Police call meeting after tyre slashing outbreak

This Is Wiltshire: A slashed tyre in Old Town A slashed tyre in Old Town

A PUBLIC meeting will be held by Wiltshire Police to discuss the large scale criminal damage to vehicles in Swindon last year.

In February 2013, more than 100 vehicles parked in residential streets in Old Town had their tyres slashed.

A detailed police investigation took place and arrests were made but the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) did not charge in this instance as they were not satisfied that there was sufficient evidence to provide a realistic prospect of conviction.

The local Neighbourhood Policing Team (NPT) would like to meet those affected to discuss this issue and give them with some security advice.

All 100 victims have been written to informing them of this meeting.

The drop in session will be held tomorrow at the Savernake Street Social Hall, Swindon, from 6.30pm-7.30pm.

Comments (25)

Please log in to enable comment sorting

5:04pm Tue 14 Jan 14

ChannelX says...

As ever, they know who did it and yet absolutely nothing was done about it.

No punishment whatsoever.

100 cars attacked... total cost, what, £20k to £30k? Not to mention the massive disruption, time off work etc.

Maybe the police would care to bring alone the CCTV images of those who were arrested, that would make for interesting viewing, I'm sure.
As ever, they know who did it and yet absolutely nothing was done about it. No punishment whatsoever. 100 cars attacked... total cost, what, £20k to £30k? Not to mention the massive disruption, time off work etc. Maybe the police would care to bring alone the CCTV images of those who were arrested, that would make for interesting viewing, I'm sure. ChannelX
  • Score: 12

5:15pm Tue 14 Jan 14

LordAshOfTheBrake says...

What security advice can they give; the cars are parked on the street.

Perhaps they will suggest everyone should invest in their own CCTV camera's, that won't pick anything up because the culprits will wear hoodies....!

Perhaps they'll suggest everyone should remove the wheels from their cars overnight to prevent tires being slashed in future....!
What security advice can they give; the cars are parked on the street. Perhaps they will suggest everyone should invest in their own CCTV camera's, that won't pick anything up because the culprits will wear hoodies....! Perhaps they'll suggest everyone should remove the wheels from their cars overnight to prevent tires being slashed in future....! LordAshOfTheBrake
  • Score: 10

6:15pm Tue 14 Jan 14

anotherimigrant says...

KNOWN thief robs a car. Witnesses are willing to give statements,, goods tracked and under surveillance of cameras, another witness comes forward to say the NAME of the thief.

Plod says he will deny it, cameras went working, and it's
not theft but you lost your property.

No crime committed, figures look good and every ones happy including the KNOWN thief, except me.

Wiltshire police farce couldn't solve a proper easy crime even when known killers admit to killing someone they still f*kc it up.

What do you think (honestly) the police care about your car, your property, your home, your family.

It starts with Nuu and ends in ing.

Your property you look after it.
KNOWN thief robs a car. Witnesses are willing to give statements,, goods tracked and under surveillance of cameras, another witness comes forward to say the NAME of the thief. Plod says he will deny it, cameras went working, and it's not theft but you lost your property. No crime committed, figures look good and every ones happy including the KNOWN thief, except me. Wiltshire police farce couldn't solve a proper easy crime even when known killers admit to killing someone they still f*kc it up. What do you think (honestly) the police care about your car, your property, your home, your family. It starts with Nuu and ends in ing. Your property you look after it. anotherimigrant
  • Score: 3

6:50pm Tue 14 Jan 14

Oik1 says...

It's not right I know, but street justice will become more and more common, especially when the culprits are caught by more than one victim, no doubt the police will be far more interested when the snivelling little swines that cause the problems recieve a 'proper slap' and whinge to anyone who's prepared to listen.
It's not right I know, but street justice will become more and more common, especially when the culprits are caught by more than one victim, no doubt the police will be far more interested when the snivelling little swines that cause the problems recieve a 'proper slap' and whinge to anyone who's prepared to listen. Oik1
  • Score: 11

8:15pm Tue 14 Jan 14

Mango man says...

anotherimigrant wrote:
KNOWN thief robs a car. Witnesses are willing to give statements,, goods tracked and under surveillance of cameras, another witness comes forward to say the NAME of the thief.

Plod says he will deny it, cameras went working, and it's
not theft but you lost your property.

No crime committed, figures look good and every ones happy including the KNOWN thief, except me.

Wiltshire police farce couldn't solve a proper easy crime even when known killers admit to killing someone they still f*kc it up.

What do you think (honestly) the police care about your car, your property, your home, your family.

It starts with Nuu and ends in ing.

