Thwaites Brewery trashed by travellers
Discussion
La Liga said:
RichB said:
Assuming you, Dibble and Greendubble agree 
s are a problem what is your suggestion for solving it? Genuine question, why not tell us what your answer is?
Criminals are a problem in every society. s are a problem what is your suggestion for solving it? Genuine question, why not tell us what your answer is? No one has managed to solve it just yet so I don't imagine we'll be able to.
So you don't know what to do about them. At least we know where we stand... Dibble said:
Go on, then.
Within current legislation and resourcing, how do you deal with it? Explain how many officers are on duty, how many you would need to arrest, transport, house, investigate and interview 100 people from a spontaneous incident on one of the busiest weekends of the year. All while maintaining the other requirements on the police.
Not fantasy, actual facts.
You need to get in earlier and stay in there. No point waiting for the problem to get too big to handle with available resources. Prevention rather than cure. There must be something akin to walking on cracks in the pavement that can get you in early - you know, perhaps a vehicle check?Within current legislation and resourcing, how do you deal with it? Explain how many officers are on duty, how many you would need to arrest, transport, house, investigate and interview 100 people from a spontaneous incident on one of the busiest weekends of the year. All while maintaining the other requirements on the police.
Not fantasy, actual facts.
If the law does not provide for it, then perhaps it needs to be changed. Perhaps the force could educate the rest of us as to why stuff that applies to the rest of us cannot be implemented when it comes to
s?Rovinghawk said:
Dibble said:
The police have to act within the laws as they are
A pity the travellers don't seem to have to.Have you, LaLiga & Greendubber considered a career in PR? I think you'd do well there.
I don’t know what the answer is. I suspect a change in legislation will be needed around trespass/illegal camping and then associated powers to move/arrest people. Don’t expect that any time soon, as any legislation takes an age.
I’m going to leave it at that for now. If you think you’ve somehow “won”, go you. IMHO all you’ve done is spout your usual guff without making any actual suggestions about how this specific issue should be addressed, within existing legislation and resourcing.
La Liga said:
dandarez said:
Said it before, saying it again. Last time was when travellers here in sleepy Oxfordshire didn't move until notice was served on them, while in the meantime several innocent children got bitten by 'their' dogs, also a adult plus a councillor got bitten who served the notice.
The police were there usual 'forceful' self in these cases of p eye kay eee why is - they 'asked' them kindly to please keep their doggies under control.
No lack of police manpower in this case, but the untouchables get away with it as per usual.
The untouchables moved eventually. To invade someone else's peace over the bank holiday. AGAIN, they have been moved.
Me, you. We'd be looking at our dogs put down and court cases coming up.
Law unto themselves.
End of.
Most dangerous dog crimes don't result in a prosecution, let alone destruction orders. The police were there usual 'forceful' self in these cases of p eye kay eee why is - they 'asked' them kindly to please keep their doggies under control.
No lack of police manpower in this case, but the untouchables get away with it as per usual.
The untouchables moved eventually. To invade someone else's peace over the bank holiday. AGAIN, they have been moved.
Me, you. We'd be looking at our dogs put down and court cases coming up.
Law unto themselves.
End of.
Data available online.
There was a valid complaint by one of the parent's whose child was bitten that the dogs in question here should be checked to see if they were micro-chipped (it's the law now isn't it? with a poss 500 quid fine) - even a vet backed them, but the action? None!
Stick to the important thing (it was said) which was to get the untouchables off the land.
Move on sonny, nothing to see here.
As said. Law unto themselves.
Dibble said:
I haven’t, because I’m not an apologist.
My mileage varies.Dibble said:
nothing to do with their demographic and everything to do with simple logistics.
Every time. Every single time.Dibble said:
I don’t know what the answer is. I suspect a change in legislation will be needed around trespass/illegal camping and then associated powers to move/arrest people. Don’t expect that any time soon, as any legislation takes an age.
I suspect there's already legislation about theft & criminal damage- I don't see how new legislation will make the slightest difference to the unwillingness to deal with them.Dibble said:
IMHO all you’ve done is spout your usual guff without making any actual suggestions about how this specific issue should be addressed, within existing legislation and resourcing.
I've suggested that the only demonstrable will is to pick the low-hanging fruit such as with camera vans; what many would consider more serious crime is ignored. Before we find a solution we might benefit from acknowledging that there is a problem; there seems an unwillingness to do so.Dibble said:
I haven’t, because I’m not an apologist. I’m telling you the reasons 100 people weren’t arrested, which has nothing to do with their demographic and everything to do with simple logistics.
I don’t know what the answer is. I suspect a change in legislation will be needed around trespass/illegal camping and then associated powers to move/arrest people. Don’t expect that any time soon, as any legislation takes an age.
I’m going to leave it at that for now. If you think you’ve somehow “won”, go you. IMHO all you’ve done is spout your usual guff without making any actual suggestions about how this specific issue should be addressed, within existing legislation and resourcing.
With respect, there are probably many non officers and non I don’t know what the answer is. I suspect a change in legislation will be needed around trespass/illegal camping and then associated powers to move/arrest people. Don’t expect that any time soon, as any legislation takes an age.
I’m going to leave it at that for now. If you think you’ve somehow “won”, go you. IMHO all you’ve done is spout your usual guff without making any actual suggestions about how this specific issue should be addressed, within existing legislation and resourcing.
s on here that do not understand what special levels of protection they are offered to make the law that would be applicable to you and I not applicable to them.There have been a number of low and high profile of totally non-understandable refusals by the police to act upon high quality intelligence that evidence of theft, ASB and all sorts of petty and serious misdemeanours are occurring at infestations.
What we hear a lot of the time is it is too hard or too risky or likely to cause a massive confrontation. The reasons behind it need to be understood and legislation refined if that is truly the reason. The problem is clearly out of control as shown at the brewery and in that instance nobody on here wins, but plod and the law abiding citizen are the losers.
SeeFive said:
With respect, there are probably many non officers and non s on here that do not understand what special levels of protection they are offered to make the law that would be applicable to you and I not applicable to them.
There have been a number of low and high profile of totally non-understandable refusals by the police to act upon high quality intelligence that evidence of theft, ASB and all sorts of petty and serious misdemeanours are occurring at infestations.
What we hear a lot of the time is it is too hard or too risky or likely to cause a massive confrontation. The reasons behind it need to be understood and legislation refined if that is truly the reason. The problem is clearly out of control as shown at the brewery and in that instance nobody on here wins, but plod and the law abiding citizen are the losers.
I’m not sure I follow you. I don’t know of any laws which only apply to one group of people and not another (apart from specific sexual offences like rape, which can only be committed by a man).s on here that do not understand what special levels of protection they are offered to make the law that would be applicable to you and I not applicable to them.There have been a number of low and high profile of totally non-understandable refusals by the police to act upon high quality intelligence that evidence of theft, ASB and all sorts of petty and serious misdemeanours are occurring at infestations.
What we hear a lot of the time is it is too hard or too risky or likely to cause a massive confrontation. The reasons behind it need to be understood and legislation refined if that is truly the reason. The problem is clearly out of control as shown at the brewery and in that instance nobody on here wins, but plod and the law abiding citizen are the losers.
I think there are two issues here - why weren’t 100 people arrested and also, how are/should travellers be dealt with. I’ve tried to explain why it’s not feasible to arrest 100 people at once, on top of everything else that’s going on that day. Just because arrests haven’t been made yet, doesn’t mean prosecutions won’t happen. I know it’s a bit “human nature” to want people arresting straight away, but that isn’t always possible or always the best option.
Whether there are any future changes in legislation to give police greater/wider powers to move on trespassers, I really don’t know. I guess that could potentially affect people’s right to gather/protest, so there may not be the political will to go down that route. Legislation takes time to enact. As I said, I don’t know the answer to the second part of the issue, or even if there will ever be one.
Why this neverending fascination with trying to claim 100 people need to be arrested?
Its just distracting from the real issue.
Are you really suggesting a company like thwaites doesn't have adequate cctv officers could use to identify a managable number of offenders, with video evidence to help the case and lift them?
The real reason is if you were to go in and try to lift 15-20 of them you would get your handed to you on a plate, you would get proper fked. From what I have seen police are only brave when they are the biggest firm in town, and dealing with a softer target.
Its just distracting from the real issue.
Are you really suggesting a company like thwaites doesn't have adequate cctv officers could use to identify a managable number of offenders, with video evidence to help the case and lift them?
The real reason is if you were to go in and try to lift 15-20 of them you would get your
handed to you on a plate, you would get proper fked. From what I have seen police are only brave when they are the biggest firm in town, and dealing with a softer target.OldGermanHeaps said:
Why this neverending fascination with trying to claim 100 people need to be arrested?
Its just distracting from the real issue.
Are you really suggesting a company like thwaites doesn't have adequate cctv officers could use to identify a managable number of offenders, with video evidence to help the case and lift them?
The real reason is if you were to go in and try to lift 15-20 of them you would get your handed to you on a plate, you would get proper fked. From what I have seen police are only brave when they are the biggest firm in town, and dealing with a softer target.
Because an earlier poster suggested all 100 should have been arrested. I’ve tried to explain why that isn’t feasible.Its just distracting from the real issue.
Are you really suggesting a company like thwaites doesn't have adequate cctv officers could use to identify a managable number of offenders, with video evidence to help the case and lift them?
The real reason is if you were to go in and try to lift 15-20 of them you would get your
handed to you on a plate, you would get proper fked. From what I have seen police are only brave when they are the biggest firm in town, and dealing with a softer target.I’ve no idea of how good Thwaites CCTV is. It could be 4K broadcast quality, it could be grainy time lapse 625 line black and white or anywhere in between. If it’s there, does it cover the offences?
Assuming what you say is correct, attempting to arrest even 15-20 would be pointless, so why bother at all, in that case? I’ve been assaulted plenty of times at work. It’s not stopped me continuing to arrest people. If it’s so clear that the police would be “proper f
ked”, then surely the police should take proper precautions to avoid that, otherwise they’ll come away empty handed and with no prisoners.Perhaps we should take you and other “powerfully built PH directors” next time we need to,lift someone.
Dibble said:
I’m not sure I follow you. I don’t know of any laws which only apply to one group of people and not another (apart from specific sexual offences like rape, which can only be committed by a man).
I think there are two issues here - why weren’t 100 people arrested and also, how are/should travellers be dealt with. I’ve tried to explain why it’s not feasible to arrest 100 people at once, on top of everything else that’s going on that day. Just because arrests haven’t been made yet, doesn’t mean prosecutions won’t happen. I know it’s a bit “human nature” to want people arresting straight away, but that isn’t always possible or always the best option.
Whether there are any future changes in legislation to give police greater/wider powers to move on trespassers, I really don’t know. I guess that could potentially affect people’s right to gather/protest, so there may not be the political will to go down that route. Legislation takes time to enact. As I said, I don’t know the answer to the second part of the issue, or even if there will ever be one.
To try to help you follow, “Scarborough” for example, or what would need to change to, for example allow an officer to enter an encampment to investigate a substantiated report that a stolen caravan or motorhome is present at the encampment? If there was such a stolen item on my drive, I reckon that the service would be quite happy to investigate it. And there are many other examples which are very widely known that will help you follow exactly what I mean. If I didn’t know you better from these forums, I would think you were evading a well known issue to avoid a debate. I think there are two issues here - why weren’t 100 people arrested and also, how are/should travellers be dealt with. I’ve tried to explain why it’s not feasible to arrest 100 people at once, on top of everything else that’s going on that day. Just because arrests haven’t been made yet, doesn’t mean prosecutions won’t happen. I know it’s a bit “human nature” to want people arresting straight away, but that isn’t always possible or always the best option.
Whether there are any future changes in legislation to give police greater/wider powers to move on trespassers, I really don’t know. I guess that could potentially affect people’s right to gather/protest, so there may not be the political will to go down that route. Legislation takes time to enact. As I said, I don’t know the answer to the second part of the issue, or even if there will ever be one.
Seriously, I am not having a go at you personally, but would really like to understand what you guys need to be more effective, efficient, productive and safe in dealing with this scum. For example, if a bunch of front-liners could get together to produce a letter that describes the real issues that reduce their capability to the levels we see in the case of the brewery, (or all the other popular stories which may help you follow
) and maybe focus on not just moving them on once it has all happened, but having an immediate, legal visible presence deterring them from their MO, then I am sure that you would have no shortage of folks who would take it to their MP.Dibble said:
Perhaps we should take you and other “powerfully built PH directors” next time we need to,lift someone.
You wouldn’t get many takers with the current state of affairs. I am afraid that even if I was properly PH qualified, I would not attend as prior precedent (remember the villagers attending a local site) shows that I would be more likely to be arrested than the s.SeeFive said:
To try to help you follow, “Scarborough” for example, or what would need to change to, for example allow an officer to enter an encampment to investigate a substantiated report that a stolen caravan or motorhome is present at the encampment? If there was such a stolen item on my drive, I reckon that the service would be quite happy to investigate it. And there are many other examples which are very widely known that will help you follow exactly what I mean. If I didn’t know you better from these forums, I would think you were evading a well known issue to avoid a debate.
Seriously, I am not having a go at you personally, but would really like to understand what you guys need to be more effective, efficient, productive and safe in dealing with this scum. For example, if a bunch of front-liners could get together to produce a letter that describes the real issues that reduce their capability to the levels we see in the case of the brewery, (or all the other popular stories which may help you follow) and maybe focus on not just moving them on once it has all happened, but having an immediate, legal visible presence deterring them from their MO, then I am sure that you would have no shortage of folks who would take it to their MP.
Not avoiding the question at all and sorry if that’s how,it came across! I’m still none the wiser about “Scarborough” though.Seriously, I am not having a go at you personally, but would really like to understand what you guys need to be more effective, efficient, productive and safe in dealing with this scum. For example, if a bunch of front-liners could get together to produce a letter that describes the real issues that reduce their capability to the levels we see in the case of the brewery, (or all the other popular stories which may help you follow
) and maybe focus on not just moving them on once it has all happened, but having an immediate, legal visible presence deterring them from their MO, then I am sure that you would have no shortage of folks who would take it to their MP.Entering a site - or anywhere - would always be risk assessed. It’d be pointless me going single handed into anything with a large group of hostile people against me. I’ve had to wait for back up in town centre fights before wading in. I wouldn’t go into a well ablaze house to rescue someone (probably) because I’d quickly become another casualty. To deal with any large group, you need a plan and a contingency. I know it sounds vague, but there’s no point trying to achieve something and failing at the first hurdle. Evidence gets lost and people get away on their toes. Better to properly plan and resource. Not always possible of course.
I’m not trying to dodge or dress anything up. I don’t know why arrests weren’t made on the night. I can suggest a lot of reasons, the main one probably being that out of 100 people, how do you identify the suspects? Arresting everyone just isn’t an option logistically. I don’t think anybody can really argue with that.
If Lancashire has 2,910 police officers, as Google shows, and they have a five shift system, that would mean at any one time, 582 officers would be available for duty, but that doesn’t include specialist units, CID, people on leave, courses, senior officers, etc. I don’t know the numbers, but let’s just go with 582 officers on duty for the whole county. From the website, there are three basic command units, so divide that 582 by three and you get 194 officers. Remember, it won’t be anything like that number in reality, but I’m trying to be optimistic with the numbers... that doesn’t make any allowance for HQ staff either.
I really do hope there’s a proper investigation, the perpetrators are identified and brought to justice. That’s what my job is and it’s why I go to work every day. Long term, I don’t know what the solution is. I think (personal view) it’s probably a change in legislation giving greater powers to move people on, but then if they don’t, we might need to resource arresting 100 people at once...
There isn’t an easy answer and I’m sure people much more intelligent than me are trying to find a solution. At least I hope they are. Knee jerk reaction never works out well (and yes, this isn’t a “new” issue). I’m a very small cog in a big machine and I don’t have much clout!
I’m off for some kip now, so I’ll say goodnight!
Dibble said:
Not avoiding the question at all and sorry if that’s how,it came across! I’m still none the wiser about “Scarborough” though.
Entering a site - or anywhere - would always be risk assessed. It’d be pointless me going single handed into anything with a large group of hostile people against me. I’ve had to wait for back up in town centre fights before wading in. I wouldn’t go into a well ablaze house to rescue someone (probably) because I’d quickly become another casualty. To deal with any large group, you need a plan and a contingency. I know it sounds vague, but there’s no point trying to achieve something and failing at the first hurdle. Evidence gets lost and people get away on their toes. Better to properly plan and resource. Not always possible of course.
I’m not trying to dodge or dress anything up. I don’t know why arrests weren’t made on the night. I can suggest a lot of reasons, the main one probably being that out of 100 people, how do you identify the suspects? Arresting everyone just isn’t an option logistically. I don’t think anybody can really argue with that.
If Lancashire has 2,910 police officers, as Google shows, and they have a five shift system, that would mean at any one time, 582 officers would be available for duty, but that doesn’t include specialist units, CID, people on leave, courses, senior officers, etc. I don’t know the numbers, but let’s just go with 582 officers on duty for the whole county. From the website, there are three basic command units, so divide that 582 by three and you get 194 officers. Remember, it won’t be anything like that number in reality, but I’m trying to be optimistic with the numbers... that doesn’t make any allowance for HQ staff either.
I really do hope there’s a proper investigation, the perpetrators are identified and brought to justice. That’s what my job is and it’s why I go to work every day. Long term, I don’t know what the solution is. I think (personal view) it’s probably a change in legislation giving greater powers to move people on, but then if they don’t, we might need to resource arresting 100 people at once...
There isn’t an easy answer and I’m sure people much more intelligent than me are trying to find a solution. At least I hope they are. Knee jerk reaction never works out well (and yes, this isn’t a “new” issue). I’m a very small cog in a big machine and I don’t have much clout!
I’m off for some kip now, so I’ll say goodnight!
Sleep well, and be safe tomorrow Entering a site - or anywhere - would always be risk assessed. It’d be pointless me going single handed into anything with a large group of hostile people against me. I’ve had to wait for back up in town centre fights before wading in. I wouldn’t go into a well ablaze house to rescue someone (probably) because I’d quickly become another casualty. To deal with any large group, you need a plan and a contingency. I know it sounds vague, but there’s no point trying to achieve something and failing at the first hurdle. Evidence gets lost and people get away on their toes. Better to properly plan and resource. Not always possible of course.
I’m not trying to dodge or dress anything up. I don’t know why arrests weren’t made on the night. I can suggest a lot of reasons, the main one probably being that out of 100 people, how do you identify the suspects? Arresting everyone just isn’t an option logistically. I don’t think anybody can really argue with that.
If Lancashire has 2,910 police officers, as Google shows, and they have a five shift system, that would mean at any one time, 582 officers would be available for duty, but that doesn’t include specialist units, CID, people on leave, courses, senior officers, etc. I don’t know the numbers, but let’s just go with 582 officers on duty for the whole county. From the website, there are three basic command units, so divide that 582 by three and you get 194 officers. Remember, it won’t be anything like that number in reality, but I’m trying to be optimistic with the numbers... that doesn’t make any allowance for HQ staff either.
I really do hope there’s a proper investigation, the perpetrators are identified and brought to justice. That’s what my job is and it’s why I go to work every day. Long term, I don’t know what the solution is. I think (personal view) it’s probably a change in legislation giving greater powers to move people on, but then if they don’t, we might need to resource arresting 100 people at once...
There isn’t an easy answer and I’m sure people much more intelligent than me are trying to find a solution. At least I hope they are. Knee jerk reaction never works out well (and yes, this isn’t a “new” issue). I’m a very small cog in a big machine and I don’t have much clout!
I’m off for some kip now, so I’ll say goodnight!
I agree with your risk assessments above. However it should not be that way.
Similarly long day for me... I of course meant “Cromer” not Scarborough. And I wasn’t the person to suggest arresting all 100 of them, I am just looking to find a practical way to prevent you from needing to. Basically make it so uncomfortable or prevent their MO that they will have to go elsewhere and not return. Keep doing that everywhere and you solve the problem.
Dibble said:
I’ve no idea of how good Thwaites CCTV is. It could be 4K broadcast quality, it could be grainy time lapse 625 line black and white or anywhere in between. If it’s there, does it cover the offences?
My first thought was "if they've had all weekend to trash the place I doubt the CCTV recording system is in a pretty state". Perhaps it was in a very secure room, but I doubt it.RichB said:
Is that really your attempt to answer my question? So you don't know what to do about them. At least we know where we stand...
Do the same as any other criminal. So you don't know what to do about them. At least we know where we stand...dandarez said:
There was a valid complaint by one of the parent's whose child was bitten that the dogs in question here should be checked to see if they were micro-chipped (it's the law now isn't it? with a poss 500 quid fine) - even a vet backed them, but the action? None!
That well-known police activity of speculatively checking dogs for chips.OldGermanHeaps said:
Are you really suggesting a company like thwaites doesn't have adequate cctv officers could use to identify a managable number of offenders, with video evidence to help the case and lift them?
Who is suggesting that? OldGermanHeaps said:
The real reason is if you were to go in and try to lift 15-20 of them you would get your handed to you on a plate, you would get proper fked. From what I have seen police are only brave when they are the biggest firm in town, and dealing with a softer target.
The 1000s of violent criminals in prison would probably disagree with you. handed to you on a plate, you would get proper fked. From what I have seen police are only brave when they are the biggest firm in town, and dealing with a softer target.You are right about being it being advantageous being 'the biggest firm' (have you been watching too many Danny Dyer films?), in the real world it's always wise to ensure there are adequate resources to manage whatever risks are going to be / likely to be faced.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff