The Persistant Caller
Last week there was a 999 call in Blandmore area from a woman reporting decades of sexual abuse by her parents and a historical rape by a co-worker. The police responded to it by phoning Social Services, logging the call, and hanging up.
This isn't because this is how we deal with allegations of serious sexual abuse and rape. It is because the woman was Patricia Levy and she calls the police three or four times a month to report the same thing. She usually makes the calls in batches of 30-40 in a day, and she's usually drunk. Patricia Levy was indeed abused as a child - at least that is what her mental health worker believes and he's probably right. She is now an alcoholic with learning difficulties and an obsession with sexual activity. She thinks it's happening to her everywhere, all the time. If that was happening to you, you'd call the police 30-40 times a day too.
The trouble is, Patricia is always drunk, so the mental health team can't/won't treat her. The alcoholics' programme won't take her on because she has mental health problems, and they can't deal with her sex abuse allegations. It used to be the case that the police was the one service who always had to help her, but now even we have a 'Patricia Levy policy'. The policy isn't all-encompassing: if Patricia reports a recent sex offence a detective will be sent to speak to her. She usually shouts abuse at them when they arrive, or denies ever calling the police.
I don't know anything about Fiona Pilkington other than the fact she killed herself two years ago along with her daughter and her rabbit. I suspect she didn't have quite the array of problems that Patricia Levy has. But I also suspect that Patricia will end up meeting a similarly grisly end, and I am sure the police will be blamed when she does. One thing I do know is that anyone who torches themselves and their child to death in a car is mentally ill, and that has nothing to do with kids harassing them (although it probably doesn't help).
Alex Simmons: yob who drove a woman to suicide, or normal kid blamed for someone else' vulnerabilities?
It's not about eschewing responsibility - I'd be horrified if someone I went to visit about harassing antisocial behaviour was found dead the next day, week or month. God forbid they take out their innocent child at the same time. But it's complex. You have to work out whether the antisocial behaviour is really that harassing, or whether it's being perceived that way by someone who is vulnerable. You have to figure out if there's a way to reasonably protect someone from a group of kids they're scared of, when there is no evidence of criminal offences. You have to consider what will happen if you put the kids before the court, how soon they'll be walking free with their fistful of community hours and unenforceable ASBO.
It's all very well calling the police 30 or 40 or 100 times. As long as you realise that only the police will even pick up the phone every time. The rest of society's infrastructure just isn't bothered, until it all goes wrong.
One final point: the coroner asked ,"Why did no one sit and chat to her over a cup of tea about her problems?"
If he's aiming that question at the police, the answer is to be found on this and all other police blogs, as well as here.
This isn't because this is how we deal with allegations of serious sexual abuse and rape. It is because the woman was Patricia Levy and she calls the police three or four times a month to report the same thing. She usually makes the calls in batches of 30-40 in a day, and she's usually drunk. Patricia Levy was indeed abused as a child - at least that is what her mental health worker believes and he's probably right. She is now an alcoholic with learning difficulties and an obsession with sexual activity. She thinks it's happening to her everywhere, all the time. If that was happening to you, you'd call the police 30-40 times a day too.
The trouble is, Patricia is always drunk, so the mental health team can't/won't treat her. The alcoholics' programme won't take her on because she has mental health problems, and they can't deal with her sex abuse allegations. It used to be the case that the police was the one service who always had to help her, but now even we have a 'Patricia Levy policy'. The policy isn't all-encompassing: if Patricia reports a recent sex offence a detective will be sent to speak to her. She usually shouts abuse at them when they arrive, or denies ever calling the police.
I don't know anything about Fiona Pilkington other than the fact she killed herself two years ago along with her daughter and her rabbit. I suspect she didn't have quite the array of problems that Patricia Levy has. But I also suspect that Patricia will end up meeting a similarly grisly end, and I am sure the police will be blamed when she does. One thing I do know is that anyone who torches themselves and their child to death in a car is mentally ill, and that has nothing to do with kids harassing them (although it probably doesn't help).
Alex Simmons: yob who drove a woman to suicide, or normal kid blamed for someone else' vulnerabilities?
It's not about eschewing responsibility - I'd be horrified if someone I went to visit about harassing antisocial behaviour was found dead the next day, week or month. God forbid they take out their innocent child at the same time. But it's complex. You have to work out whether the antisocial behaviour is really that harassing, or whether it's being perceived that way by someone who is vulnerable. You have to figure out if there's a way to reasonably protect someone from a group of kids they're scared of, when there is no evidence of criminal offences. You have to consider what will happen if you put the kids before the court, how soon they'll be walking free with their fistful of community hours and unenforceable ASBO.
It's all very well calling the police 30 or 40 or 100 times. As long as you realise that only the police will even pick up the phone every time. The rest of society's infrastructure just isn't bothered, until it all goes wrong.
One final point: the coroner asked ,"Why did no one sit and chat to her over a cup of tea about her problems?"
If he's aiming that question at the police, the answer is to be found on this and all other police blogs, as well as here.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
'Diary of an On-Call Girl' is available in some bookstores and online.
posted by PC Bloggs at 15:18
85 Comments:
sad case...
(sounds of a lamp swinging) when I was a uniformed beat man (opps... person) I had lots of these types of jobs to sort...
most could be dealt with by a little application of Police power- some though could not...
Some kids cant be arrested- if they are under 10-years old what do you do with them?
No court will jail children... so without a punishment- where do we go with that...???
30 September, 2009 16:04
Its easy to blame the Police. We have been made to be accountable for so much.
Having presented a female 136 to a doctor once after 5 of us from my shift had to physically restrain her from killing herself, and having been thrown out of the hospital as no one would treat her there as she was kicking trays over and verbally abusing the nursing staff, I was told by him "YOU HAVE TO LET PEOPLE TAKE RESPONSIBILITY FOR THEIR OWN LIVES". He then decided she was ok to be let home and her CPN would see her in the morning. We had months of calls from her until she moved areas.
Are we really allowed to let people take responsibility for their own lives? Or are the Police expected to sort the issue where others can't?
30 September, 2009 16:15
You have said what everyone is thinking. Respect.
30 September, 2009 16:46
Ditto.
30 September, 2009 16:57
How sad that you seek to justify police inaction with a slur of mental illness. Not caused by the yobs' behaviour? Who the heck are you trying to kid?
I just could not see why police effectively drove these people to their deaths, but after reading your comments, it really does explain why!
30 September, 2009 18:52
Don't be so obtuse Dickiebo. We are the ones NOT using the slur of mental health in these circumstances (you see mental health as a slur? interesting!) The problem is that we are police officers, with basically no training in dealing with mental health other than presenting the ill person to the mental health teams, who may or may not accept them depending on any number of criteria. In my particular area of this green and pleasant land our mental health crisis teams DON'T WORK NIGHTS OR WEEKENDS! Some crisis team, eh? Just as well mental health issues only ever arise mon-fri 9-5 isn't it?
Again. . we are not trained as mental health professionals. . do you understand that? NOT TRAINED! And yet so often we end up holding the reins when others abrogate their responsibility and we are left as the only organsiation not at liberty to do so.
So it goes wrong and we get the blame again. Just peachy!
That the Pilkington case ended as it did is a tragedy, but there is blame a plenty, it's not just us (again), although I wouldn't make the argument that we are blameless either. It would appear that the coroner has no idea of the realities of the situation either. As we say here "no problem, we'll just open another box and deploy some more officers!"
