Police fail to investigate Hit and Run

[Marcos maniac]

Fury as police fail to probe collision


A couple were stunned after being told police would not investigate a crash after a motorist ploughed into their car and drove off without stopping.

Orthopedic surgeon Ellen Kramer-Hermann and her husband Franz were even more upset when they reported the registration number of the suspect, only to be told police would not be taking the matter further.

The couple's BMW was parked outside their home when a driver ploughed into the front, leaving it unfit to drive.

The incident has caused huge disruption to Mrs Kramer-Hermann's work commitments at the Royal Sussex County Hospital in Brighton, where she was on call.

The smash happened while the car was parked in Greenbank Avenue, Saltdean, before Christmas.

Mr Hermann was at home when a neighbour called to say he had spotted a BMW plough into his wife's BMW before driving off. The vehicle which collided with hers appeared not to have any lights on.

Shortly after reporting the incident to police, the couple received information suggesting the address and registration of a possible suspect.

Mr Hermann called police and gave them the information, thinking they would investigate but was told they would not. He said: "It's really frustrating that someone can get away with this."

Mr Hermann was so angry he wrote to the Chief Constable of Sussex Police, Ken Jones, who forwarded the complaint to Chief Inspector Ian Jeffrey of Sussex Police road policing unit.

Mr Jeffrey, in a letter to Mr Hermann, said: "Officers assigned to response duties, whether they are from the local division or the road policing unit, are finite.

"With the investigation of collisions, the priority is directed to the investigation of road death and those collisions involving serious or slight injuries.

"The information you have acquired should be forwarded to your insurance company, who no doubt will make the appropriate inquiries to establish if the owner/driver of the vehicle you have identified is responsible."

A spokesman for Sussex Police said: "I don't want to minimise the damage caused to Mrs Hermann's car but our focus has to be on reducing road deaths and casualties."

[TheLemming]

What the hell?

Whatever happened to the police being obliged to investigate a reported offence? (correct me if im wrong here...)

There is something fundamentally wrong where failing to stop at the scene of an accident is treated less seriously than driving without incident at 35mph.
Was this guy insured? Taxed? Did he have a licence?
These could all be reasons for him to have left the scene.

Would the police be good enough to provide me with a list of offences they are no longer intending to investigate and supply to the CPS for prosecution?

I seem to be spending more and more of my mornings aghast with indignation at the insanity of society, my god, im becoming victor meldrew at 24!!!

[Marcos maniac]

A spokesman for Sussex Police said: "I don't want to minimise the damage caused to Mrs Hermann's car but our focus has to be on reducing road deaths and casualties."

A slight contradiction in terms then: our focus has to be on reducing road deaths and casualties

Was the driver not a potential cause of a road death or casualty then?? Hmmm he/she has hit a stationary vehicle, allegedly driving without lights on, the front of the car must be damaged........

FFS - what more do they want?

[mannginger]

Seems a little strange to me. I am very aware of "finite" police resources. But when something similar happened to me - some fool smashed into my parked car whilst I slept at night, I called the police the next day and they happily came round to talk to me, and the witnesses. Unfortunatly the git got clean away with his vandalism, but I was gratified to see the police at least tried.

Why they can't investigate this case - where the victims have a number plate etc is preposterous.

Sometimes I wonder...

[martinh]

Same thing happened to me. Early morning and woken by the sound of big crash. BMW has gone up the back of my parked car (and written it off as it turned out). Driver reverses and speeds off only to crash into another car further up the road as his steering was shot. Guy gets out and legs it back up the road and meets me at my garden gate, takes a very drunken swing at me when I challenged him and runs off. All this witnessed by a milkman and two road sweepers. Police show up and question us all - we give detailed descrptions and they have the car which is registered to a woman who turns up 10 minutes later asking about the driver - her boyfriend with whom she has had a tiff. She refuses to name him however. Cops think they know who he is and arrange and identity parade. I show up and spend two hours waiting at police station chatting with milkman and roadsweepers who like me have had to have time off work to attend. The guy doesn't show because he is 'unwell' and we all go home. Same thing happens again 4 weeks later - another no show - at which point the police drop the case !They refused to give any reason. This left me with an insurance claim on my policy which probably cost me £1,500 in additional premiums, two days lost work (I work as a contractor) and all the hassle of not having a car for 6 weeks or so while it was all sorted out. Total cost to me was near to £4,000. I used to see this guy quite often at the station after that and he always gave me a big grin. If I had smacked him one as I really wanted to you can be sure I would have got the full treatment. This bloke had society's confirmation that his behaviour was acceptable and may well go on to more serious offending. I as a tax paying victim just lost all faith in the system - good result eh ?

[agent006]

Shock Horror

Police investigate press freindly offences only.
(paedophiles and speeders)

[deltaf]

Maybe it was Brunstrom speeding?
No wonder they dont wanna investigate!

[andymadmak]

Yep, I know all about this kind of nonsense.
We even found the culprit for the Rozzers in our case. (they couldn't be bothered to look for her)
Didn't do us any good though. Driver got a fine and a ban. Didn't stop her driving though, and all we got for reporting the driver for driving whilst banned was apathy from the police plus several thousand pounds worth of damage to property by members of her family intent of retribution (somebody at the police must have let slip who reported her) - Police did fcuk all about that too!
I'm fully expecting a writ for damages (action supported by legal aid) from the offending driver cos our complaints about her........
1, leaving the scene of a serious accident
2, driving without insurance
3, driving whilst banned

.....must all be racially motivated cos she is black.
Don't groan, don't laugh, don't even think about calling me racist, at least not until you've thought about what I've just said, and you can tell me that such an action would be impossible in PC Britain today.......

There........ not laughing now are you!?

Andy 400se

[andymadmak]

A bit off topic, but did you hear Harriet Harman over the weekend saying that domestic crimes of violence against women were to be targeted by the police.
Great news and a serious problem that needs to be tackled, trouble is she went on to say that men who were violent towards their partners needed to by viewed as criminals in the same way as burglars.......

Andy 400se

[CarZee]

andymadmak said: A bit off topic, but did you hear Harriet Harman over the weekend saying that domestic crimes of violence against women were to be targeted by the police.
Great news and a serious problem that needs to be tackled, trouble is she went on to say that men who were violent towards their partners needed to by viewed as criminals in the same way as burglars.......

Andy 400se

A fine example of feminist propaganda. I'm quite sure that she failed to mention that the vast majority these 'abused' women (i) Give as good as they get (ii) are frequently instigators and not innocent victims and (iii) that what is termed abuse is much broader than we might imagine.

As they say that abuse is in the 'eye of the beholder', a woman (putting men aside for a moment) who is berated by her partner for not doing something she'd promised as a contribution towards the household is deemed to be a victim of abuse.

It's wrong. It demonises men and paints women as innocent victims, which they rarely ever are.

Utter bullshit and typical of the many ways in which the liberal apologists and spineless men in power are allowing women not to redresss the balance, but to abuse the privileges they have and to destroy society and the concept of the nuclear family in the process of establishing 'equality' for women.

One only needs to look at the way divorce is handled by the courts and CSA. Men are nothing more than a walking wallet and a syringe full of sperm in th eyes of family law.

And people wonder why I might have misgivings about starting a family when at the whim of a wife who might one day decide she can have an easier life with someone else (grass is greener etc) at which point I can be tossed aside as an irrelevance by the law of the land, left with no home, no access to my children, no comeback against the ravenous consumption of my every penny by the CSA.

In New York, recently, it was found that 75% of young men involved in violent crime were raised by single mothers. It's the feminists' assertion that it is the woman's right to raise her children by herself with the financial support of her former partner and the state. Destroying society for the sake of womens' rights.

[andymadmak]

Yeah, but CZ, just think about it...... Harriet says we should see it as being as bad as burglary. Last week Mr Chief Justice Woolf (or whatever his title is) reckoned burglary no longer merited a prison sentence.........
Hows that for timing!?
Oh, but I do agree with your rant though. Family law is a total mess in this country. The femanazis will fight tooth an nail before they see it changed to something fairer though. After all, it's cake and eat it time for them at the moment - hell they even get to keep the plate!
Andy 400se

[MikeyT]

I'm quite sure that she failed to mention that the vast majority these 'abused' women (i) Give as good as they get (ii) are frequently instigators and not innocent victims and (iii) that what is termed abuse is much broader than we might imagine.

That is mostly bollocks and you're gonna get a 'no respect vote from me for that Z-Cars!