Your property you look after it.
Are you saying this scenario actually happened to you? I think there maybe a little embellishment going on here as I don't believe your version of events. Be very careful if you are describing an actual turn of events as if not accurate you could be in hot water regarding slander etc
[quote][p][bold]anotherimigrant[/bold] wrote: KNOWN thief robs a car. Witnesses are willing to give statements,, goods tracked and under surveillance of cameras, another witness comes forward to say the NAME of the thief. Plod says he will deny it, cameras went working, and it's not theft but you lost your property. No crime committed, figures look good and every ones happy including the KNOWN thief, except me. Wiltshire police farce couldn't solve a proper easy crime even when known killers admit to killing someone they still f*kc it up. What do you think (honestly) the police care about your car, your property, your home, your family. It starts with Nuu and ends in ing. Your property you look after it.[/p][/quote]Are you saying this scenario actually happened to you? I think there maybe a little embellishment going on here as I don't believe your version of events. Be very careful if you are describing an actual turn of events as if not accurate you could be in hot water regarding slander etc Mango man
  • Score: -13

9:56pm Tue 14 Jan 14

faatmaan says...

with ever decreasing enforcement in all aspects of law and life in general, it is only a matter of time before anarchy occurs and that local groups of well intentioned citizens form into defensive units to enforce knee jerk justice, more money saved for the government , official crime figures down, the generation that believed in the Sex pistols and 'anarchy in the uk' are now the parents of a lot of the problem groups.
with ever decreasing enforcement in all aspects of law and life in general, it is only a matter of time before anarchy occurs and that local groups of well intentioned citizens form into defensive units to enforce knee jerk justice, more money saved for the government , official crime figures down, the generation that believed in the Sex pistols and 'anarchy in the uk' are now the parents of a lot of the problem groups. faatmaan
  • Score: 5

11:30pm Tue 14 Jan 14

anotherimigrant says...

Mango man wrote:
anotherimigrant wrote:
KNOWN thief robs a car. Witnesses are willing to give statements,, goods tracked and under surveillance of cameras, another witness comes forward to say the NAME of the thief.

Plod says he will deny it, cameras went working, and it's
not theft but you lost your property.

No crime committed, figures look good and every ones happy including the KNOWN thief, except me.

Wiltshire police farce couldn't solve a proper easy crime even when known killers admit to killing someone they still f*kc it up.

What do you think (honestly) the police care about your car, your property, your home, your family.

It starts with Nuu and ends in ing.

Your property you look after it.
Are you saying this scenario actually happened to you? I think there maybe a little embellishment going on here as I don't believe your version of events. Be very careful if you are describing an actual turn of events as if not accurate you could be in hot water regarding slander etc
True story, personally I don't give a f@ck what you THINK.

Sue me if I,m wrong:)

But who will? Plod, don't think so. The thief, don't think so, he can't read.
[quote][p][bold]Mango man[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]anotherimigrant[/bold] wrote: KNOWN thief robs a car. Witnesses are willing to give statements,, goods tracked and under surveillance of cameras, another witness comes forward to say the NAME of the thief. Plod says he will deny it, cameras went working, and it's not theft but you lost your property. No crime committed, figures look good and every ones happy including the KNOWN thief, except me. Wiltshire police farce couldn't solve a proper easy crime even when known killers admit to killing someone they still f*kc it up. What do you think (honestly) the police care about your car, your property, your home, your family. It starts with Nuu and ends in ing. Your property you look after it.[/p][/quote]Are you saying this scenario actually happened to you? I think there maybe a little embellishment going on here as I don't believe your version of events. Be very careful if you are describing an actual turn of events as if not accurate you could be in hot water regarding slander etc[/p][/quote]True story, personally I don't give a f@ck what you THINK. Sue me if I,m wrong:) But who will? Plod, don't think so. The thief, don't think so, he can't read. anotherimigrant
  • Score: 5

8:34am Wed 15 Jan 14

A.Baron-Cohen says...

Well I am sure this incident will push homeowners to install CCTV systems
Well I am sure this incident will push homeowners to install CCTV systems A.Baron-Cohen
  • Score: -1

8:52am Wed 15 Jan 14

anotherimigrant says...

Don't be silly. I have them all over my house and in one corner of my street there are 10 cameras.

Thieves got into one garage and were there for 2.5hrs laughing and pointing at the cameras.

They are on camera and they DONT CARE.

They don't give a fly toss about cameras.

Why. Because even if you caught them, NOTHING would happen to them
Don't be silly. I have them all over my house and in one corner of my street there are 10 cameras. Thieves got into one garage and were there for 2.5hrs laughing and pointing at the cameras. They are on camera and they DONT CARE. They don't give a fly toss about cameras. Why. Because even if you caught them, NOTHING would happen to them anotherimigrant
  • Score: 5

8:55am Wed 15 Jan 14

ChannelX says...

A.Baron-Cohen wrote:
Well I am sure this incident will push homeowners to install CCTV systems
Which is almost ruled as 'inadmissible' in court by the judiciary, mainly because it makes life harder for the criminals.

