There was a story doing the rounds of the media during the week about three young girls being reported to the police for picking daffodils. It rather depended on the source as to how the tale was reported, but generally it was that the children picked daffodils in a park in Poole. Upon seeing this felony, a local councillor reported the matter to the police who then intervened – or swooped, if you read the likes of the Mail.
As is always the case with these things, there’s more to it than meets the eye. Guy Walters comments in the Telegraph to this effect. His general take is that the parents were negligent in allowing the children to pick the daffs. The flowers being in a public park, so should be left for the public to enjoy. Again, depending on the source, they picked anything from a few to bunches of eighty blooms.
So, yes, he is right – they really shouldn’t be picking the flowers. And, yes, it is stealing. But… The local councillor, Peter Adams observed them and rather than wander over and politely request them to stop, called the police – or a member of his family did, depending on your source. The police then observed them, apparently, for twenty minutes before intervening. If it was that bad, why let it go on for so long? Why not intervene immediately and stop further damage? The answer is probably that it really wasn’t as bad as is being made out. Storms and teacups and all that. This was at the most a minor offence that warranted nothing more than a reminder to the parents. It could have been handled diplomatically without police involvement and consequently without the beady eyes of the press all over it.
Yet, despite that;
Mr Adams said: “I frankly think it was a proper response.”
No, Mr Adams, it was not a proper response. It was heavy handed and over the top. A quiet word was all that was required. The police didn’t need to be in involved at all. What we have here is a symptom of the malaise that infects modern society (well two if you count the failure of parents to effectively supervise their children) – heavy handed policing of a minor infraction. Not to mention cowardice on the part of Adams, who comes out of this story as one of those petty prodnoses so typified in the bureaucratic bestiary of local government, all puffed up with his own mean spirited, smug self-importance so determined to stamp what little authority he has with as big a bang as he possibly can.
The word he needs to learn, understand and inwardly digest is; “disproportionate”.
I take the point you make, but I blame the idiot parents.
Sadly, council cancers like Adams have made it extremely dangerous for law-abiding citizens to confront people breaking even the most trivial of rules. Assuming that he was perfectly correct in confronting the flower-pickers, the best he could expect was a mouthful of abuse from the culprits, and the worst, should authority need to be invoked, is the likelihood of being arrested for attempting to uphold the law. Child abuse charges would be likely to follow.
The word he needs to learn, understand and inwardly digest is; “disproportionate”.
Yep that and ‘massive cunt’…
About 15 years ago the residents’ committee of the street where my parents live, not quite leafy suburbia but an agreeable place once you get used to the passing lorries, had it `drawn to their attention (they were, of course, the sort of people to whose attention things are drawn, being far too important to go around noticing things for themselves) that there was some question as to exactly how precious, anally retentive, petty and obnoxious they really were. They set about seeking ways to clarify the matter.
The particular solution they found was to read the small print on some obscure by-law, long forgotten even by the people who had nothing better to do but make it in the first place, trim their own hedges, then report everyone else for having heterogenous shrubbage. You have to be truly dedicated to the cause of showing exactly what kind of person you are to do that kind of thing.
As for Mr Adams, I imagine there was a certain amount of bullying, of the ‘I’m a councillor, you kinow officer, now go over there and sort it out’, like those insufferable women who hide behind their inoffensive husbands while shouting abuse at random strangers.
Deborah Orr in CiF wasn’t too happy with this story either. Which is surprising, as it shows the end result of the take-no-personal-responsibility, trust the state society that people like her have been striving for.
Some women are never happy… 😉
I find the comments about parental responsibility and supervision a tad odd.
When I was of a similar age back in the sixties, on school holidays and weekends, we’d often disappear after breakfast, down the lane to the canel, round the back of the church to sandy banks or down Mill Lane to the river. We’d come back for lunch then head off again. At the other end of the country, my wife and her friends and brothers were doing much the same.
We certainly weren’t angels and didn’t have a great respect for property rights (how things change) but we did respect (avoid) adults and refrained from malicious activites. Bringing some scraggly blooms home to mum would have been something we did occasionally, especially when we had torn clothes to own up to.
To us, and our parents who had done the same, wandering far and wide seemed the natural thing for kids to do (Enid Blighton and Richmal Comptom seem to concur although we never caught any smugglers).
The key, I guess, is the values one inculcates in one’s children before sending them off roaming.
XX (well two if you count the failure of parents to effectively supervise their children)XX
Against the now apparantly majority attitude of “My wee Jimmy can do nuffink wrong and anyone sez he does I’ll stick ’em innit”.
What would your answer be?
Allow the offence to continue, or call the police?
(Personally, I would grab “wee Jimmy” and impale the bastard on the closest spikey fence, but thats just me.)
Yes, of course parental responsibility is part of the equation here. I see it all too often – parents who allow their offspring to run riot on trains and annoy other passengers. Rebuke is usually met with “you were a child once” or something similar. Yes, I was, and I was taught how to behave.
All of this is part of the same root problem that is typified by the likes of Councillor Adams – a loss of personal responsibility. Adams devolved his to the police over an incident that certainly didn’t warrant it.
Several people commenting on this story have mentioned the loss of park keepers.They have a valid point. Better to retain park keepers on the council payroll than diversity outreach officers. A parkie would have the necessary authority to deal with this infraction.
My post was a bit sloppy (possibly in two senses). Canal and Richmal Crompton for starters. Also, my wife was my future, unmet wife in those days, we were not betrothed to each other as toddlers or some such.
The point I was trying to make was that we spent long periods of time beyond the direct supervision of our parents and somehow society didn’t seem to break down, and it didn’t rely on us getting a clip around the ear from a copper or other authority figure. We were taught right from wrong, but we were also brought up with what I’ve always regarded as a healthy mistrust of authority.
My childhood was similar. The difference between then and now however seems to be that our parents instilled into us a sense of personal responsibility so that they didn’t have to watch us every minute of the day.
I too had the benefit of a childhood in which I was allowed to roam free. Ripping up a few flowers would not have bothered my young conscience. One of the differences between then and now, is that my parents would not have justified such behaviour, but would have agreed with the reprimand from the unified ranks of adulthood.