Gypsy hoarde ransack brewery, police just let them do it

[Chris Wilson]

Just do what they do in Southern Ireland. Make trespass a criminal offence.

Police officers in Ireland may order suspected trespassers to move on. More than 250 of Ireland's 7,000 travelling families have been moved on under Section 24 of the Act, with many opting to move to Britain to avoid the tough laws. Irish officers may also impound "objects" that have been brought on to the land. These may be sold by the police if left unclaimed.

This indeed is the reason we see so many of these people in England, Scotland and wales in the summer, they are no longer able to occupy private or council land for long periods in southern Ireland so come across here. A great vote winner would surely be there for the taking for a party who pledged Draconian trespass actions to be brought to the statute book to address these long suffered issues?

 

[Dirk Diggler]

I actually met her grandfather a while before (he was a relative seeing another patient), he was a gentleman and really nice, so you are right, I should speak about the many more nice travellers I have seen.

Thanks for your honesty. My experience of the Traveling Community (I am not a Traveller, BTW) has been very similar, some really nice people and some outright nutters. Some I have called friends, others I wouldn't associate with in a million years.

Thankfully, others have patiently pointed out the actual issue the OP has highlighted and they have went on to suggest proper adult solutions.

I feel no need to discuss the subject any further, I just wanted to acknowledge your reply.

 

[d_brennen]

Just do what they do in Southern Ireland. Make trespass a criminal offence.

Police officers in Ireland may order suspected trespassers to move on. More than 250 of Ireland's 7,000 travelling families have been moved on under Section 24 of the Act, with many opting to move to Britain to avoid the tough laws. Irish officers may also impound "objects" that have been brought on to the land. These may be sold by the police if left unclaimed.

That would be too sensible

 

[Nasher]

The police will now use their investigative inquiries to identify and arrest those involved.

Lol! Good one.

 

[Tefal]

SciShow, I think.

I think the comment from a witness of an accidental spillage in a car park sums it up well: "The concrete is on fire".

I think it's still used in chip manufacturing. If you need to utterly cleanse equipment, to remove everything from surfaces, that does the job.

I checked - it was SciShow, a short video on 5 particularly dangerous chemicals. I'll link rather than embedding, as this isn't the video thread. I liked the bit on azidoazideazide, an explosive so sensitive that even the team of specialists in a specialised lab who made it weren't able to measure how sensitive it is because even the slightest possible attempt to measure how sensitive it is made it explode. When I first watched the video, I had a bit more of a look into it and found an interesting and amusing series from a chemist entitled something like "Things I won't work with". Azidoazideazide was on their list. In addition to the rather obvious hazards, there's very little research you can do on a substance that explodes under almost all circumstances and sometimes explodes for no known reason. Even in a sealed lead box on a table motion-compensated table that won't vibrate or move even in an earthquake in a completely dark chamber underground (and no, that's not an exaggeration - it happened).

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ckSoDW2-wrc

That was it scishow!

 

[Energize]

Why should the army be called in? They have no jurisdiction. The only time the military are called in are under the likes of Op Temperer (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Temperer) etc.

It is a policing issue and due to yet more and more cuts, Police have to prioritse; an unmanned property is not a high priority.

I personally would rank a riot in progress as a greater emergency than a small scale bomb that has already detonated, the former is a present and growing threat whereas the latter a former threat. If they put out for army for the Manchester bombing I would certainly have expected the army to be deployed in this situation.

OK, we call the army in. What exactly do you think they can do? They have ZERO powers of arrest aside from common law, so they cannot touch, restrain or arrest them. They can't bring weapons that would be a nightmare in itself and their mere presence will more than likely enflame the situation.

But look at what happened when the army were NOT not called in. No one got injured, but a few offices got ransacked and some beer got spoiled.

The police will now use their investigative inquiries to identify and arrest those involved.

Don't get me wrong, i am not defending their actions, they are scum in my eyes. But due to government constraints, there wasn't much else the police could do. At least now this case will support the need for more police resources.

PACE act allows for anyone to arrest anyone committing a crime using reasonable force, so yes the army can arrest them and if the situation was so out of control that the police could not contain it thus threatening public safety it would seem the common sense approach to deal with the situation (did the police even know or did they just assume that no innocents were in the vicinity?).