Edited to quote CZ again:

no access to my children

You will get access to your children by law. End of story. Unless she takes them to Morocco, which may prove more difficult,


>> Edited by MikeyT on Monday 30th December 13:05

[CarZee]

MikeyT said:

I'm quite sure that she failed to mention that the vast majority these 'abused' women (i) Give as good as they get (ii) are frequently instigators and not innocent victims and (iii) that what is termed abuse is much broader than we might imagine.

That is mostly bollocks and you're gonna get a 'no respect vote from me for that Z-Cars!

Edited to quote CZ again:

no access to my children

You will get access to your children by law. End of story. Unless she takes them to Morocco, which may prove more difficult,

OR if she claims that you were abusive to her or the children - doesn't have to be true or proven, she just has to tell the court that you were, and without burden of proof you can be denied access.

Alternatively, you may be granted access which she autocratically decides not to allow you, by coming up with last minute excuses time after time and the court will consistently fail to enforce fathers' visiting rights.

With guys like you around it's no wonder that women are getting the whip hand time after time.

Edited to add: www.coeffic.demon.co.uk/iwill.htm

The percentage of lone parent households that are mother-headed is 91% [General Household Survey]. There are some 40,000 disputed custody cases every year which are decided by family court judges. These judges will listen to recommendations from court welfare officers who visit the family and write 35,000 reports every year. The welfare officers work in the probation service which deals with mostly male criminals, this makes it difficult to see fathers in a positive light. The result is that family courts award mothers sole custody in 71% of cases and fathers sole custody in 7% of all cases, joint custody is awarded in the remaining 21% of cases. Many fathers report giving up an expensive custody fight for their children after advice from lawyers who say they can't win. It is very common for mothers during custody battles to receive state funded legal aid. A custody battle is therefore a very unequal war of attrition. Many fathers report that efforts to have contact with their children are blocked by mothers, and the courts will not enforce the right of children to have contact with their fathers.

and www.ukmm.org.uk/issues/biglie-dv.htm

The Home Office Research Report No.191, published Jan.2000 announced that men are equally likely to be victims of domestic violence, the British Crime Survey 1999 also indicated near parity. As have other reports that are produced across the Atlantic. Despite this the Government devotes virtually all its propaganda and funding to female victims. Why is it that the government is so determined to ignore its own research showing that men are just as likely to be victims ?

The situation in the new Scottish Parliament is even worse. £18.3 million pounds has just been announced for Domestic Violence, all of it targeted on women as victims.

and www.ukmm.org.uk/issues/synopsis.htm#family_issues

Family courts have a powerful default of awarding custody to the mothers in 91% of the cases. This is regardless of the mothers conduct, or of her ability to support and care for the children. A great deal of research has established high correlation's between fatherless families and child poverty, family violence, drug abuse, teen pregnancy, school failure, and juvenile crime.

The ideal of maternal-preference originates from the period when two parent families were the norm. Marriage and children are great civilisers and motivaters for men. Women benefit from the man's pay check and from the male qualities he instills in the children. In two parent families the children are mostly cared for by the mother, but this is becomming less common. By contrast a mother-headed family is often far from ideal. For example, one of the best predictors of child abuse is the presence in the home of a boyfriend or step-father. Some studies have put the rate of abuse as 77 times greater in lone-mother households with a boyfriend / stepfather compared to families where both biological parents are present.

Family court judges are advised by Court Welfare officers who are supposed to make recommendations 'in the best interest of the child'. These officers often operate without a complaints procedure. Since a welfare report cannot be acknowledged as wrong it can only be right. A report that is by definition right can only be endorsed by the court, which as it happens sit in secret. It is almost impossible for fathers to appeal against bad decisions. Even appeals where there is outrageous justice against fathers are very rarely granted.

If a child resides only with one parent and the other parent only has limited visiting rights then a process called parental alienation is possible. This is basically where the children are turned against the other parent. Since children are awarded custody to the mothers in 91% of the cases then the alienation is mostly against fathers.

A mother inducing alienation may say that: the father is always harassing us with phone calls, paying too little maintainance money, always trying to bribe us with gifts and toys, or getting solicitors onto us. Inducing parents may often cut off the extended family as well. Inducing parents often use baby sitters, with excuses like the non-resident parent can't see the children at these times because it is outside routine. The inducing parent would rather the child be with friends or neighbours or playing outside unsupervised than with the non-resident parent. An inducing parent will not forward school reports, school photographs or want the non-resident parent to go to school concerts etc. Inducing parents often wont cooperate in joint interviews or mediation and they are often blinded by rage and don't appreciate the emotional damage they are doing to their children. They are often convincing and are master manipulators.

