Lock keeper beaten up

[ditchcrawler]

14 minutes ago, mrsmelly said:

 

Ripon? Bristol?

Not by night fall

[mrsmelly]

Just now, ditchcrawler said:

Not by night fall

Maybe on the jet ski if hes nipped down from the Land L 

[matty40s]

4 minutes ago, john6767 said:

Yea yea, but in the timescales not far.

you would be amazed how far you can boat if you put your mind to it....and probably faster than CRT's  emergency response team gets a message filtered through from the switchboard who don't know Sawley from Shirley.

[john6767]

7 minutes ago, matty40s said:

you would be amazed how far you can boat if you put your mind to it....and probably faster than CRT's  emergency response team gets a message filtered through from the switchboard who don't know Sawley from Shirley.

True, but if there realy has been a serious assault then it's a police matter, and at the time reported to them one would think they would not have been past Rugby, and say for the police to find.  It just is not stacking up to me, you can make 2 boats disappear that easy if they really are looking for them.

[Rose Narrowboats]

21 minutes ago, john6767 said:

True, but if there realy has been a serious assault then it's a police matter, and at the time reported to them one would think they would not have been past Rugby, and say for the police to find.  It just is not stacking up to me, you can make 2 boats disappear that easy if they really are looking for them.

I suspect that is the issue - getting the police to bother looking. Long story very abbreviated: A few years ago a boat a generator was stolen from a boat in our yard along with some coal from our cage. We pieced a few bits of info together and decided the fibreglass cruiser which had arrived in our yard fromn the south in the dead of night with no lights on, and left in a "hurry" just before dawn (it was November) heading north might know something about it.

We rang the police who had no interest bar handing out a crime number. I felt, on behalf of the customer who had just had his generator nicked while the boat was in my care, that wasn't good enough so set out and with some help from other boaters had found the boat (complete with generator) by lunchtime near Mancetter. Even after the bloke had come after me with an axe it still took the police an hour to turn up. He'd left by then, but with a 10 minute headstart and heading for Atherstone he wouldn't be hard to catch in my opinion - but it was "too muddy" in the opinion of the police officers who didn't really want to get out of their car. However they did tell me (again) I shouldn't have reported the theft as it was not my property which had been stolen.

I did get the generator back though - and I'm not going looking for the guy who assaulted the lock keeper in case my suspicions are right and it's the same guy.

[Dr Bob]

We've seen the two boats this week as we went from Warwick to napton. They stopped 2 nights in between so we're not doing that much travelling each day. The powered boat is a tatty motor boat and the towed boat is a 20' trailer sailor yacht with no engine in the engine hole and obviously no mast. It went past us twice when we were moored - in different places- but I didn't see the guys driving it, and we went past them twice (Redford bottom lock) and somewhere before Stockton. Maybe now they have more reason to go faster!

[Lily Rose]

This must have been on Wednesday as they passed us yesterday as they headed North somewhere between Newbold and Stretton Stop. I didn't pay much attention to them but did notice an average-sized (whatever that means) white GRP boat towing another considerably smaller GRP on a very short length of flimsy looking rope. Travelling quite fast as I recall but not exceptionally so.

No doubt many miles further north by now.

[Wanderer Vagabond]

14 hours ago, David Schweizer said:

Not entirely. It may be the responsibility of the Police to aprehend and question the acused boaters, but C&RT, as the lock keeper's employers, albeit unremunerated, have a resposibility for the welfare of therir staff and it would be reasonable for them to assist the Police.  If it is deemed appropriate that could result in a "Citizen's Arrest being made.

I think that this is a situation where a little knowledge can get you into a whole lot of trouble. The only circumstance in which a Citizen's Arrest could have been made would have been by a citizen standing by the lock at the time that the Lock Keeper was assaulted who witnessed the incident and saw who was responsible. Once that moment has passed citizens lose any right to arrest since they can only do so when they know an offence has been committed and they know the person responsible, this information can only be obtained from number one eyeball. You cannot carry out a Citizens Arrest on the basis of someone has told you that an offence has been committed since you are then arresting 'on suspicion' which can only be done by a Police Officer.  If anyone tried to Citizen Arrest these two after the event (unless they directly witnesses it and had followed the offenders since the incident) they leave themselves wide open to offences of assault on the suspect since any arrest would be unlawful.

