Glad that you are only dignity diminished and otherwise uninjured, Toni...

The balance between reactive and preventative policing is never going to be adequate especially when policy, priorities and resources are not up to the task. This is made worse when we only discover they'll not be up to the task which is when, of course, we need them. By then it is too late.

None of which helps you in this situation.

Maybe you could reconsider supplying a statement?

Because as far as 'The System' is aware it didn't happen, the police didn't 'fail' to respond and there is no statistical trail of yet another unsolved crime against persons in that area which might eventually help refocus back-to-basics policing away from the plethora of victimless crimes with which police are required to address and use [number of breath tests undertaken, for example] as evidence of 'effectiveness'.

If you had been really badly or permanently injured they couldn't have ignored the incident. But I don't accuse you of getting it wrong... that would be blaming the victim.

Police are not there to protect you and me - they are there to serve their patrons, the government.

Had we been allowed to hire our own police force, had they been employed by members of the public who pay them voluntarily, then there's a chance they would be working for our safety.

I get to meet police mainly through community organisations, sports and schools (not so much schools in recent times).

I get to meet them in those environments because those who join the police force, like those who choose medicine, ambulance, bushfire brigade, teaching, the military and some other occupations do so because they want to serve the public and make a difference. They choose vocations where they can make a difference that really matters to the lives of others and to the community of which they are part.

Now I realise that when we feel powerless we cast around for people to blame and those on the sharp end are the easiest targets, sometimes because they were having a rough day too.

Our local police station covers some very large suburbs but from dusk to dawn there is just one patrol, with a trained officer and usually a trainee. Incidents involving drugs and alcohol eg domestic disturbances burn up most of their time.

Of a day there are more police available but all are burdened down with the extras that the Nanny State and political populism have added, that likely contribute zilch to effective policing and law enforcement.

Toni Lavis,

Brusque treatment is not excusable.

Other than that the fault is political. It is fortunate that you didn't clout one of the ferals with a walking stick, in which case the prevailing political correctness may have seen you interrogated and charged instead.

//The fight against methamphetamine and other drugs is lost. The crime explosion that goes with it has swamped police.//

Simple fix: employ more beat cops. Or just employ the cops we have on more beat patrols. Nothing keeps citizens in line like seeing the long arm of the law walk amongst them.

It's easy to get away with a simple street-level transaction when the fuzz don't want to stray from the air-conditioned comfort of their cushy cars. It'd be harder if they had to pound the pavements. This afternoon I counted six (empty) police vehicles outside of the police station that I was told could not spare a man to investigate a coward-punch. Clearly, somebody is investing too heavily in capital and insufficiently in labour; or to put in another way: too many toys, not enough boys.

//Most police are useful.//

Show me the evidence.

//Maybe you could reconsider supplying a statement?//

I might, but I don't think it's the sort of statement they're going to want to hear. In my experience, 'people' like the NSW Police Force are naturally talented at remaining deaf to the sort of things they don't want to hear.

//Because as far as 'The System' is aware it didn't happen, the police didn't 'fail' to respond and there is no statistical trail of yet another unsolved crime against persons in that area which might eventually help refocus back-to-basics policing away from the plethora of victimless crimes with which police are required to address and use [number of breath tests undertaken, for example] as evidence of 'effectiveness'.//

In short... churn my statistics through the statistics mill and hope to buggery that the right answer is fed out into the 'answer' hopper.

It all seems a bit Victorian to me.

Here's a nice Victorian solution to a modern problem: re-employ veterans of the Afghan war to protect and serve the peace. It's a win-win-win: the vets get all the benefits of contributing to society and earning an honest wage, the public can have defenders of the peace that care about the peace, and the wealthier classes can still have their thief-takers.

I live in a neighbourhood with two police as neighbours, and nicer family guys you would never meet. One a traffic officer and the other located at the Station in general policing and has riot qualifications. The problem is if they are at the the forefront of violence and abuse everyday and often their responses are developed from dealing with abusive people. Give the police some slack, they are indifferent to trivial complaints. For those thugs it wont be the first or last time they show such behaviour so they will ultimately be caught.