A perfectly innocent explanation ....

[andy-hughes]

Two men have been arrested for placing a sleeping child in the boot of a car, and driving some considerable distance. The police were alerted by shoppers who witnessed the incident in a Sainsbury's car park. the police are reported as saying that there could be a, quote, 'perfectly innocent' explanation for what shoppers had seen, but that the circumstances appeared 'suspicious'.

Now I'm as keen as the next person to see that the police don't jump to conclusions before the facts are known, but from where on earth does the thinking come that reckons placing a partially clothed sleeping four-year-old in the boot of a car can be explained as 'perfectly innocent', and even more gob-smacking is the notion that such an action only 'appeared' suspicious.

Given their lamentable profile in terms of falling over themselves to protect the 'human rights' of felons to the detriment of innocent people - and how much more inocent can you get than a sleeping child - maybe the police should brief their 'spokesperson' in advance about what he or she is going to say.

Something less in line with a willingness to see the potential for an 'error of judgement', or somehting from which 'lessons can be learned', and more in line with the view of any sane member of the public whom the police are paid to protect, which is that putting children the boots of cars is nothing else but 'suspicious' and the explanation couldn't find a notion of innocence if it tried!

What in the name of sanity are the police playing at?

Any opinions?

[spinchimp]

Calm down - they have arrested two men, what more do you want?

[andy-hughes]

I want them to accept that the notion of putting a partially clothed four-year-old child in the boot of a car does not lend itself to the notion of having any reasonable explanation - much less an 'innocent' one - and that suggesting the idea that there is an 'innocent' explanation is to suggest that such behaviour could be excusable.

I am always calm.

Furious, but still calm.

[IggyB]

i didn't realise that they had actually traced the driver and the passenger yet - so they have now been arrested now have they? what have they been arrested for e.g. did they abduct a child or were they being stupid and cruel and carrying one of their own kids in the boot of their car - a link to their arrest sorry would be great if you have one.

Regarding the statement you refer to, this was made when they were still seeking the car and the men in question, they seemed to be taking it very seriously and making a lot of effort to track the car in question but also they would be aware that there could of course be a reasonable explanation (clearly it turned out that there wasn�t but there could have been couldn�t there) � for example when I was a lifeguard one of my colleagues was stopped by the police and questioned following a report from a garage he had stopped at that he had a body in his car, this was actually a rather realistic resuscitation doll that the lifeguards practised on. People reporting crimes or suspicious incidents are often mistaken in witness statements and I guess the police are more aware of this than most, hence the points made that it could turn out to be a simple mistake whilst they tracked the people concerned � I don�t see the problem with the spoke person hedging their bets until they have tracked the car and worked out whats happened.

[andy-hughes]

I accept your point - and the illustration IggyB - I read the news in a daily paper - hence no link. If the BBC website run the story, I'll lionk it.

The facts of this case are different than the illustration you give - a number of independent witnesses saw one of these men take a partly-clothed sleeping four-year-old from the bakc of a car, place her in the boot, and drive off. This was in a Sainsbury's car park in the middle of the afternoon - not much opportunity for misinterperting what has been seen.

My point is - there cannot be an 'innocent' explanation for this action - and the police would do well to avoid any suggestion that there is. A simple "Circumstances surrounding this incident are being investigated ..." is equally appropriate, until facts are established.

I can't see how you 'mistakenly' put a child in the boot of a car - and the police's suggestion that this somehow happened uis utterly farcicle..

[londonbarry]

Couldn't it be the case that the police don't want to prejudice any possible later prosecution by being seen not to be impartial before hearing these guys explanation for their actions. I totally agree with you sentiments though - there can be no excuse for treating a child in this way.

[andy-hughes]

Absolutely londonbarry - my issue is not with the fact that police wish to appear even-handed and impartial, it is the wording of their statement, suggersting that there could be an 'innocent explanation' for putting a child in the boot of a car.

I dont recall the Met. advising that there could be a 'relavent poltitical belief' to explain the 7 / 7 bombings - better to steer clear of such a notion and confirm that investigations are under way.

The statement that their could be an 'innocent explanation' infers that there could be an innocent explanation for this action, and that the police are keen to find it!

[rockyracoon]

Perhaps someone could come up with a 'perfectly innocent' explanation. I fail to see it, but lets see.

[noxlumos]

Well it's fairly obvious that it's not innocent but here goes with the explaination.

One of the men's wife was in Sainsbury's and called him to say that their child was ill. He turns up to find the child sleeping, and as the child was asleep picked her up and placed her in the back of a hatchback on a quilt for the brief journey home, as he didn't want to wake her or make her uncomfortable by sitting her up.

If that, or something similar, were the case then all they'd have been guilty of was utter stupidity in not making sure the kid had a seat belt on.

I don't imagine for a minute it's anything like that but the police spokesman would err on the side of caution just in case.

[andy-hughes]

As always noxlumos, your even-handedness is to be applauded however -

The car was not a hatchback - it was a Hynundai Lantra - it's not a hatchback, it has a boot.

The two men were already in the car, with the child asleep in the back. One of them then took her out of the car and placed her in the boot, and shut the lid, before returning to the car, which was then dirven some distance. It does appear that the girl was known to the men, and she was not reported missing.

So I still find myself at a loss with the police inferring that somehow someone made a bit of a mistake, but never mind .... it's simply careless interaction with the police, and as mentioned in my original Question - the police can ill afford this kind of elementary blunder which infers that they are keen to see the 'positive' aspects of this incident, when clearly, none whatsoever exist, or could be dragged from even the most liberal PC mind to defend such actions.

[Oneeyedvic]

So, police are relying on eye witness reports.

Do you remember the shooting of Menezes? I recall listening to it on 5-Live as it unfolded. Several eye witnesses came forward to say that they had seen the terrorist vaulting the barrier, that he had wires coming out of his back pack and that the police had shouted for him to stop but he had run off.

all totally incorrect.

Still believe your eye witnesses?

[noxlumos]

hiya Andy, I was under the impression when I posted that the car was a Lantra Estate because of this link.

http://uk.news.yahoo.com/18062006/344/girl-boot-home-family.html

A kid asleep in the back of an estate car to me puts an entirely different perspective on it than a kid locked in a boot. If it's a boot it's clearly not acceptable, but lots of kids travel in the back of estate cars, you see it every day to be honest, and I was going by what it said in this report.

[jake-the-peg]

I once had a very interesting few conversations with Special Branch because somebody thought she'd heard somebody thought I was acting suspiciously and though she'd heard someone talking about bombs and took my registration plate.

Total rot of course but eye-witnesses can be notoriously unreliable. Although this sounds pretty dodgy it would be very very unprofessional for the Police to jump to conclusions.

Especially so soon after Forest Gate!

[netibiza]

Well, when we brought my new-born daughter home from the clinic, she was put into the boot in her carrycot, but it was open all the way through and I could see her,there wasn't any more room in the car. I was terrified that we would be rear ended and was almost in tears by the time we got her (safely) home.

[rockyracoon]

Netibiza- OMG are you serious?

[netibiza]

Yes, but it was winter and not many cars on the roads and it was on this small island so am not talking fast motorways and roadrage, but horrible none the less.

[Grunty]

At the time the police statement was made, this could easily have been a doll or even a bundle of washing.

Some years ago, the AA investigated the reliability of witnesses. They showed a group of people a film of a mock-up accident. At an ordinary crossroads, a red car turned right acrodss the path of a green car coming towards it. The 'witnesses' were interviewed later and described several colours of car, a roundabout, a Y-junction, a bus and a lorry. All of which had been imagined.

[joko]

you put a new born into your boot, then left it open, to drive home, in the winter?
and you say you could still see her? you say there was no more room in the car?

i am understanding this correctly???

you didn't think to put whatver was taking up the space in the car into the boot? - thats what its for!
and if it was full of people i would have told them to get a taxi, and if i had been one of the people in your car, i would have got out and got a taxi by choice. where did who ever bought the car to you think the baby was going to go?
and how could you still see her if the boot was open?

i sincerely hope i am mistaken and your car was a hatchback with the seats forward - even then, why not put her nearest you and the stuff at the back?
i am stunned

[PhilBy]

Grunty has got it in one!

[PhilBy]

Just to follow it up: My nephew is a policeman with an armed response unit and he will tell you that 99% of their call outs have an 'innocent explanation'! Had the police failed to investigate I could understand concerns but they did and arrests have been made!?

[andy-hughes]

Just to reinforce my original point -

I am not taking issue with the police waiting to ascertain all the facts before making a statement, my issue is the position taken that there "could be a perfectly innocent explanation" which is simply an inflamatory position for a public body under severe criticism to take.

As I said in my opriginal post - no-one is looking to hard for religious, cultural or political reasons for suicide bombings in London - although they may well be there to be found - it is simply not appropriate to take up this stance before factss are known.

My problem is, the tendency to try and excuse a possibly criminal and negligent act against a defenceless child before facts are known , is to appear to be looking very hard for a reason why the aparent scenario has not taken place. Surely it would be better, simply to say that investigations are under way, and comment on full evidence and facts, rather than leaping to the 'PC' response at the first opportunity.