It Seems A Really Easy ‘Fight’ To Win, To Me…

I am uneasily aware that around this time last year I wrote that my drive to acquire material things had somewhat subsided: I was older and wiser, had everything I needed, was repelled by the sheer volume of stuff in the world, blah blah blah. Unfortunately, the internet seemingly viewed that as fighting talk, an impossible-to-turn-down challenge, and in recent months I have once more found myself wanting stuff. Lots of stuff.

I suppose you've not considered putting the phone or tablet down?

It’s not surprising perhaps – stuff is everywhere, whispering, or shouting, to us from every screen we stare at. “The constant stream of ads on Instagram is exhausting,” said my best friend gloomily just last week, and she’s right: my eyes are constantly assaulted with offers of miracle goop for my mature skin, wellness gadgetry, expensive knitwear and greenwashed “disruptors” of almost everything. I just spent a minute scrolling and was offered, in quick succession, a “calfPRO” (no idea, alarming), kombucha, cleanser, an eco frying pan, “reminiscent of Phoebe Philo-era Celine” jumpers and, bafflingly, Canadian sea urchins.

That seems a rather odd selection of targeted ads. 

In this newly lawless age for social media there are bigger problems than the relentless onslaught of targeted ads, but in addition to the urgent upskilling in critical reading the world needs, we need to work out how to fight back against all the stuff the internet wants us to buy.

I already have - ignore them and scroll past.  

I’ve been trying to deinfluence myself in recent weeks and it’s quite the battle – I am weak-willed and made stupider by the minute by internet nonsense, and the algorithm is tireless. But I have a secret weapon: I know my craven, ridiculous desires intimately, which helps me shout them down. Now when tempted, that’s exactly what I do.

There! Wasn't so hard after all, was it? 

You Just Can’t Save People From Themselves!

Much furore about the Kiena Dawes case, and most of the approbium falling on the police who 'failed to save her'.

During a six-week trial, Preston Crown Court heard how the hard-drinking, cocaine-snorting body-builder went from professing undying love to his girlfriend to physically and mentally breaking her. He punched and kicked Kiena, tried to drown her by holding her head in a baby bath and threatened to 'drill her teeth out'.

Did this come out of the blue? Was there no clue that he was a wrong ‘un? 

In 2019 he attacked his then-partner, Kayleigh Anderson, following a two-day coke and booze session with an uncle.

Didn't think so! Why, then, did she shack up with him? He was a friend of her brother - did her brother not warn her?

In the 12 months before she killed herself, she called police no less than five times either to report that she had been assaulted or give details of the domestic abuse she had suffered. On four of the occasions, she was visited by officers at her home. Twice she had visible injuries, including a black eye when she was six months pregnant.

And the police did their best, within the laws, but…. 

But Kiena was so scared of Wellings that it was only when he brutally assaulted her in front of their baby, 11 days before she died, that she finally backed efforts to prosecute him.

*sighs* 

Even then, police failed to support her as they might have, granting Wellings bail and then failing to lock him up when he apparently breached his bail conditions.'I was in hospital longer than he was in the cells,' she would write in a message shortly before she killed herself.

They can only withhold bail under certain circumstances, thanks to the crisis in our prisons - they don’t make that law, they just carry it out. 

Wellings was not charged until June last year but when he was the charges not only included assault and controlling and coercive behaviour but manslaughter as well, for which he has been cleared.

By the jury, and I suspect the police involved were as furious about that as everyone else... 

Following Kiena's death, Lancashire Constabulary referred itself to the Independent Office for Police Conduct (IOPC) over its handling of the case and the contact they had with her. The police watchdog later announced that it found one officer had a case to answer for gross misconduct and two officers had a case to answer for misconduct relating to actions or omissions connected to the victim's reports of domestic abuse.

I wouldn't consider that any sort of victory, as the bar is so low on these things.  

Isn’t The Solution In Your Own Hands, Ladies?

A man has become the first in the UK to be arrested over videos filmed of women on nights out without their consent, with some in vulnerable states.

