To Whom It Really Should Concern.

Of course, it never does. And, therein, lies the problem- one of the problems. One of the many!

My thoughts were refocused just the other day, whilst queueing to pay for some Coffee Mate at Budgens in Aylsham. My wandering musings, in lazy tow behind the eyes, chanced upon a Norwich Evening News headline; "Judge Praised For Upholding Norfolk Man's Death Crash Driving Ban," (3rd August 2013).

In the time that the short queue took to disperse I was able to wander over to the news stand and to familiarise myself with the details. I was informed that one Jake Riseborough had recently failed in his attempt to have a five year driving ban lifted. His appeal arose as a consequence of Jake not being able use his car in order to avail himself of a job. Such responsibility, I was almost tempted to snap him up myself.


Thank you,  Lee Haywood

Gleaning information entirely from the Evening News I was able to deduce that, in his appeal, young Jake, had not considered the death of Stacy Cutts (18) to be deserving of such a lengthy punishment. Nor had he considered the act of burning rubber in a supermarket car park, whilst still on bail, to be relevant. Nor did he consider the fact that he would effectively only be expected to serve an eighteen month ban to be of any relevance. My God, I thought, let's get this responsible and contrite young man back on 'our' roads as swiftly as is humanly possible.

Jake wasn't alone in the act of causing one family to be plunged into some sort of living Hell. Heavens no, the responsibility was shared by one other heavy-footed youth, the boyfriend to the victim, Tom Wright.

Road Safety Campaigners, Stacy's family and, hopefully, many far more considerate road users will have been heartened by the outcome of Jake's review. But, I was given to wonder whether all culpable parties had been duly brought to justice and fully held to account.


Thank you also, John

I'm prepared to stick my neck out here, and to suggest that Jake's short driving life- he was eighteen at the time of the fatal crash- was largely akin to an aggressive-mobile-accident scouting for a 'suitable' location. I would go as far as to presume that Jake's travels in and around his hometown of Diss had already been cause for some concern, perhaps that some of his fellow residents were quickly learning to recognise the thunderous approach of his, no doubt modified, exhaust, that those who were unfortunate enough to reside within earshot of his regular and over-zealous travels were already growing tired of his antics. I'm guessing also that Jake, prior to his absolute loss of control- assuming that he ever really had any- was far more interested in late night demonstrations of speed and noise than he was in finding any sort of gainful employment.

Highly significant, I'm going to suggest that Jake's woeful ineptness behind the wheel of his car was almost certainly already known to the 'local' police, to whom one or two of his 'fellow' Diss residents had already expressed concerns regarding the safety and legality of his driving. Hands up, I could be wrong, but I don't think so!

I base my assumptions upon- absolutely related- numerous conversations and exchanged correspondences that I've had with Aylsham's 'local' police officers, regarding Aylsham's own 'show' drivers. Certainly, my experiences have confirmed that officers here are fully aware, regarding who does and who does not display aberrant driving tendencies similar to those of the subject's.


And to H.L.I.T.

In Aylsham we are 'blessed' with, amongst others, one child 'motorist' who will daily and nightly over-rev and deliberately misfire his engine in order to create maximum disturbance. Late into the night, well into the early hours of a morning- often in the Bure Valley Railway Station car park- he will spin his shiny red hatchback in tight screeching circles, or gun his modified exhaust, 'cheerfully' disturbing anyone and everyone within earshot. Given, also, his zippy nocturnal excursions through the town's streets this may well often be almost the entire population of the town. I think it would be fair to assume that in excess of a couple of hundred households are more than fully aware of this particular accident-in-waiting.

In fairness, I've not contacted police officers regarding the child, but I know that several others have. My faith in the police 'service' no longer affords me the energy, nor the expectation, to even bother. I find that the sour taste of failure is frequently more dilute should one not have bothered in the first place. This could almost be a running slogan for Twenty-first Century Britain! Sums 'us' up a treat!

Let it suffice to be written that several weeks of uninterrupted nocturnal revelry has thus far gone totally unchallenged. And previous police dismissals, regarding my once 'voiced' concerns, had often alluded to the, "every town has its youth issues," gambit. I don't believe that it's stretching credibility too far to assume that this would necessarily include Diss.



Thank you to jenineabarbanel

Lest you should, mistakenly, believe that the country has recently elected accountable Police Commissioners- what otherwise was the point?- I suggest that you just once- any more will drive you to violence or despair- try to report the next bout of boy-racerish-ineptitude that you witness in your nearest town. And, before you are driven to act further, I would suggest that vigilante solutions really will wake up those sleeping policemen. We can't have people just doling out their own forms of vigilante justice, that's what the police are for- 'justice,' not 'vigilante justice'- isn't it? It might, during our darker moments, be comforting to envisage the masked vigilante winning the day. But, 'vigilante?' imagine the types most likely to take up these particular reigns!

To draw a fair parallel, allow me to conjure up an occasion for you. After an evening dinner party one of your more bull-headed guests has consumed well in excess of a reasonable volume of wine. He- it's invariably going to to be a he- announces his intention to drive home.

What is your role? Where do your responsibilities lie? Are you duty bound to confiscate the keys, or to alert the police to this act of irresponsibility? And, if you do nothing, other than to metaphorically cross your fingers and hope, are you not also, at least in part, culpable? Are you actually partly legally responsible for the potential carnage that your guest might be about to wreak?  And, should the worse happen, if you are a compassionate individual, you'll almost certainly feel culpable.



And finally, thanks to Mark Hillary

And, by the same measure, in the case of Jake Riseborough and many more like him, I believe that the 'knowing' police are also culpable. I wonder if there might not be statistics available, whereby we can see exactly what percentage of crashes and consequent deaths, like the one devised by Jake Riseborough, are caused by known persistent offenders?

Thankfully Budgens is usually well stocked up in Coffee Mate.

The King is Dead, Long Live the King!

So, as if 'our' democracy wasn't already responsive, nay perfect, enough, now we are to be encouraged to vote upon the 'appointment' of Police Commissioners. Well- short pause for breath and reality check- it's just fine-tuned democratic process, upon fine-tuned democratic process, upon further fine-tuned democratic process, isn't it? Finally- current crippling recession excepted- we have surely arrived at the very gateway to a virtual Nirvana upon this Earth.

Time to celebrate, we might consider... or just might there be something covertly party-pooperish afoot? On the surface- I'm referring to a surface here that's so 'immeasurably' thin as to almost defy quantum physics, rather less than a tremblingly fragile meniscus of an already fragile meniscus- the image of 'our' country that 'our' lords and masters would like to present to the unthinking wider world is one of a strongly united nation, collectively shouldering up to its financial responsibilities; 'united we stand,' that type of thing.

Honestly? If this is indeed the case- the reality, as opposed to the presentation- then we certainly must have arrived at the aforementioned gates, all pulling together, safe in the knowledge that those whom we have 'elected' to best carry forth our bidding are striving, often late into the nights, to best represent that one, collective nation. Therefore when, perchance, the representer and the representee should chance to converse, one would expect both sides to be referencing to the same technical manual. I honestly can't see how anyone could have serious issues with anything written thus far, indeed this is much the sort of thing that dear ol' Dave and the vertibrately-challenged Nick are, in essence, still insisting.

Which is why I would like to suggest that Andrew Mitchell's recent and teeny-tiny difference of opinion with a member of the constabulary requires significantly greater analysis than Uncle Dave is insisting, or currently trying to insist.

Thank you,
spacecookypk

As the situation, at this juncture, stands there are those who would like to present the now well-documented spat between Andrew and PC as something of an honesty conundrum, a simple who dunnit scenario. But, back on Planet Earth- where Nirvana is sadly, currently regarded as rather more of an anti-inspiration- for anyone who may still have dealings with either their MP or their local constabulary, the issue may well present as a conundrum, but only in so far as in that neither side generally presents as being anything approaching entirely trustworthy. Thus, instead of, 'who could possibly be lying?' the puzzle becomes more, 'who could possibly be telling the truth?'

Without any form of apparent supportive evidence we could, here, be left with no alternative other than to draw the 'obvious' conclusion, of 'unproven.' Frustrating indeed! So, allow me, if you will, licence to speculate beyond this 'apparent' lack of evidence.

Gleaning character-witness type evidence from the wider parliamentary club, I'm prepared to jump in here and argue that it is infinitely more likely that it is the reputedly petulant Andrew who has been somewhat more cavalier with the truth, thus lying. Further, and sighting more instances of such class-based reaction than one could shake a stick at, I would venture to suggest that the vast majority of the politically-tuned-in public have already drawn similar conclusions.

It's not as if the police are anywhere near as close to the top of the honesty tree as one should be permitted to expect, within an open and honest democracy. Cite The Hillsborough Enquiry, cite the issues surrounding the suicide of Fiona and Francecca Pilkington, cite recent and ongoing troubles at Elm Hill in Norwich, cite any number of domestic incidences where 'your' local police force have, and will continue to, misinform(ed) you and the wider public about either what is happening or what the police are currently doing in order to address the situation. Make no mistakes, if 'your' local Commissioner can be quoted as saying that, "Problems are being robustly dealt with," which you know not to be the case (because you live there every day), of if he can be quoted as having said that, "The family were overreacting," before the self same family self immolates, then this is, regardless of how any later enquiry couches it, lying.

Not outstandingly powerful evidence in support of the constabulary is it, but, should you choose to weigh up this contention, against the overwhelming evidence of obscene levels of self-serving and egocentric behaviour amongst 'our' MPs, then the most convincing scenario becomes, well, almost half-convincing... maybe.

Thanks to vic.bergmann

The alleged lying of Andrew Mitchell, and let's face it both sides cannot possibly be telling the truth, I'm going to jump in and suggest, is not here even remotely the most pertinent issue. Experience should, long ago, have taught us that lying in the guise of an 'aspiring' MP (or PM) is now almost a given. Site Tony Blair's slight of hand with the WMD truth, Nick Clegg's pretence at spinal integrity, Gordon Brown's whoops-adaisy with the best part of the nation's pensions, virtually anything that JC (Jeremy Hunt) has ever uttered, any number of MPs angry at the questioning of their 'right' to accumulate numerous properties at the tax payer's expense (an issue, incidentally, which still has not fully been addressed), the list really is almost endless. Perhaps a very simple conversion chart of 'scale of potential personal gain' weighed-up against 'size of attempted lie' might serve us well here.

The ultimate, and thus most pertinent, consideration has to be just how very poorly represented we currently are, by those we have 'elected' so to to do. And, as evidenced by Andrew's 'alleged' (but safely to be considered as 'actual') outburst, can we not easily gauge exactly how lowly we, the vast majority of the electorate, feature, in terms of absolute and currently-practised disposability? We are merely, and I quote, "Plebs."

Just how is it even possible that a political party that has traditionally and consistently represented the interests of so few, at the expense of so many, might have gained enough votes to yet again be set in charge?

What with the even-handed nature of 'our' 'free' press, the 'fair' and 'equal' access to the quiet and private ear of 'our' MP, the vested interests of those who own and control the means of news distribution, the duplicitous betrayal of its 'supporters' by New Labour; for heaven's sake what could possibly have gone wrong?

So, why to vote for 'your' Police Commissioner, or not?

