[News] Hither Green 'burglar' stabbing: Man, 78, arrested

[Dr Bandler]

This "pikey code" we hear about, blood vengeance, eye for an eye and all that. I wonder if they ever stop to wonder what they would do if a non pikey broke into one of their minibuses in the middle of the night?

That would end up messy. Leaving tributes outside this poor old blokes house (to which he can now never return) is typical of their warped view of right and wrong.

It's never going to change. Not until someone makes damn sure that these characters are permanently controlled by the law.

If the police will not control the intimidation, then perhaps someone else should step in to do it? I cant believe I am posting this, but when I was young there was some trouble in our area with travellers. Some "interesting" local characters I knew dealt with it. I know we don't want a vigilante society, but where the law will not protect people that is what develops.

 

[Leighgull]

If the police will not control the intimidation, then perhaps someone else should step in to do it? I cant believe I am posting this, but when I was young there was some trouble in our area with travellers. Some "interesting" local characters I knew dealt with it. I know we don't want a vigilante society, but where the law will not protect people that is what develops.

Funny that.

I now live in mid Essex where, you will remember, there was a famous standoff between Basildon Council and an illegal village built by travellers without consent. It nearly bankrupted the council and ended in violence between travellers, police, lefties and professional anarchists...the upshot..they moved about 20 metres down the road and started over.

However...when a camp appeared in Mersea the locals took matters into their own hands apparently a load of Paras who were stationed in Colchester and a couple of them were local boys with family nearby...the fight was epic by all accounts. No police reports...no more pikeys.

That is the only language these people seem to understand.

My mother in law stupidly let some Diddiqoes do her drive and was then hounded by these two large angry Paddies. It took 6 guys from the family to persuade them to go elsewhere.

 

[PILTDOWN MAN]

What exactly do you expect the officer in charge of all this to say here? "Yeah, he's dead but frankly, he was an absolute thieving piece of work and we're all delighted he's no longer around"?

And last time I looked, there was no "Prevention Of Laying Flowers In A Public Place Act" that the police had the power to enforce

Not in public place it's on someone's property. Police should tell to stop intimidating the locals

 

[Thunder Bolt]

If the police will not control the intimidation, then perhaps someone else should step in to do it? I cant believe I am posting this, but when I was young there was some trouble in our area with travellers. Some "interesting" local characters I knew dealt with it. I know we don't want a vigilante society, but where the law will not protect people that is what develops.

Apparently the bloke featured on the news, tearing down the flowers, and binnig them, isn't from the area. He admitted he made his way to the road to deal with it, so he is a sort of vigilante.

 

[happypig]

What exactly do you expect the officer in charge of all this to say here? "Yeah, he's dead but frankly, he was an absolute thieving piece of work and we're all delighted he's no longer around"?

And last time I looked, there was no "Prevention Of Laying Flowers In A Public Place Act" that the police had the power to enforce

You could have them for littering.
Extension of litter offence to all open places
In section 87 of the Environmental Protection Act 1990 (c. 43) (offence of leaving litter), for subsections (1) to (4) substitute—
“(1)A person is guilty of an offence if he throws down, drops or otherwise deposits any litter in any place to which this section applies and leaves it.
(2)This section applies to any place in the area of a principal litter authority which is open to the air, subject to subsection (3) below.
(3)This section does not apply to a place which is “open to the air” for the purposes of this Part by virtue of section 86(13) above if the public does not have access to it, with or without payment.
(4)It is immaterial for the purposes of this section whether the litter is deposited on land or in water.
(4A)No offence is committed under subsection (1) above where the depositing of the litter is—
(a)authorised by law; or
(b)done by or with the consent of the owner, occupier or other person having control of the place where it is deposited.
(4B)A person may only give consent under subsection (4A)(b) above in relation to the depositing of litter in a lake or pond or watercourse if he is the owner, occupier or other person having control of—
(a)all the land adjoining that lake or pond or watercourse; and
(b)all the land through or into which water in that lake or pond or watercourse directly or indirectly discharges, otherwise than by means of a public sewer.

 

[alfredmizen]

As predictable as your attempts to pull everything back to some West vs Muslims issue.

