A few months ago I was caught by police for not wearing a seat-belt on a short trip to get the morning paper (I normally walk but not this day). They filled in the documentation and drove back to base to collect their points and I went to the council to pay the fine. I refrained from asking why they weren't out chasing "real" criminals. But after they left a passer-by said that he had been in the town a few evenings earlier and a large group of youngsters were creating mayhem. Not a copper in sight. Possibly just a simple, small police presence was all that was needed.
Yesterday the head of the Police Federation hit the nail on the head when she said that government targets mean that some forces will make a playground incident between children a statistical "crime" (when in the past a quiet word would have done the trick, assuming police were involved at all). She said there is a growing perception that police are targetting "middle England" (and polite geriatrics) rather than dealing with more serious crimes (and proper thugs). How right she is. As she says there is nothing wrong with targets per se but they have to be the right targets.
And I'm certainly not saying that police shouldn't pull up people who are not wearing a seat-belt. Just that it's beginning to look as if police priorities are skewed towards dealing with this sort of offence at the expense of others. Jan Berry, the head in question, made a comment to the effect that police were "spending too much time inside counting things instead of outside doing things"