In short, MikeyT, it is my assertion that you are being hopelessly naive.

>> Edited by CarZee (moderator) on Monday 30th December 13:24

[MikeyT]

With guys like you around it's no wonder that women are getting the whip hand time after time.

More bollocks. You're taking it to the nth degree.

Chill out. Women certainly aren't getting the whip hand with me. But I'm all for fairness amongst the sexes. I agree it seems to have gone too far the other way somewhat in many respects, but unless you have some knowledge and experience of the effects of domestic violence then don't spout crap.

If one of the reasons (besides disliking kids, which I find a tad bizarre) you don't want to start a family is because you perceive that one day your relationship may break up and you may be denied access etc, then that is such a sad and horrible reason to use for not becoming a father.

And you ain't got 100% no more

[CarZee]

MikeyT said: Women certainly aren't getting the whip hand with me.

Good for you - I hope it stays that way for you...

Perhaps you hadn't noticed this but:

- men have a shorter average lifespan (by 7 years) than women and yet are supposed to work 5 years more, being as women get a pension (and NI exemption) at 60, which men don't get until 65.

- Screening programs are provided for women related cancers such as breast and cervical cancer. However there is no screening of equivalent cancers affecting men such as prostate and testicular cancer. This despite deaths from prostate cancer almost as high as deaths from breast cancer, and 6.7 times higher than deaths from cervical cancer.

- Spending on Women's groups, lone-mothers' groups where no such equivalent exists for men.

- UK Public swimming pools run by the council have women-only swimming pool sessions.

- Radio-4 has a women's hour, but does not have a men's hour.

- Advertisements regularly feature men as foolish. The main aim of the advertisers is to appeal to women who control and make the majority of purchases. There has been a recent disturbing trend of using images of violence against men to sell products to young women.

- The labour party has a minister for women but not a minister for men.

- Widows are able to claim bereavement benefit, but there is no equivalent benefit for widowers.

- When it comes to the defence of the country, men are expected to sacrifice their lives for 'Queen and country'. During World War I 8.5 million military men died, during World War II 15.8 million military men died. In the interests of equality should we send only women into future battles?
It is interesting to compare the financial treatment of a war veteran injured in the Falklands war by horrific burns, with the fact that laws have been changed to give women large compensations, from the Ministry of Defence, for the loss of earnings as a result of pregnancy when they have voluntarily entered into contracts of employment which regulate this.

The soldier, Simon Weston, was paid nothing in compensation except for his normal pension. The mother was paid £150,000 (typically) for unfair dismissal.

- Men in full-time employment work an average of 41.9 hours per week compared to women's 37.6 hours per week. More men than women work. However the unemployment rate for men at 14% is currently about three times the female rate.

- Men also take on jobs that are hard, dangerous, and dirty. Industrial injuries at work are overwhelmingly of men. It is very rare to see women working as street cleaners or refuse collectors. These are the so called glass cellar jobs i.e. jobs that women seem not to want.

But I'm all for fairness amongst the sexes. I agree it seems to have gone too far the other way somewhat in many respects, but unless you have some knowledge and experience of the effects of domestic violence then don't spout crap.

I do Mikey. Hence I'm not spouting crap.

If one of the reasons (besides disliking kids, which I find a tad bizarre) you don't want to start a family is because you perceive that one day your relationship may break up and you may be denied access etc, then that is such a sad and horrible reason to use for not becoming a father.

No Mikey - it's a realistic, pragmatic and thoroughly natural self preservation instinct.

And you ain't got 100% no more

Well, my life no longer seems to have purpose then. I'll end it now.

[filmidget]

Back to the original thread if I may...

Some scrote ran into the car I had bought my fiancee as an early Christmas pressie - minor damage and no injuries. 100% his fault, we stop and exchange details. Unfortunately it turns out he may have picked name and address out the telephone book at random and memorised them for just such an occasion, even quoting a bogus insurance broker

Reported to Police Station at earliest opportunity (09:00) and by 17:00 two very pleasant and professional coppers were at my door to check details/docs and take statements. Then they immediately went off chase the registered keeper, and gave me a call back later that evening. Turns out that a stupid old git had sold it to a scrappy and not sent off the relevant bits of the V5

The scrappy must then have sold it on for cash to little scrote who hasn't bothered registering it

Cops said they would go to scrapyard next, but I haven't heard anything, although I will make allowances as the incident was just before Christmas.

