THE OTHER SIDE OF THE COIN
In your September issue ” Police Officer ” quite rightly suggests that both sides of an affair should be published, but he, of course, argues only one side. Let me give you the other. “Disillusioned Motorist ” exceeded the speed limit by xo m.p.h.,
for which he was fined k4. The Daily T’elegraph, on September . znd, reported a case m which a motorcyclist approached a pedes
trian crossing. As he did so, a woman (only a woman “) started to cross. Rather than stop he Charged the woman, hit her and knocked her down. Upon conviction he was fined 6os. Sixty shillings! He was a policeman.
The same journal reports a case in which it is alleged that a motorist who was suspected by the police of committing a motoring offence (of which the Court subsequently acquitted him) was beaten up by them. At any rate, a doctor certified that he suffered two black eyes, multiple bruisings and a broken nose. The police carefully explained that the man fell over” in the police station. Some fall!
An inquiry is very. rightly being held into the police behaviour in this case. Who is conducting the inquiry ? Why, Sir, none other than the police themselves, although it is an established principle of English Law that no Man shall be judge in his own case. I fancy that I could accurately forecast the outcome of the ” inquiry.” Since I do not wish to incur two black eyes, a broken nose, etc., through ” falling over,” I must ask you, Sir, to be so good as to allow me to sign myself,
” Alsionum DISILLUSIONED MOTOIUST.” [Name and address supplied.—Eo.]