Remember the guy who Broke the vases??

Talking of vases ..... ;)

Two friends, a blonde and a redhead, are walking down the street and pass a flower shop, where the redhead happens to see her boyfriend buying flowers.
She sighs and says, "Oh, crap, my boyfriend is buying me flowers again."
The blonde looks quizzically at her and says, "You don't like getting flowers?"
The redhead says, "I love getting flowers, but he always has expectations after giving me flowers, and I just don't feel like spending the next three days on my back with my legs in the air."
The blonde says, "Don't you have a vase"?

;)

Sorry ... I couldn't resist :p
 
ElRazur said:
That is stupid tbh, it was an accident let the insurance company pay.
Click to expand...
Was it, though?

Surely such an arrest would not be made without evidence. And if that evidence exists, then it would be remiss of them not to act.

And, it seems, Nick Flynn has certainly been milking it for all it's worth. He's been giving newspaper and media interviews, including the Mail and BBC, and even tried to go back to ther Fitzwilliam, not as a visitor, but to give interested groups a guided tour, for pities sake.

So, given that Mr. Flynn has decided to exploit his new-found fame, or perhaps infamy, and given these police charges, I have to wonder what evidence they actually have. Because if, as seems to be the very clear inference, this was a deliberate act, then it is cultural vandalism of the first order and I hope they throw the book at him. If, on the other hand, it was an accident, then one has to wonder what evidence there might be to support "reasonable grounds" for suspecting criminal damage. If, after all, the police cannot justify those suspicions, they can be sued for false arrest. They can't just arrest people for the hell of it - they have to be able to justify it if challenged.
 
Gilly said:
Hmmm. Hope they have some evidence that it was intentional.
Click to expand...

I doubt that they would need evidence that it was intentional if they've already brought it to trial - they'll focus on his recklessness if it does ever get to court.
 
Smashing topic, i am sure the police will do everything they can to work it out.

I have never seen a story like this one before
 
mleh said:
I doubt that they would need evidence that it was intentional if they've already brought it to trial - they'll focus on his recklessness if it does ever get to court.
Click to expand...
Criminal damage through recklessness?

Really?
 
ElRazur said:
That is stupid tbh, it was an accident let the insurance company pay.
Click to expand...
And did the Fitz not say they were uninsured???

This is, after all, a museum. Got any idea what the premiums would be on vases worth three hundred grand, that are on open display to the public? A museum can't afford those kinds of premiums. So, either they take the risk, or the public get denied the right to see many, many treasures at all, unless it's from behind glass.
 
Gilly said:
Criminal damage through recklessness?

Really?
Click to expand...

Come to think of it, although he professes to have done it on accident (who wouldn't when you're responsible for £300,000 worth of vases to be smashed?) it does say in the article that he's been "arrested on suspicion" - so they are probably looking for intent.

I'm not sure if proving recklessness would result in criminal damage though :confused:
 
mleh said:
Come to think of it, although he professes to have done it on accident (who wouldn't when you're responsible for £300,000 worth of vases to be smashed?) it does say in the article that he's been "arrested on suspicion" - so they are probably looking for intent.

I'm not sure if proving recklessness would result in criminal damage though :confused:
Click to expand...
Indeed it could. Criminal Damage act 1971, s1, though the definition of "reckless" has been the subject of, erm, fairly intense argument. :D
 
I certainly wouldn't have thought so. Accidental damage, sure, but not criminal damage :/

[edit]So if I fell over and broke something tomorrow, not even having known the something was there, there's a possibility that I could be done for criminal damage??

Harsh.
 
Sequoia said:
And, it seems, Nick Flynn has certainly been milking it for all it's worth. He's been giving newspaper and media interviews, including the Mail and BBC, and even tried to go back to ther Fitzwilliam, not as a visitor, but to give interested groups a guided tour, for pities sake.

.
Click to expand...

I hear what you say and see where you are coming from.

In my view, i dont have any problem with him tellling his story to the media, i dont think it was his idea originally iirc - it was due to the way the whole thing happen. We live in a society where doing anything to get you Your fifteen minutes of fame is seen as nothing wrong anyway.
The whole thing against him will probably get thrown out of court and then another waste of tax payer's money. It is not worth it, they should let it go and probably ban him from coming into the museum for life.
 
They seemed to care more about the poxy vases than if the guy was OK. Why are these vases here, why are they not at their original home country?
 
Gilly said:
I certainly wouldn't have thought so. Accidental damage, sure, but not criminal damage :/

[edit]So if I fell over and broke something tomorrow, not even having known the something was there, there's a possibility that I could be done for criminal damage??

Harsh.
Click to expand...

But that's not being reckless (if you didn't contribute to you falling over).

Doing something, and knowing of the consequences yet continuing to do it is. Say the guy was running about the place, knowing that if he slipped or took a wrong turn but still persisted that would be criminal damage.
 
The police should concentrate on catching some real criminals instead of just some clumsy fool who had an ACCIDENT!

This country is nuts. :(
 
You can certainly be convicted on criminal damage on recklessness, it has been the subject of debate for years. It is currently a subjective test, Between the R v Caldwell to R v G & Another it was Objective. Bottomeline is that his conviction be base on if the prosecution can prove that could he have forsee the accident taking place. i.e. in this case, would you think you would do your laces up when stepping into a museum full of Antique Vases ? The notion that a conviction should be dependant on proving the state of mind of the individual defendant.
 
Gilly said:
I certainly wouldn't have thought so. Accidental damage, sure, but not criminal damage :/

[edit]So if I fell over and broke something tomorrow, not even having known the something was there, there's a possibility that I could be done for criminal damage??

Harsh.
Click to expand...
The actual act says ....
A person who without lawful excuse destroys or damages any property belonging to another intending to destroy or damage any such property or being reckless as to whether any such property would be destroyed or damaged shall be guilty of an offence.
Click to expand...
But an "accident" is not the same thing as recklessness. If you do something which you do, or should have, known was likely to lead to such damage, then it's reckless and if it's reckless then it's criminal damage. But, as I said, the big issue is the definition of recklessness. What degree of foresight of likely consequences means you, or an objective reasonable bystander, should have foreseen those consequences? That argument has been going on for decades, right up to and into the House of Lords.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom