« Concrete them over - Part 6 | Main | Al keeps the air-con turned up »

Plod plods

Woman who foiled bike thief locked up | Uk News | News | Telegraph

A woman who chased and caught a bicycle thief ended up in police cells for 10 hours on suspicion of assault.

Wendy Challis-Jones, 39, a former traffic warden and store detective, was driving home when when she spotted a man chasing a youth on a bicycle. He was yelling at him to stop and claiming he had stolen the bicycle.

Miss Challis-Jones pulled over and allowed the man into the passenger seat of her car, before giving chase. She pulled her car in front of the thief and pulled him off the stolen bicycle. He lunged forward and she struck out, grabbed the bicycle and pushed the thief away from it.

When police arrived at the scene in York they arrested the man. But Miss Challis-Jones said: "It was then that I heard a frightening, aggressive voice shout 'You. Stop there. Don't move.'

"I turned to see a police officer, who arrested me on suspicion of assault.

"I couldn't believe it. I then spent 10 hours in a filthy police cell with food smeared on the walls and an open toilet with no flush.

"I had my fingerprints taken, DNA, mugshots, they even took my jewellery and shoes away. I just felt humiliated. I spent almost four hours crying, thinking I was going to prison.

"It was six hours before I was interviewed and then another four before I was finally released with no further action taken.....

Insp Nigel Slater, of North Yorkshire police, said: ..."We are grateful to her for challenging this youth but I would warn the public that they must use only reasonable force. We can only apologise for the length of time she was detained."

No, Inspector Noddy Slater, what you could do is get your fucking act together, a five minute interview at the scene is the maximum it needed to sort this out, put the woodentop who dragged her in onto cleaning the cells for a week and send her a big bunch of flowers. As for yourself, go and reread Peel's Principles of Policing.

Peels Nine Principles of Policing

The basic mission for which the police exist is to prevent crime and disorder.

The ability of the police to perform their duties is dependent upon public approval of police actions.

Police must secure the willing co-operation of the public in voluntary observance of the law to be able to secure and maintain the respect of the public.

The degree of co-operation of the public that can be secured diminishes proportionately to the necessity of the use of physical force.

Police seek and to preserve public favour, not by pandering to public opinion, but by constantly demonstrating absolutely impartial service to law, in complete independence of policy, and without regard to the justice or injustices of the substance of individual laws; by ready offering of individual service and friendship to all members of the public without regard to their wealth or social standing; by ready exercise of courtesy and friendly good humour; and by ready offering of individual sacrifice in protecting and preserving life.

Police use physical force only when the exercise of persuasion, advice and warning is found to be insufficient to obtain public cooperation to an extent necessary to secure observance of law or to restore order; and to use only the minimum degree of physical force which is necessary on any particular occasion for achieving a police objective.

Police, at all times, should maintain a relationship with the public that gives reality to the historic tradition that the police are the public and the public are the police; the police being only members of the public who are paid to give full-time attention to duties which are incumbent on every citizen in the interests of community welfare and existence.

Police must recognize always the need for strict adherence to police-executive functions, and to refrain from even seeming to usurp the powers of the judiciary of avenging individuals or the state, and of authoritatively judging guilt and punishing the guilty.

The test of police efficiency is the absence of crime and disorder, not the visible evidence of police action in dealing with it.

These nine principles were set forth by Sir Robert Peel, the founder of the British Police in 1822 a


I don't think "rereading" them is the operative term. I don't suppose Inspector Savage-Slater has ever read them. My experience and that of many others is that the police farce has universally abandoned such principles. The police are responsible for creating the them and us situation that exists between them and much of the public. They also regularly usurp the power of the judiciary and of government.

They victimise the innocent because it is easy, the villains lie and get solicitors, the innocent have very little to do with the solicitors and then only for wills and house buying. The police now consider that they are the law and we the normally law abiding must suffer from their illiterate ravings. Like the policeman I spoke to on the 'phone recently who wasn't a bit interested, so I suggested that since we paid for him he owed us something. His retort was that "you don't, the government do". A*****le

In that situation I would refuse to give DNA and prints until I had been charged and I would of demanded a solicitor straight away! No way should that ever have been allowed to occur. Wrongful arrest is what I see!

If she had carried out an arrest of the bike thief (theft being an indictable offence and therefore arrestable by any person without warrant) and the officer's behaviour impeded her bringing the alleged thief before a Charge Sergeant, I would seriously consider having the constable charged with obstruction of justice or similar.

No wonder crime is soaring in this country, government statistics to the contrary.

She should sue the police for wrongfull arrest.

The police need to take tougher action against all criminals and be more sensitive to victims and people who aprehend criminals.
When convicted, criminals should face tougher jail conditions. Attempts should be made to rehabilitate, educate etc. but get rid of TV's etc. Jail should be hard time. You earn remission by reforming. Offend again and a jail term should be even tougher.


The principles have been peeled away, and what's revealed is scaberous.

I've been seeing stories like this for years, and I've always managed to convince myself that it's not the individual coppers that are at fault, it's the ridiculous, asinine restrictions imposed on them by their cretinous masters (not least among which are a string of the most incompetent Home Secretaries ever to draw breath).

But it's not, is it? Some of the coppers are cretins as well. Or did this joker arrest the good citizen to prevent the villain's brief from claiming that he should have done but didn't?

Will you PLEASE stop posting stories like this? My blood pressure, already stratospheric, just goes off like a geyser when I read another one.

I'm warning you: my lawyers (Seven Savage Jews, Inc) will be after you if I'm found dead of apoplexy at my laptop, with the page open at one of these stories.

Post a comment