Father arrested for carrying out Citizens arrest on yobs..

Post by **Oscar Namechange** » Mon Sep 21, 2009 5:14 pm

Father arrested for carrying out citizen's arrest on yobs 'who threw apples at him and his wife' | Mail Online :yh_whistl:yh_whistl:yh_whistl

Great story by David Wilkes at the Mail again.

chonsigirl · Post by **chonsigirl** » Mon Sep 21, 2009 5:21 pm

Boy, don't the police ever answer calls like this?!

Post by **Oscar Namechange** » Mon Sep 21, 2009 5:24 pm

chonsigirl;1245070 wrote: Boy, don't the police ever answer calls like this?!
You remember the poor woman who killed herself because the police would not pay attention to yobs hounding her?

This seems another case of a plod turning up reluctently and then finding he can arrest some-one to notch up his targets.

TenneseeGirl · Post by **TenneseeGirl** » Mon Sep 21, 2009 6:00 pm

No way a Jury would convict that man.

Atleast I hope not.

hoppy · Post by **hoppy** » Mon Sep 21, 2009 6:46 pm

We all need to take back our countries.

CARLA · Post by **CARLA** » Mon Sep 21, 2009 6:55 pm

If there were no complaints about his actions that night and none of the Yobs came forward what are they basing the arrest on?? He was honest and told them what happened so they arrest him. Once again I'm stunned at the logic here. :-5

House if very cute.

Post by **Oscar Namechange** » Mon Sep 21, 2009 7:08 pm

CARLA;1245104 wrote: If there were no complaints about his actions that night and none of the Yobs came forward what are they basing the arrest on?? He was honest and told them what happened so they arrest him. Once again I'm stunned at the logic here. :-5

House if very cute.
This is one of the problems with policing here I feel. Just no common sense what so ever. The part that gets me in this story Is that it was HIM that called the police in the firat instance. If our police did not work to Government targets, they may be able to do the job they are paid for...IE Crime prevention... not turning up days later and seizing an opportunity to arrest anyone and notch the targets up. I'm in doubt that when more imfo comes out, he's probably rung the police umpteen times prior about the yobs. As usual, they arrive too late and do too little.

flopstock · Post by **flopstock** » Mon Sep 21, 2009 7:39 pm

Not bad looking... is there a rule, however that if interviewed by this paper you must look as stern as possible but dress as nice as possible?:D

isn't this the same rag that threw a gaggle of innocent children up in a tree who had been yelled at by an awful policeman who wouldn't let the spirited youths enjoy a moment of carefree fun? traumatized one visting from germany, as I recall.. just tragic

I really feel for the police over there oscar, damned if they do and damned if they don't... imagine the pic of those poor innocent boys just having a bit a fun after the bike track...:rolleyes:

Post by **Oscar Namechange** » Mon Sep 21, 2009 8:05 pm

flopstock;1245115 wrote: Not bad looking... is there a rule, however that if interviewed by this paper you must look as stern as possible but dress as nice as possible?:D

isn't this the same rag that threw a gaggle of innocent children up in a tree who had been yelled at by an awful policeman who wouldn't let the spirited youths enjoy a moment of carefree fun? traumatized one visting from germany, as I recall.. just tragic

I really feel for the police over there oscar, damned if they do and damned if they don't... imagine the pic of those poor innocent boys just having a bit a fun after the bike track...:rolleyes:
The thing is Flop.. folk want It both ways. The Daily Mail Is the most popular newspaper for using on forums. You can't say one article can not be true but because you agree with an article, It must be true. They are liable to lawsuit the same as any national paper.

flopstock · Post by **flopstock** » Tue Sep 22, 2009 1:48 am

oscar;1245117 wrote: The thing is Flop.. folk want It both ways. The Daily Mail Is the most popular newspaper for using on forums. You can't say one article can not be true but because you agree with an article, It must be true. They are liable to lawsuit the same as any national paper.

Reread your article Oscar. They don't have to be factual about the event, they are quoting his statements. They bury the facts of the case around his statements of what happened. They cover themselves in according to Mr Digbys - where are their other sources? No passersby saw anything that night? They aren't saying anything occurred the way he says it did, just that he is saying it happened that way. :rolleyes:

Tell me - did he put his hand on the kids shoulder or did he put him in a half nelson because he was sworn at?

Tell me - did he confront these kids in his yard where he and his wife were pelted in their garden with apples or

Mr Digby called the police at 8.30pm and went to confront the group.

Mr Digby complained to two passing policeman on the way home after he broke free

On the way home Oscar? From where? His back yard where he and the wife are having tea as is implied..:rolleyes:

Here's the true out, after quoting Mr Digby as if he has a totally objective view of what occurred..

The law allows any person to make a citizen's arrest as long as they use only 'reasonable force'.

It is understood that the level of force Mr Digby used to restrain the boy will be at the centre of the court case.

None of the youths have been arrested but police but police are investigating Mr Digby's claims about the apple-throwing and scuffle.

I doubt the validity of any newspaper article that reports a story involving so many people and yet doesn't manage to speak to ANYONE else.... including the guys wife.

Every statement made could be factual. There is nothing to back up those statements, however in the story itself. Their protection is in quoting his statements rather then gathering facts.

And as an interesting aside - What does him being a father of three have to do with this story at all?:-2 Were the kids in the garden also? What is the connect between the headline and the story?

mikeinie · Post by **mikeinie** » Tue Sep 22, 2009 2:24 am

Maybe you don’t have these issues is Illinois, but is a problem over here in both the UK and Ireland where punks are running the place with all the politically correct backing these trouble makers.

The reason people get angry is that this is not an isolated incident. If it was it would not make front page. These kids are taking over neighborhoods unchallenged and anyone who stands up to them is punished.

Watch the movie Eden Lake, and you get the idea:

Eden Lake Movie Trailer - AZ Movies

flopstock · Post by **flopstock** » Tue Sep 22, 2009 6:03 am

mikeinie;1245146 wrote: Maybe you don’t have these issues is Illinois, but is a problem over here in both the UK and Ireland where punks are running the place with all the politically correct backing these trouble makers.

The reason people get angry is that this is not an isolated incident. If it was it would not make front page. These kids are taking over neighborhoods unchallenged and anyone who stands up to them is punished.

Watch the movie Eden Lake, and you get the idea:

Eden Lake Movie Trailer - AZ Movies

I don't doubt for a second it's going on. The problem with shoddy journalism is that it makes the rest of us in the field look bad. What was needed in the story was some fact finding. Some corroboration of events.

Unless this fella is simply a columnist expressing opinion(which is certainly allowed), he needs to head back to school and return to reporting when he has it down.

Show me a fact in this story, an unbiased witness, first hand reporting by this reporter, anything other then a man with an ax to grind let loose to say whatever he feels like, unchallenged -and a police department that state they are looking into it.

Sure the police look bad. If I interview the drunks as they are released on Saturday morning around here, they'll be more then happy to tell you how wrongly they were treated..do you print it? Every time there is a drug arrest in the area, parents start screaming frame, police abuse, etc..do you print it?:rolleyes:

A real reporter, at least in small town america, is required to back up what they don't witness firsthand in stories of this nature.

If the police are doing that bad of a job over there, the evidence should be there to be presented. That it wasn't, should make thinking folks question it's existence.

mikeinie · Post by **mikeinie** » Tue Sep 22, 2009 6:13 am

That is true. One big difference I see here vs when living in Canada, is that there are a lot more cr@p tabloid like papers here. There is more front page coverage given to celebrity boob jobs than real news. The Mail would be one of them.

PS watch the movie anyway, it is good.

flopstock · Post by **flopstock** » Tue Sep 22, 2009 7:43 am

mikeinie;1245224 wrote: That is true. One big difference I see here vs when living in Canada, is that there are a lot more cr@p tabloid like papers here. There is more front page coverage given to celebrity boob jobs than real news. The Mail would be one of them.

PS watch the movie anyway, it is good.

Just to make sure I haven't misrepresented myself, I'm the systems manager for a paper, not a reporter. The closest I get to reporting is when we go into local government offices under FOI and I assist in harvesting data 'they don't think' they have available to give us.

And I've seen stories pulled for lack of independent corroboration of 'facts' presented. I've seen reporters let go for not doing their job up to standards.

We don't always get it right, but we wouldn't dream of letting our editorial staff publish anything this glaringly sloppy.

And I'll rent the movie if you promise it isn't a bunch of kids throwing apples at anyone..:p

mikeinie · Post by **mikeinie** » Tue Sep 22, 2009 8:13 am

flopstock;1245253 wrote: Just to make sure I haven't misrepresented myself, I'm the systems manager for a paper, not a reporter. The closest I get to reporting is when we go into local government offices under FOI and I assist in harvesting data 'they don't think' they have available to give us.

And I've seen stories pulled for lack of independent corroboration of 'facts' presented. I've seen reporters let go for not doing their job up to standards.

We don't always get it right, but we wouldn't dream of letting our editorial staff publish anything this glaringly sloppy.

And I'll rent the movie if you promise it isn't a bunch of kids throwing apples at anyone..:p

No apples in this movie, you can trust me on that. :wah:

Post by **Oscar Namechange** » Tue Sep 22, 2009 8:44 am

Sorry Flops.. I made a phone call today. The story is true... Can't go into more at this point.

flopstock · Post by **flopstock** » Tue Sep 22, 2009 10:09 am

oscar;1245282 wrote: Sorry Flops.. I made a phone call today. The story is true... Can't go into more at this point.

Even sorrier Oscar, that doesn't do it for me. You don't need to go into more detail. The paper has an obligation to its readership, to go into more detail. If it can't, it needs to either couch the story in undisclosed details available to the reporting staff but being withheld at this time or it needs to not publish the story.

This story, in fact , has all the credibility you've just assigned it.. unconfirmed gossip. This story ranks right up there with any group of people having a **** and moan session over how they were treated. This paper has an obligation to its readership to supply some facts, not just what one man considers true from his perspective.

And which parts of the story are true exactly? The hand on shoulder or the half nelson? The backyard defense or he took off after a group of kids and got physical when one got mouthy?

It is a true statement that I have not had breakfast today. The more factual statement is that while I have not had breakfast today, I having been munching all morning. While one makes me look quite the heroic dieter, and is true, the later more accurately reflects my day.

Post by **Oscar Namechange** » Tue Sep 22, 2009 10:12 am

flopstock;1245313 wrote: Even sorrier Oscar, that doesn't do it for me. You don't need to go into more detail. The paper has an obligation to its readership, to go into more detail. If it can't, it needs to either couch the story in undisclosed details available to the reporting staff but being withheld at this time or it needs to not publish the story.

This story, in fact , has all the credibility you've just assigned it.. unconfirmed gossip. This story ranks right up there with any group of people having a **** and moan session over how they were treated. This paper has an obligation to its readership to supply some facts, not just what one man considers true from his perspective.

And which parts of the story are true exactly? The hand on shoulder or the half nelson? The backyard defense or he took off after a group of kids and got physical when one got mouthy?

It is a true statement that I have not had breakfast today. The more factual statement is that while I have not had breakfast today, I having been munching all morning. While one makes me look quite the heroic dieter, and is true, the later more accurately reflects my day.

Of course there is more to It, but If the guy is taking it to trial then the paper is subjected to Sub Judice law the same as anyone else. They will print the full story when they cover the court case. Until then, they must be sketchy.