For as long as I can remember, I have had an inquisitive, investigative streak: a strong desire to understand how things work, and why they work as they do. More recently, as I have grown older, and my career path has changed, that curiosity has shifted towards a need to understand why people behave and think as they do. Most importantly, I have become ever more interested in how people weigh the perceived benefits and costs of their thoughts and actions, both for themselves and for the wider community and society of which they are part of. Always assuming that they have actually completed that type of analysis in the first place, because often they don’t.
Two seemingly unrelated – but possibly connected – items have recently “flooded the zone” of our attention-deficit-ridden 24/7 news cycle. And expectedly, to my mind, have subsequently attracted a deluge of vitriol. In my view, however, there is a strong connection between both of them. The immediate reaction to both — a rush of valid and invalid emotional commentary that left little room for any thoughtful discussion, at least in what I have read — has largely reinforced some of my original assumptions. Bear with me while I unpack and expand on that thinking.
Firstly, what has subsequently been a clearly controversial Channel 4 documentary – The Great ADHD Myth? aired recently; where presenters and producers supposedly set out “to determine whether ADHD is a genuine neurodevelopmental disorder, or a social construct.”
“The rise of ADHD is one the most prevalent health issues of the modern age. NHS data shows that there has been a 200% increase in the number of people being referred for an ADHD diagnosis between 2020 and 2025” (Channel 4).
Predictably, social-media keyboard warriors responded to the programme with vitriol, often in puerile, acidic or combative terms. Sadly, some self-appointed “experts” were just as quick to join the fray, firing volley after volley of indignant outrage dressed up as “evidence-based” ‘scientific’ but largely personal opinion. To be fair, some of those views may have indeed drawn on academic knowledge or lived experience. Even so, much of what I read seemed almost entirely lacking in nuance, context and logic, and fell well short of a carefully reasoned presentation of established scientific evidence.
I am not a qualified physician, nor a trained and experienced medical clinician, so I cannot draw any firm conclusions from what I have seen or read — at least not yet. I am more of an amateur anthropological observer: a societal people-watcher. Even so, I do have well-founded personal concerns about society’s growing tendency to pathologise almost everything, with both clinical and non-clinical voices seemingly quick to seek diagnostic labels for all manner of behaviours and experiences. I find it even more troubling when, almost inevitably, some supposedly “magical” pharmaceutical solution appears for the newly identified “problem”. With that in mind, I need more information and more time before forming a settled personal view on this area of clinical debate. For now, my cognitive jury remains in recess, so I will move on to the next news item.
Two [police] officers among seven killed in A66 crash after police chase near Middlesbrough (ITV News)
The horrific A66 crash, which claimed seven lives, has deeply affected many people, especially the families and friends grieving loved ones. Yet, amid the relentless 24/7 news coverage, it quickly became clear that this was another devastating tragedy that should never have happened. Once again, social-media combatants were out in force, adding to the wider malaise and perhaps reflecting some of the very attitudes and behaviours that may have contributed to such a catastrophic outcome.
“This is an incredibly sad day for Cleveland. This loss is being felt across our communities, by our police family, and by our partner agencies.” (Victoria Fuller, Chief Constable, Cleveland Police)
Not long after the news of this horrific incident broke, the self-styled “world’s most free-thinking newspaper” [The Independent] posted on social media: “Five members of the public travelling in the Volkswagen Passat were pronounced dead but have yet to be named” under the heading “Everything we know about the police crash in Middlesborough” – they couldn’t even spell Middlesbrough correctly!
Perhaps I am too sensitive to the wording of media headlines, especially where policing is involved. After thirty years in that public service, like many serving and retired officers, I can easily recognise — or at least anticipate — a familiar media narrative taking shape. When phrases such as “five members of the public” and “dead” appear alongside references to a “police crash” (with inference of blame dressed in emotive tones), it is easy to see why I, and many others connected to policing, become frustrated by the narratives that so often dominate. Too often, they seem designed to heighten public anxiety and division as part of a clickbait-driven business model. That said, perhaps I was being overly sensitive: The Independent’s initial reporting, and that of some other outlets, was actually a little more restrained than usual. Some even appeared to show greater empathy once they sensed the strength and direction of public feeling.
Before the key facts began to emerge — surprisingly quickly, in this case — one brief early social-media post caught my attention: “Driving the wrong way down the A66 at speed. To end up having a head-on with a police car… k*lling [sic] 7 people…. What the fuck is wrong with people!!!?” Those few words seemed to capture the confused emotions many people were feeling, and the anger that was already beginning to boil over in some minds. But I (mostly) just had questions.
My initial reaction was much the same as some other people: “OMG, not again,” followed quickly by something close to, “What on earth is wrong with kids today?” But deep in my mind, the question was even larger and blunter: “FFS, why?” Even so, I resisted posting an emotional response on social media, beyond saying that the incident was deeply sad and that people needed to give investigators time to establish what had happened — and, hopefully, why. Many others, understandably but regrettably, either did not or could not show the same restraint. Which was why officials from Cleveland Police, the IOPC and local politicians had to spend valuable time urging people not to speculate or circulate opinions, assumptions or false information that could hinder the investigation. Thankfully, as I explain later, taking that pause proved worthwhile.
I admit that restraint was difficult. I am strongly opinionated and usually willing to share those opinions. But this was not the time, especially in the immediate aftermath of such a catastrophic event. People were grieving, and the victims’ colleagues were trying to establish the facts and gather the evidence needed to support any later conclusions.
However, as so often happens today, I was tempted to respond. I was biting my tongue, angry and anxious to condemn any journalism that seemed intent on shaping the narrative for the public anger and commentary that would follow. Not so many decades ago, before the 24/7 commercial news cycle and social-media platforms crowded with “citizen journalists” and “digital content creators,” the news was sometimes simply news: brief, mostly factual, largely free of sociopolitical opinion, and then updated later when more facts became available. Sadly, that is no longer the norm. Today, journalists are pressured to generate content so editors can fill the cycle with material shaped by prevailing narratives, while many citizens channel their anger into the algorithm in the hope of becoming lucratively monetised “influencers.” And some just vehemently hate the police.
With all that digital stuff in mind, I decided to ask AI to produce an article which might counter today’s media normality. The instruction that I gave to ChatGPT was worded as follows: Assume that you are a local newspaper journalist covering the recent crash involving multiple fatalities on the A66 near Middlesbrough. Write a non-emotive headline followed by a short paragraph explaining the headline story. Do not include any opinion, apportioning of any guilt, or provision of any emotional content. Ensure that the piece is written with empathy for ALL the victims, and their families. The following result arrived:
Seven people die in A66 crash near Middlesbrough: Seven people, including two police officers, died following a collision involving a police vehicle and a Volkswagen Passat on the A66 at South Bank, near Middlesbrough, at about 3.39am on Saturday. Five members of the public travelling in the Passat and the two officers were pronounced dead at the scene. The Independent Office for Police Conduct is investigating the circumstances of the incident. Our thoughts are with all those who have died and with their families and friends as they await further information.
That was a lot better than some of the ‘journalistic’ tripe that I’d viewed previously. It turns out that perhaps I had maybe been a little too sensitive. Because, as I was shocked to see, ChatGPT actually sourced its AI generated ‘news’ story from… wait for it… yes, The Independent.com: “All we know about A66 crash that killed seven as police officers who died in pursuit are named”.
However, 48hrs on from the incident, most media outlets have actually tried to tone down their commonly implied “bobby bashing” rhetoric and narratives (see below). And many will probably go quiet on the matter very soon in any case, thankfully because, it will no longer be interesting (lucrative) news. And likely just as quickly that news will fade into obscurity however, some people will still be living in the story, and for a very long time to come.
“Some of the five young men who died as their Volkswagen Passat collided with a police car, killing two brave officers in the line of duty, had posted apparent joyriding videos on TikTok in the months before the crash.” (Yorkshire Post)
According to ITV News on the following Monday, less than 72 hours on from the crash, there were reports that almost £400,000 had been raised through public donations; for the families of the two police officers who had been killed in the incident. Of course, no amount of money can return two sons, siblings, husbands or fathers to their families, or fill the profound loss felt by their colleagues across the policing community. A profound sense of loss that was also being experienced by the families of the youths who were involved.
Later media output – verified by official police/IOPC releases – also reported that the incident, and the youths involved, were suspected of being connected to organised crime groups locally. Twelve people of varying ages who are also local to the Cleveland area, were subsequently arrested; for varying numbers of firearms and drug related offences. Investigations are continuing, and likely will be for some time yet.
It also appears that news of the subsequent fundraising has not been well received by some local police-baiters — or outright haters — in the community. Several quickly took to social media to attack Cleveland Police, posting expletive-laden, poorly spelt tirades and describing the dead officers as “murderers” and “scum” for killing “innocent kids”. Given the circumstances of this incident, the persistent anti-police hostility among some young people locally, and the wider public narratives that often follow such events, the backlash was both palpable and sadly predictable. But there is something all authors, professional and amateur alike, should always remember: words matter!
I have to say, that I found the public outpouring of support, backed by the financial response was truly amazing, and really rather heartening. But it also served to evidence a little-known fact; a far larger proportion of people than we think, still actually support British policing (for now). With that, I’ll now return to the ADHD “correlation” that I mentioned at the start of this piece.