To be honest I don't hold much hope, but at least the Police (initial) response was prompt and thorough. I was pretty impressed with the 'service' - contrasts greatly with the original story.

As an aside, I asked what the likelyhood was of the registered owner being prosecuted for not informing of the change of keeper/scraping of the vehicle. I was told this *should* be done by the DVLA, but that the DVLA claim that they do not have the rescources to carry this through. This I find disgusting (but typical), as I think by enforcing this one 'law', all the subsequent pratting in this case could be avoided - or am I missing something?

Cheers, Phil

[MikeyT]

CarZ ... so serious man ...

- UK Public swimming pools run by the council have women-only swimming pool sessions.

And you're gonna go to the men only ones thenare you?

[andymadmak]

C'mon Mikey! You can do better than that!
CZ makes some VERY telling points that highlight all too graphically the relative treatments afforded to men and women.
Two wrongs don't make a right, and nobody would seek to demean the suffering of an abused spouse (of either sex).
What is emerging though is a pattern of discrimination and oppression.
I too have some experience of vindictive spouses and the damage they can do.(not my own, but certainly within my family)
One of my rellies ex wifes actually sat down with him and his lawyer and said she would tell the court he sexually abused his daughter and thereby deny him ANY visitation rights (not to mention ruin his career as a health professional) on the grounds that she wanted more money.
His lawyer basically told him he had better pay up, cos this was not a battle he could win! No burden of proof required either! One word from her and his life and career are finished. Such power - and more and more women know they have that power. Oh, and before anyone asks, he now sees his only kid for 1 hour a week. She kept the house, his pension, most of his savings, his car, the house contents and gets a LARGE sum every month to keep her fed and warm. It was also her serial adultery that sparked the divorce.
He now lives in a shabby two room flat. 48 years old, nowt to show for his life and no real prospect of release. Every time he gets ahead financially she takes him back to the CSA to be "reassessed". You can guess the result.
I know of two other cases which, although not so extreme, have similar outcomes.
It's not even as if we get parity before the law though is it? I mean if I kill my wife cos she attacked me I go to prison - usually for life. How many times have you read of women killing their husbands, only for them to turn up tearfully at court to claim that he was violent/abusive etc? No evidence to support it, family and friends often incredulous and the woman gets out after 5 years. Even when there is overwhelming evidence of her guilt and viscious intent, the standard defense line is that the hubby was a secret monster who deserved everything he got.
Such evidence would NEVER be admissable in a male murder trial, or if it were it would be payed little credence - why do we allow women to do this?
The points CZ makes about male cancer deaths and the relative funding of research into those areas when compared to breast/cervical cancer is horrific.
I lost my mum to breast cancer so I'm not going to underplay ther seriousness of that disease, but why in gods name isn't everyone holing about the male killers and getting something done about it to the same degree? I'll tell you why: cos men are too embarrassed to talk about it and women simply don't care. Sista's are the only beings who suffer in their eyes and if men are dying then it's tough on them. I asked a lady doctor friend that very question a couple of weeks ago and she said "we know men are dying, we know they are in an even more desperate state than women in many cases, but there are no targets for treating them, and no funds available for either research or treatment. In short, Nobody cares, because you are men".
And no, despite being a doctor, she didn't care either!
Andy 400se

[MikeyT]

C'mon Mikey! You can do better than that!

Yeah, perhaps, but believe it or not, it's press day here so haven't got the time to be on here all day, and even less time to do web searchs etc to gain info!

I can only speak from personal experience.

- Radio-4 has a women's hour, but does not have a men's hour.

FFS CZ - does anybody frigging care?

Edited to say you obviously do. But I don't. And before you say that's symtomatic of why women have 'gained the upper hand'. It's not.

To quote you - 'it doesn't affect my life, so why bother'

>> Edited by MikeyT on Monday 30th December 14:38

[CarZee]

MikeyT said:

- Radio-4 has a women's hour, but does not have a men's hour.

FFS CZ - does anybody frigging care?

I friggin care bcause if there was more hoministic programming, there'd be less people like you who are comfortably coddled in ignorant bliss & then something could be done about the distortions caused by the so-called drive for equality.

I'm all for equality, but what we're getting is anything but.