If you do use CCTV, you must also display very clear signage advising others about the area you are covering with that CCTV and that you are recording. Even then, judges don't like it because it helps the public protect themselves.
[quote][p][bold]A.Baron-Cohen[/bold] wrote: Well I am sure this incident will push homeowners to install CCTV systems[/p][/quote]Which is almost ruled as 'inadmissible' in court by the judiciary, mainly because it makes life harder for the criminals. If you do use CCTV, you must also display very clear signage advising others about the area you are covering with that CCTV and that you are recording. Even then, judges don't like it because it helps the public protect themselves. ChannelX
  • Score: 2

8:58am Wed 15 Jan 14

A.Baron-Cohen says...

anotherimigrant wrote:
Don't be silly. I have them all over my house and in one corner of my street there are 10 cameras.

Thieves got into one garage and were there for 2.5hrs laughing and pointing at the cameras.

They are on camera and they DONT CARE.

They don't give a fly toss about cameras.

Why. Because even if you caught them, NOTHING would happen to them
Well this is very sad that the police does not care.
However if the pictures are good quality, I am sure they could be posted on facebook, you tube or in local newspapers. I am not sure if they would end up in jail but life is full of surprises.....accide
nts happen.
[quote][p][bold]anotherimigrant[/bold] wrote: Don't be silly. I have them all over my house and in one corner of my street there are 10 cameras. Thieves got into one garage and were there for 2.5hrs laughing and pointing at the cameras. They are on camera and they DONT CARE. They don't give a fly toss about cameras. Why. Because even if you caught them, NOTHING would happen to them[/p][/quote]Well this is very sad that the police does not care. However if the pictures are good quality, I am sure they could be posted on facebook, you tube or in local newspapers. I am not sure if they would end up in jail but life is full of surprises.....accide nts happen. A.Baron-Cohen
  • Score: 1

9:24am Wed 15 Jan 14

Phantom Poster says...

ChannelX wrote:
A.Baron-Cohen wrote:
Well I am sure this incident will push homeowners to install CCTV systems
Which is almost ruled as 'inadmissible' in court by the judiciary, mainly because it makes life harder for the criminals.

If you do use CCTV, you must also display very clear signage advising others about the area you are covering with that CCTV and that you are recording. Even then, judges don't like it because it helps the public protect themselves.
Absolute rubbish - there are no such restrictions for domestic use.
[quote][p][bold]ChannelX[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]A.Baron-Cohen[/bold] wrote: Well I am sure this incident will push homeowners to install CCTV systems[/p][/quote]Which is almost ruled as 'inadmissible' in court by the judiciary, mainly because it makes life harder for the criminals. If you do use CCTV, you must also display very clear signage advising others about the area you are covering with that CCTV and that you are recording. Even then, judges don't like it because it helps the public protect themselves.[/p][/quote]Absolute rubbish - there are no such restrictions for domestic use. Phantom Poster
  • Score: -4

12:24pm Wed 15 Jan 14

ChannelX says...

Phantom Poster wrote:
ChannelX wrote:
A.Baron-Cohen wrote:
Well I am sure this incident will push homeowners to install CCTV systems
Which is almost ruled as 'inadmissible' in court by the judiciary, mainly because it makes life harder for the criminals.

If you do use CCTV, you must also display very clear signage advising others about the area you are covering with that CCTV and that you are recording. Even then, judges don't like it because it helps the public protect themselves.
Absolute rubbish - there are no such restrictions for domestic use.
Try reading what was posted.

There are no restrictions for using CCTV on domestic property... but it will be ruled inadmissible in court if certain regulations are not followed.

Why are you trying to mislead people?

I get that you don't like me, and feel some bizarre desire to continually respond to me in failed attempts to discredit me, but please at least post things that have some basis in reality.
[quote][p][bold]Phantom Poster[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]ChannelX[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]A.Baron-Cohen[/bold] wrote: Well I am sure this incident will push homeowners to install CCTV systems[/p][/quote]Which is almost ruled as 'inadmissible' in court by the judiciary, mainly because it makes life harder for the criminals. If you do use CCTV, you must also display very clear signage advising others about the area you are covering with that CCTV and that you are recording. Even then, judges don't like it because it helps the public protect themselves.[/p][/quote]Absolute rubbish - there are no such restrictions for domestic use.[/p][/quote]Try reading what was posted. There are no restrictions for using CCTV on domestic property... but it will be ruled inadmissible in court if certain regulations are not followed. Why are you trying to mislead people? I get that you don't like me, and feel some bizarre desire to continually respond to me in failed attempts to discredit me, but please at least post things that have some basis in reality. ChannelX
  • Score: 6

12:33pm Wed 15 Jan 14

ChannelX says...

For those who are interested in the facts:


Since the 24th October 2001 it has been a criminal offence to use an unregistered CCTV system to record people in a public or private place unless it meets certain criteria.

The introduction of the Data Protection Act 1998 and other related legislation has had far reaching consequences for those who own, manage or operate CCTV systems in the United Kingdom. Every aspect of this new legislation impacts upon your use of CCTV.