The 27-year-old from Bradford was taken into custody on suspicion of stalking and harassment after reports of women being followed, filmed and harassed in Manchester city centre.

What? For public filming? But that's legal!

In April, a number of women spoke to the Guardian after being filmed without their knowledge and consent, with the videos being posted on social media. In some cases, the women were later identified and harassed online. Some victims described it as “disgusting” and said they felt violated on finding out videos of them had been viewed hundreds of thousands of times and attracted misogynistic comments.

Well, ladies, maybe show a bit of decorum and don't get falling down drunk in the street, perhaps?  

Though filming on a public street is not a crime, it can cross the line into harassment, and women who discovered they had been targeted were asked to report it to police.

And the cops, always eager for an easy life and an offence that doesn't take much work to solve, leaped into action. 

GMP said: “After the issue was first brought to our attention, we made several appeals for anyone directly impacted by these videos to come forward. Many women did so, explaining the fear this had created for them, and the impact on their feeling of being safe while out at night.”

Not such 'fear' that they drank sensibly, I take it? 

Over the past few months, neighbourhood police officers worked with the CPS to see if charges could be brought against any of the accused. The videos in Manchester were primarily filmed around the Peter Street and Deansgate areas, while videos were also filmed in cities such as Liverpool and London.

Seems like they've put more effort into this than into real crimes, doesn't it?  

Ch Insp Stephen Wiggins said: “We took the concerns of the public really seriously on this issue, and have worked hard with partners to assess the full circumstances and what courses of action were available to us. It is a very new and complex issue, but this is a significant development.

“Everyone has the right to feel safe as they enjoy a night out, and these videos have made people, particularly women, not feel like that, which we can’t tolerate.

“Filming in public is legal. However, where this filming crosses the line into offences such as upskirting, stalking or harassment, it’s important that we don’t allow that behaviour.”

You're tackling the wrong behaviour.  

Why Did You Not Tell Your Son To Avoid Dangerous Areas?

A fatal accident inquiry at the city’s Sheriff Court heard from his mother, Joanne Ferguson who claimed it had been ‘well known’ children had been able to venture onto the site.

She wanted to know why nothing had been done to stop them and wanted to know who had uncovered the manhole, when and why it had been left uncovered allowing her son to tumble down 20ft to his death.

I guess she didn't demand to know how her son got the idea trespass was A-OK because the finger of suspicion only pointed one way... 

Graeme Clark, joint managing director at RJ McLeod, the principal contractor for the flood alleviation project, told the inquiry he had ‘no idea’ how the boy had been able to get onto the site and access the manhole.He told the inquiry that while there, he walked around to inspect the fencing and the only damage he could see had been caused by emergency vehicles coming in that morning.

Which presumably had the effect of covering up any point of entry... 

Ms Gillespie pointed out he had said he had not known how Shea got into the site adding: ‘But immediately you thought you’d put extra fencing in the area next to the play park?’ The witness responded that the company had been aware of the play park when the original security plan was drawn up, and the firm ‘had a contractual obligation from Glasgow City Council not to fence it off’.

When he was asked why, he replied: ‘You’ll have to ask Glasgow City Council.’

Oh, if only we had journalists who did just that, instead of regurgitating court transcripts and calling it 'news'. 

Protecting People From Themselves...

Tech that comes with weak passwords such as “admin” or “12345” will be banned in the UK under new laws dictating that all smart devices must meet minimum security standards. Measures to protect consumers from hacking and cyber-attacks come into effect on Monday, the Department for Science, Innovation and Technology said.

Who doesn't change the default password? I mean...

It means manufacturers of phones, TVs and smart doorbells, among others, are now legally required to protect internet-connected devices against access by cybercriminals, with users prompted to change any common passwords. Brands have to publish contact details so that bugs and issues can be reported, and must be transparent about timings of security updates.

If this seems a strange thing for a failing government to concern itself with, well here's the culprit:  

The consumer champion Which? said it had been instrumental in pushing for the new measures and it welcomed the changes.