30 September, 2009 19:11
Just to put it into focus- my area has a population of approx 417,053 people.
for that population - last night on night shift we had...
12- PC's, 2-PS's and 1-Insp.
that is a ratio of 1 offer per 27,803...
Just for your information...
Those officers are for emergency AND routine jobs too...
Now with that ratio of pop to officer- is it any wonder we dont feel that we get service?
Also, I must remind you all- we are not a business that you pay for a service and get it... We have a lot of other things we must do too...
The crime issues could be sorted by putting criminals in prison... radical- but it does work...
I know- here it comes- i saw on another blog- 'well you find officers to arrest drink drivers and speeders'
yes- they have a potential to cause death and serious injury on our roads... higher priority than youths causing asb...
The thing about ASB is, like beauty, its in the eye of the beholder... I walk past some yoofs -larking about outside the local shop- and think nothing of it- another person may feel threatened... so, should they be moved on?
if so - why?
I have no answer- except- once more to call for the end of money wasting in the Police and more officers walking about...
30 September, 2009 20:31
its a bit like the problems faced by a paramedic - they go to the patients that are most injured...
you would be pretty fed up that your paramedic was dealing with a cut finger - when you were fighting to breath..
Why are we treated any different? we have the same probs...
30 September, 2009 20:35
drewe: You seem to read what you want to read, as opposed to what is there! Not using mental health..... Read the article again!
Interesting that I see mental health as a slur? Yes. A slur against a dead woman with no supporting evidence whatsoever - unless you are, perhaps, privy to something that I am not.
Do not work nights and weekends - in 11 bloody years!!!! A 'grabbing at straws' if ever there was one!
'Not trained as mental health professionals. Do you understand that?' Yes, I do. Been there, done it and got the t-shirt. And just hope that I never, ever treated anybody as the police treated these unfortunate pair.
30 September, 2009 20:58
Cu-bum
The ambulance service go to what they're told by Control - who are working to a protocol handed down from on high.
That means that, whilst not dealing with a cut finger, they may find themselves dealing with a drunk rather than granny with chest pain. The drunk, having "collapsed", is a high priority.
Back to the original point. Continued stress can bring about changes in the brain (observable, physiological ones) that can cause depression.
After 11 years of abuse, I'm not surprised that the poor woman ws ddriven to despair.
30 September, 2009 21:35
The woman was reported to have learning difficulties and various mental health ailments, so that's not speculation or a slur.
30 September, 2009 22:24
Anon; Well, I have read many, many reports of the inquest and have not read anything about Fiona having mental health problems!
"To the question of whether the police properly responded to the 33 calls made by Ms Pilkington over 10 years about anti-social behaviour, the foreman answered that the police's failure had an impact on Ms Pilkington's decision to unlawfully kill her daughter and commit suicide."
I repeat; Police virtually drove these two unfortunates to their sad deaths!
30 September, 2009 22:57
As someone who has experienced the attitudes of many in "the system", be that health, social care, education, local council and police, I have an insight to offer. It is the system that is at fault, in that they ALL "tick boxes" and make opinionated and often very harsh judgments about people. It is their training and what they are expected to do. Anyone driven to despair and depression, due to the nasty, or even cruel treatment of others, especially a single mum, is classed as a "mental case", who is then patronised and treated like a mental defective subhuman 2nd class citizen, and a "drain upon taxpayers money".
Kids with learning difficulties would just add to the system's view of her as a "waste of oxygen and space", and someone to be resented, because their hard earned pay [taxman's share] goes to help support the "customer" and keep them "in luxury" council houses, complete with plasma TV's and designer trainers... [A myth]
There has been a deliberate and long term media campaign of scorn and disapproval of single mums, on benefits, which Fiona Pilkington probably was because of her disabled daughter. Society and the system probably blamed her and resented her for her kids disabilities. The Health and Social Care System often looks down its nose at people like Fiona Pilkington. They have passed that stinky attitude onto many within the police. The proof of that was there for people to read with their own eyes on many a comment on Coppersblog, until recently.
Officers, by the very fact of being in contact with the worst that society can do, can become hardened to the suffering of people like Fiona Pilkington, and just dismiss them as a "non-job"..... Because they DO NOT WANT THE PAPERWORK......and because the system is now geared to passing the buck on to "partner agencies", like Social Services. Enough said.
The Police Force needs to get back to its basic core principles, and regain its independence from the so called "partners". That has been a "marriage of convenience" which has not really been a very positive influence, nor especially helpful, for the police and the public alike. Giving people an insulting label of "the underclass" because they are vulnerable, a single mum on benefits, with a disabled daughter, is not very helpful, nor fair.
This is one mistake the Home Office really do need to learn from, and put right, as a matter of priority.....IF this government really is that concerned about the future of this country, and its people, and that includes the role and purpose of the police, in protecting life and keeping the peace on our streets.
01 October, 2009 01:38
'Officers, by the very fact of being in contact with the worst that society can do, can become hardened to the suffering of people like Fiona Pilkington, and just dismiss them as a "non-job"..... Because they DO NOT WANT THE PAPERWORK......'
I really do shake my head at some members of the public, their expectations of what we are able to achieve are totally unrealistic. I think many members of the public seem to think we were issued a 'magic wand' at training school, which can be 'waved' over the thousands of different trypes of problems presented to us on a daily basis, and 'make everything better.'
The bottom line is the police can't respond to everyone's complaints all the time, we just don't have the resources, we can't be expected to fix all of societies problems. We are not social workers, we are not mental health workers, we are not community workers, we enforce the law as best we can, with the very limited tools we are given. The problem is in the UK we are expected to be all of the above, which means we end up achieving veryt little, badly.
01 October, 2009 04:15
Dickiebo said: "I have read many, many reports of the inquest and have not read anything about Fiona having mental health problems!"
Well, perhaps you haven't read very widely.
Try The Guardian, for instance.
01 October, 2009 10:06
Widely - I have. The Guardian - definitely not. I like to keep MY sanity!
01 October, 2009 10:36
The comment at the top regarding the person on the 136 having to take responsibility for their own lives is very true.
However if that person had gone home and topped themselves within 72 hours of having police contact then the officers involved will immediatly be part of an IPCC investigation for "death with police contact". They will be interviewed like a criminal by PSD with their hindsight hats on, basically on suspicion of manslaughter. It will be at least 6 months to a year on suspension / non public contact duties. This I tell you through experience is VERY stressfull. It often causes huge mental, physical and relationship problems for the officer and most are never the same again.
I don't think that other people appreciate this. Its a damned if you do damned if don't situation when dealing with the mentally ill.
Thats why I take my responsibilities VERY seriously when dealing with these people.
PC A HUNN
01 October, 2009 11:58
A few comments.
First of all I do not think it is justified to automatically conclude that this woman had mental health problems. By the end she clearly had, as killing her own child was not the act of a sane person, but years of living in constant fear and feeling that there was nobody interested in her problems or willing to help, could quite possibly have been the cause of any mental problems she had by the end.
To some extent I think the issue of if the kids were really dangerous or if she was overreacting is unimportant. Events showed that the fact that she felt threatenend and abandoned for so long was enough to do the dammage.
Maybe in this case it was not the police's fault but somebody somewhere should have done something. If a gang of kids really were intimidating this woman and her child so badly that it drove her to suicide, then the police should have done something. If not then it may have been a job for social services and the police should have alerted them that they were needed. In the event it appears that nobody cared enough to help her and prevent this tragedy.