The Code of Practice contains 62 legally enforceable 'Standards' that must be met to ensure compliance with the Data Protection Act 1998. The Commissioner includes a further 30 points of good practice, which together with the standards, are designed to build and maintain public confidence in CCTV systems and to ensure that they operate within the law.

The Data Protection Act 1998 came into force on March 1st 2000 and the Information Commissioner has issued a Code of Practice for CCTV systems. This Code was updated on July 14th 2000 and again in January 2008.

The police state that 80% of CCTV evidence is inadmissible in court. Causes of such failures include inadequate documentation, lack of audit trail and incorrect recording of evidence.


Source: The CCTV Advisory Service
For those who are interested in the facts: [quote] Since the 24th October 2001 it has been a criminal offence to use an unregistered CCTV system to record people in a public or private place unless it meets certain criteria. The introduction of the Data Protection Act 1998 and other related legislation has had far reaching consequences for those who own, manage or operate CCTV systems in the United Kingdom. Every aspect of this new legislation impacts upon your use of CCTV. The Code of Practice contains 62 legally enforceable 'Standards' that must be met to ensure compliance with the Data Protection Act 1998. The Commissioner includes a further 30 points of good practice, which together with the standards, are designed to build and maintain public confidence in CCTV systems and to ensure that they operate within the law. The Data Protection Act 1998 came into force on March 1st 2000 and the Information Commissioner has issued a Code of Practice for CCTV systems. This Code was updated on July 14th 2000 and again in January 2008. The police state that 80% of CCTV evidence is inadmissible in court. Causes of such failures include inadequate documentation, lack of audit trail and incorrect recording of evidence. [/quote] Source: The CCTV Advisory Service ChannelX
  • Score: 3

1:27pm Wed 15 Jan 14

house on the hill says...

ChannelX wrote:
Phantom Poster wrote:
ChannelX wrote:
A.Baron-Cohen wrote:
Well I am sure this incident will push homeowners to install CCTV systems
Which is almost ruled as 'inadmissible' in court by the judiciary, mainly because it makes life harder for the criminals.

If you do use CCTV, you must also display very clear signage advising others about the area you are covering with that CCTV and that you are recording. Even then, judges don't like it because it helps the public protect themselves.
Absolute rubbish - there are no such restrictions for domestic use.
Try reading what was posted.

There are no restrictions for using CCTV on domestic property... but it will be ruled inadmissible in court if certain regulations are not followed.

Why are you trying to mislead people?

I get that you don't like me, and feel some bizarre desire to continually respond to me in failed attempts to discredit me, but please at least post things that have some basis in reality.
I think you will find that nobody likes you, so what does that prove?
[quote][p][bold]ChannelX[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Phantom Poster[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]ChannelX[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]A.Baron-Cohen[/bold] wrote: Well I am sure this incident will push homeowners to install CCTV systems[/p][/quote]Which is almost ruled as 'inadmissible' in court by the judiciary, mainly because it makes life harder for the criminals. If you do use CCTV, you must also display very clear signage advising others about the area you are covering with that CCTV and that you are recording. Even then, judges don't like it because it helps the public protect themselves.[/p][/quote]Absolute rubbish - there are no such restrictions for domestic use.[/p][/quote]Try reading what was posted. There are no restrictions for using CCTV on domestic property... but it will be ruled inadmissible in court if certain regulations are not followed. Why are you trying to mislead people? I get that you don't like me, and feel some bizarre desire to continually respond to me in failed attempts to discredit me, but please at least post things that have some basis in reality.[/p][/quote]I think you will find that nobody likes you, so what does that prove? house on the hill
  • Score: 2

1:37pm Wed 15 Jan 14

Phantom Poster says...

ChanelX, your pasted text is irrelevant as it doesn't apply to domestic premises. Next you'll ne saying that if someone has an address book at home then they are subject to the Data Protection Act
ChanelX, your pasted text is irrelevant as it doesn't apply to domestic premises. Next you'll ne saying that if someone has an address book at home then they are subject to the Data Protection Act Phantom Poster
  • Score: 0

2:18pm Wed 15 Jan 14

ChannelX says...

Phantom Poster wrote:
ChanelX, your pasted text is irrelevant as it doesn't apply to domestic premises. Next you'll ne saying that if someone has an address book at home then they are subject to the Data Protection Act
OK, have it your way. Set up your CCTV, record criminals if they bother you and then try and have that footage used against the suspects in court.

Let us know how you get on.
[quote][p][bold]Phantom Poster[/bold] wrote: ChanelX, your pasted text is irrelevant as it doesn't apply to domestic premises. Next you'll ne saying that if someone has an address book at home then they are subject to the Data Protection Act[/p][/quote]OK, have it your way. Set up your CCTV, record criminals if they bother you and then try and have that footage used against the suspects in court. Let us know how you get on. ChannelX
  • Score: 3

2:21pm Wed 15 Jan 14

ChannelX says...

house on the hill wrote:
ChannelX wrote:
Phantom Poster wrote:
ChannelX wrote:
A.Baron-Cohen wrote:
Well I am sure this incident will push homeowners to install CCTV systems
Which is almost ruled as 'inadmissible' in court by the judiciary, mainly because it makes life harder for the criminals.