 

[Tefal]

OK, we call the army in. What exactly do you think they can do? They have ZERO powers of arrest aside from common law, so they cannot touch, restrain or arrest them. They can't bring weapons that would be a nightmare in itself and their mere presence will more than likely enflame the situation.

But look at what happened when the army were NOT not called in. No one got injured, but a few offices got ransacked and some beer got spoiled.

The police will now use their investigative inquiries to identify and arrest those involved.

Don't get me wrong, i am not defending their actions, they are scum in my eyes. But due to government constraints, there wasn't much else the police could do. At least now this case will support the need for more police resources.

So how come the sas raided strangeways prison during the riot with clubs?

 

[cheesyboy]

Just do what they do in Southern Ireland. Make trespass a criminal offence.

Police officers in Ireland may order suspected trespassers to move on. More than 250 of Ireland's 7,000 travelling families have been moved on under Section 24 of the Act, with many opting to move to Britain to avoid the tough laws. Irish officers may also impound "objects" that have been brought on to the land. These may be sold by the police if left unclaimed.

I really don't want trespass to be a criminal offence, thanks.

I don't have much sympathy for many of these gypsy types, though we've had small numbers in traditional horse drawn caravans stopping around here from time to time and causing no problems, but I'm pretty reluctant to see draconian trespass laws in a country where every square inch of open land is owned by someone.

 

[ivrytwr3]

So how come the sas raided strangeways prison during the riot with clubs?

You're talking about something that happened 30 years ago - different times. But the main reason the SAS went in is because of the hostages ie potential loss of life and exactly why they were called in during the Iranian Embassy siege.

I'm labouring the point here, but police now have to prioritse, potential loss of public life against an unmanned building will be the priority every time.

 

[TheVoice]

People can't rely on the police to protect them really, especially now.

Funny how they continue to call in ever-increasing numbers then.

You really do come out with some absolute nonsense.

 

[Caracus2k]

PACE act allows for anyone to arrest anyone committing a crime using reasonable force, so yes the army can arrest them

Spoiler: Edit!

'PACE' (the Police and Criminal Evidence Act of 1984) very much does not allow for anyone to arrest anyone commiting a crime......

See edit

Limited powers of 'arrest' are afforded to people in general by section 3 of the Criminal Law Act and common law.... Not PACE which is pretty much a constable only affair (with the odd bit thrown in for other 'designated' people like PCSO's)

S. 24 deals with the general arrest powers (for constables under PACE)

Arrest without warrant: constables
(1)A constable may arrest without a warrant—

(a)anyone who is about to commit an offence;

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

(c)anyone whom he has reasonable grounds for suspecting to be about to commit an offence;

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

(2)If a constable has reasonable grounds for suspecting that an offence has been committed, he may arrest without a warrant anyone whom he has reasonable grounds to suspect of being guilty of it.

(3)If an offence has been committed, a constable may arrest without a warrant—

(a)anyone who is guilty of the offence;

(b)anyone whom he has reasonable grounds for suspecting to be guilty of it.

S. 3 criminal law act...

Where an arrestable offence has been committed, any person may arrest without warrant anyone who is, or whom he, with reasonable cause, suspects to be, guilty of the offence.

OK they inserted section 24a when is was not looking! So yes you can arrest under 'PACE'
Iooks like it just formalised what was previously the common law power.... Which was only for indictable offences only.... Not the summary one covered by s. 24 for constables as well

Although a squaddie could in theory make an 'arrest' under the criminal law act, s. 24A or Common law it would not be at all desirable for the state to deliberately deploy the army to do so... They are not trained or equipped to 'arrest' civilians after all in most cases.....

The powers simple reflect the need for members of the public to rather more spontaneously react to situations unfolding in front of them and are used in a limited sense by store security guards to detain shoplifters locally till the police arrive..

 

[Tefal]

You're talking about something that happened 30 years ago - different times. But the main reason the SAS went in is because of the hostages ie potential loss of life and exactly why they were called in during the Iranian Embassy siege.

I'm labouring the point here, but police now have to prioritse, potential loss of public life against an unmanned building will be the priority every time.

Who's going to die?

 

[ivrytwr3]

Who's going to die?

I'm not sure what you are asking due to the shortness of your post. However:

• Prison siege - some of the wardens were taken hostage.

• Iranian Embassy - hostages were taken

• ***** brewery - at the same time there was an escaped mental health patient believed to have a knife in their possession; so any member of the public was potentially at risk.