Your post is flawed in that you seem to wish to pick and choose the laws that should and should not be policed. For some reason you feel that it is perfectly acceptable for some idiot with an iPhone to upload footage of a police officer in one part of the country going about her job because officers in another part of the country are not doing theirs.

Face it, you are a short-fused nationalist with an agenda to push regardless of the thread issue at hand. It's boring. Try and stick to the subject mate.

In this case, the British Police in Hither Green are using their judgment. I'd imagine it was the same in the Royal Parks. The woman with her camera was doing all she could to stir up the debate. She's right as well - they can't pray in the park. But those two officers were probably thinking that there were other things about to happen in that park - larger things to police. They were using their judgment.

The police do make errors. Of course they do. But stop picking bits of video footage to push your tired, boring, dull, ill-thought through agenda. Try and open your eyes to a slightly bigger picture.

I'm not going to be debating this with you on this thread any longer, because a) I'm busy and b) you're a knob.

youre argument about police officers judgement backs up what ive been saying , only youre too stupid to see it , oh and youre a knob.

 

[hans kraay fan club]

Can't believe people are siding against a pensioner, attacked in his own home by a career scumbag whose early departure has probably saved the gene pool from further dilution.

Has anybody done that, then?

 

[The Rivet]

So, you don't want the police to do their job then? Which laws are they allowed to police and which are they not? It doesn't matter how trivial it is, if there is a law there then it's there to be policed. The chances are that this bloke got a written citation or fine because he was behaving like an idiot. Had he just said yes officer, sorry officer I was in the wrong, then he could have gone on his way. But we live in this self-righteous society where people think that armed with a Screwdriver and youtube they can challenge anyone in authority that has the temerity to point out that they are in the wrong..

He should have just realised he was wrong and backed down. A bit like you.

And a bit like the dead burglars relatives too!

 

[Hamilton]

And a bit like the dead burglars relatives too!

100% right.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Guinness Boy]

Has anybody done that, then?

Yep, quotes in the media plus the predictability left-wing-by-numbers Derby fan on here.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[btnbelle]

You could have them for littering.
Extension of litter offence to all open places
In section 87 of the Environmental Protection Act 1990 (c. 43) (offence of leaving litter), for subsections (1) to (4) substitute—
“(1)A person is guilty of an offence if he throws down, drops or otherwise deposits any litter in any place to which this section applies and leaves it.
(2)This section applies to any place in the area of a principal litter authority which is open to the air, subject to subsection (3) below.
(3)This section does not apply to a place which is “open to the air” for the purposes of this Part by virtue of section 86(13) above if the public does not have access to it, with or without payment.
(4)It is immaterial for the purposes of this section whether the litter is deposited on land or in water.
(4A)No offence is committed under subsection (1) above where the depositing of the litter is—
(a)authorised by law; or
(b)done by or with the consent of the owner, occupier or other person having control of the place where it is deposited.
(4B)A person may only give consent under subsection (4A)(b) above in relation to the depositing of litter in a lake or pond or watercourse if he is the owner, occupier or other person having control of—
(a)all the land adjoining that lake or pond or watercourse; and
(b)all the land through or into which water in that lake or pond or watercourse directly or indirectly discharges, otherwise than by means of a public sewer.

Exactly bend the law a little and get your own back on these unsavory citizens...

Surely the CPS will see this as being in the public interest?

 

[Thunder Bolt]

Exactly bend the law a little and get your own back on these unsavory citizens...

Surely the CPS will see this as being in the public interest?

The CPS won't get involved until the police arrest and charge someone. The police can charge quite a lot of summary offences without CPS advice.

 

[Lady Whistledown]

It would be nice if the police did say that.

They are not laying flowers in a public place, the fence borders a private garden. This family are trespassing again. The police should watch them wherever they park their caravans up, until they cannot operate their illegal activities any more. Hit them in their pockets, so they can't afford flowers. Homeowners everywhere would be grateful and their crime rates for burglar would fall. A win, win.

Yes, because there's obviously that many police going spare to follow a large group of travellers around all day and all night. Hit them in their pockets? How, exactly? How are they going to "hit them in their pockets?". Like it or not, the travelling community have exactly the same rights to freedom of movement and a private life as you or I do under the ECHR, therefore the police following them around all day for no reason other than the fact that they are travellers would be unlawful and likely to result in a complaint of harassment and discrimination. In any case, I've no idea whether Mr Vincent was a caravan-dweller or not. He may have been "settled", ie living in a house.

And going back to the flowers, once again: if they're laid on private property, then it's down to the owner of the property to remove them. He or she is entirely free to do that (but I imagine has probably refrained for fear of causing him/herself grief). The police have no power to go and take flowers away. They could in theory remove a person from that property to prevent a breach of the peace, but any arrest powers there cease the moment the breach of the peace has ended, therefore the person gets released without any charges. Re "littering", as another poster has suggested, people as a rule don't get taken to court for it, well apart from the odd case that appears in the papers when somebody's lobbed something out of their car window and refused to pay the resulting fine, say. It would be disproportionate and likely to result in an even bigger shitstorm if they were to start arresting "grieving aunties" (I know, I know) for littering. And the law still doesn't require the police to remove the items, any more than it does with fly-tipping, for example. So it won't solve the problem.

Any more suggestions?

 

[btnbelle]

Yes, because there's obviously that many police going spare to follow a large group of travellers around all day and all night. Hit them in their pockets? How, exactly? How are they going to "hit them in their pockets?". Like it or not, the travelling community have exactly the same rights to freedom of movement and a private life as you or I do under the ECHR, therefore the police following them around all day for no reason other than the fact that they are travellers would be unlawful and likely to result in a complaint of harassment and discrimination. In any case, I've no idea whether Mr Vincent was a caravan-dweller or not. He may have been "settled", ie living in a house.

And going back to the flowers, once again: if they're laid on private property, then it's down to the owner of the property to remove them. He or she is entirely free to do that (but I imagine has probably refrained for fear of causing him/herself grief). The police have no power to go and take flowers away. They could in theory remove a person from that property to prevent a breach of the peace, but any arrest powers there cease the moment the breach of the peace has ended, therefore the person gets released without any charges. Re "littering", as another poster has suggested, people as a rule don't get taken to court for it, well apart from the odd case that appears in the papers when somebody's lobbed something out of their car window and refused to pay the resulting fine, say. It would be disproportionate and likely to result in an even bigger shitstorm if they were to start arresting "grieving aunties" (I know, I know) for littering. And the law still doesn't require the police to remove the items, any more than it does with fly-tipping, for example. So it won't solve the problem.

Any more suggestions?

I did not realise that police surveillance of criminals could be considered harassment. I am more concerned about the human rights of Mr Osborn Brooks and his family. They can't return to their home (not sure here but most likely to a home they worked hard to buy or at least pay to rent)

The flowers are causing harassment to neighbour's and many people who watch the news, due to the circumstances that led to them being laid and the fact that the Osborn Brooks cannot return home. Mr Vincent died at the hospital, the flowers belong elsewhere.

An injunction is needed to keep the friends and family of Mr Vincent away from the area. Then the rightful home dwellers can return, and police need can protect their human rights by making sure the threats made against them do not happen. That is not harassment but ensuring the peace is kept and victims are protected.

 

[Bevendean Hillbilly]

Yes, because there's obviously that many police going spare to follow a large group of travellers around all day and all night. Hit them in their pockets? How, exactly? How are they going to "hit them in their pockets?". Like it or not, the travelling community have exactly the same rights to freedom of movement and a private life as you or I do under the ECHR, therefore the police following them around all day for no reason other than the fact that they are travellers would be unlawful and likely to result in a complaint of harassment and discrimination. In any case, I've no idea whether Mr Vincent was a caravan-dweller or not. He may have been "settled", ie living in a house.

And going back to the flowers, once again: if they're laid on private property, then it's down to the owner of the property to remove them. He or she is entirely free to do that (but I imagine has probably refrained for fear of causing him/herself grief). The police have no power to go and take flowers away. They could in theory remove a person from that property to prevent a breach of the peace, but any arrest powers there cease the moment the breach of the peace has ended, therefore the person gets released without any charges. Re "littering", as another poster has suggested, people as a rule don't get taken to court for it, well apart from the odd case that appears in the papers when somebody's lobbed something out of their car window and refused to pay the resulting fine, say. It would be disproportionate and likely to result in an even bigger shitstorm if they were to start arresting "grieving aunties" (I know, I know) for littering. And the law still doesn't require the police to remove the items, any more than it does with fly-tipping, for example. So it won't solve the problem.