If you do use CCTV, you must also display very clear signage advising others about the area you are covering with that CCTV and that you are recording. Even then, judges don't like it because it helps the public protect themselves.
Absolute rubbish - there are no such restrictions for domestic use.
Try reading what was posted.

There are no restrictions for using CCTV on domestic property... but it will be ruled inadmissible in court if certain regulations are not followed.

Why are you trying to mislead people?

I get that you don't like me, and feel some bizarre desire to continually respond to me in failed attempts to discredit me, but please at least post things that have some basis in reality.
I think you will find that nobody likes you, so what does that prove?
It doesn't prove anything, in general terms. You're not exactly welcome on this website and that doesn't prove much either.

However, it's very clear - and very boring - that Davey Gravey, Empty Car Park and Phantom Poster take great delight in posting inane responses (which are almost always incorrect) to my posts, with an apparent view to trying to contradict or prove me wrong. It's the age-old case of trying to discredit everything somebody says by pointing out that they may have got one thing wrong.

Tiresome, even at the best of times, but just plain stupid when their responses are so poorly constructed and seemingly driven by petty (and unfathomable) personal vendettas - especially as they haven't even got a clue who I am. I could be the colleague sitting next to them, or a family member, for all they know.
[quote][p][bold]house on the hill[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]ChannelX[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Phantom Poster[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]ChannelX[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]A.Baron-Cohen[/bold] wrote: Well I am sure this incident will push homeowners to install CCTV systems[/p][/quote]Which is almost ruled as 'inadmissible' in court by the judiciary, mainly because it makes life harder for the criminals. If you do use CCTV, you must also display very clear signage advising others about the area you are covering with that CCTV and that you are recording. Even then, judges don't like it because it helps the public protect themselves.[/p][/quote]Absolute rubbish - there are no such restrictions for domestic use.[/p][/quote]Try reading what was posted. There are no restrictions for using CCTV on domestic property... but it will be ruled inadmissible in court if certain regulations are not followed. Why are you trying to mislead people? I get that you don't like me, and feel some bizarre desire to continually respond to me in failed attempts to discredit me, but please at least post things that have some basis in reality.[/p][/quote]I think you will find that nobody likes you, so what does that prove?[/p][/quote]It doesn't prove anything, in general terms. You're not exactly welcome on this website and that doesn't prove much either. However, it's very clear - and very boring - that Davey Gravey, Empty Car Park and Phantom Poster take great delight in posting inane responses (which are almost always incorrect) to my posts, with an apparent view to trying to contradict or prove me wrong. It's the age-old case of trying to discredit everything somebody says by pointing out that they may have got one thing wrong. Tiresome, even at the best of times, but just plain stupid when their responses are so poorly constructed and seemingly driven by petty (and unfathomable) personal vendettas - especially as they haven't even got a clue who I am. I could be the colleague sitting next to them, or a family member, for all they know. ChannelX
  • Score: 2

6:28pm Wed 15 Jan 14

anotherimigrant says...

God forbid that you are related to three morons.
God forbid that you are related to three morons. anotherimigrant
  • Score: 0

9:39pm Wed 15 Jan 14

Empty Car Park says...

I have cctv cameras.
I gave footage of yobs damaging a neighbours property to the police.

I was not reprimanded for any breach of data.

We also took a reasonable amount of law into our own hands.
We were not reprimanded for that either.

Channel Ringer's opinion and google quotes are irrelevant.

It's true
Nobody likes him
I have cctv cameras. I gave footage of yobs damaging a neighbours property to the police. I was not reprimanded for any breach of data. We also took a reasonable amount of law into our own hands. We were not reprimanded for that either. Channel Ringer's opinion and google quotes are irrelevant. It's true Nobody likes him Empty Car Park
  • Score: -3

7:46am Thu 16 Jan 14

ChannelX says...

Empty Car Park wrote:
I have cctv cameras.
I gave footage of yobs damaging a neighbours property to the police.

I was not reprimanded for any breach of data.

We also took a reasonable amount of law into our own hands.
We were not reprimanded for that either.

Channel Ringer's opinion and google quotes are irrelevant.

It's true
Nobody likes him
Are you claiming that the police used your CCTV evidence in court?

By the way, if your CCTV camera also covered areas of other people's property, ie, your neighour's property, then you most definitely are not operating it legally. True, the police would be unlikely to do anything about it, but the criminals you recorded would have a defence lawyer that could negate your footage within about 10 seconds in court.

You should do some reading and try and educate yourself - almost impossible thought that may prove to be.

As for the rest of your post, utter drivel, as per your usual standard.

Have you not moved yet? Your house sale does seem to be taking a very long time. Hope it's not fallen through :-)
[quote][p][bold]Empty Car Park[/bold] wrote: I have cctv cameras. I gave footage of yobs damaging a neighbours property to the police. I was not reprimanded for any breach of data. We also took a reasonable amount of law into our own hands. We were not reprimanded for that either. Channel Ringer's opinion and google quotes are irrelevant. It's true Nobody likes him[/p][/quote]Are you claiming that the police used your CCTV evidence in court? By the way, if your CCTV camera also covered areas of other people's property, ie, your neighour's property, then you most definitely are not operating it legally. True, the police would be unlikely to do anything about it, but the criminals you recorded would have a defence lawyer that could negate your footage within about 10 seconds in court. You should do some reading and try and educate yourself - almost impossible thought that may prove to be. As for the rest of your post, utter drivel, as per your usual standard. Have you not moved yet? Your house sale does seem to be taking a very long time. Hope it's not fallen through :-) ChannelX
  • Score: 1

8:25am Thu 16 Jan 14

Phantom Poster says...

ChannelX wrote:
house on the hill wrote:
ChannelX wrote:
Phantom Poster wrote:
ChannelX wrote:
A.Baron-Cohen wrote:
Well I am sure this incident will push homeowners to install CCTV systems
Which is almost ruled as 'inadmissible' in court by the judiciary, mainly because it makes life harder for the criminals.

If you do use CCTV, you must also display very clear signage advising others about the area you are covering with that CCTV and that you are recording. Even then, judges don't like it because it helps the public protect themselves.
Absolute rubbish - there are no such restrictions for domestic use.
Try reading what was posted.

There are no restrictions for using CCTV on domestic property... but it will be ruled inadmissible in court if certain regulations are not followed.

Why are you trying to mislead people?

I get that you don't like me, and feel some bizarre desire to continually respond to me in failed attempts to discredit me, but please at least post things that have some basis in reality.
I think you will find that nobody likes you, so what does that prove?
It doesn't prove anything, in general terms. You're not exactly welcome on this website and that doesn't prove much either.

However, it's very clear - and very boring - that Davey Gravey, Empty Car Park and Phantom Poster take great delight in posting inane responses (which are almost always incorrect) to my posts, with an apparent view to trying to contradict or prove me wrong. It's the age-old case of trying to discredit everything somebody says by pointing out that they may have got one thing wrong.

Tiresome, even at the best of times, but just plain stupid when their responses are so poorly constructed and seemingly driven by petty (and unfathomable) personal vendettas - especially as they haven't even got a clue who I am. I could be the colleague sitting next to them, or a family member, for all they know.
If the colleague next to me talked **** then I would tell him/her. If you wouldn't do so where you work then it doesn't sound like a very productive or honest place - I'm sorry for you. It probably explains your prima Donna attitude here.

I won't be trying your CCTV experiment as I don't have your paranoia regarding crime.
[quote][p][bold]ChannelX[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]house on the hill[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]ChannelX[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Phantom Poster[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]ChannelX[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]A.Baron-Cohen[/bold] wrote: Well I am sure this incident will push homeowners to install CCTV systems[/p][/quote]Which is almost ruled as 'inadmissible' in court by the judiciary, mainly because it makes life harder for the criminals. If you do use CCTV, you must also display very clear signage advising others about the area you are covering with that CCTV and that you are recording. Even then, judges don't like it because it helps the public protect themselves.[/p][/quote]Absolute rubbish - there are no such restrictions for domestic use.[/p][/quote]Try reading what was posted. There are no restrictions for using CCTV on domestic property... but it will be ruled inadmissible in court if certain regulations are not followed. Why are you trying to mislead people? I get that you don't like me, and feel some bizarre desire to continually respond to me in failed attempts to discredit me, but please at least post things that have some basis in reality.[/p][/quote]I think you will find that nobody likes you, so what does that prove?[/p][/quote]It doesn't prove anything, in general terms. You're not exactly welcome on this website and that doesn't prove much either. However, it's very clear - and very boring - that Davey Gravey, Empty Car Park and Phantom Poster take great delight in posting inane responses (which are almost always incorrect) to my posts, with an apparent view to trying to contradict or prove me wrong. It's the age-old case of trying to discredit everything somebody says by pointing out that they may have got one thing wrong. Tiresome, even at the best of times, but just plain stupid when their responses are so poorly constructed and seemingly driven by petty (and unfathomable) personal vendettas - especially as they haven't even got a clue who I am. I could be the colleague sitting next to them, or a family member, for all they know.[/p][/quote]If the colleague next to me talked **** then I would tell him/her. If you wouldn't do so where you work then it doesn't sound like a very productive or honest place - I'm sorry for you. It probably explains your prima Donna attitude here. I won't be trying your CCTV experiment as I don't have your paranoia regarding crime. Phantom Poster
  • Score: 0

11:44am Thu 16 Jan 14

ChannelX says...

