Mother followed home by plain clothes policeman for threatening to smack her child in a supermarket!

[wheelsonthebus]

Extraordinary.

www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1226056/Mother-trailed-policeman-warned-council-telling-son-checkou t.html

[seeker]

I knew before I clicked on this thread that it would be the Daily Mail again - that paper of record!

Next week it will be railing against the authorities "doing nothing" when a child is seriously injured by its parent or carer.

[Oblomov]

seeker, disagree. not with the DM comment. I mean we all know they sensationalise everything.

But we can't compare the 2. Baby P , authorities did make mistakes. plethora of mistakes. they have to be accountable for that.
This story. the woman was investigated and it should have been noted on the file that it was not assault/ or illegal or whatever. then it is closed. not a warning to her of a black mark.
If you are accused of a crime , taken to court and found to be innocent, that SHOULD be the end of it, non ?

But these 2 are the 2 extremes of the spectrum.
and can not be compared.
eveyr time there is a threa don MN at the mo, someone mentions baby p or victoria coulbie. but those were very extreme cases. they can not be compared to ... not that this is the case here, but can not be compared to say a mn'er who smacked once and then felt ashamed.
because the 2 are non comparable.

[FreeTheGuidoOne]

Oh I don't know. Physical admonishment and threatening behaviour probably should stay on your record.

If I'd hit an adult and later threatened 'a hiding' in public, I would hope to God it would go on my permanent record. I think doubly so if it was a child.

[Hulababy]

The case will be closed surely? It just isn;t destroyed or removed entirely.

It is because in the past records such as these were not saved and kept "on record" that errors were so easily made. The paper trail is important if other accusations came to light int he future, for example.

This woman IMO doesn't have anything to fear. She should have just accepted that what she said was inappropriate and her threat to her child wrong, accepted that the police have to do their job and follow up accusations, esp in light of more recent cases.

She should not IMO made matters 100 times worse by going to the press. How does that hekp things? Oh yes - probably got her some cash

[thedollshouse]

Despite what your own personal views may be on smacking, it isn't actually illegal. Therefore if she used the words reported I cannot understand why it was considered a police issue, if she said I'm going to "batter" you in a minute it may be a different issue.

[FreeTheGuidoOne]

Smacking isn't illegal no. A hiding isn't a smack though.

Threatening behaviour is illegal. Leaving a mark on a child is illegal. And the police officer in question was responding to the children's reaction too. He must have seen something to warrant concern.

[Oblomov]

Free, you have missed dollshouse's comment. (mind you, it did come after your post !!)
Irrespective of our own personal views on smacking, in the UK currently it is not illegal. so the woman has committed no crime.
she has been investigated and they did not charge her.

[Hulababy]

Some may consider the term "good hiding" especially when teamed with the word "again" as being somewhat more than a tap on the hand or even a smack on the bottom.

IME of police they are not often "wooly liberals" so I imagine the police in question had to have seen and/or heard something that gave alarm. They have plenty of other stuff to do - I think we have to assume that this policeman felt this was higher priority for whatever reason s/he saw at that time.

[Hulababy]

Well smacking and leaving a mark is illegal isn't it? So, the only way for the police to check up on that would be to investigate further.

I still do not fell the police did wrong in this sitaution - from what we have read.

[Oblomov]

free, i don't have a problem with the officers concern.
or do I ?
I am not sure.
Never said anything untruthful ? Last night I said to dh " ds is driving me flippin insane".
But the truth is, I show no signs of mental illness.
We have to have common sense here.
Why was it left for 6 weeks before investigation ?

[Oblomov]

hulababy, no i'm not sure that the police did wrong. but it could have been handled better, i think. plus why has she got a black mark for the next 14 years ?

[Hulababy]

I don;t understad the 14 years bit. Does she say that or the police?

Or is her child say 2 or 4> (thinking that maybe she feels it will go against her until her child is 16 or 18 perhaps.

I assume the "black mark" means it stays on record. If she had no caution or anything it is not something she will ever have to acknolwedge or mention on CRB checks, etc. and will not be flagged up.

