I write this post in the interests of tracking down the clearly violent individual shown in the video above.
Although the police were easily able to locate the registered keeper of the car involved, it seems that – by an astonishing coincidence – the car was taken without consent on the day of the incident (the keys apparently being left in the ignition – how careless), before being returned to the owner at a later date.
The attacker is still at large, and the police are not taking any further action – despite having several witnesses, including a bus driver, and video footage of the entire incident. And even the attacker’s first name, which appears to be ‘John’.
This yields a number of intriguing possibilities.
- A) the registered keeper of the car is the attacker, and the Metropolitan Police are incompetent.
- B) the registered keeper knows the attacker, but is refusing to name him, hiding behind the story that his car was taken by persons unknown, and then miraculously returned to him.
- C) the registered keeper does not know the attacker, who is in the peculiar habit of stealing a car with his mates, driving around and assaulting a stranger, before returning the car – undamaged – to its rightful owner.
I think that covers it.
I’d like to believe that A) and C) are not remotely likely (although I’m not ruling out A) just yet), so that leaves B).
As the Police don’t seem remotely willing to press the registered keeper to name the individual in this video, we’ll have to do their job for them.
UPDATE – Martin Porter points out that criminals can now escape justice by employing this ‘taken without consent’ excuse. Are number plates effectively pointless?
There is far too much of this going on and it should be taken seriously by the authorities. It seems in London the trail runs cold when the registered keeper says the car was taken without his consent and subsequently returned.