Phantom Poster wrote:
ChannelX wrote:
house on the hill wrote:
ChannelX wrote:
Phantom Poster wrote:
ChannelX wrote:
A.Baron-Cohen wrote:
Well I am sure this incident will push homeowners to install CCTV systems
Which is almost ruled as 'inadmissible' in court by the judiciary, mainly because it makes life harder for the criminals.

If you do use CCTV, you must also display very clear signage advising others about the area you are covering with that CCTV and that you are recording. Even then, judges don't like it because it helps the public protect themselves.
Absolute rubbish - there are no such restrictions for domestic use.
Try reading what was posted.

There are no restrictions for using CCTV on domestic property... but it will be ruled inadmissible in court if certain regulations are not followed.

Why are you trying to mislead people?

I get that you don't like me, and feel some bizarre desire to continually respond to me in failed attempts to discredit me, but please at least post things that have some basis in reality.
I think you will find that nobody likes you, so what does that prove?
It doesn't prove anything, in general terms. You're not exactly welcome on this website and that doesn't prove much either.

However, it's very clear - and very boring - that Davey Gravey, Empty Car Park and Phantom Poster take great delight in posting inane responses (which are almost always incorrect) to my posts, with an apparent view to trying to contradict or prove me wrong. It's the age-old case of trying to discredit everything somebody says by pointing out that they may have got one thing wrong.

Tiresome, even at the best of times, but just plain stupid when their responses are so poorly constructed and seemingly driven by petty (and unfathomable) personal vendettas - especially as they haven't even got a clue who I am. I could be the colleague sitting next to them, or a family member, for all they know.
If the colleague next to me talked **** then I would tell him/her. If you wouldn't do so where you work then it doesn't sound like a very productive or honest place - I'm sorry for you. It probably explains your prima Donna attitude here.

I won't be trying your CCTV experiment as I don't have your paranoia regarding crime.
Hopefully at least you know what it is you're banging on about.

Yes, agreed, crime doesn't happen. Especially not in Pinehurst or Penhill. Anyone that thinks it does is clearly 'paranoid'.
[quote][p][bold]Phantom Poster[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]ChannelX[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]house on the hill[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]ChannelX[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Phantom Poster[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]ChannelX[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]A.Baron-Cohen[/bold] wrote: Well I am sure this incident will push homeowners to install CCTV systems[/p][/quote]Which is almost ruled as 'inadmissible' in court by the judiciary, mainly because it makes life harder for the criminals. If you do use CCTV, you must also display very clear signage advising others about the area you are covering with that CCTV and that you are recording. Even then, judges don't like it because it helps the public protect themselves.[/p][/quote]Absolute rubbish - there are no such restrictions for domestic use.[/p][/quote]Try reading what was posted. There are no restrictions for using CCTV on domestic property... but it will be ruled inadmissible in court if certain regulations are not followed. Why are you trying to mislead people? I get that you don't like me, and feel some bizarre desire to continually respond to me in failed attempts to discredit me, but please at least post things that have some basis in reality.[/p][/quote]I think you will find that nobody likes you, so what does that prove?[/p][/quote]It doesn't prove anything, in general terms. You're not exactly welcome on this website and that doesn't prove much either. However, it's very clear - and very boring - that Davey Gravey, Empty Car Park and Phantom Poster take great delight in posting inane responses (which are almost always incorrect) to my posts, with an apparent view to trying to contradict or prove me wrong. It's the age-old case of trying to discredit everything somebody says by pointing out that they may have got one thing wrong. Tiresome, even at the best of times, but just plain stupid when their responses are so poorly constructed and seemingly driven by petty (and unfathomable) personal vendettas - especially as they haven't even got a clue who I am. I could be the colleague sitting next to them, or a family member, for all they know.[/p][/quote]If the colleague next to me talked **** then I would tell him/her. If you wouldn't do so where you work then it doesn't sound like a very productive or honest place - I'm sorry for you. It probably explains your prima Donna attitude here. I won't be trying your CCTV experiment as I don't have your paranoia regarding crime.[/p][/quote]Hopefully at least you know what it is you're banging on about. Yes, agreed, crime doesn't happen. Especially not in Pinehurst or Penhill. Anyone that thinks it does is clearly 'paranoid'. ChannelX
  • Score: 0

12:47pm Thu 16 Jan 14

Empty Car Park says...

Hey Channel RingerX,
I just relayed what actually happened.
It's not going to suddenly be different just because yo say so.

You think you can dictate history and everything is so just because you say so.
That's why nobody likes you
Hey Channel RingerX, I just relayed what actually happened. It's not going to suddenly be different just because yo say so. You think you can dictate history and everything is so just because you say so. That's why nobody likes you Empty Car Park
  • Score: 1

1:47pm Thu 16 Jan 14

Phantom Poster says...