Couldn't you have pushed for people to use their devices smarter instead? 

Rocio Concha, a director of policy and advocacy at Which?, said: “The OPSS [Office for Product Safety and Standards] must provide industry with clear guidance and be prepared to take strong enforcement action against manufacturers if they flout the law, but we also expect smart device brands to do right by their customers from day one and ensure shoppers can easily find information on how long their devices will be supported and make informed purchases.”

I've never had any issues with finding information and making informed choices. 

It's As Regular As Clockwork...

...cometh the election, cometh the idiot: 

A Green Party activist has lost part of her finger after a dog chomped down on it while she was posting campaign fliers through the letter box. Danica Priest, who is running to be a councilor in the Filwood area of Bristol, was left in hospital after a dog took the end of her digit off.

*sigh* 

Liberal Democrat candidate Caroline Gooch added: 'Sorry to read that. Noone should be maimed using a letterbox.

'If people have bitey dogs they should have a letterbox cage or external letterbox.'

There's another option, of course, but why would a LibDumb ever think of it?  

And a third, Tash, continued: 'Oh poor you, wishing you better.

'Old trick, take wooden spoon to push leaflets through/hold letter boxes open.'

Well done, Tash.  

Or, You Could Actually Do Some Parenting?

Many parents of digitally obsessed teens must have wished they could bin their smartphones. As evidence mounts about the risks of social media, there is a growing public clamour to protect children better – with some now even calling for a ban.

How many of these parents demanding someone else parent their child have actually bought the things for them, and are paying the airtime?  

The debate in the UK took on a fresh resonance in recent days after Esther Ghey, the mother of the murdered teenager Brianna Ghey, added her voice to those highlighting the dangers of smartphones.

“We’d like a law introduced, so that there are mobile phones that are suitable for under-16s,” she told the BBC’s Laura Kuenssberg last Sunday. “So if you’re over 16, you can have an adult phone, but then under the age of 16 you can have a children’s phone, which will not have all of the social media apps that are out there now.”

You can already do that now, if you want. Don't allow them to download anything you don't approve. It's just that you have to make the effort.  

In demanding tougher curbs on big tech, she echoed other bereaved parents who believe social media played some role in the loss of their children – including Ian Russell, whose daughter Molly took her own life after viewing harmful content online.

As Longrider points out, the very people who we shouldn't be listening to on the subject. Their personal tragedy gives them no special insight. The experts don't agree with their plans, but who is listening to them? 

Despite the acknowledged dangers, few experts and campaigners the Guardian spoke to believed an outright ban on social media use by under-16s was workable, or even desirable – though all are united in believing tech firms must do more.

Why don't they demand parents do more? They are, after all, the ones with most to lose... 

Lady Beeban Kidron, who campaigns for children’s rights online, said there was understandable focus on removing harmful content from apps – but policymakers should also be focusing on their underlying design.

“What we have to concentrate on is: why are we allowing companies to give addictive products to children? There is no reason on God’s earth that they have to be designed to be addictive. That is a business choice,” she said. “You’ve basically got a faulty product here: they need to fix it.”

That would mean looking under the bonnet of popular apps and rewiring the algorithms blamed for hooking teens – and in some cases, for radicalising them.

Good grief!  

Aren't You Missing A Vital Key Request, Though?

The voices in the pages of this report, speaking out for our loved daughters, sisters, mothers and aunts, need to be urgently listened to. We have several key requests.

First, a shift from an approach that responds to these abhorrent killings, to one that anticipates, intervenes and prevents them. These are not unavoidable tragedies, they are preventable crimes.

We also need a sentencing framework and criminal justice response that demonstrates an absolute intolerance of the killing of women (Ed: screw everyone else, then..?), that holds perpetrators to account and protects our communities.

Finally, we need a root-and-branch review of the care and support accessible to families, because the devastation left in the aftermath of these crimes is far reaching and doesn’t end.