 

[Pudney]

HMRC will still want the tax paying on the beer brewed that had to be poured down the drain

If it makes you feel any better, no HMRC won't. In fact the brewery should be able to claim deductions for the wasted beer depending on which tax you're talking about.

 

[Mickie]

I feel like the big issue is the police sitting on their hands, wonder if they'd do the same if a random group started invading other peoples properties..

 

[Caracus2k]

I feel like the big issue is the police sitting on their hands, wonder if they'd do the same if a random group started invading other peoples properties..

I don't think it's a case of 'police sitting on their hands' .....

More likely that they was considerably less police available to immediately respond in the whole local area vs the amount of people involved in the incident... .

and as there was no risk to life from. This incident but diverting all your resources to deal with this incident would cause risk to life the decision was made to not respond at the time.....

If you are going to respond, at the time, you need to send sufficient resources..... A couple of cops in a car or even a whole mini bus worth won't be enough to deal with the amount of people apparently involved

 

[Tefal]

I don't think it's a case of 'police sitting on their hands' .....

More likely that they was considerably less police available to immediately respond in the whole local area vs the amount of people involved in the incident... .

and as there was no risk to life from. This incident but diverting all your resources to deal with this incident would cause risk to life the decision was made to not respond at the time.....

If you are going to respond, at the time, you need to send sufficient resources..... A couple of cops in a car or even a whole mini bus worth won't be enough to deal with the amount of people apparently involved

You think there's no risk to life from a bunch of barely supervised children running free in an industrial facility?

 

[Caracus2k]

You think there's no risk to life from a bunch of barely supervised children running free in an industrial facility?

This has to be weighed up vs no one to respond to domestics, road traffic incidents etc any risk to the travellers involved would be exteremely slight .... Breweries aren't the most dangerous of 'industrial facilities' .. ... .

Put yourself in the place of the police if they are defending themselves at a coroners court or after being prosecuted by the HSE.....

Would you rather be answering why you didn't send your insufficient police resources to deal with a property invasion where one of the people responsible, by their own actions, came to harm ......

Or even answering why responding to the brewery incident with insufficient resources was a significant factor in a death?

Or would you rather be explaining (in a far more likely scenario) why there was absolutely no police to respond to that domestic/ rtc etc where the inability to respond was a significant factor in a fatality?

 

[Tefal]

This has to be weighed up vs no one to respond to domestics, road traffic incidents etc any risk to the travellers involved would be exteremely slight .... Breweries aren't the most dangerous of 'industrial facilities' .. ... .

Put yourself in the place of the police if they are defending themselves at a coroners court or after being prosecuted by the HSE.....

Would you rather be answering why you didn't send your insufficient police resources to deal with a property invasion where one of the people responsible, by their own actions, came to harm ......

Or even answering why responding to the brewery incident with insufficient resources was a significant factor in a death?

Or would you rather be explaining (in a far more likely scenario) why there was absolutely no police to respond to that domestic/ rtc etc where the inability to respond was a significant factor in a fatality?

Heavy loads, toxic chemicals, rotating machinery, hot machinery, forklifts cranes they have all the risks of most major industrial sites.


And why exactly would it mean the whole police force would have to attend?
Surely jsut. handful of officers could move these peaceful folk on.

If not then these people are dangerous and pose and immediate threat to public safety if they will jist violently attack police on sight and should be an even higher priority.


If have thought a large number of children being forced into crime so activity and exposed to harm would rank above a domestic wouldn't you?

 

[Chris Wilson]

Nothing to stop anyone making a citizen's arrest if they are feeling brave. You may even find a moment of fame like this guy, when a photograph looking like it's from an opening scene from The Sweeney was snapped of him tackling an aggressive beggar.

https://metro.co.uk/2018/06/02/man-carried-cool-citizens-arrest-doesnt-drop-cigarette-7600467/

Is this the coolest man in London?

A man wearing a leather jacket made a citizen’s arrest in Borough Market and he didn’t even drop his cigarette as he did so.

Incredible skills, eh?

Captured by photographer Nick MacMahon on Thursday afternoon, the man can be seen pinning another man to the ground while smoking his cigarette as he looks into the distance.

According to the Independent the man on the floor, who had hassled people for money earlier on, was ‘trying to start fights with people’.