It is a quite shocking example of how regard for the perpetrator’s welfare trumps the right of the victim to have the police apprehend somebody who has stolen his goods.
The message here: nick a bike, don’t bother with a crash helmet, and you’ll be able to travel to wherever you want untroubled by the inconvenience of having your collar felt.
So what’s next? Nick a car, don’t bother to put a seat belt on and off you go.
And what after that? Mug an old lady for a purse and run off. Of course, there’s always the risk that you might trip over, or that you might run into the road and be knocked down. So we won’t chase you just in case you hurt yourself.
Please don’t laugh at my examples. Who would have thought even just a few years ago that police would refuse to chase a motor-cycle thief because they were concerned for his welfare? These things tend to develop by stealth, bit by bit in the hope that nobody will care. “After all,” will be the response “We already leave motor-cycle thieves alone if they are not wearing a helmet. It’s not much different to a car thief not wearing a seat belt”.
The attitude of the police (and I mean the policy setters, not the individual officers) has made this country the laughing stock of the world. The police should consider victims first, last and all the points in between and stop fretting whether the poor villains may injure themselves as a result of their criminal activities.