What about 'Telling women and girls that you can't change him, you're not special, and if he's violent to other women and girls he'll be violent to you', Julie? 

We see these crimes in the same way we see bolts of lightning – something deadly but not something we can prevent.

Except when there's a storm brewing, we know to expect lightning. Some people seem incapable of making that connection and getting indoors out of the way. 

Where Did She Get It From, I Wonder?

A mum who thought the family dog - an XL bully - was "lovely" until it attacked her six-year-old son, has urged the government to adopt tighter laws. The mother, who has asked not to be named, lives in Carmarthenshire, West Wales. She has had an XL bully for a couple of months.

Clearly an adult dog, not a puppy. Is this yet another case of rescue charity endangerment?

There was "not a single sign" the dog could act in that way, she told Sky News.

Apart from the breed itself, I guess...

She said her concern now was "what was happening before [she] had her".

Pity that concern didn't come before you brought the mutt into the house.

Before the incident, the woman had been a critic of the UK government's ban on XL bully dogs. "We're like, 'It's nonsense, it's nonsense', until you actually have to pull a 50kg dog off your son and I think then we start thinking," she said.

The dog would now be put to sleep after the incident, the woman confirmed.

At least, unlike other owners, she isn't passing it on to some other dim and unsuspecting family.

Then You'll See More Cases Like This, Won't You?

DS Hughes said that although it appeared 'quite clear' Mustafa's friend had committed an offence of causing or permitting another to use a motor vehicle without a licence or insurance, it was judged not in the public interest to prosecute.

And if the next kid riding a scooter illegally bumps a passenger into the path of a bus instead of himself, will the CPS apologise to that person's family?

Asked by the coroner if he was concerned about children riding e-scooters, the officer said: 'Yes. I have dealt with a number of incidents involving e-scooters – both private and public trial scooters – including two fatalities and two serious injuries that I can recount off the top of my head.'

The officer said the issue of e-scooters being ridden on pavements was of particular concern.

Perhaps more police walking the beat would help, DS Hughes? 

In a joint statement, headteachers Lynn Petrie and Pete White, said the Voi trial scheme had been 'instantly problematic' from its outset in September 2020 due to children using the machines illegally. The schools, part of the same academy group, said they had written to parents and held assemblies on the issue.

The headteachers added that Mustafa's death seemed to have done little to stop children riding e-scooters, which youths often seen riding past the schools.

So everyone's doing what they can, but Darwin's winning this race as he often does... 

Relatives of Mustafa asked Mr Salmer why facial recognition couldn't be introduced to stop children logging on to accounts they are not registered to. But the regional general manager said it would be 'impractical…from a cost perspective' for all e-scooter providers to introduce such a facility at the moment, without significant subsidy.

So, to prevent your idiot kids killing themselves or others, the scooter company should be able to stick their hand in my pocket? No thanks. 

" I am sick of being blamed when I did the legal thing and handed the dog over to the police."

More on this incident:

Geroge (sic) had been rehomed to the teenager's family less than 24 hours before. His previous owners had another dog and the two pets were not getting on. The family was trying to move to a bigger house so the dogs could be in separate rooms. But having failed to find a suitable property they had rehomed George with a family friend rather than keep both of them caged up.

Because if you have a mutt that 'doesn't get on' with your current pet, to the point where you can't keep them together, what better to do with it than 'rehome' it to another irresponsible tattooed chav?

Speaking for the previous owners, Laura Wicks commented: 'I had this dog with me. He also lived with my sister and her children. 'He wasn't aggressive. An eye witness said he was not aggressive towards anyone at the park. I (sic) was just because of the breed of him.'

That's not what other eyewitnesses say... 

A spokesman for North Yorkshire Police said: ' No-one, other than the owner of the dog, was injured during the incident. Their injuries are described as bite marks. They added that the dog was put down with the agreement of the owner...

Meanwhile, in London:

Another neighbour called the police at 8.52am, who arrived with riot shields and blocked off the road. However, Anthoney said that officers were reluctant to go near the dog.