ETA just as another confounding factor, if the offence was only a Common Assault, there is no general power of arrest anyway, only a conditional power.

Edited October 27, 2017 by Wanderer Vagabond

[rowland al]

15 minutes ago, Wanderer Vagabond said:

I think that this is a situation where a little knowledge can get you into a whole lot of trouble. The only circumstance in which a Citizen's Arrest could have been made would have been by a citizen standing by the lock at the time that the Lock Keeper was assaulted who witnessed the incident and saw who was responsible. Once that moment has passed citizens lose any right to arrest since they can only do so when they know an offence has been committed and they know the person responsible, this information can only be obtained from number one eyeball. You cannot carry out a Citizens Arrest on the basis of someone has told you that an offence has been committed since you are then arresting 'on suspicion' which can only be done by a Police Officer.  If anyone tried to Citizen Arrest these two after the event (unless they directly witnesses it and had followed the offenders since the incident) they leave themselves wide open to offences of assault on the suspect since any arrest would be unlawful.

ETA just as another confounding factor, if the offence was only a Common Assault, there is no general power of arrest anyway, only a conditional power.

It's rather ironic that someone can paint a picture of the law not responding to assault or theft, then another person paint a picture of the law coming down on us like a ton of bricks if we take it into our own hands. 

Funny old thing the law.

 

[MtB]

1 hour ago, rowland al said:

It's rather ironic that someone can paint a picture of the law not responding to assault or theft, then another person paint a picture of the law coming down on us like a ton of bricks if we take it into our own hands. 

Funny old thing the law.

 

 

Puts me in mind of the apocryphal story about the bloke who called the police to say there was a burglar breaking into his garden shed, perhaps to nick his mower, and they told him they were very busy that night and wouldn't be able to send anyone for several hours. 

Ten minutes later the bloke calls the police again and says to cancel the call because he's shot the burglar. Five minutes later six cars with blue lights screamed into his drive, hammered on the door and arrested him. Then they went to look for the injured or dead burglar but couldn't find him. The bloke admitted the burglar got away and he had not after all shot him, at which point the coppers said they would be charging him with wasting police time. 

At which the bloke pointed out he couldn't have been wasting their time deliberately as they told him on the phone they had no-one available. 

[mayalld]

4 hours ago, Wanderer Vagabond said:

I think that this is a situation where a little knowledge can get you into a whole lot of trouble. The only circumstance in which a Citizen's Arrest could have been made would have been by a citizen standing by the lock at the time that the Lock Keeper was assaulted who witnessed the incident and saw who was responsible. Once that moment has passed citizens lose any right to arrest since they can only do so when they know an offence has been committed and they know the person responsible, this information can only be obtained from number one eyeball. You cannot carry out a Citizens Arrest on the basis of someone has told you that an offence has been committed since you are then arresting 'on suspicion' which can only be done by a Police Officer.  If anyone tried to Citizen Arrest these two after the event (unless they directly witnesses it and had followed the offenders since the incident) they leave themselves wide open to offences of assault on the suspect since any arrest would be unlawful.

ETA just as another confounding factor, if the offence was only a Common Assault, there is no general power of arrest anyway, only a conditional power.

This isn't quite accurate, although it may well be sound advice as to the best way to avoid being prosecuted yourself for a wrongful arrest.

The two conditions that have to be met for a citizen's arrest to be lawful are;

1. The offence must actually have been committed
2. You must have a reasonable suspicion that the person arrested committed the offence.

So, even if you didn't see the offence committed, you can arrest, but only if you KNOW that the offence was committed. Clearly if you take somebody else's word that the offence took place, you need to have a high degree of trust that their information is accurate, because if it isn't you are on dodgy ground. You also don't have to be certain that you have the right man. If the offence actually took place, and you had reasonable grounds to think you have the right man, then your mistake doesn't make an unlawful arrest.

[David Schweizer]

27 minutes ago, mayalld said:

This isn't quite accurate, although it may well be sound advice as to the best way to avoid being prosecuted yourself for a wrongful arrest.

The two conditions that have to be met for a citizen's arrest to be lawful are;

1. The offence must actually have been committed
2. You must have a reasonable suspicion that the person arrested committed the offence.

So, even if you didn't see the offence committed, you can arrest, but only if you KNOW that the offence was committed. Clearly if you take somebody else's word that the offence took place, you need to have a high degree of trust that their information is accurate, because if it isn't you are on dodgy ground. You also don't have to be certain that you have the right man. If the offence actually took place, and you had reasonable grounds to think you have the right man, then your mistake doesn't make an unlawful arrest.

Thanks Dave for confirming my earlier suggestion. Based upon my workplace experience, some years ago, I was confident that my original statement was correct, but could not be bothered to challenge the comments of "Barrack Room Lawyers" who use Google as their source rather than any experiential knowledge. For those who still doubt my assertions, I have been involved in more than one successful Citizen's Arrest.

Edited October 27, 2017 by David Schweizer

[MtB]

8 minutes ago, David Schweizer said:

the comments of "Backroom Lawyers"

 

Isn't the term actually "barrack room lawyers"?

[billS]

3 minutes ago, Mike the Boilerman said:

 

Isn't the term actually "barrack room lawyers"?

I don't think they had Google. Perhaps we need a new name. Wiki-know-alls perhaps?

[zenataomm]

I am constantly entertained by those who suggest 'Citizens' Arrest' as a solution when pointing out the error of their ways to scrotes and ne'er do wells.

Even after allowing for the restrictions as detailed by Wanderer Vagabond (as above) it's not a magic incantation that saps all energy from thugs leaving them weak and jelly like.

The idea that setting your stiff upper lip into masterful mode and striding up to someone who believes that smacking anyone firmly in the face is the approved method for refocussing a stranger's point of view, and that announcing to them ..... "I am conducting a Citizens' Arrest on you, you are under arrest and I require you wait with me until an officer of the constbualarilirly arrives" .... is going to result in the adrenalin/alcohol/drug/evil minded miscreant hanging his head low and muttering "S'a fair cop and no mistake Guv" I say NO!

It may be time to accept your education of life and reality progressed as far as Enid Blyton before reaching its zenith and your teeth may be in serious danger.

 

I cheerfully accept David Schweizer's success record but am equally confident that my attempt to do so on an empty towpath miles from anywhere, and out numbered, would entail in my adopting a soup and mushy pea diet for several weeks. My cowardice is fuelled by having faced the wrong end of a loaded assault rifle at close quarters and witnessing an incoming petrol bomb into a small arena.

Their are some truly nasty people out there, who do not play by the same rules as most of us.

 

Edited October 27, 2017 by zenataomm
The kettle boiled.

[David Schweizer]

58 minutes ago, Mike the Boilerman said:

 

Isn't the term actually "barrack room lawyers"?

Yes, Post corrected

 

50 minutes ago, zenataomm said:

I am constantly entertained by those who suggest 'Citizens' Arrest' as a solution when pointing out the error of their ways to scrotes and ne'er do wells.

Even after allowing for the restrictions as detailed by Wanderer Vagabond (as above) it's not a magic incantation that saps all energy from thugs leaving them weak and jelly like.

The idea that setting your stiff upper lip into masterful mode and striding up to someone who believes that smacking anyone firmly in the face is the approved method for refocussing a stranger's point of view, and that announcing to them ..... "I am conducting a Citizens' Arrest on you, you are under arrest and I require you wait with me until an officer of the constbualarilirly arrives" .... is going to result in the adrenalin/alcohol/drug/evil minded miscreant hanging his head low and muttering "S'a fair cop and no mistake Guv" I say NO!

It may be time to accept your education of life and reality progressed as far as Enid Blyton before reaching its zenith and your teeth may be in serious danger.

 

I cheerfully accept David Schweizer's success record but am equally confident that my attempt to do so on an empty towpath miles from anywhere, and out numbered, would entail in my adopting a soup and mushy pea diet for several weeks. My cowardice is fuelled by having faced the wrong end of a loaded assault rifle at close quarters and witnessing an incoming petrol bomb into a small arena.

 

I think you are misinterpretting my suggestion. First of all, you do not have to say anything like " I am arresting you" all you have to do is ensure that you inform the offender why you are doing retaining them. Secondly, the people doing the refraining do not have to be those who witnessed the event, but be sufficiently confident that those who did witness it are telling the truth. So theoreticly, a group of fit healthy C&RT workmen could make a Citizen's Arrest based upon the witnessed evidence provided by two Volunteers, and retain them until the Police arrived.

Admittedly the several arrests I was involved with were of adults pushing drugs on Local Authority premises, and whist they often sought to resist retention in quite an energetic way, there was probably never a high risk of us being intentionally assaulted.

Edited to add:- Although I have never had to face a firearm, I have twice been confronted by individuals with knives, and i have no doubt that they would have used them if the situation had not beenn handled cautiously. In the vent, neither a made an attempt to attack me so no real "offence"was actually commited under the law, as it stood in the 1960's

Edited October 27, 2017 by David Schweizer

[mrsmelly]

1 hour ago, David Schweizer said:

Thanks Dave for confirming my earlier suggestion. Based upon my workplace experience, some years ago, I was confident that my original statement was correct, but could not be bothered to challenge the comments of "Barrack Room Lawyers" who use Google as their source rather than any experiential knowledge. For those who still doubt my assertions, I have been involved in more than one successful Citizen's Arrest.

Wandering vagabond was indeed incorrect with his post but in fairness to him I can see why he interpreted it that way to Joe Public. However you were very lucky being involved in a successful " Citizens arrest " as I can assure you if you had tried to do it where I used to Police you would have received a smack in the mouth for your troubles, it was problematic enough for us profesionals at the job never mind Joe Public.

1 hour ago, zenataomm said:

I am constantly entertained by those who suggest 'Citizens' Arrest' as a solution when pointing out the error of their ways to scrotes and ne'er do wells.

Even after allowing for the restrictions as detailed by Wanderer Vagabond (as above) it's not a magic incantation that saps all energy from thugs leaving them weak and jelly like.

The idea that setting your stiff upper lip into masterful mode and striding up to someone who believes that smacking anyone firmly in the face is the approved method for refocussing a stranger's point of view, and that announcing to them ..... "I am conducting a Citizens' Arrest on you, you are under arrest and I require you wait with me until an officer of the constbualarilirly arrives" .... is going to result in the adrenalin/alcohol/drug/evil minded miscreant hanging his head low and muttering "S'a fair cop and no mistake Guv" I say NO!

It may be time to accept your education of life and reality progressed as far as Enid Blyton before reaching its zenith and your teeth may be in serious danger.

 

I cheerfully accept David Schweizer's success record but am equally confident that my attempt to do so on an empty towpath miles from anywhere, and out numbered, would entail in my adopting a soup and mushy pea diet for several weeks. My cowardice is fuelled by having faced the wrong end of a loaded assault rifle at close quarters and witnessing an incoming petrol bomb into a small arena.

Their are some truly nasty people out there, who do not play by the same rules as most of us.

 

Well said and agreed and yes having dealt many many times with proper shit and been petrol bombed first hand I too think people who mention " Citizens arrest " watch too much Dixon of Dock green etc

[Wanderer Vagabond]

2 hours ago, mayalld said:

This isn't quite accurate, although it may well be sound advice as to the best way to avoid being prosecuted yourself for a wrongful arrest.

The two conditions that have to be met for a citizen's arrest to be lawful are;

1. The offence must actually have been committed
2. You must have a reasonable suspicion that the person arrested committed the offence.

So, even if you didn't see the offence committed, you can arrest, but only if you KNOW that the offence was committed. Clearly if you take somebody else's word that the offence took place, you need to have a high degree of trust that their information is accurate, because if it isn't you are on dodgy ground. You also don't have to be certain that you have the right man. If the offence actually took place, and you had reasonable grounds to think you have the right man, then your mistake doesn't make an unlawful arrest.

I believe that the important omission that you have made is outlined in Section 24(a) of Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 as follows:

".....A person other than a constable may arrest without a warrant—

(a)anyone who is in the act of committing an indictable offence;

(b)anyone whom he has reasonable grounds for suspecting to be committing an indictable offence.....".

Common Assault is not Indictable, although it can be added to other indictable offences at Crown court under Section 40 Criminal Justice Act 1988.  When carrying out any citizen Arrest you would need to be aware of which offences are indictable and which aren't.  Whilst I accept that people may very well have detained offenders and not been prosecuted, it doesn't mean that they haven't put themselves at risk of prosecution.

 

[zenataomm]

1 hour ago, David Schweizer said:

I think you are misinterpretting my suggestion. 

No David I wasn't.

I had written about 80% of my post before you submitted yours regarding your having been involved in more than one successful Citizen's Arrest. As my view was more aligned to it not being a healthy hobby to pursue I thought that for the sake of balance I'd acknowledge your achievements.

[bizzard]

2 hours ago, David Schweizer said:

Thanks Dave for confirming my earlier suggestion. Based upon my workplace experience, some years ago, I was confident that my original statement was correct, but could not be bothered to challenge the comments of "Barrack Room Lawyers" who use Google as their source rather than any experiential knowledge. For those who still doubt my assertions, I have been involved in more than one successful Citizen's Arrest.

Did you go quietly David ?

[Bewildered]

I just spoke to the Hillmorton lock keepers, apparently when a boat goes through the locks he takes out a little book and marks it to keep account of how many up and how many down. The three guys on the plastic boats took objection to this, probably thinking he was taking down the boat number, they dragged him into the shed next to the bottom lock and tried to get the book off him. 

Apparantly the boats in question aren't licenced and doubtful if the are insured or have boat safety, C&RT are well aware of them and so are the police.

 

[canalboat]

1 hour ago, Wanderer Vagabond said:

I believe that the important omission that you have made is outlined in Section 24(a) of Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 as follows:

".....A person other than a constable may arrest without a warrant—

(a)anyone who is in the act of committing an indictable offence;

(b)anyone whom he has reasonable grounds for suspecting to be committing an indictable offence.....".

Common Assault is not Indictable, although it can be added to other indictable offences at Crown court under Section 40 Criminal Justice Act 1988.  When carrying out any citizen Arrest you would need to be aware of which offences are indictable and which aren't.  Whilst I accept that people may very well have detained offenders and not been prosecuted, it doesn't mean that they haven't put themselves at risk of prosecution.

 

Are offences under the Public Order Act - which this may well be - indictable?

[thebfg]

I once made a citizen arrest. Much to the disgust of the thief.

 

The policeman informed me I had done the right thing as I had witnessed the crime and knew he had committed it.

 

Which seems to be backed up by earlier posts.

[RLWP]

3 hours ago, zenataomm said:

I am constantly entertained by those who suggest 'Citizens' Arrest' as a solution when pointing out the error of their ways to scrotes and ne'er do wells.

Even after allowing for the restrictions as detailed by Wanderer Vagabond (as above) it's not a magic incantation that saps all energy from thugs leaving them weak and jelly like.

The idea that setting your stiff upper lip into masterful mode and striding up to someone who believes that smacking anyone firmly in the face is the approved method for refocussing a stranger's point of view, and that announcing to them ..... "I am conducting a Citizens' Arrest on you, you are under arrest and I require you wait with me until an officer of the constbualarilirly arrives" .... is going to result in the adrenalin/alcohol/drug/evil minded miscreant hanging his head low and muttering "S'a fair cop and no mistake Guv" I say NO!

It may be time to accept your education of life and reality progressed as far as Enid Blyton before reaching its zenith and your teeth may be in serious danger.

 

I cheerfully accept David Schweizer's success record but am equally confident that my attempt to do so on an empty towpath miles from anywhere, and out numbered, would entail in my adopting a soup and mushy pea diet for several weeks. My cowardice is fuelled by having faced the wrong end of a loaded assault rifle at close quarters and witnessing an incoming petrol bomb into a small arena.

Their are some truly nasty people out there, who do not play by the same rules as most of us.

 

 

[Wanderer Vagabond]

48 minutes ago, canalboat said:

Are offences under the Public Order Act - which this may well be - indictable?

Depends on which Sections you refer to; 1,2 and 3 are indictable 4,4A and 5 aren't. You could bluff your way and tell the offender that you are arresting him under Section 1/2/3 but then, if he asks you what they are, you would have to know. Like I said earlier, a little knowledge can get you into a whole lot of trouble. I can put up with some miscreant (scrote!) getting off on some technicality before a court, that is their decision, but it is beyond annoying to have an offender take out an action on you/me for unlawful arrest and getting some cash settlement out of it, that really would stick in the craw