It will, presumably, just lay in a file somewhere just in case anything every occurs again in the future.

[BertieBotts]

I am a bit fed up with this argument of "If they say/do X in public, how much more terrible must they be doing behind closed doors??" - People who threaten to or actually do smack their children in public aren't likely to be looking around furtively to see if anyone's watching, they most likely don't see anything wrong with it - they don't see it as anything to hide. So they probably act exactly the same at home, not worse.

[FreeTheGuidoOne]

Of course we have to use common sense here. Absolutely.

We were not there. The police officer saw something. The statement from the police service said that the reaction from the children gave reasonable concern, coupled with the language used. I can say 'I'm coming to get you' to dd and it's a fun, shrieky giggly game. Somebody else saying to a child can be threatening them. I don't think we can say that just because smacking isn't illegal, then threats of physical violence do not matter.

It stays on record because as somebody says, the paper trail is necessary should anything occur in the future. If nothing occurs then she has no reason to worry. It avoids the 'why was nothing done at the time, why wasn't it noted' in 5yrs time in those situations where something was happening.

And why was it left for 6 weeks before investigation? Of course I don't know. I do know however that in the cases I have first hand knowledge of, the facts of the investigation are never fully revealed in the public domain and easy accusations of 'oh it was left 6 weeks, the police were doing nothing, it wasn't a problem after all' can be very, very wide of the mark. Of course you never find out the truth as it's confidential and involves child protection. I do allow that the 6 weeks might have indicated a lack of urgency but again we do not know.

I'm pleased a police officer responded and even more so am pleased that nothing is believed to be happening here.

[RemyMartin]

UQD - slapper??

[Oblomov]

Agree with Bertie.
With a lot of true abise, isn't it true that the person appears normal. Holly and jessica's man seemed quiet and was a caretaker. totally non descript.
the woman from the abusing nursery last month, seemed on the outside quite normal.

Not smacking and clipping children round the head in public all the time.

I am sure this is not always the case. but it often is. how do you KNOW that worse goes on at home ?

[theyoungvisiter]

It may not have been left for 6 weeks before investigation.

It was left for 6 weeks before she got a CALL. That's a bit different.

Possibly the police had spent those 6 weeks in touch with social services and schools to find out the facts. We don't know. All we have is this woman's side of it.

[seeker]

Interesting that people are outraged that this woman will have a note of this incident kept with the police for some time, but at the same time people don't see a problem with telling the police about cross dressers or people "looking a bit strange" and them having their detail on record at the police station "just in case'

[TheCrackFox]

TBH - I would like to hear the police officer's side of the story. I have seen some absolutely shocking things at supermarkets (once spoke to customer services about one but didn't hear the outcome) which have left me deeply upset and questioning what kind of home life these children have. Now, i am sure some incidents were a one off but others hint at a bigger picture of shit parenting.

[edam]

One of my neighbours is a copper (although has just left to be a SAHD). I can imagine him doing something like this - he loves his job and never loses an opportunity to harangue someone for bad parking or other trivial issues. Not that I'm in favour of people leaving their cars in our road all day, but it's not a crime. My neighbour does seem to think he's some kind of supercopper, laying down acceptable behaviour round the whole town, even though he actually worked for another force 15 miles away!

[seeker]

Absolutely. And the parent and the DM can say what they like - the 'authorities" are constrained by confidentiality and cannot publically defend their position.

[edam]

But the point is, the police and SS admit they found no cause for intervention.

[seeker]

No - the police spokesman said that her behaviour gave them 'reasonable grounds for concern. There was no further action taken at this time.

[edam]

allegedly reasonable grounds for concern before the investigation, surely? Found no reason to intervene, case closed, she is an innocent woman and it's rather unfair to cast aspersions on her now.

[Hulababy]

Yes, the police found no issue after an investigation. However, they have to have carried out some onvestigation in order to determine that.

It is the woman herself who has made this such a big deal. She has brought it to the press, had her name and photo splashed everywhere. If she really wanted it to drop why do that?

Would you really prefer the police just ignored someone threatening their child in this manner, and stand by and do nothing?