It's about time police started dealing with thrse things they way they'd deal with escaped zoo animals... 

No, Actually, Because Of Their Own Actions...

The police should have said "Of course we were chasing the little toerags, it’s our bloody job to chase nuisance bikers, and they’d still be alive if they’d stopped, or maybe just been wearing helmets..."

But they forgot that it's the cover-up that does for you, always.

Witnesses are now blasting the 'lying' police force for 'bullying' local youths as residences (sic) warn the community has 'lost confidence in the police'.

The police probably didn't have any confidence in the so-called 'community' to lose by now...

'My nephew and his best mate are dead because they chased him on a little electric motorbike,' Kyrees' uncle told The Times.

Harvey's godmother, Bridy Bool, insisted the boys had done nothing to spark a police 'chase', adding: 'They were bare-faced innocent children.'

 Errr, yeah, if you say so...

If you can't tell someone's true character by the company they keep, you certainly can by who turns up to 'mourn':

Jane Palmer watched from a window as people set fire to her car, saying: 'I'm disabled so now I'm trapped without my car. Why are they doing this? It's just silly.'

Another resident alleged the riots were caused by 'lots of children' who were being 'encouraged' by adults.

'It was very scary,' one local told The Mirror. 'There was a lot of people. Lots of children, I was very surprised at how many children and how many adults encouraging them. They were throwing stuff at the police.'

You shouldn't have been surprised, though, should you? 

Oh Look, It's Deja Vu - Again!

A long serving Bradford councilor has issued a warning after she suffered injuries to her hand...

Oh, how?  

...when she was attacked by a dog through a letterbox.

Christ, it's not as if it's an unforseeable consequence, is it?

She rang Idle Medical Centre (Ed: SNORK!) and was seen by her GP straight away.

She's lucky! 

Cllr Sunderland, who said she has been unable to drive since the incident, thanked people who have been helping her.

"I'm doing ok because I'm getting lots of sympathy and help."

You're getting no sympathy from me.

For Once, It's Not The State To Blame...

Throughout the period social workers were dealing with Ms Crilly, they told her she could not allow her new partner Chadwick to have any contact with Orianna under any circumstances.

But Mr Peacock inaccurately recorded that he was not to have ‘unsupervised contact’ with the baby - but denied ever saying this to Ms Crilly.

A mistake, yes, and one that should have been picked up. And god knows, social work is littered with mistakes that have led to totally preventable deaths. We've had not one, but two pretty recently.

But before we start writing placards and gathering torches to march on the council HQ... 

Despite his apology, though, Coroner Catherine McKenna decided against engaging Article 2 of the European Convention on Human Rights - a statute protecting citizens’ right to life from state agencies. Engaging this article would have meant Wigan Council could have been held accountable for failing to sufficiently protect Orianna.

Ms McKenna took the decision because, while people acting within the state system had not followed procedure correctly, she found it was not a failing of the system itself.

And why? Because over and above all, this was a failure of the child's mother: 

'Even if a plan was in place, Chelsea would have retained care of Orianna. 'She did not believe allegations against [Chadwick], I cannot find it would have led to a cessation of contact.

'Even when Orianna was undergoing neurosurgery [following the attack] she could not believe the offender would cause her harm.'

So, any punisnhment should rightly be coming her way, yes? 

Ms Crilly, the baby's mother, was cleared of causing or allowing Orianna's death following a trial at Manchester Crown Court.

*blinks* 

Addressing her, Ms McKenna said: 'Chelsea, you are the person most deeply affected by her death.

'You have shown great courage attending this inquest. You have conducted yourself with remarkable dignity.

'Ultimately, the responsibility comes with the offender. He and no one else took her life. I hope you can draw comfort from Orianna’s memory.'

I'm speechless. She's praised for attending the trial of the brute that murdered her child, instead of spending time behind bars for her part in it? 

You Don't Read Or Watch The News Either?