01 October, 2009 15:59
k
01 October, 2009 16:47
If one of the boxes was ticked as `Yes` to `racially motivated` would an extra box of officers been found?
01 October, 2009 18:04
Fail to see the connection between Patricia Levy and Fiona Pilkington, I'm afraid. Other than the volume of cals.
Patricia Levy is tormented by the demons in her own head. The police can do nothing for her.
Fiona Pilkington was tormented by real, physical beings, who were tormenting others in the same street (perhaps the blog author thinks they ae nuts too?). The police did nothing for her.
01 October, 2009 18:43
Anon 1804 - there wouldn't have been an extra box of resources opened if it was racially motivated, but the calls would have been graded much higher than normal ASB calls, the only jobs higher would have been life threatening or domestic calls, meaning the would have been attended. The guys and girls on the ground on most of the 33 times she called would more than likely never have known she had called as other jobs would have had higher gradings and we are only told about the jobs we are going to, not what has been stacked up or decided that no response will be deployed. They are, however, exactly the people who get it in the neck, get slagged off in the press, and try to bring all the problems we experience in the form of blogs.
01 October, 2009 18:53
Dickibo- yes 'the foreman' ... not a Doctor.
I would say that murdering your child- and then killing yourself is a rather extreme way of dealing with a problem.
So, when dad takes the kids up the hills and gasses them because soon to be X- has reduced contact is ok then?- its her fault? she put the stress on him- so its her fault?
no- its not ok.
yes those kids are scum and they need a kicking...
we are not to blame.
01 October, 2009 19:05
"So, when dad takes the kids up the hills and gasses them because soon to be X- has reduced contact is ok then?- its her fault? she put the stress on him- so its her fault?"
There seems to be a lot of comparing apples with submarines here...
No, the two situations aren't remotely the same. The deranged father in your example is reacting to a wife exercising her lawful rights.
The yobs targeting Fiona Pilkington were indulging in anti-social behaviour, such that the council sought, and obtained, an exclusion order.
It was never enforced, mind you, but it's pretty clear who was in the wrong here...
01 October, 2009 21:09
"They are, however, exactly the people who get it in the neck, get slagged off in the press..."
That certainly is unfair, as ir's clear that the leadership from Chris 'I cannot answer that, sorry' Tew left quite a lot to be desired.
The problem is, the public will contrast this case with that of the one in the paper today, where the police arrived lickety-split to arrest and charge a 71 year old disabled war widow for poking a hoodie in the chest with her finger and draw their own conclusions.
01 October, 2009 21:20
There are a number of issues to come out of this and it isn't my intention to debate them all - however - The old adage "If it's not bleeding or on fire, call the Police" seems to be as true as ever, and of course, once that call is logged, we are forever responsible for what happens next. I'm not sure that's remotely fair, but Leics have to accept their part in the whole sorry affair and address where it went wrong. Sadly, what that will mean in practice is that some non-combatant will gain their third pip for coming up with a policy which keeps the organisation's arse covered but bogs Response cops down in yet more bureaucracy, meaning that the next person in line (who may be in the same predicament or worse) won't get seen. And if that cop doesn't... Well vicarious liability of the CC seems to have faded away over the years...
As for our so-called partners - nothing seems to happen unless the Police drive it (so if it goes wrong we're back in the firing line), and 'sharing of responsibility' seems to mean 'absolving our organisation of blame'. That's like blaming some bigger boys who made you do it (or not). We are the only organisation in this general field who are 24-7 (unless you count EDT, which I don't), so until these people with chaotic lifestyles, mental health issues, domestic problems and anything else you can name can find it within themselves to confine their issues to a 9-5 weekday schedule, it will always be down to the Police to resolve. Except we are led largely by 9-5ers as well, who have forgotten (if they ever really understood) what the front line is all about.
What happened in Leics is tragic, but it will happen again, because the right people to deal with the issue will shy away from actually doing so. Leics should have floated a panda up the street more often than they perhaps did, but the underlying issues remain. It's not just the Police who have lessons to learn
02 October, 2009 01:33
If the police do no keep the peace then who does?
02 October, 2009 01:36
Half the problem is expecting the police to perform miracles and keep everyone happy with a criminal justice system that is ridiculously beureucratic and a court system that gives out punishments that so no purpose as a deterrent.
Perhaps Leicestershire police could have done more but even if they had turned up every time and spoken to the family and issued warning, eventually got ASBO evidence etc etc I still think the same sad eventual consequence would have happened.
I did read one report about one neighbour thinking aloud how perhaps they should have done a bit more. That hits the nail on the head. The first commenter talked about people taking responsibility for their own lives. People also need to take more responsibility for their neighbours and friends instead of shutting their curtains and hoping someone else will do the job.
It's very easy to scapegoat the police for this incident but it's just one cog in a machine of social failures.
And off topic, persistent is spelt with an E! Sorry.........
02 October, 2009 07:24
Over the last five years you have been under a great pressure to reduce crime. To do this, you have skewed the way you report crime. You handle crime according to the type of crime that is 'reported'. Example, Shed breaks were separated from Burglary and burglaries appeared to reduce by 60%. Massive reduction, big pat on the back, lots of happy idiots in brass hats.
You had another trick, Call Centres. Group all calls into one place in the County, staff it with Civvies from all over the county, and that failed to work well, Call Handlers went off sick with stress, Calls were badly recorded as the Handlers were only allowed a few moments to deal with each call. The computerised recording system was written by people from another country and locally ‘adapted’ at great expense. The same crime could be recorded ten different way by ten different handlers.
Then you stared to ask for MORE information, so, a caller calls in for help, and gets asked their name, christian name and surname, (or family name if not a christian) date of birth, their address including postcode, where they are calling from, and only then do they get a chance to talk to the handler. As they talk, the handler is trying to complete the information boxes on the screen, and it has to be done in the right order or the screens don’t work and the handler has to ask the caller to wait.
To see the rest of this post, goto http://virtualsupply.blogspot.com/2009/10/no-copper-continuity-on-calls-reported.html
02 October, 2009 07:28
"I did read one report about one neighbour thinking aloud how perhaps they should have done a bit more. That hits the nail on the head. The first commenter talked about people taking responsibility for their own lives. People also need to take more responsibility for their neighbours and friends instead of shutting their curtains and hoping someone else will do the job."
Be interested to hear what you think about the 71 year old war widow who 'took responsibility' and the amazingly fast response to her actions...
Also, just what do you suggest the neighbours do (and stay within the law) to people who so clearly have nothing but contempt for the law?
02 October, 2009 08:08
I feel that the media have villified the police in this matter, going to a level of generalized hysteria way beyond what's justified by the shortfalls with the local force the coroner reported.
It's obvious there was a wider breakdown in the social fabric, in a country where police are magically supposed to be responsible for crime prevention (whereas in just about every functioning state, the police are only responsible for crime investigation).
But if you believe Pilkington mére was a victim of circumstances to which local policing shortfalls contributed - and I, and the coroner, do - then 200 Weeks managed to write about the matter without blaming the victim, and certainly not as blatantly and unhelpfully as you have.
02 October, 2009 11:17
Julia- 'exercising her lawful right?'- to stop a father seeing his child- and stopping a child from seeing their father?
children are not the property of the mother. This may be news to you... and she does not have a 'legal right' to do so- hence why courts make so much money out of it.
