• ARRSE have partnered with Armadillo Merino to bring you an ARRSE exclusive, generous discount offer on their full price range.
    To keep you warm with the best of Merino gear, visit www.armadillomerino.co.uk and use the code: NEWARRSE40 at the checkout to get 40% off!
    This superb deal has been generously offered to us by Armadillo Merino and is valid until midnight on the the 28th of February.

Blame the victim

#2
Travelers can threaten whoever they like. Locals must be disarmed

Police seek to seize shotguns from
“Counter-allegations have been made on both sides and the situation is not as clear-cut as it seems."
In my experience of such situations, you rarely find what is reported in the press actually reflects what is in the Police incident or even in subsequent statements and interviews.

Better to err on the side of caution and seize the guns which may have been threatened to be used and sort it out in slow time rather than await shooting and the Coroners inquest/murder enquiry.

As for pikeys, they're a complete nause and the law on trespass and horse ownership should be changed as it is in Ireland imv. They know all of their rights and what benefits/entitlements are due to them, but none of the responsibilities that go with those rights.
 
#3
The report makes no mention of the farmer threatening anyone with a shotgun. If no armed threat has been made, even if the travellers were trespassing, why remove the landowner's shotguns?

I hope the police don't see this removal of the shotgun as a pre-emptive policy, regardless of any offences committed by the certificate holder. Do they have powers to do this? I don't think so.
 
#4
The report makes no mention of the farmer threatening anyone with a shotgun. If no armed threat has been made, even if the travellers were trespassing, why remove the landowner's shotguns?
You've seen the Police report then? Or are you just quoting the newspapers? from what I read there was allegations and counter allegations.
I hope the police don't see this removal of the shotgun as a pre-emptive policy, regardless of any offences committed by the certificate holder. Do they have powers to do this? I don't think so.
I think you'll find they do and in fact they have a duty to. Common law to prevent a breach of the peace or potential breach, then a warrant, then a revocation. BASC have even discussed the procedures with ACPO.

Then again, I suppose you are one who would rather the conviction was in place before any action was taken? Seeing as case law disagrees with you, so do I
 
#7
Nice work plod, stunning stuff! Now everyone knows where you can break in and nick guns once it's all quietened down!
You've been to Severalls Lane then? You know how many farms are on the road? Doubt very much plod released the story as well, more like the person that was unhappy with plod's response and just confirmed action they'd taken.

Never let a good story get in the way of the truth
 
#8
I can't quite decide who is the biggest menace to rural householders and farmers, the pikeys or the filth. On the whole I think it's probably the brave boys in blue, who have assigned themselves the role of pikey SF, ensuring that any threats to their peaceful enjoyment of other people's property are neutralised in advance.
 
#9
Better to err on the side of caution and seize the guns which may have been threatened to be used and sort it out in slow time rather than await shooting and the Coroners inquest/murder enquiry.
So why wasn't the chainsaw seized as well, to ensure a balanced application of the law?
 
#12
You've been to Severalls Lane then? You know how many farms are on the road?
How many of them breed Shetland cattle and have the a triple barrelled name beginning with Tracy? Police issue dailly statements to the press, the press print them after the addition of whatever bias they see fit. That's journalism today.

It's worse here in Germany, the press print them verbatim, without comment. Once a police state, always a police state.
 
#13
How many of them breed Shetland cattle and have the a triple barrelled name beginning with Tracy? Police issue dailly statements to the press, the press print them after the addition of whatever bias they see fit. That's journalism today.

It's worse here in Germany, the press print them verbatim, without comment. Once a police state, always a police state.
More outrage bus antics. Anyway, this is what the police website says:
Essex Police responds to incident in Severalls Lane, Colchester
Essex Police has responded to an incident which happened on land in Severalls Lane in Colchester.

Police were called to a field following a report of public disorder at about 7.15pm on Friday, April 22, 2011.

As a result an investigation was started and is continuing.

Colchester area commander, Chief Superintendent Alison Newcomb said: “Police have been dealing with an incident that happened at Severalls Lane in Colchester.

"Allegations and counter-allegations have been made about behaviour on both sides of a confrontation. Police are not taking sides in any way over this incident, and we have followed up complaints made about the conduct of several people involved in this incident. Consequently, a 14 year old boy has been interviewed by police and a file will be submitted to the Crown Prosecution Service who will consider whether there is sufficient evidence to prosecute in this case.

"Police officers subsequently became concerned at the behaviour of a local man, and laid information before local magistrates accordingly. Police were given powers to seize two shotguns and ammunition that he had access to, and have seized them as a sensible precaution in the circumstances.

"I can assure local residents that we are taking every reasonable and sensible measure to keep the situation peaceful and calm. Our priority is always public safety, including the prevention of any potential breaches of the peace.
"We are supporting Colchester Borough Council who own the land and are working with them to find a solution to the situation at Severalls Lane.
I don't see anything about surnames there. Guess that was a dissatsfied 'customer' of essex plod then. Seems they took the right course of action if he has indeed thretened to shoot the pikeys [serious mode off:] which frankly I applaud[serious mode on:]
 
#14
Dunno, was it? Was it there? Did it exist? As I said, what's in the press is rarely everything availalble.

Weeeellll.....If the papers didn't mention the existance of any shotguns present at the disturbance then why were they seized on the grounds of an alleged threat ? The chainsaws were reported as in use when the alleged threats were made and being used in the pursuit of a possible crime, that is to say the theft of wood by the act of cutting trees down on someone's property. Or did the Police just meekly accept claims that the persons in question were not present.

And Our Lords and Masters wonder why increasing sections of "Middle England" despise the forces of Law and Order and the ruling classes.....
 
#15
Weeeellll.....If the papers didn't mention the existance of any shotguns present at the disturbance then why were they seized on the grounds of an alleged threat ? The chainsaws were reported as in use when the alleged threats were made and being used in the pursuit of a possible crime, that is to say the theft of wood by the act of cutting trees down on someone's property. Or did the Police just meekly accept claims that the persons in question were not present.

And Our Lords and Masters wonder why increasing sections of "Middle England" despise the forces of Law and Order and the ruling classes.....
Read post 13 and see if your comment still stands ....
 
#16
Police have said they're not taking sides, so of course they must be telling the truth. The fact that the timescale only shows them becoming 'concerned' after a complaint had been lodged about their tardy and uninterested response to the original complaint, is neither here nor there. The police would never decide to take unwarranted action against someone out of spite and desire to cover up their own incorrigible idleness and ineptitude.
 
#19
Read post 13 and see if your comment still stands ....
Having read the local news report that seem a little more straight forward and less Hysterical.
I'm even more confused. The Police statement makes it clear that the shotguns were seized after threats were made by a local man with access to the shotguns. Who ? Can't be the brother as he lives in London according to one paper, It can not be a random person as giving access to shotguns to someone who isn't licenced to hold is a big no no. The local reports also makes it clear that the local plod have had a complaint raised against them by the holder of said shotgns, with the support of two local councillors. Who then had a Inspector of Police seek assurance that they would not take any action themselves at midnight of the day the alleged threats were made.

From here it seems more that Mr.Plod is more concerned with the rights of scum than the locals who pay their wages. May not be the case but perceptions count first
 
#20
Police have said they're not taking sides, so of course they must be telling the truth. The fact that the timescale only shows them becoming 'concerned' after a complaint had been lodged about their tardy and uninterested response to the original complaint, is neither here nor there. The police would never decide to take unwarranted action against someone out of spite and desire to cover up their own incorrigible idleness and ineptitude.
I know where you are coming from and I have no sympathy with trespassing pikeys. However, if you ring up the Police and report an incident, nothing happens for half an hour and you ring up and say you're going to shoot someone logging in your back garden, are the Police right to seize the guns? Or do you just wait until someone is shot?
 

Latest Threads