Any more suggestions?

What about WPC Daffodil? She clearly has time on her hands.

Put her on pikey watch.

 

[happypig]

Yes, because there's obviously that many police going spare to follow a large group of travellers around all day and all night. Hit them in their pockets? How, exactly? How are they going to "hit them in their pockets?". Like it or not, the travelling community have exactly the same rights to freedom of movement and a private life as you or I do under the ECHR, therefore the police following them around all day for no reason other than the fact that they are travellers would be unlawful and likely to result in a complaint of harassment and discrimination. In any case, I've no idea whether Mr Vincent was a caravan-dweller or not. He may have been "settled", ie living in a house.

And going back to the flowers, once again: if they're laid on private property, then it's down to the owner of the property to remove them. He or she is entirely free to do that (but I imagine has probably refrained for fear of causing him/herself grief). The police have no power to go and take flowers away. They could in theory remove a person from that property to prevent a breach of the peace, but any arrest powers there cease the moment the breach of the peace has ended, therefore the person gets released without any charges. Re "littering", as another poster has suggested, people as a rule don't get taken to court for it, well apart from the odd case that appears in the papers when somebody's lobbed something out of their car window and refused to pay the resulting fine, say. It would be disproportionate and likely to result in an even bigger shitstorm if they were to start arresting "grieving aunties" (I know, I know) for littering. And the law still doesn't require the police to remove the items, any more than it does with fly-tipping, for example. So it won't solve the problem.

Any more suggestions?

Something a bit retro ? Fit 'em up for a pub bombing.

 

[Thunder Bolt]

Yes, because there's obviously that many police going spare to follow a large group of travellers around all day and all night. Hit them in their pockets? How, exactly? How are they going to "hit them in their pockets?". Like it or not, the travelling community have exactly the same rights to freedom of movement and a private life as you or I do under the ECHR, therefore the police following them around all day for no reason other than the fact that they are travellers would be unlawful and likely to result in a complaint of harassment and discrimination. In any case, I've no idea whether Mr Vincent was a caravan-dweller or not. He may have been "settled", ie living in a house.

And going back to the flowers, once again: if they're laid on private property, then it's down to the owner of the property to remove them. He or she is entirely free to do that (but I imagine has probably refrained for fear of causing him/herself grief). The police have no power to go and take flowers away. They could in theory remove a person from that property to prevent a breach of the peace, but any arrest powers there cease the moment the breach of the peace has ended, therefore the person gets released without any charges. Re "littering", as another poster has suggested, people as a rule don't get taken to court for it, well apart from the odd case that appears in the papers when somebody's lobbed something out of their car window and refused to pay the resulting fine, say. It would be disproportionate and likely to result in an even bigger shitstorm if they were to start arresting "grieving aunties" (I know, I know) for littering. And the law still doesn't require the police to remove the items, any more than it does with fly-tipping, for example. So it won't solve the problem.

Any more suggestions?

Criminal damage to the fence? I can't imagine it is still in pristine condition with all the tying on and ripping off of momentos and flowers.

 

[GT49er]

Criminal damage to the fence? I can't imagine it is still in pristine condition with all the tying on and ripping off of momentos and flowers.

Bearing in mind that they're not wanted, and the neighbourhood is scared of them and their violent threats of retribution, I'd have thought Breach of the Peace could be a worthwhile consideration.

As well, of course, as a detailed check of their motor vehicles, tax, insurance, road-worthiness, licences, etc, -with illegal vehicles being towed off and crushed on the spot (as can be done to non-traveller motorists).

 

[Thunder Bolt]

Bearing in mind that they're not wanted, and the neighbourhood is scared of them and their violent threats of retribution, I'd have thought Breach of the Peace could be a worthwhile consideration.

As well, of course, as a detailed check of their motor vehicles, tax, insurance, road-worthiness, licences, etc, -with illegal vehicles being towed off and crushed on the spot (as can be done to non-traveller motorists).

Breach of the Peace is a summons, not a charge.

 

[GT49er]

Breach of the Peace is a summons, not a charge.

OK, summons them then.