Penalised for being abused by Travelers
Discussion
Am I 'BWD'?
Bizarre.
Anyway no, I just have commonsense and a non-hysterical unprejudiced nature and IM too intelligent to believe cheap tabloid journalism when something doesn't seem right. In pretty much every tabloid article I've ever read where soemthing seems bizarre, its becasue the story has been twisted to cause outrage among the gullible.
Bizarre.
Anyway no, I just have commonsense and a non-hysterical unprejudiced nature and IM too intelligent to believe cheap tabloid journalism when something doesn't seem right. In pretty much every tabloid article I've ever read where soemthing seems bizarre, its becasue the story has been twisted to cause outrage among the gullible.
Gargamel said:
Pothole said:
and here is the problem. You have no idea what the real version of events is and yet you are happy to jump on the outrage bandwagon. Why is that?
It fits best with my already pre determined prejudices, simple 
Although brilliantly, I can read the paper, but am accused of being gulliable, not checking my facts, the victim of a media led conspiracy etc. Yet others (see BWD posts) can "interpret" and " I read that as" with a sagacity beyond the likes of right wing patsy's like me.
I think the difference is, you're spouting moral outrage over an event the true facts of which you haven't a clue about. Others are trying to get you (and others) to calmly assess whether you really think the whole story has been reported and, therefore, whether your reaction to it is justified or not.
I can't see any mention of a media-led conspiracy or anyone describing you as a 'right wing patsy' either, FTR.
blindswelledrat said:
Do you think the police do a shotgun license check on every victim of crime they ever attend?
Or do you think its more likely that something drew their attention to the fact that the bloke posessed shotguns?
Its not difficult.
AFAIK an address or number plate that is linked to a Shotgun or Rifle licence holder will inform the police when checked that weapons may be on the premises or carried in the vehicle. So it was highly likely the Police knew as they were on their way. Or do you think its more likely that something drew their attention to the fact that the bloke posessed shotguns?
Its not difficult.
Added to which I have never once met a farmer who does not own such weapons legally or illegally so it wouldn't have needed the most intelligent police officer to ask 'do you own a gun sir?'
Pothole said:
aybe they have, but that would not serve the media's agenda, would it? Shame on the Telegraph, btw, for lifting the story verbatim from the Wail!
FTR Pothole - this was you on page 1 ! So by implication because I believe what the Telegraph reports, I am the victim of a media conspiracy...
If I "read between the lines" and said, The Police bottled it because they couldn't face being given the run around, so took the easy option and penalised the Property Owner, you'd tell me to check my "facts"
I am just slightly concerned that the Police have not responded adequately to an offence and threats of further offences.
Yet you happily ignored the part which told that the police returned on the Monday with a warrant to take the guns.
A warrant. From the courts. Where you have to prove your reasons beyond "becasue he's got one and y'know-there's
and that"
The thing is Gargamel, you are determined to believe the extraordinary when faced with an alternative of the ordinary, just to maintain your own prejudices.
It seems utterly alien to you to read an article like that and seek rationale within it, as opposed to assuming that the most unlikely things have occured for the most unlikely reasons.
I honestly cannot understand people like you.
From experience I know for a fact that if we found the full facts of this story which supported the obvious- you would be briefly disappointed but quickly forget the facts, remembering only that our country is going to st becasue the police care more about travellers than decent people.
A warrant. From the courts. Where you have to prove your reasons beyond "becasue he's got one and y'know-there's
and that"The thing is Gargamel, you are determined to believe the extraordinary when faced with an alternative of the ordinary, just to maintain your own prejudices.
It seems utterly alien to you to read an article like that and seek rationale within it, as opposed to assuming that the most unlikely things have occured for the most unlikely reasons.
I honestly cannot understand people like you.
From experience I know for a fact that if we found the full facts of this story which supported the obvious- you would be briefly disappointed but quickly forget the facts, remembering only that our country is going to s
t becasue the police care more about travellers than decent people.don't bypass the filters, they're there for a reason
Edited by Slinky on Thursday 28th April 07:47
Froggy porker said:
The caravan utilising nomadic travellers should be done for trespass, threatening behaviour and any other pertinent charges. But that would probably be too much like real work for the cops....
Where does it say they weren't? Or do you have extra local information to that effect (in which case I agree with you).wolves_wanderer said:
Where does it say they weren't? Or do you have extra local information to that effect (in which case I agree with you).
Woman in question states that the police have done nothing wrt the caravan utilising nomadic travellers, and nothing is said about charges being brought. But I grant you, it could well be more one-eyed journalism....Froggy porker said:
Woman in question states that the police have done nothing wrt the caravan utilising nomadic travellers, and nothing is said about charges being brought. But I grant you, it could well be more one-eyed journalism....
Also says they are working with the council who own the land to move them on. The police have limited powers to move illegal in incursions. Much less than the land owner.
I know it upsets people but the police have to work in the confines of the law.
It's pretty bloody obvious that her brother has made threats to use the shotguns as a result the police have NO legal choice but to deal. At the same time doing other stuff in relation to the original issue. Except none of that make good piss boiling information.
These stories are always one sided and fact light.
May I just mention that once again it's Essex police. They seem very prone to be on the wrong end of DM-style piss boiler reporting don't they?
First we have the long winded LBS clamping sagas.
Then we have the woman nicked for making off without payment from a filling station when the garage gave them the wrong video and they made no checks other than to put a marker on her VRN
Now this case of double standards in case of local vs itinerant woodchoppers.
In all cases mentioned there is always more to the story and there is here, but either they are not that competent or there is some sort of campaign against them. Or maybe it's just that Essex the county is more deviant.