So what is ADHD? The NHS uses the World Health Organization’s definition of ADHD — attention deficit hyperactivity disorder — as “a persistent pattern of inattention or hyperactivity-impulsivity” that has a direct negative effect on academic, occupational or social functioning. The UK advocacy charity adhduk.co.uk similarly explains that the disorder is assessed through behaviour and that its symptoms can continually affect a person’s day-to-day functioning and development.
According to the NHS England ADHD Taskforce, ADHD is estimated to affect around one in 20 children worldwide, while referrals for assessment and treatment, and the number of prescriptions issued, have risen significantly in recent years. These trends are being seen internationally. In the UK, NHS teams are working to increase capacity, including through referrals to independent providers, but waiting lists and waiting times have continued to grow. Global medication supply shortages have also worsened delays in diagnosis, treatment and ongoing support.
In short, ADHD is not a minor issue that can be casually dismissed as a “myth”. Nor should it be derided, especially by those without clinical training, neurological understanding or personal experience of the condition.
So let me begin with what should not be a controversial personal position, though sadly it often is: I genuinely believe ADHD is real, and that many people are adversely affected by it. I deliberately say, “affected by” rather than “suffer from”, because that distinction matters to me and informs my own, admittedly unscientific, view.
1902: The start of formal recognition of ADHD by the Royal Society of Physicians’ was the Goulstonian Lectures, later published in the Lancet, to speak on “abnormal psychical conditions in children”. (ADHD UK)
Back in 2000 — already a quarter of a century ago — the Journal of Attention Disorders published an article examining the origins and development of ADHD as an established clinical concept. It traced what we now call ADHD through neurology, paediatrics, education and psychology, connecting those early foundations with the American Psychiatric Association’s later recognition of attention-related and hyperactive-impulsive symptoms. In one recognised clinical form or another, ADHD has probably been identified since the early twentieth century and has been studied and broadly understood as a clinical concept ever since. Even if not always effectively diagnosed as such. Anyone wishing to explore that history can follow the evidence above; for my part, I am not inclined to dismiss the science behind it, whether cynically or pompously. And now for that correlation, and why I believe these two news articles can be connected.
Today, perhaps more than at any other point in my lifetime, we seem quick to attribute a wide range of incidents and behaviours to some form of mental-health condition or disorder. In some cases, that explanation may be valid. In many others, however, it may simply be a rouse. Employed by individuals — and sometimes their lawyers — reaching for convenient causal claims intended to mitigate responsibility, avoid prosecution, or excuse antisocial or criminal behaviour.
This trait is often evident amongst the much-derided “NED” or “chav” stereotype: mainly young men, often shown in media feeds dressed in black, wearing face coverings, riding e-bikes or driving high-performance cars dangerously, and causing untold harms in deprived communities. However exaggerated those portrayals may be, such people do exist, often in numbers that overstretched public services struggle to manage. Their behaviour causes real harm, including in places such as Cleveland and the wider Northeast. Even so, many should be seen not simply as the cause of social decline, but also as signs of our wider social failures.
I am not suggesting that ADHD contributed to the A66 crash, although that possibility cannot be ruled out entirely. Nor am I offering a simplistic excuse for the behaviours involved: all actions have consequences. Instead, I am asking whether the increasingly reckless behaviour we now seem to see so often reflects underlying neurological difficulties among some young people, or whether some individuals have always acted with little regard for themselves or others because they place their own immediate desires above everyone else’s. It is worth repeating that all actions have consequences — or, in street-level terms that may never reach the intended audience, FOMO can lead to FAFO.
With all that in mind, I want to examine some of the behaviours commonly associated with ADHD, drawing on relevant NHS information, and consider how they may overlap with behaviours often seen among some members of the local “NED” or “chav” demographic.
“Symptoms of ADHD usually start before the age of 12. They involve a person’s ability to pay attention to things (being inattentive), having high energy levels (being hyperactive) and their ability to control their impulses (being impulsive).” – NHS Website
Although ADHD is a malady, similarly, experienced by both adults and children, the NHS actually split their information into those two distinctly separate category areas. They state that children and young persons may show signs of being inattentive, such as being easily distracted, finding it hard to listen to what people are saying or to follow instructions, or forgetting everyday tasks, like brushing their teeth or putting on socks.
Conversely, they may show signs of being hyperactive and impulsive, including: high energy levels, fidgeting or tapping their hands and feet, talking noisily, feeling restless, or getting up and moving around when they’re supposed to sit still, and finding it hard to wait their turn, or interrupting conversations.
Most children and young people – with ADHD – display symptoms of both the inattentive and hyperactive-impulsive type. Some only show signs of one type. It’s also worth noting: “ADHD is thought to be recognised less often in girls than boys” and that is attributed to; “girls with ADHD more commonly have inattentive symptoms and these can be harder to recognise.”
