Blog

The 'Inspector' calls.

“You think you understand, but you don’t, Mr.F”. The 'acting' Inspector's harassing retort was constant and his bullying expressed his irritation with me, as he repeated his sentiment 10 times and more. This was much to the embarrassment of his accompanying junior member of staff, a female PCSO, who sat throughout an uncomfortable cringe worthy diatribe. In presenting his argument, he introduced a fair smattering of malapropisms. I was flummoxed in how I should react. Somewhat looking like someone with constipation, displaying the harsh face of a defecating man, I restrained myself from laughing at his unfortunate delivery of the English language.

“You know you are very bitter, Mr.F ”. I slow nodded in agreement as it was the best way to appease someone who was clearly on the attack (who thought he was in control, certainly wanted to take control). I refrained from being sarcastic in answering his statement of the blithering obvious. His nemesis was his presentation; with a failure to show any listening skill. Remaining calm and holding counsel I was polite in listening, reeling from a desire not to belittle him in a war of words, only saying “I hope you give me the opportunity to say my bit, at some point” . I looked at him whilst taking note of his colleagues facial expression and demeanour. Her slight head vibration, pouting of her lips and her widening rolling eyes changed her overall body position from sitting subserviently on the edge of the sofa. I looked upon him in pity, as though he were a child who had not grasped the gravitas of the situation. He, seemingly, wanted to 'get the boot in'.

Although I interjected, he carried on like a runaway train completely out of control; telling me that once someone is accused of a serious crime, ‘all suspects’ even where no evidence is found and are released from an investigation will always be considered as suspects (much to the end of their days). This does support the ‘witch hunt’ argument and sinisterly counters the ‘innocent until proven guilty’ doctrine.

The new recording equipment in the house was not turned on (I must get into the habit of doing this), much a mistake by me. I was caught ‘on the hop’ somewhat shocked to see someone above the rank of constable. I let the two officers into the house in the hope that politeness, with displaying a willingness to listen, would give some amelioration. It was not to be. I went from thoughts of offering them a cup of tea, to such frustration that half way through the visit I said quite calmly “I think it is best if you leave this house”.

The ‘runaway train’ kept going, much ignoring my interjections and him displaying signs of selective deafness. I am not sure why the officers were even there. The senior officer seemed to have a clear intent to control the tone and words in the conversation; giving me a bit of a 'ticking off'. I am not of a stature or mindset to hurl someone out of the front door, but was surely tempted to give it a go. Yet again I was brow beaten; frustrated my eyes welled up and it was a very stressful hour, plus.

Given time I hope this young ‘acting’ inspector, if he wants to progress any debate or opinion, will benefit from grasping some discussion and interpersonal skills. He fell back on ‘his’ interpretation of the law and argued the confusing mechanics of procedures; rather than any spirit of reason, showing no great empathy to my plight.

Claiming knowledge and experience of Autism, he threw into the arena a suggestion that I take up model train track building. Bit of a 'M84 flash bang' moment! No doubt he determined that Autism had made me an erstwhile train spotter. My only interest in transport is limited to keeping my car on the road with the purpose of getting from A to B. But, in fairness, I had an overly critical thought towards him, determining that he was a ‘Rugger Bugger’ (a bloke with an obsessive interest in aggressive activities). With no 'significant evidence' (remember that old chestnut?) to support this assertion.

Odette Sansom Hallowes GC, MBE who suffered at the hands of the Gestapo, was asked in the late eighties during a  TV interview, if she ‘had great anger towards her tormentors’. “No” she replied, “Just pity, as they collectively and individually had lost all sense of judgement and morality”.

Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn (exiled from Russia and was given the Nobel Prize for literature) wrote, Unlimited power in the hands of limited people always leads to cruelty. You only have power over people so long as you don’t take everything away from them. But when you’ve robbed a man of everything, he’s no longer in your power .

Modern day cruelty and abuse comes in many ways. Those who are supposidly given the task of protecting us from cruelty are actively engaged in the processes of torment. My 'hero' is Christopher Jefferies, who was falsely accused of a murder. He has written much abouit his experience of being in the radar of the Police. He talked about his detainment and the subsequent actions of the Police. "At the time it felt as if the police were deliberately playing a game - promising the ordeal would soon be over and then finding it necessary to prolong the wait. It was a form of psychological torture." 

<< Go back to the previous page