ChannelX wrote:
Phantom Poster wrote:
ChannelX wrote:
house on the hill wrote:
ChannelX wrote:
Phantom Poster wrote:
ChannelX wrote:
A.Baron-Cohen wrote:
Well I am sure this incident will push homeowners to install CCTV systems
Which is almost ruled as 'inadmissible' in court by the judiciary, mainly because it makes life harder for the criminals.

If you do use CCTV, you must also display very clear signage advising others about the area you are covering with that CCTV and that you are recording. Even then, judges don't like it because it helps the public protect themselves.
Absolute rubbish - there are no such restrictions for domestic use.
Try reading what was posted.

There are no restrictions for using CCTV on domestic property... but it will be ruled inadmissible in court if certain regulations are not followed.

Why are you trying to mislead people?

I get that you don't like me, and feel some bizarre desire to continually respond to me in failed attempts to discredit me, but please at least post things that have some basis in reality.
I think you will find that nobody likes you, so what does that prove?
It doesn't prove anything, in general terms. You're not exactly welcome on this website and that doesn't prove much either.

However, it's very clear - and very boring - that Davey Gravey, Empty Car Park and Phantom Poster take great delight in posting inane responses (which are almost always incorrect) to my posts, with an apparent view to trying to contradict or prove me wrong. It's the age-old case of trying to discredit everything somebody says by pointing out that they may have got one thing wrong.

Tiresome, even at the best of times, but just plain stupid when their responses are so poorly constructed and seemingly driven by petty (and unfathomable) personal vendettas - especially as they haven't even got a clue who I am. I could be the colleague sitting next to them, or a family member, for all they know.
If the colleague next to me talked **** then I would tell him/her. If you wouldn't do so where you work then it doesn't sound like a very productive or honest place - I'm sorry for you. It probably explains your prima Donna attitude here.

I won't be trying your CCTV experiment as I don't have your paranoia regarding crime.
Hopefully at least you know what it is you're banging on about.

Yes, agreed, crime doesn't happen. Especially not in Pinehurst or Penhill. Anyone that thinks it does is clearly 'paranoid'.
Crime does indeed happen, however anyone who thinks that it's not possible to know someone who lives in Penhill or Pinehurst and has not been directly involved in an incident of crime IS clearly paranoid.
[quote][p][bold]ChannelX[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Phantom Poster[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]ChannelX[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]house on the hill[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]ChannelX[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Phantom Poster[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]ChannelX[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]A.Baron-Cohen[/bold] wrote: Well I am sure this incident will push homeowners to install CCTV systems[/p][/quote]Which is almost ruled as 'inadmissible' in court by the judiciary, mainly because it makes life harder for the criminals. If you do use CCTV, you must also display very clear signage advising others about the area you are covering with that CCTV and that you are recording. Even then, judges don't like it because it helps the public protect themselves.[/p][/quote]Absolute rubbish - there are no such restrictions for domestic use.[/p][/quote]Try reading what was posted. There are no restrictions for using CCTV on domestic property... but it will be ruled inadmissible in court if certain regulations are not followed. Why are you trying to mislead people? I get that you don't like me, and feel some bizarre desire to continually respond to me in failed attempts to discredit me, but please at least post things that have some basis in reality.[/p][/quote]I think you will find that nobody likes you, so what does that prove?[/p][/quote]It doesn't prove anything, in general terms. You're not exactly welcome on this website and that doesn't prove much either. However, it's very clear - and very boring - that Davey Gravey, Empty Car Park and Phantom Poster take great delight in posting inane responses (which are almost always incorrect) to my posts, with an apparent view to trying to contradict or prove me wrong. It's the age-old case of trying to discredit everything somebody says by pointing out that they may have got one thing wrong. Tiresome, even at the best of times, but just plain stupid when their responses are so poorly constructed and seemingly driven by petty (and unfathomable) personal vendettas - especially as they haven't even got a clue who I am. I could be the colleague sitting next to them, or a family member, for all they know.[/p][/quote]If the colleague next to me talked **** then I would tell him/her. If you wouldn't do so where you work then it doesn't sound like a very productive or honest place - I'm sorry for you. It probably explains your prima Donna attitude here. I won't be trying your CCTV experiment as I don't have your paranoia regarding crime.[/p][/quote]Hopefully at least you know what it is you're banging on about. Yes, agreed, crime doesn't happen. Especially not in Pinehurst or Penhill. Anyone that thinks it does is clearly 'paranoid'.[/p][/quote]Crime does indeed happen, however anyone who thinks that it's not possible to know someone who lives in Penhill or Pinehurst and has not been directly involved in an incident of crime IS clearly paranoid. Phantom Poster
  • Score: 1

Comments are closed on this article.

click2find

About cookies

We want you to enjoy your visit to our website. That's why we use cookies to enhance your experience. By staying on our website you agree to our use of cookies. Find out more about the cookies we use.

I agree