But we also need to remember: “Many children are easily distracted, impulsive and have high energy levels, particularly if they’re under the age of 5. This does not mean they have ADHD. It could be a sign of something else, like being tired, anxious or stressed.”
For me, it’s hard not to see or find some symptomatic correlations, which are clearly evident within the “NED” demographic who reside in our communities. How about you?
Additionally, when considering possible causes of intentional or involuntary behaviour, it would be naïve to ignore the potential influence of mind-altering substances. The local “NED” stereotype is often associated with cannabis use and, increasingly, with stronger drugs. Regional Accident and Emergency departments dealing with overdoses or “bad batches”, and urology teams treating ketamine-related bladder damage, along with community-based drug treatment services, can attest to the wide-ranging psychological and physical harms such substances can cause.
Are we seeing the glaring behavioural similarities?
Does any of this excuse the behaviour of our “NEDs”? I do not believe it does, regardless of whether any neurological disorder was present or is later claimed. Once again, all actions have consequences. Yet that simple truth raises more questions than answers, especially when seeking practical solutions that can deliver meaningful short-term results. We cannot realistically undo decades of developmental and social damage in months, or even a few years. Even so, like many others, I believe we need to start somewhere — and soon — by addressing the many issues that helped lead to this tragedy.
I say this because, nearly a week after news of this tragedy first broke, it seems clear to me that what happened on the A66 points to far wider, deep-rooted problems. Poverty, social deprivation, poor parenting, anti-social behaviour, so-called petty crime, unchecked delinquency, drug proliferation, organised crime, generational criminality and, in some cases, an entrenched sense of family entitlement may all form part of this still-unfolding story. Too often, children grow up believing — because parents and peers have taught them so — that responsibility lies elsewhere and that society owes them an escape from hardship, even when some of that hardship is self-inflicted.
This crash was not simply “joyriding”, youthful bravado, or an isolated act of violent criminality. In my view, it was also another example of something now endemic in many communities: so-called “police-baiting” on an industrial scale. More broadly, it should stand as a warning about the wider societal malaise affecting communities across the country, not just in the northeast, where violent, lawless young people too often appear to roam the streets with little or no consequence for their actions. Realistically, the A66 incident should be seen as the tip of a much larger iceberg: the fatal culmination of generational, communal and societal decline, rooted in deprivation that the police alone cannot fix, especially with their increasingly limited resources.
Many people across the community — including, but not limited to, families, support services, local organisations and politicians — need to stop avoiding the uncomfortable realities and start taking meaningful action. That means taking time for honest reflection, then developing practical plans to address the failures that are leading to so many wasted lives and preventable deaths. Whatever has been tried so far is clearly not working. We cannot keep allowing these tragedies to happen, respond with grief and anger, and then simply move on while waiting for the next loss of life.
Addenda (as of 27th August 2026):
- Police continue with “fast-moving and complex investigation, with significant links to serious and organised criminal activity.” (The Express)
- Four of the five youths involved in A66 crash had a string of past offences, including violence, acquisitive crime and assaulting police officers. (ITV News)
- News outlets reporting that “a row has broken out” (BBC News) between Anna Turley, the local Labour MP (Redcar), and the shadow justice secretary Nick Timothy MP, who lambasted her for “paying tribute to five joyriders” (The Telegraph). Despite most of the media headlines, this appears to have been little more than a political point-scoring spat via social-media. (Guido Fawkes)
- Cleveland Police have made five additional arrests (after the previous 12) in connection with A66 crash and their subsequent OCG investigations. (ITV News)
- A property rammed by a car before the fatal crash on the A66 in Middlesbrough was the home of the father of a 17-year-old boy who died in the incident. (ITV News)
- Uncle of man killed in A66 crash jailed for driving 100mph the wrong way down same stretch months before fatal collision. (LBC News)
- Fatal A66 crash ‘sparked by turf war’ after home of teenager’s dad ‘ram-raided’ in early hours. (Daily Record)
- Family say man killed in wrong-way A66 crash was ‘no saint’ but appear to blame police. (The Mirror)
- Police not ruling out links to A66 crash after two killed in Middlesbrough house fire. (The Guardian)
- Another house rammed in Middlesbrough after A66 crash killed 7 and deadly house fire. (The Express)
- ANOTHER house rammed in Middlesbrough as fears grow of gang war after A66 crash as girl, 7, & aunt killed in fire. (The Sun)
- Middlesbrough residents fear town on brink of ‘carnage’. (The Telegraph)
- A66 crash fundraisers combine to raise £1m for two officers killed in tragedy. (The Mirror)
- Official releases from Cleveland Police can be found HERE.
- Latest updates from the IOPC can be found HERE.
Dave's Bankside Babble 