OK- in a nutshell- this lady was not a victim- have we all forgotten that she MURDERED her daughter? unlawfully killed with malice aforethought?
The only victim here is the daughter- that had he life cut short by her disturbed mum.
Sad- really- but true.
02 October, 2009 14:30
To say that the lady is not a victim speaks volumes about you people. Sick!
02 October, 2009 14:38
There have always been persistent callers to the police and there always will be.I think no I KNOW that Virtual Supply has got it right-again-Until the mid nieties in my old force calls were handled locally the caller was known to the copper or civvy or phone so a lot of stuff could be boshed or delayed for the LBO yet there was always a few occissions when the call receiver could detect there was something in the call which meant an immediate response.Now?
02 October, 2009 14:54
Oh, she wasn't a desperate nutter who fell through the cracks then? Just your standard murderous bitch?
You'd better run and tell the coroner. Contradict her findings that the local police didn't deal with her complaints properly. And then do it LOUDER.
Shout from the rooftops, or from your blogs, how a mother with mental difficulties heading a family with mental difficulties whose persons and property were the subject of violent and sustained attacks by her neighbours over the course of years while the local police force didn't use all the options at their disposal to stop the attacks, is a MURDERER, not a VICTIM.
And watch a few thousand more members of the long-suffering public, who get to experience a lifetime of low-to-high level anxiety every time they or their children step outside their homes, decide that the police are just not on their side.
And then complain about it.
(Slow applause)
02 October, 2009 14:59
the only victim of this incident is the daughter.
She was the innocent victim of a murder.
If you cant see that- you are the one that is sick.
02 October, 2009 16:53
oh paperchaser- the police are NOT on your side- they are not on ANYONES side- to be on someone's side is prejudice.
Police are there to: protect life and property and enforce the law.
This is one of the urban myths that have sprung up over the years- we have to enforce the law to ALL and not just criminals...
You speeding and drink driving puts you in the frame just as squarely as if you steal milk off a doorstep.
In this case- anti-social behave is NOT as serious as MURDER...
the public want cake / topped with cream etc...
I cant help compare the comments about the G20 protest?
cops pushing people about? slapping people?
may I remind you- those officers are now suspended and awaiting criminal charges?
and you cant work out why they dont sort out youths?
its what you want... you wanted a Police that is afraid to touch people- you wanted a force that is scared to carry/draw weapons-
well now you have it...
deal.
02 October, 2009 17:02
You, frankly, are a disgrace.
02 October, 2009 17:24
This comment has been removed by the author.
02 October, 2009 17:39
ot quite, Copper Bottom.
Did you notice I led off by saying that I think the police in your country (my home country functions much, much better in terms of people's relationships with the police, despite the police being allowed to carry and use guns, and doing it quite often. Incidentally they're also perceived as doing a better job of protecting life and property and enforcing the law) are being badly wronged by the general media over this matter? No?
How about that I think it's ridiculous British police are expected to prevent crime, when police in properly functioning countries don't have that magical and magically stupid responsibility stuck on them? No?
Instead you suggest people like me drive drunk and speed (I've never done either, though my father-in-law, a local chief of police, reassured me that if I set my cruise control to 18 km over the limit I'd never get pulled over) and hate you for the G20.
And that what people like me want is a police force as absolutely ineffectual and Kafka-esque as the UK force has become. After I write admiringly about the way 200 Weeks dissected the problems in the UK as they pertain to these poor dead people.
Look, you're in an impossible situation professionally in your country, I appreciate that and I've got a lot of sympathy.
But seriously: if your knees jerked less, you wouldn't hit the law-abiding public on the chin so often. And then they might have a better chance of NOT recognizing themselves and their own vulnerabilities in a mentally disturbed dead woman whose complaints the coroner found were dangerously neglected by her local police force for a decade.
You deal.
02 October, 2009 17:41
dickiebo- a disgrace for what exactly?
saying the state of play?
as i say - equate your, and others here, suggestions of how to deal with youth anti-social crime with what happens when Police laid hands on people at the G20...
Arrests- oh yes... it was the Police that were arrested though...
Try this one- you are a Police officer now- your plan for sorting out the youths is?
oh- remember- if you assault them outside of a lawful use of force like an arrest- you are going to be suspended and likely jailed- minus your pension etc...
come one then... lets hear it...
02 October, 2009 17:49
paperchaser- can you read?
I didnt suggest you drink drive- i said, IF you drink drive you are treated the same as if you were to steal...
the point I was trying to make is- people in our country like to think that there are two types of citizen- the criminal and the citizen. They further go on to put themselves in the citizen box- and expect that the Police leave them alone- even if they commit criminal acts- like drink driving (a dangerous act likely to cause death and destruction).
Well- thats just not true...
We are supposed to treat ALL people the same -yes? if we did not- can you imagine the out cry?
Also, its just too difficult to decide who is at fault - thats why we have courts- and dont allow individuals (Police) to decide who is guilty... too much power would corrupt.
People think my comments are nasty- because i dare to type a fact about a case? I have stated above -I have every sympathy for the lady involved. That does not change the fact that - ultimately when alls said and done its the INDIVIDUAL that has to take responsibility for their own actions...
To suggest otherwise is creating a dangerous premise... that other peoples actions made someone behave as they do...
i.e. my example of the man killing his kids and himself because ex-wifey wont allow contact.
Justified? not in my book... not by a long shot.
I wish the deleted comment was published btw...
what was it?
02 October, 2009 18:02
It really is quite simple! If the police 'service' is so bad that a decent copper feels uncomfortable about things, then he should resign! Because, if enough did, things WOULD change.
Oh and before you ask the obvious; Yes. I did resign, - and not under a cloud, - after having served for 15 years, on a matter of principle between self and Sir Robert Mark.
02 October, 2009 18:10
if you resign- you cant change anything...
you cant make your own little contribution...
I am on your side- really...
i just dispair
02 October, 2009 18:32
"I just despair..."
I'm sounding out my doctor about voluntary euthanasia!!!
02 October, 2009 19:29
"Julia- 'exercising her lawful right?'- to stop a father seeing his child- and stopping a child from seeing their father?"
If she has a court order to do so, yes. And if not, he has the option to go to court himself, does he not?
"OK- in a nutshell- this lady was not a victim...The only victim here is the daughter"
Wrong.
As has been pointed out by other people to whom you are also not listening, so I won't waste any more of my time on you.
Except: "Try this one- you are a Police officer now- your plan for sorting out the youths is?"
I believe I asked YOU that question above. Care to answer it, or would you prefer to bleat a little more about how the whole world is against you and things are too complicated, so you'd rather arrest everything that moves, and let the courts (or the coroner) sort it out?
02 October, 2009 19:53
as i indicated 'julia' children are NOT the property of mummy... She would have no more 'right' to stop contact than dad does to end their lives...
sure- I will answer it...
it takes a village to raise a child- its a problem of society - not the Police.
when they get to us- its too late.
the prob can only really be addressed in the same way any problem is- by consequences and directing the youths to those cons if they breach..
02 October, 2009 21:01
opps should re can not is..
02 October, 2009 23:05
I think the trolls are full now...
02 October, 2009 23:31
I find the attitude and comments of "pcdc copper bottom" really quite alarming and offensive. He comes across as a woman hater loud and clear. Fiona Pilkington quite clearly ended her and her daughters lives out of desperation and despair, because NO ONE CARED ENOUGH TO HELP HER. That is, IF she DID actually set fire to the car herself. What proof is there that she did? Considering the documented fact that she and her family were VICTIMS of a relentless hate campaign, and official indifference to that fact.
Suicide is a very convenient verdict and one that has been used repeatedly to explain the deaths of people who WERE MURDERED.
I smell a big fat evil rat here.
03 October, 2009 00:54
"as i indicated 'julia' children are NOT the property of mummy... She would have no more 'right' to stop contact than dad does to end their lives..."
Except, of course, that wasn't actually an answer, was it?
And neither is this: "sure- I will answer it...
it takes a village to raise a child- its a problem of society - not the Police.
when they get to us- its too late."
That's a pretty weak way of dodging the question. I hope you do better on the witness stand, or you may be one more reason why the court system fails so many victims.
Let's repeat your words, the ones that lead to that question, shall we? "People also need to take more responsibility for their neighbours and friends instead of shutting their curtains and hoping someone else will do the job."
Which 'someone else'? As you can see, someone didn't do their job, and now it falls to you - representing the forces of law and order - to do it.
Yet you would rather charge 'friends and neighbours' with action. So, what action, that will allow them to stay within the law?
Because we've seen that, for the 71 year old disabled war widow, it can't be poking them in the chest with a finger. And the elderly gay couple in Northfleet that I referenced on my own blog, and Gadget's, if my comment ever shows up - despite having a definite 'ism' to play, found no relief until they moved and went into hiding.
Perhaps that is the action you think the friends and neighbours of Fiona Pilkington should have taken, is it? Helping her to move?
If so, I wish you'd simply be honest and say so.
Otherwise, I'm going to have to agree with 'anon' above (though not about the suicide verdict - that, I'm afraid, is nonsense).
03 October, 2009 05:35
ok jools- I will spell it out nice and slowly-
My point was (ok it was a bit clumsy) is that when we are dealing with murder etc the reasons why are important-yes- but they do not detract from the act itself.
I have been in a situation where me ex (for no reason the court could find) stopped contact with my sons- they were very upset and so was I. However, no matter how angry I felt- how upset- how depressed- I still could not see how men (and women for that matter -as per recent news) could murder their own children. For spite, for revenge for anything... just cant see or condone such an act in any way.
You want me- an ordinary sort to solve a problem you cant- and a problem that has taxed the greatest minds in history? Not really very fair. However- I think more appropriate thinking is - stop it BEFORE it gets to this level.
I will say that the children that caused this poor woman to enter a mindset where she thought (wrongly) that the only way out is suicide and murder- are for the most part beyond my (and anyone else) power to change their way of thinking.
Unless, they actually want to... The only way to get them to want to change is to make their way of life less appealing in some way- and an alternative lifestyle more appealing.
This can be done in three ways -yes? carrot, stick or both.
If the parents of those children are incapable of controlling them- they need removing... however, this often has a pretty damaging effect on them- and will often make it worse.
The real problem we have here is children that have never had any appropriate boundaries- no line drawn. They will also have had in-appropriate boundaries- punished for things that dont matter v. things that do.
Children naturally push the line- if you have a decent parent this is stopped at a certain point- these kids likely have had no such correction- so when they meet other parents that do have those boundaries and enforce them - it causes cases like above.
There is no simple answer- to these problems. We as a society have created a strata of people that care little for the Police/legal system etc. There is no real fear of what will happen to you anymore- nice idea but it leads directly to the above. The only thing I can think of doing is to arrest the people involved in the
disorders/asb etc... what else can Police do? we are not teachers/mps/doctors/social workers.
For me- Police action was poor- and should have been more robust and direct. I know what I would have done- and have done in the past.
I would have turned the game- and made THEIR lives difficult. I would have made myself visible- I would have gathered evidence (in person) of the ASB and stuck them in front of a court every time. I would have also looked at alternative ways of getting the message over- years ago I had a group of 17-18 yo girls living next to nice family and causing all sorts of issues. They were prostitutes- having people over at all hours- I watched them a few nights in a row- then wrote to all of the punters - advising them I was noting reg numbers and contacting the keepers (some were the wives of the drivers- so didnt go down too well)... then I spoke to the landlord- and advised him it might be interpreted he was living of immoral earnings etc... he threw them out...
they ended up in another borough... now- I did try to speak to the girls first - of course- but they just told me to f*** off... so, I did above...
It can be done- if you have the time to do it...
03 October, 2009 10:16
part two- big post...
Perhaps I did not make myself too clear above- so again, I will spell it out to the people saying I am so nasty-
WHAT HAPPENED TO THIS LADY WAS WRONG.
WHAT HAPPENED TO THIS LADY MAY HAVE BEEN PREVENTABLE.
WHAT HAPPENED TO THIS LADY WAS A TRAGEDY.
WHAT HAPPENED TO THIS LADY WAS NOT THE POLICE'S FAULT.
WE ARE ALL TO BLAME IN SOME WAY.
there... as to anons 'miss marple' murder theory- lol...
I dont hate women- i dont hate anyone... I dont like what some women do- my ex for example- but equally i dont like what some divorced men do either.
what i do object to - is julia's comment suggesting that mummies can basically do what they want with their children as if they in some way COMPLETELY own them. That winds me up big time.
As to the 71-year old woman- I cant believe:
1. it got anywhere near a court.
2. it got to paper.
I really despair of the mind set of some of my fellow officers... I know what I would have done...
I would not have put pen to paper until i had spoken to both parties... then I would have like as not - crimed the assault AND the damage...
Arrested the 17-year old ...
Spoke to granny by appointment... (what idiot arrests a 71- year old!!!???)
put some paperwork together- spoke to CPS- both of these cases are not in the public interest to prosecute - MR/MRS CPS lawyer would no-doubt say 'ok officer'...
end of...
then have a word in both shell like ears - to granny- 'be careful my lover- some kids will kill you for less'
give her my personal number.
to 17-year old-'if i find out you are doing anything to this lady again- i will make it my lifes work to find something to put you in front of a court for -k?
just what i would have done... dont make it a template...
just one more item-
'Fiona Pilkington quite clearly ended her and her daughters lives out of desperation and despair, because NO ONE CARED ENOUGH TO HELP HER'
yes- likely- but no one is not 'Police' ... how many other agencies should be in the frame here? why reach for the Police?
03 October, 2009 10:16
OK - here is my bit:
If there had been a known child molester on that Estate, the locals would have formed a mob and thrown him out.
They didn't do the same to protect someone with a disabled child.
THE POINT:
The locals can and do take action when they feel seriously enough about something. They didn't and wouldn't over this.
Which leaves us. In the old days, when we fucked up there was always the feelings of the community to deal with. Now; so long as the Giro arrives and the Housing is paid for (unless it's a Child Molester) they don't give a flying one. So we can't afford to fuck up any more because society don't care about each other.
This wouldn't have happened in my village under any circumstances; police action or not. Period.
03 October, 2009 12:54
"I have been in a situation where me ex (for no reason the court could find) stopped contact with my sons- they were very upset and so was I. However, no matter how angry I felt- how upset- how depressed- I still could not see how men (and women for that matter -as per recent news) could murder their own children."
Well, that shows at least why you chose such a left-field example! Of course, that's because you are (one would hope) in your right mind.
