I read her comments in depth and I know what she meant though (having served as a copper).
The most grief you used to get off anyone was middle-class people you'd stop. I worked in a salt-of-the-earth area and generally speaking these people's pidgin knowledge of law was better than the middle-classes and saw the police as being part of every day life. Most people, when pulled over, would simply get a ticking off and get back in and drive off, no harm done. As I wasn't judged on handing out tickets etc. I used my discretion as best as possible and it often came down to the attitude test.
The other half of my division had a prominent, fairly wealthy middle-class area in it and when I patrolled round there and pulled people over it was not unusual to get people jumping out of their car saying, "I don't know why you've pulled me over..." Well, firstly, I don't have to have a reason, the law states I can pull anyone over, and secondly you know exactly why, you're just trying to bullshit your way out of it as if it was a board presentation of job interview where you're exaggerating your credentials!
I had a few "I'll see you in court" type lines as well, quite amusing that people's knowledge extended to media coverage of celebrities going to court to contest using their phone etc. People who thought that if they didn't answer the phone that meant they hadn't committed an offence. People who thought that if they didn't blow into the intoxilyser the police didn't have any evidence against them. Obviously these people were, correctly, prosecuted.
I remember quite vividly pulling over a young chap in a brand new company C-Class. I was on a stretch of motorway that drops down to a 50 and then to a 40 as it hits an urban area. I'm in the middle lane and I've just entered the 50 (in a Transit, I might add - here's where the stupidity lies, in him assuming that because I have no rear-view mirror I must not be using my wing mirrors). I see this C-Class barrelling up in the third lane, I would estimate probably doing somewhere in the region of 90-100mph. By this time I'm just approaching the 40 and he's seen me, slowed down to about 70 or so, then he tucks in behind me and matches my pace.
Now, I probably would have left it there because no harm done and he was then at the appropriate speed in a residential area, which is what I care about. But oh no. Despite me doing a GPS-verified 40, he then moves back into the third lane, overtakes me and moves back into the second, doing IIRC around 45-46mph. He then has to brake for a speed camera further down the road. I do a PNC check on the vehicle and find out it's leased, which can sometimes be dodgy (used to get a lot of 'premium' leased cars doing robberies and the like).
So, not unreasonably I don't think, I pull him over in a bus stop a bit further down the road. I can instantly see he's not a handy lad or a known villain, just a bloke with a company car. He winds his window down and says:
Blokey: "Really, officer, I don't know why you've pulled me over." [bullshit detector tingling]
Me: "Turn your engine off and come onto the pavement and I'll explain."
Blokey: "Why do you want me to get out of my car?" [engine still running]
Me: "So that I don't have to stand in the road and get run over?"
His attitude was pretty disgusting and symptomatic of the "I pay your wages" type. He had a female passenger who was squirming with discomfort at this point. I move to the pavement, not really wanting to engage in an argument, and he thankfully follows suit.
Me: "Do you know why I've pulled you over?"
Blokey: "I have absolutely no idea."
Me: "I pulled you over because you were speeding."
Blokey: "I wasn't speeding."
Me: "What's the speed limit before this 40 zone?"
Blokey: "70."
I then explain how I saw him in my mirrors about half a mile further up the road, saw his manoeuvre and saw him tuck in behind me. Then explained his overtaking and following behind him in the 40 and his braking for the camera. All of a sudden he realises that I'm not an idiot and he may actually be looking at getting a ticket. He won't be because my van isn't fitted with the necessaries - regardless, my main concern was if the car had been stolen rather than just his poor driving.
Still, instead of him just admitting what he'd done and being honest and just getting a warning, he decides to have an attitude instead. This being the case I do a full PNC on him, check his license, the car, make sure the VIN matches up and then do him a producer for his insurance as he isn't carrying anything with him.
Whilst this is going on he is now profusely apologising (but not before he'd come up with the classic blame-everyone-but-yourself approach of "I'm not familiar with the area" - the speed limit signs are of the huge motorway type and there's one either side of the carriageway) because he is being delayed taking his girlfriend to the train station. She gets out of the car and says, "Look, I can just get a taxi..." He turns around and practically shouts: "Get back in the car!" With a bus station full of people watching. Deary me.
I told him that it could have been dealt with in only a minute if he was honest instead of trying to pull the wool over my eyes. I presume she didn't get her train.
Anyway, moral of the story: what she was trying to say is that the middle-classes complain bitterly about some things (not always 'crime') which the police should deal with more: anti-social behaviour, people loitering on street corners, graffiti, the usual kind of stuff. Even when kids don't do anything wrong they get accused of being yobs etc.
Is speeding in urban areas just as, if not more, anti-social? Is doing, say, 40 in a 30 not going to be more dangerous than a bunch of kids hanging on a street corner?
You can't have it both ways. You can't pick and choose which laws you like and which you don't, they all have to be enforced as objectively as possible taking into account all other factors. There is an "I can do what I want" attitude towards driving, believing in one's infallibility and not wanting to admit culpability when caught; which is why driving offences are the most exploited of any laws in court. It is patently ridiculous that minor procedural errors should cause something cut-and-dried to be thrown out but people see it as OK because it's only driving and the police are out there to scam you out of money?
True about school parking too, you generally cannot believe that people still feel it acceptable to park on zigzags. I quite happily ticketed everyone I saw doing it.
I always felt that, despite making the most noise, middle-class people were the last to support the police in what is generally a difficult job because they only saw the world from their point of view and never anybody else's.
This post is tempered by the fact that I am what you would probably call lower middle-class.
