I'm currently covering Boston Magistrates court and it's proving to be quite an education in Eastern European culture.
All but two of the defendants that I reported on this morning were foreign from Latvia, Russia or Poland and one Brazilian. It was a right hard job to get those names spelled correctly but thank God for court lists.
Mind you, I noted that each defendant had a slightly different spelling to their names as AKAs and I wonder if this is just the police hedging their bets in the hope that at least one version is correct.
One of he English defendants - a woman - also had a very odd spelling of her first name Letitcia AKA Letitica. I must admit I felt a bit sorry for her although she should not have barged in on a police arrest and she accepted that and got fined heavily for it.
A copper gave her a "knee strike" which I think must be another Home Office approved way of beating up the public but I felt it was a bit harsh. She lashed out and didn't intend to kick the officer in the groin (is that another way of saying bollocks?) and she ended up paying him £75 in compensation because he was "a bit sore."
His legitimate knee-strike on her left her with both knees swelled and very sore and I just wonder if this sort of heavy handed treatment is absolutely necessary or if it's coppers being bullies because they can.
I don't blame the police for using these tremendous powers against the public because the Govt has allowed for them to be bruisers by law. I think the Govt had in mind more serious criminals when they approved these sort of measures but this woman was mid 40s, a bit fat, and not the sort you'd expect would be too much for a man to handle.
Yes, yes, I know I'm probably being sexist but men are made stronger - especially when they train like police officers and women are weaker - especially when they don't. I think this sort of physical control method was given to the police to deal with yobs and hard men and not silly women getting in the way.
It's a bit like the proceeds of crime act. It was intended to get millions or thousands of pounds of criminal assets from the Mr Bigs who as far a I can tell still get away with it while a bloke who nicks a guitar and returns it, and a golf bag with clubs, and returns those, is sent up to crown court under the proceeds of crime act. Why? It wasn't said but it seems very odd to me. OK - he was a slimeball who stole a few quid out of a charity box as well - which wasn't recovered - but still that was not the reason for the law being imposed.
I've also seen a burglar addict without two pennies to rub together being jailed under proceeds of crime act when it's quite clear he's pretty useless at what he does, always gets caught, and hasn't made a buck from his bungled attempts. What this act does, it appeares to me, is allow for bully state revenge on little people like him because they can't get the big ones and it makes it look as if they're "doing something" about crime.
12 years of reporting the petty criminal courts is enough to make anyone lose faith in British Justice, its laws, its enforcers, and its courts.