Fiona Pilkington was not - she started out with learning difficulties, yet lived to the ripe age of 38 and had children, so they were not severe. Then in the last years she was driven over the edge by the unwillingness of first the parents of these oxygen thieves, and then the authorities, to help her.
"I will say that the children that caused this poor woman to enter a mindset where she thought (wrongly) that the only way out is suicide and murder- are for the most part beyond my (and anyone else) power to change their way of thinking."
If they are incorrigable, then let's admit that. Let's not listen for once to the siren calls of the child psychologists and social workers and admit 'failure'. Then make sure they aren't allowed to run free and make everyone's live a misery.
"It can be done- if you have the time to do it..."
That's the point, though. It can be done. It wasn't.
03 October, 2009 13:08
"what i do object to - is julia's comment suggesting that mummies can basically do what they want with their children as if they in some way COMPLETELY own them."
Then you totally misread my comment, or misinterpreted it, based on your own personal circumstances, as outlined above.
03 October, 2009 13:09
"The locals can and do take action when they feel seriously enough about something. They didn't and wouldn't over this."
The various reports a few weeks ago were that other families were being harassed by the culprits in the Pilkington street. Now, maybe it is just opportunism, and maybe they wanted their names in the papers.
But maybe, just maybe, there wasn't enough of the 'good' locals to do anything against the 'bad' locals.
What should they have done? I'd say start looking for Yul Brynner and Steve McQueen, but we're in England, not Mexico...
03 October, 2009 13:12
oh the magnificent seven... a thin hollywood rip off of the great 'Seven Samurai' by Akira Kurosawa..
Gadget has a point- I have had success in the past with locals not standing for druggies and moped riding idiots...
These idiots thrive on lack of action and fear...
When the locals turn that on them - they dont like it...
Look at the ladies in Ireland and their success against one of the most ruthless terror groups in history -the PIRA.
Julia- ultimately the Police cannot Police on their own. They need the help of the public.
Think of all of these types of issues that go on - day after day in the UK and how few end up in the press...
Someone is doing it right...
For me- these issues and incidents are similar to the situation the NHS faces... 99.999 % of the time they do a great job
- however, when it goes wrong- its in the press and everyone is demanding an enquiry etc...
for us- its just another day.
for your info- after 20-years of coppering- i am actively looking for another job outside the Police- I just
have had enough of the way we are treated.
Save you a bit on pension eh?
03 October, 2009 13:59
"Julia- ultimately the Police cannot Police on their own. They need the help of the public."
Indeed. And if the police had only remembered that - at ALL levels - and striven to keep the public on their side, things might be different...
"Save you a bit on pension eh?"
Not necessarily. It's always a shame to see the good ones go, because you know there's a chance the next one in to replace them will be a NuLab-licking, lazy politically-correct ladder-climber.
03 October, 2009 14:58
just look at this one thread alone...
see how much people hate us...
could you do a job where you are so hated?
I dont tell people I am a Police officer anymore- I just say I work in the IT industry or I work in an office.
easier than hearing how they were stopped for speeding and they were only doing 1-mph over the limit etc...
I have passed initial papersift/aptitude tests etc... just waiting for final interview...
its a 10k pay drop... and i will have to wait for my pension for another 10-years but...
its going to be worth it.
03 October, 2009 17:13
I sympathize with you there. I did it - and survived to tell the tale!! If you're not comfortable with things, then you know in your heart that they are wrong. Despite all the mud-slinging by idiots.
03 October, 2009 17:34
I think Gadget has put it better than I did. I don't know whether its a good thing or a bad thing that many local communities or villages don't police themselves any more for any myriad reason why.
It doesn't surprise me that the one resident and councillor who started the petition to kick out the 'offending' family was the age she was. Once all the people that were involved in the war have passed on there will be rare few people with the gumption to stand up.
For good reason- look at all the cases where someone has stood up to a group of youths and been killed or near killed for his efforts. But that just brings me straight back to my first point above that there is no punishment and deterrent in society any more. Look at one of Gadgets recent highlights about Goldsack. Even if we had taken every call Ms Pilkington had made and arrested suspect every darn time he would have recieved no meaningful punishment or deterrent and it would've been a matter of a longer time before the same sad ending.
So the end result is Police are expected to sort out everything and when we can't do it (or even when do, but the courts release them straight back out) - we get vilified.
03 October, 2009 20:12
Did she ask the council for a move to a different estate?.
If not. Why not?.
If she did then why was she not granted it?.
Is it then the council's fault?.
Did she seek mental health treatment?.
Was she able to get through to the crisis team (9-5 Mon to Fri) when she felt like she needed support?.
If she didnt get the support she requred off them then is it the Mental Health team's fault?.
A few things that may need to be considered before the finger pointing continues.
I have a feeling that this lady will have been well known to quite a few of the agencies.
PC A HUNN
04 October, 2009 02:16
Of course Fiona Pilkington would have been "well known" to quite a few of the agencies - she had a disabled daughter who went to a special school. This nanny state sticks its big beaky nose into everyones lives these days, with the help of the various prying, snooping, all intrusive, reording all the details of everyones lives "agencies".
It was reported in the Mail that Fiona and her husband bought the house she lived in with her children, from the council years ago, before her marriage fell apart, as many do. So it wasn't up to the council to re-house her.
My understanding is, that Fiona was dyslexic. Dyslexia does not mean she was a mental defective, nor of low intelligence, nor stupid. Dyslexia means the brain works differently, is more creative, but has difficulty mainly with remembering how to spell words, or sometimes with reading them, or with understanding mathematics. It varies in how it affects people, and how severe it can be. Albert Einstien was a dyslexic, who was written off by his teacher in school. True dyslexics have a higher than average IQ and can be gifted, creatively. But the ignorance of many in this system, including the police, dismiss dyslexics as "inferior beings".
And as for the convenient verdict of "suicide" - too right that is NONSENSE - complete nonsense. Fiona Pilkington WAS MURDERED, as was her daughter. The suicide verdict is nothing more than a smoke-screen to hide the appalling truth, and to make a scapegoat out of a terrorised victim, Fiona, and the feral yobs who were allowed to abuse her and her kids, year on year.
Incidentally, some people said that it was "nonsense" to the suggestion, or rather the insight, that Michael Jackson was in fact murdered. He was, with the use of drugs, to first get him addicted to them, and then to kill him.
Another official "suicide" verdict in 2003, was complete "nonsense", regarding Dr David Kelly.
I am not comparing Fiona Pilkington to either the superstar Michael Jackson, or Dr Kelly, but they were all innocent victims of ruthless, evil minded people, who just don't care. The dark side of humanity, swept under the rug and generally hidden from the public.
Except when the evil minded ones who are caught, are MoP's, and then the system names and shames them. But very rarely do they shame their own evil Bastards.
04 October, 2009 05:45
Interesting debate Bloggsy. A bit of a red herring thrown in by PCDC Copper Botty. By comparing the selfish and obviously psycho dad who gassed his two children in the car, on Mothers day, wasn't it?.... to mothers who stop contact with dads, as his own ex-wifey had done with him. What has THAT got to do with the deaths of Fiona Pilkington and her daughter?
I fail to see the connection at all. Fiona's kids still had contact with their dad. There was no issue with her ex husband, and no actual real evidence that she did in fact commit the terrible act of murdering her own child and then suicide.
