Not good enough
Sir: Surprise, surprise, the very day follow- ing publication of my letter (20 April), I received a response from the police to my complaint, but not one which by any stretch of the imagination could be called a 'mea- sured response'.
Without boring your readers with the second two paragraphs of computer-speak in their letter, the following precise extract from the first paragraph highlights the con- tempt with which the police now regard those they are paid to protect, and whom they euphemistically refer to as customers.
. . . the matter has been recorded as having been resolved informally in accordance with your wishes. . . . Your comments to Chief Inspector K. have been brought to the atten- tion of PC W. and discussed with him at some length. This action now concludes our investi- gation into your complaint... .
Not the slightest attempt has been made to explain what happened, let alone any hint of corrective action being taken for using techniques which, verbally, Chief Inspector K. had said to me were wrong. I was interested to hear a retired Chief Con- stable from the West Country on Radio Four this morning say that he thought the police were behaving like a 'Macho Reac- tionary Force'. His words, not mine.
Charles Ronald
Manor Farm House, Petersham, Surrey
Previous page