On the one hand actually voting for a Commissioner might, in the wrong kind of manipulative hands, be regarded as condoning of any future political party allegiance that might develop, should 'minor' adjustments later be regarded as 'beneficial' or 'desirable'. It might, in the convenient eyes of a non-impartial news media, and at certain levels, be regarded as a tacit acceptance of a collaborative responsibility for future, questionable, decisions that are to made by the 'elected' Commissioner. "You can always vote again, in another (is it?) four years," has long since become a mantra of so many modern day apologists, for the current woeful system- don't lose your right to vote! Amongst the growing numbers of disenfranchised voters, "Don't vote, it only encourages them," would, perhaps, appear to bear greater pertinence.

On the other hand ..................................................................................
.............................. nope... absolutely nothing springs to mind...

Having, perhaps for many years, been subjected to the regularly updated national or local news, via your particular 'choice' of provider, you may have puzzled, as have I, over the suddenly amassed ranks of available police officers, should any government-endorsed event require policing, whilst also wondering as to the same police force's yawning absence, when each evening many of your local streets routinely revert to feral. Should this scenario apply to your local patch you may well be tempted, come the day of the  big vote, to endorse the candidate with the least well-budgeted promises. That would be the candidate who might, 'most convincingly promise' to redress this growing imbalance.

But, be warned that public sector spending is increasingly regarded, especially by this government, as a societal cancer, a pernicious tumour that is hindering the 'long-overdue' private impetus that will 'far more efficiently' address these issues. In no way should this be seen as an open invite for the city jollies to quickly feast upon the dying carcass of the public sector. So, when casting your vote, you may be tempted, motivated by desperation, to endorse the most courageous liar.

In conclusion then, should the question not, more openly, be phrased as, "Which candidate would you rather have, lying to you, on 'your' government's behalf?"

Democracy is dead. Long live democracy.  

No place for bullying, honestly.

Could it be right that we are that close to fully eliminating bullying from 'our' ‘Golden’ Isle that some might be forgiven for assuming it to have already been achieved? Is bullying really now so very rare, thanks to the ‘heartfelt commitments’ of a ‘successful government’? If so maybe bullying will be the future subject of countless documentary programmes upon the History Channel, celebrating the great strides that Britain has made in banishing this ‘unwelcome imposter’ from our shores. Maybe we will be able to collectively reminisce about its passing, promising never again to fall foul of the same basic errors.



Thanks to Alta Vista's photostream

Or maybe it’s all just so much tosh! Who’s to say?

Maybe young Francesca and her ‘over-reactive’ mother, Fiona, really were just victims of a tragic ‘misunderstanding’; maybe the local police force really had done all that could be reasonably expected of them; maybe the local youths, alluded to in news reports, really were just doing ‘kiddy type stuff’ before returning to their ‘loving homes’ where their ‘caring parents’ would want to know exactly where they had been and precisely what they’d been doing. Maybe!



Perfectly illustrated by Nightwatching's photostream

Maybe! Strangely (or not) my fingers quite literally hesitated over the keys before typing that word. Because anyone who lives outside of those more ‘respectable’ areas of town, or has ever found themselves passing through such a ‘less affluent’ area will quickly have gathered enough evidence to know that ‘maybe’ simply does not apply here.

No doubt, perhaps care of ‘The Daily Mail’, certain individuals will have endeavoured to deflect the blame from its rightful recipients- social workers are always an easy target, or perhaps the local schools- but, I suspect, when we are left alone with our consciences, where the dark angels of truth lurk in readiness, we all really ‘know’ more or less what has happened. Indeed, some of us might, even now be regular witness to similar incidents in or adjacent to our own streets and ‘communities’.



Sadly illustrated so well by Diesel Dan's photostream

When so many of us are subjected to, or witness to, the sort of ‘covert’ bullying that has been well and truly cemented into the very foundations of our society is it really any surprise that some of our social inadequates might be slightly confused over the ‘acceptable’ application of this ‘essential tool’ in their own lives and neighbourhoods?

Who amongst us, at the end of the day, when all is said and done, having had one of those days at the office, hasn’t felt like burning our own living flesh to a lifeless charred mess? As the police have already made clear, they probably overreacted.