It's ALL SPECULATION, and assumptions, because she was driven to depression by prolonged abuse of her and her family. The fact she was depressed by the situation and police et al indifference to her and her childrens suffering, is NOT evidence that she killed her daughter and then herself. It is evidence of system negligence and failure, at least.
It may come as a bit of a surprise to some men, but it takes a full time mother to "raise a child", with the help of a good dad. If mum and dad split up, the job gets a bit harder for mum, who will still want dad involved with the raising of the child. However, if dad is an abusive bully, an ego maniac control freak, or a jealous and spiteful ex, who undermines her relationship with the child, or he is a negative influence upon the child, or he frightens the child, or exposes the child to damaging influences/situations, the mother has A DUTY to protect that child from harm.
It isn't about "ownership" of a child, which was always the male view of family life - his rights - his will - his authority - his family - to be dominated and controlled by him. It's in the male psyche to dominate females, and children, which is exactly what the dad who gassed his kids in his car did, to spite his ex wife. If she was reducing contact between him and those kids, maybe that was because he was frightening them and her, by behaving like a psycho. That's the usual reason a mum will stop contact, to PROTECT her children.
And these days, this "paternal" system appears to think it "owns" the public's children.
The whole system has gone crazy. Police arresting a 71 yr old granny for poking a finger in a youths chest. That does nothing to help improve public confidence in the police.
If the parents of the feral youths got tough with them, physical, tough parental discipline, you can be sure as eggs are eggs, that social workers and police would be bringing all their powers down on top of the parents heads, like a ton of bricks, all in the name of "child protection".......
Alan Johnson, Home Sec - this mess needs a magic wand - urgently please. How can parents keep unruly kids in check, when those kids know damn well that THEY have all the power to get their parents in deep trouble with the police and social services? All they have to do is say, s/he hit me, and then sit back and watch the fireworks begin.
The PM said that he was going to get tough on anti social behaviour recently, by making the parents "pay the price" for the bad behaviour of their children.
Marvelous! They undermine parental authority and then blame the parents when the kids run wild.
Proper joined up thinking again, just for a change.......
04 October, 2009 08:07
That's the usual reason a mum will stop contact, to PROTECT her children
ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha lol...
not out of spite then- only out of protecting the kids?
why did my ex do it then? I have no history of violence, none against her (she was the vilent one - hence me leaving), none against children ...
she did it out of spite.
as to the connection- ok i will spell it out... the kids behaviour caused her to kill her daughter and herself...
the wifes actions caused him to kill his kids and himself...
ok with one -but not the other?
I dont like it either- they both are the same- different reasons -sure- but actions are the same...
anyway.
04 October, 2009 09:57
There seems to be an awful lot of invective above on both sides of the fence, none of which does much to convince me either way. My thoughts (for what they're worth) are:
1. It does seem that the system let Mrs Pilkington down and Leicestershire police have to suck up their part in it.
2. It doesn't seem unreasonable to speculate that anyone who chooses death by fire for themselves and their own daughter has 'issues' beyond the depression that caused the suicidal thoughts, however they were caused.
3. 33 calls in 10 years doesn't seem a lot for someone being 'persecuted'. I have plenty of experience of dealing with these kinds of cases with mixed success and generally victims in that much fear will make that many calls a month. Rightly or wrongly once they are that scared they will ring in every time youths stand still for more than 5 minutes in the street. I'm making no judgement, because the fear is genuine. In terms of being a 'persistent caller' Mrs Pilkington didn't even come close. The depth of feeling to cause you to set fire to your own kid doesn't tally with the number of calls.
4. Again from personal experience, Gadget is spot on with the Goldsack case. Even when the police and partner agencies have thrown the full weight of the law and legislation at offenders the likelihood is that due to lack of significant punishment at court, the final outcome is the same only the offenders feel even more 'untouchable' and the victims truely feel they have reached the end of the line. In this case there would still be two dead people, the blame would just be different.
5. Finally to Anonymous above regarding police attitudes to dyslexics. There are loads of dyslexics working as police officers. I work very closely with one. They have nothing but my total admiration for being able to do the job given the amount of paperwork we deal with. We deal with so many people with so many serious mental issues that dyslexia wouldn't even register as a reason to judge someone. Police officers don't live in a bubble, there isn't some special gene that stops police officers' families containing dyslexics. Mine does.
04 October, 2009 18:19
well - Anonymous- I am a serving Police officer- and I am dyslexic.
Sure its mild...
but I have found - that thanks to computer programs - I am able to function as anyone else would...
The Police knew when they hired me... so, your thinking does not seem quite right...
04 October, 2009 22:25
Hmmm. Anon above. How was she murdered again?. I fail to see how pouring petrol over yourself and setting yourself on fire is murder. Its suicde. She had a choice to do that and thats what she did. She did murder her daughter however.
I agree that the police did let her down very badly. But I am sure alot of other agencies also had a part to play and did not come up trumps either.
To suggest murder and also to bring Michael Jackson and Dr. Kelly into the argument just makes me think you might need to adjust your tin foil hat to stop the "beams" affecting your thoughts again.
PC A HUNN
04 October, 2009 23:41
So, PC clever clogs know it all [above].....You were there were you? You watched her commit the act of murdering her child and her own "suicide". Got some kind of special gift have you, that enables you to see anonymous people wearing tin foil hats? That is such an old and worn out put down, used by arrogant men [and the guilty] for decades. Yawn.....It sounds like your head is so big and swollen, that you must have hit it on a "beam" somewhere constable. Not a detective are you? [Hope not!]
05 October, 2009 00:04
Ah, PCDC Copper Botty, a fellow dyslexic eh? So you never noticed all the put downs on Coppersblog and others, about spelling mistakes in comments? Some cops took great exception to them, assuming that those who made the spelling errors must be thick, or lacking an education.
There's nowt wrong with MY thinking sunshine! You may also be unaware of the fact that the Education system is split, [or was] and has those who "think" that dyslexia doesn't exist - isn't a real physical condition. They also disputed the genuine nature of ADHD too, and believe that some parents claim that their children have a learning disability just to get special treatment for them! Social workers can be of the same opinion, as can health professionals. It has taken a long time to establish scientific proof, that both dyslexia and ADHD are real physical conditions. Some claim that a large percentage of the male prison population are dyslexics who were not helped in school. ADHD kids get ASBO's, and their parents get blamed for their bad behaviour.......
I will however concede, that some parents do act out of spite and revenge, and use kids as ammunition, or pawns to hurt an ex partner. If that's what genuinely happened to you, then you do have my sincere sympathy. You didn't wind her up then, with hurtful remarks or put downs? Perfect are you? Or did you find someone else and rub her nose in it?
I have experience of this sort of situation too, and I know that it IS a living nightmare that damages all concerned, kids and parents alike. A lose lose situation, that kids are better off not being exposed to whilst parents are still upset and angry. It's very sad how passionate love can sometimes turn to hate, isn't it?
Mac - dyslexia is not a "mental issue" but many appear to assume that it is. You are obviously one of the enlightened ones on that score. I agree that the dyslexia gene does affect police officers' families. It's in mine too, and nothing to be ashamed of. It's in Her Majesty's family too - Princess Beatrice is a dyslexic.
But that does not stop some people in the system from assuming a negative opinion about a family who are dyslexics, or who have other "learning disabilities". It is often used a a slur against someone, along with other labels, like "single mum", council estate, and benefits. To some people that appears to be a reason to hate those with that label stuck on them by the system, and the media.