Another day, another child dead due to its parents' lack of care:

His mother said last night: 'Nobody warned us about button batteries. I didn't even know what they were but they're in everything. I was more worried about bleach, falling down stairs and bumping heads.'

Oh, please! There's been so many cases. Just how thick are you?  

The VTech Swing & Sing monkey teddy is described as being 'specifically designed to promote sensory awareness'. Instructions for the plush animal toy available online say the battery compartment has a screw which is supposed to keep the top in place unless undone by a screwdriver.

Does no-one wonder where that screw went? 

They also feature the warning: 'This product contains a button or coin cell battery. A swallowed button or coin cell battery can cause internal chemical burns in as little as two hours and lead to death.

'Dispose of used batteries immediately. Keep new and used batteries away from children. If you think batteries might have been swallowed or placed inside any part of the body, seek immediate medical attention.'

RTFM, parents! 

Hughie's parents now want the law to be changed to stop the tiny batteries from being sold. Mr McMahon added: 'They've ruined our life and we want to make sure nobody else goes through what we have.'

Wait, what? Because of the results of your utter carelessness, you now demand that everyone else must suffer? 

Well, at least no-one's going to back you here, with such an obvious non-starter of a campai... 

Oh!

Local SNP MSP Clare Adam has supported the couple and say she will be raising the issue in Parliament.

SNP. Who's surprised?  

Every Single Summer...

The father of a teenager who drowned in South Yorkshire says more people could die if there isn't enough rescue equipment near open water.

Here we go again. Every year when it gets a bit warm, regular as clockwork... 

"He was happy. He was going in the right direction," says his dad Simon.

Really? Was he? 

When his school broke up for May half-term, Sam went swimming with friends at a local reservoir in Rotherham.

"He had no fear. He didn't see the danger of jumping in, despite not being able to swim," Simon adds.

*sighs* It's often a feature of these cases, though.

Simon is angry that his son couldn't be saved.

Not with his son. Or the friends who decided to ignore the warnings and take him swimming. Gosh, no! 

There must be no personal responsibility, ever! It's the Modern Way. 

He says there was a flotation ring at the reservoir but it was hidden underneath overgrown trees, so Sam's friends didn't see it.

Simon is fundraising for more life-saving equipment to be available near open water: "I want to get this campaign up and going so that money is not an excuse for not having this equipment around the water."

I suppose at least he isn't demanding someone else finance it. 

Personal Responsibility? What's That?

The family of a 17-year-old who died at a music festival in 2019 after taking illegal drugs have urged...

Other teenagers to beware of illegal substances? 

Pshaw! Of course not! 

...organisers to be “realistic and practical” about substance use at their events in order to save lives.

Are they lives worth saving? Or are they the equivalent of Ug and his failure to be sufficiently wary of the big kitty with the huge teeth in prehistoric times? 

“We are tormented by the fact that Anya’s death was avoidable,” her aunt, Anna Short, told the Guardian.

“Drug deaths should not just be a fact of life. If people are made clearly aware that drugs which are toxic are in circulation, then it can help them make more informed choices.”

Hey, if she didn't know that MDMA, cocaine and ketamine - all of which were found in her system - at the age of 17, whose fault is that?

Short urged more festivals to introduce drug-checking services, which allow substances to be submitted for testing to check for potential contamination, with results delivered as part of healthcare consultations.

Shouldn't any 'healthcare consultation' simply be 'Don't take this shit, love'..? 

“We’ve all been told not to do things, especially when you’re young. Your basic psychology often leads you to do the opposite. We need to be realistic and practical and have a grown-up conversation about drugs.”

Just tell them if they don't steer clear of the stuff circulating at the festival, they won't grow up. 

I Guess It Runs In The Family...

An Oxford student described as "a bright star who was going to set the world alight" tragically died...

Oh dear! Of illness?  

...after accidentally walking off a seaside cliff.

Ummm.... 

Her devastated family believe her death was avoidable and are now urging Thanet District Council to "prevent such a tragedy from being repeated".

Well, that's understandable, I mean, there should probably be railings up at lea...

