed Britain.

[Bluepete]

What he said!

What's this neighbours address ? I'm sure I have a van load of horse cr@p that needs a home ?

Mr Wilky, get your boy back down the police station (with you) and get it sorted mate... He doesn't need that ticket against his name, no matter how silly he has been in the past... Plus, can he afford the £80 ?

.

What about police compliance with the PACE codes of practice? I can't see that there was even an attempt to comply. I'd be down complaining to the inspector.