Hatred is a motive for murder.
05 October, 2009 00:56
Oh dear, it never rains but it pours. With the Irish voting yes to the Lisbon Treaty, that the UK public were denied a vote on anyway, signed up to by an unelected PM, without a mandate to do that on our behalf; There appears to be an assumption that it will be passed, and that we will get a 'President Blair' to rule over us.
Even if Blair didn't get the job, we can look forward to even MORE NONSENSE from the EU, and the total destruction of our values, heritage and our way of life, AND H.M's once fine police force. The Lisbon Treaty and rule by Brussels is a huge mistake. I dread to think what nonsense they will impose regarding child protection legislation. Are kids in the EU countries as feral as they are in the UK? Or is it just this country that has screwed up on the discipline issue? Does anyone know the answer to that please?
05 October, 2009 01:16
Ellie the Trolls are loose again. Running about with their foil lined underwear on their heads dribbling paranoia about murder and dyslecxia.
Fancy starting another topic off. I think this one is all trolled out.
HUNN
05 October, 2009 13:15
I think the argument on this thread misses the point, by almost everyone concerned.
The point is not who should get the blame (reflective of the culture in the public services management though), but who should have taken responsibility for her and made sure she didnt get to that point mentally (whether or not it was the harrassment - and in all honesty 33 calls in 10 years isn't much - although i suppose that doesn't reflect what she didnt call in due to lack of faith in the system).
It's actually quite sad that all the "partner agencies" can say "we did everything right" as it means the system isn't worth a damn.
05 October, 2009 19:42
I'm pretty shocked that you can draw a comparison between 'Patricia Levy' and Fiona Pilkington who you state you "don't know anything about"
I work for a Social Services department. We have dealt with people like Patricia Levy who make a high volume of what could be regarded as 'nuiscance calls' to all the services, but who are also very vulnerable. We also deal with vulnerable people like Fiona Pilkington who are targeted in their communities because of their vulnerability.
As the commentor above points out Fiona Pilkington did not make a high number of calls. The level of calls she made does not seem unreasonable and the Council stated there are ongoing issues with the family in question.
Like you I do not know the full facts of the case. I do understand that the basis of the story is that a vulnerable family received a level of harassment which resulted in a tragic outcome.
All I can say is what should happen in a similar case. Firstly the police should have responded to the reports of anti-social behaviour. They should have reported concerns to Social Services via their Safeguarding Adults procedure. Social Services should then have followed this up and offered support. There would be a number of options, practical support to manage carer stress, support to make a management move to alternative accomodation, and the involvement of medical professionals. An assessment should have been carried out and any concerns about Fiona Pilkingtons ability to cope should have been flagged up.
Your comparison of the two cases is in my mind quite worrying.
05 October, 2009 22:29
Now, more than ever, it would be fun to see someone actually do something to stop this from happening again, like detectives detecting, coppers coppering, and plods plodding. Fewer faceless jobsworth administrators, a few less business executives, I.T specialists and Car park filling HR desk warmers. Get out there and start doing what you are supposed to do, instead of whining about how hard it is, and finding as many excuses as there are days in the week. Excuses are like a**holes, you all have one!
06 October, 2009 00:16
lol- coming from you- thats quite a compliment...
I bet you are an estate agent or sales exec...
jerk
06 October, 2009 16:44
Vitual Supply,
If you took the trouble to actually read the posts and comments on this and other police blogs you'd realise that they are almost exlusively the former group complaining that the latter group prevent them doing what they're supposed to do.
So who exactly were you having a pop at? Have the sense to realise when you're preaching to the choir.
06 October, 2009 23:19
The connection , or comparrison between Patricia Levy and Fiona Pilkington, is worrying, but I see it Bloggsy. Both are "victims" of abuse, who have not really been helped by the system. There are some in society, all walks of life, the professions not excluded, who hate "victims"......and "secretly want them to die"......because "victims" of abuse, who are upset by the experience, are often seen as a drain upon scarce resources, to be treated with indifference, at best, and at worst, well........
08 October, 2009 00:42
LET US HAVE BLOGGS *OUTED* AND BOOTED OUT.
IT WILL BE A LONG HAUL CLEANING OUT UK POLICE AND WE MAY NEVER BE FINISHED BUT THE JOB STARTS WITH A LARGE SHOVELFUL OF THE NEAREST TRASH.
10 October, 2009 10:18
lol...
WARNING!
TROLL ALERT...
10 October, 2009 12:51
It takes a special kind of mindset to incinerate yourself and your child. I can see why this lady was regarded as being mentally ill in some way. But before dismissing this tragic event as someone not being protected from themself, there is always the possibility that this lady was perfectly normal before the yobbishness occurred...but years of being worn down by that and the difficulties of raising a child with problems, with little support, might simply have taken its toll. Who is to say any of us would not have done the same, if not this way, then another? Early intervention by the police against anti social behaviour might have made the difference. But we will never know now will we...
10 October, 2009 16:19
I came to sites such as this after reading Insp. Gadget's, Pc Bloggs and PC Copperfield's blog owing to having had my own 'encounters' with the police...namely being thrown out of my own home for nothing so my girlfriend could move her boyfriend in...refusal of the police to investigate loans being taken out in my name (knew who what and when...what else do the police really need??)...and been the target of malicious accusations by my ex about damaging a car...accusations that included provable lies...but I still had to accept an invitation 'for a chat' at the station... Yes I am bitter about the arrogant way the police behaved and despite what some officers think, people aren't against them...until they have to deal with them...I've come to realise that too many officers have no personality and simply rely on their uniform to enforce compliance (in the first incident above I was told to get out of my house or I would be arrested for 'a possible breach of the peace'...and no I wasn't ranting or shouting or 'kicking off' and had witness of unimpeachable character there who was astonished at the way the officers behaved) I left my house, posessions and baby son with the shirt on my back and little else. My son was abandoned on my doorstep within weeks. The officers had refused to speak to my health visitor or anyone else who might have told them that, actually, mum was not interested and was never there. So yes, I have nothing but contempt for the police because of the way I was treated and the whitewashed report they produced in response to my complaint (I dont know why police bloggers regard the Professional Standards Unit with trepidation...they will take good care of you) I hate not being able to trust the police or regard them as an example of the (diminishing) number of institutions in Britain that are worth anything...but my experiences just won't let me. Sorry guys and guyess', thats just the way it is.
10 October, 2009 16:44
''(I dont know why police bloggers regard the Professional Standards Unit with trepidation...they will take good care of you) ""
lol...
you have never been interviewed by them- that is for certain..
You blame the Police for losing your home?
I lost mine (I OWNED IT before I met my ex) because of the civil law... NOT THE POLICE and neither did you...
as to loans- its the banks that requested we stop investigating... they didnt like us meddling in their accounts I guess...
12 October, 2009 07:03
Oi, Inspector Detox. If you really are looking for evil trash, focus your attention on Uniform Patrol = Fiona Pilkington and her daughter = BOTH MURDERED by them.
One would sincerely hope PCDC Copper Bottom, that the PSD would not "look after them" one bit. However, this and previous governments [Home Office]have been more concerned with not "bringing the force into disrepute" than the abuse and murder of innocents, done by bad apples in the force, and the judiciary, who have ruled the corrupted roost. So far......
13 October, 2009 00:54
<< Home