Wait, what? 

Oh... 

Popular Simone Norowzian, 21, had been staying with friends in Margate when she climbed over some railings, not realising there was a sheer drop on the other side.

Well... 

During the hearing in Maidstone, the undergraduate was described by her sister Claire Norowzian as “a sensible girl” and a passionate thespian.

“Simone was entering her final year at Oxford. She was a keen actor and had her whole life ahead of her,” Claire added.

“She couldn’t clearly assess the danger. She thought she was climbing over the barrier to a hill to the beach.

“We believe her death was preventable and avoidable. We believe it is the council’s responsibility to prevent such a tragedy from being repeated.”

What, exactly, should they have done? They had a railing. But your 'bright' sister decided to climb over it! 

She wasn't alone. What do her friends say about why she'd do such a thing? 

“We decided to go to bed and Simone wanted a cigarette. She and I walked out into the car park and I realised she was very intoxicated.”

Case closed. It's not 'the responsibility of the council' at all. What did you expect them to do, slap the booze out of her hand? 

Why Should The Police Take More Care Than Her Family?

Her older brother, Julius, 21, said Dada regularly threatened her with violence if she went to police.

One time, Julius said he contacted police after Dada threatened to kill his girlfriend because he suspected she had been talking to other boys.

'She told me in [Romanian] not to saying anything because he had a machete in his trousers,' he recalled.

Julius said Dada was a psychopath whose controlling behaviour regularly led to violence, including when he threw his girlfriend out of his flat naked and forced her to get a taxi home.

This appears to have gone on quite a while. Did her family do nothing? Did they originally not query their 17 year old daughter hooking up with a street thug? 

Never mind, though. The real villains of the piece are the ones who didn't fill in the paperwork correctly... 

The two Metropolitan Police constables will face claims that their performance was grossly incompetent in a two-day hearing beginning on September 8. It is claimed that, on June 23 2018, at an address in Forest Hill and at Lewisham police station, both in south-east London, they:

• Failed to acknowledge a member of the public was reporting criminal allegations of harassment and offences under the Public Order Act;
• Failed to take positive action as a result of that allegation;
• Failed to complete risk assessments relating to a vulnerable victim of domestic abuse;
• Failed to safeguard a child (Miss Makunova) in failing to complete a report for a database containing details of minors who have had contact with police.

PC Dennis is also accused of providing false and misleading information on a crime report. It is claimed the officer wrongly recorded that Miss Makunova did not want to make a statement when she had not been asked to do so; wrongly stated that a risk assessment form had been completed; and incorrectly said that she had refused to answer some questions.

I can't really blame them for not caring. No-one else seems to have... 

It's Always Someone Else's Fault...

The parents of a student with severe social anxiety who took her own life on the day she was scheduled to face “the ordeal” of an important oral test have launched legal proceedings against her university, claiming she was the victim of negligence and disability discrimination.

If she wasn't able to cope without extensive 'help', maybe university wasn't the best place for her?

They argue the university did not do enough to support Abrahart when staff had known for six months that she suffered from panic attacks and was struggling.

Why was it up to the university to help her in an environment she clearly couldn't cope with?

Don't her parents bear any responsibility at all for sitting their daughter down and having a frank and honest talk about her options?

Abrahart’s parents believe the university is in denial over their daughter’s death and taking legal action is the only way they can get to the truth of what happened. She is one of 11 Bristol university students who have taken their own lives in the last four years.

Which indicates one of two possible options: either Bristol University has adopted the tutoring techniques of the SAS or the nation's crop of students are, well, snowflakes.

The university argues that staff repeatedly tried to help Abrahart and measures were in place to help her to continue on her course.

It points out that at the conclusion of the student’s inquest last year the coroner did not criticise the university but flagged up concerns over the role of the Avon and Wiltshire Mental Health Partnership NHS trust (AWP), whose care she was under, for not putting in place a management plan that would have given her hope and managed her risk.

If you're a risk that needs to be managed, why the hell are you at university in the first place?