They've not had a baseline HMIC assessment since 2006, and that was only a middling to good result but could have been a lot worse, time for another visit I reckon.
First we have the long winded LBS clamping sagas.
Then we have the woman nicked for making off without payment from a filling station when the garage gave them the wrong video and they made no checks other than to put a marker on her VRN
Now this case of double standards in case of local vs itinerant woodchoppers.
In all cases mentioned there is always more to the story and there is here, but either they are not that competent or there is some sort of campaign against them. Or maybe it's just that Essex the county is more deviant.
They've not had a baseline HMIC assessment since 2006, and that was only a middling to good result but could have been a lot worse, time for another visit I reckon.
F i F said:
May I just mention that once again it's Essex police. They seem very prone to be on the wrong end of DM-style piss boiler reporting don't they?
First we have the long winded LBS clamping sagas.
Then we have the woman nicked for making off without payment from a filling station when the garage gave them the wrong video and they made no checks other than to put a marker on her VRN
Now this case of double standards in case of local vs itinerant woodchoppers.
In all cases mentioned there is always more to the story and there is here, but either they are not that competent or there is some sort of campaign against them. Or maybe it's just that Essex the county is more deviant.
They've not had a baseline HMIC assessment since 2006, and that was only a middling to good result but could have been a lot worse, time for another visit I reckon.
Google Sam Vinden. You may have to use Google cache due to articles being deleted. But in a nutshell; arrested for kidnap and torture, case dropped with no explanation. Molested a 14yr old girl, no charges brought, 'not in the public interest'. Arrested for attempted murder (Feb 2011), released on bail. Arrested for double murder (March 2011), released on bail (along with his accomplice, who would then be arrested yet again and released on bail, yet again, for setting fire to someones house).First we have the long winded LBS clamping sagas.
Then we have the woman nicked for making off without payment from a filling station when the garage gave them the wrong video and they made no checks other than to put a marker on her VRN
Now this case of double standards in case of local vs itinerant woodchoppers.
In all cases mentioned there is always more to the story and there is here, but either they are not that competent or there is some sort of campaign against them. Or maybe it's just that Essex the county is more deviant.
They've not had a baseline HMIC assessment since 2006, and that was only a middling to good result but could have been a lot worse, time for another visit I reckon.
Seriously, WHAT THE f
k. You arrest someone in Feb of this year for attempted murder, release them on bail, then two weeks later arrest them again for murder and... release them on bail. Once again it's Essex police.
Gargamel said:
Pothole said:
aybe they have, but that would not serve the media's agenda, would it? Shame on the Telegraph, btw, for lifting the story verbatim from the Wail!
FTR Pothole - this was you on page 1 ! So by implication because I believe what the Telegraph reports, I am the victim of a media conspiracy...
If I "read between the lines" and said, The Police bottled it because they couldn't face being given the run around, so took the easy option and penalised the Property Owner, you'd tell me to check my "facts"
I am just slightly concerned that the Police have not responded adequately to an offence and threats of further offences.
Oakey said:
Google Sam Vinden. You may have to use Google cache due to articles being deleted. But in a nutshell; arrested for kidnap and torture, case dropped with no explanation. Molested a 14yr old girl, no charges brought, 'not in the public interest'. Arrested for attempted murder (Feb 2011), released on bail. Arrested for double murder (March 2011), released on bail (along with his accomplice, who would then be arrested yet again and released on bail, yet again, for setting fire to someones house).
Seriously, WHAT THE fk. You arrest someone in Feb of this year for attempted murder, release them on bail, then two weeks later arrest them again for murder and... release them on bail.
Once again it's Essex police.
Might help if you understood pace and something about evidence and procedure. Seriously, WHAT THE f
k. You arrest someone in Feb of this year for attempted murder, release them on bail, then two weeks later arrest them again for murder and... release them on bail. Once again it's Essex police.
Evidence to arrest & Evidencd to think he did it is not always evidence enough to charge.
If further evidence comes to light after bail and you are further arrested it gives the police more time to hold you.
Police don't decide if they remand or release only CPS can support that as they nerd to approve charges.
By all means campaign for lower charging standards. Greater police peers to hold people etc.
blindswelledrat said:
Gargamel said:
Sorry, re read it - the "travellers" also made a threat to kill her ?
What should they do then?I suspect that a conservative estimate would be that of all angry mouthed threats to kill uttered each day in the uk, about 0.0000001% ever result in murder.
It's just words.
Mr_annie_vxr said:
It's pretty bloody obvious that her brother has made threats to use the shotguns as a result the police have NO legal choice but to deal. At the same time doing other stuff in relation to the original issue. Except none of that make good piss boiling information.
Possibly. Or, the 'do-as-they-likey' simply made it up. They would have known there's an incredibly good chance that the farmer would have a shotgun. So when the police come to visit to investigate the chainsaw threat, the traveller claims they've been threatened by a shotgun and bingo - focus of the investigation then switches from the traveller to the farmer. Whatever people think of travellers, they're not stupid. They know exactly what to say in these sorts of situation to force the outcome they desire.We don't have all the facts, but jumping to the conclusion "that her brother has made threats to use the shotgun" seems quite presumptuous.
tinman0 said:
I have never understood why farmers just don't get a muck spreader. Spray that near the s and they'll soon move on.
One round my way did. He didn't spray it near them though, he drove through the middle of the lot during the night. They were gone by the next morning. Ever since then he has put huge bales of straw/whatever across the gates.s and they'll soon move on.Edited by Bill on Wednesday 27th April 13:29
As others have said, if those chaps return and get shot, well the farmers "don't have" any firearms so it can't have been them.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff