Printable Version of Topic

Posted by: TallDarkAndHandsome Jul 13 2009, 09:29 AM

http://www.newburytoday.co.uk/News/Article.aspx?articleID=10535


No mention of actually trying to catch the Criminals. Yes its all your fault people for leaving things for people to steal. Its not the Criminals fault at all.

Posted by: Good Boy Racer Jul 13 2009, 09:41 AM

You have to laugh though, when i went to Basingstoke shopping centre or reading... can't remember which as they all look the same to me about a few weeks ago now. I noticed a car door was left wide open and no one around... i could of easily nicked the radio and other things that i saw in there. Instead i did the most decent thing and walked away but i did leave the door left open though... sorry but it could of been a bait car

I've seen other things in the past and it makes you think how careless some people are. I've never been robbed and i wish to keep it that way. I'm always looking behind my back, especially in Newbury.

Posted by: Bloggo Jul 14 2009, 08:46 AM

Incredible isn't it that it is now an expectation that your belongings will be stolen if you don't have a fortress mentality.
I love the sign that says "Warning, thieves operate in this area"
What a pity the Police don't!!!!!!

Posted by: GMR Jul 14 2009, 08:57 AM

This is one thing that annoys me; people passing the buck. The police know there is a problem and should make more of an effort to deal with it.

I know somebody who had their bike stolen from town; even though the bike was locked and near a CCTV camera. All the police said to the person was that they should have had a better lock.

Posted by: TallDarkAndHandsome Jul 14 2009, 09:26 AM

Yep. When my house was burgaled I got a crime number and about 50 leaflets through the post a week or so later advising me on how best to 'secure' my property. As the thieves broke my back window to gain access I guess in future I'll just have to purchase and install iron bars for my windows and also steel shutters. Welcome to Newbury. Twinned with Moss Side.

Posted by: GMR Jul 14 2009, 09:45 AM

Yes, but if you put steel bars in and one of the thieves gets stuck you could be prosecuted for hurting the little darlings. You should be putting something up that doesn’t compromise the health or safety of the thief.

Near where I live a lamp post was destroyed, however, the police know who did it. When I asked them why they didn’t prosecute the culprit they said that they didn’t have “proof”. What! If they didn’t have proof then how did they know who did it?

Fire Tree school had ties ripped from their roof. The police wouldn't prosecute because they were under age.

Posted by: Bloggo Jul 14 2009, 09:50 AM

Me too. I was burgaled and had the same experience.
Come on Justice System time to protect us, the people who are paying for it. Not council and compensate the low-life that is livng off of us

Posted by: GMR Jul 14 2009, 09:53 AM

I also witnessed a crime in action (i.e. the culprits could have been caught) and I phoned the police to say what was happening at that moment.... two days later they came out. That tells you everything.

Posted by: Andy Jul 14 2009, 12:09 PM

I got burgled last year, the police arrived within an hour of phonig them, took statements and details of missing items. SOCO arrived withing 4 hours (after working on a murder case) and they had caught the thief within 2 days in Southampton. So they are not always bad

Posted by: GMR Jul 14 2009, 12:11 PM

I agree that they are not always bad, but they should be consistent.

Posted by: JeffG Jul 14 2009, 12:15 PM

Perhaps I'm being cynical, but I wonder if post codes have anything to do with the level of response... (Do I need to elaborate?)

Posted by: Bill1 Jul 14 2009, 12:22 PM

My wife was mugged when she was visibly pregnant back in 2002, the male and female who did it were in custody within a couple of hours and went to prison for it.

I hope things haven't got a lot worse since then, but from the majority of posts on here, fear that it this is the case.

Posted by: GMR Jul 14 2009, 01:48 PM

That has already been suggest and in fact been proven to be the case. No; you are not being cynical.

Posted by: Iommi Jul 14 2009, 02:13 PM

I'd be interested in know where you found this out. I wouldn't mind betting that certain areas are regarded as more 'important' than others.

Posted by: GMR Jul 14 2009, 02:19 PM

You can’t always be specific. I got it from talking to the police. I am on a NAG committee. I also got it from various news style programmes and reading. Not everybody takes notes every time they hear something interesting.

Posted by: Iommi Jul 14 2009, 02:45 PM

True, but I don't think one should say, 'proven fact'. What you state seems to be hearsay, albeit one that wouldn't surprise me.

Posted by: GMR Jul 14 2009, 03:08 PM

If you mean because I get my information from the papers (such as the Economist) and programmes like Newsnight etc then so be it. You also seem to be saying that the only think that can be relied upon is what the polls and proper research confirm. Such research and polls said that Wilson would win the 1970 election; he didn’t. As for proper channels; most of the time they are contradictory. So what are you left with? You’ve offered nothing to contradict my “hearsay” other than trying to be clever.

Posted by: Iommi Jul 14 2009, 03:18 PM

Not at all, but if someone were to say, 'proven fact' and then were to subsequently fail to say where, they will cease to be a credible source. It is a form of crying wolf. I only wish to verify what other people say, I am not one to absorb tittle-tattle as fact. Too many people do that and it leads to misinformation.

Bare in mind before you get all defensive, I never said you were wrong AND I have not said anything about where I prefer my information comes from. Unlike you it seems, I don't believe everything I read.

Had you posted, 'I understand that it is a postcode lottery with the Police', I would have agreed, but when you said, 'it is a proven fact', I was interested in where you got this information from, because it isn't one that I have come by.

Posted by: GMR Jul 14 2009, 06:19 PM

Actually I didn’t fail to say where; try reading back. As for incredible source; I also – and you can say I am wrong for doing this – write under the assumption that most members on here are better educated and a bit better read than you. What I quoted was from reliable sources.



As for “defensive”; if I can recall another statement of yours on here; your main objective is to “wind people up” and not engage in intelligent debate. I am used to dealing with people who come on message boards because they have one common goal, which differs from yours.



There has been quite a few reports than concur with the postcode lottery comments I made.

As for “it isn’t one that I have come by” sounds like your are the moral police on here and if you haven’t heard about it then it doesn’t exist or there is a fault. However, you’ve got the wrong job, going by some of your crass statements. I would respect your comments if you were a bit better read and knowledgeable; which you don't seem to be going by some of your comments.

Posted by: Iommi Jul 14 2009, 07:30 PM

It took three posts for you hint at where you come by the information. Mind you, I'm beginning to think that you make things up to suit your argument. All you did is give examples of where you source information, nothing specific. That isn't the same thing as telling where you come by something. You are still yet to do so. I also note you immediately started to hurl abuse at me again.


Show me where I said my main objective is to wind people. Show me where I said my main objective is NOT to have intelligent debate, that's more fantasy form the world of GMR. I do find winding you up easy, but it is not the case my only objective is to wind people up. My first is to debate and question when I read something that interests me. I see also that you are now attempting to deflect the argument. I question a very powerful point you make - quite reasonable I'd say - and you come out with this rubbish. Why do you have to go back to this 'victim' attitude of yours when your posts come under scrutiny?


After a brief bit of barely research, it seems people, especially rape victims, get varying standards of Policing according to where they live, in other words according to the police force they fall under. I don't think that was the point being made by JeffG. I'll apologise in advance if I'm mistaken, but I think the point he was trying to make is that Police in the Thames Valley will act more favourably to a certain type of people, a more influential type of person and that can be determined by their postcode. If I'm right then there's a difference.


Here comes the abuse again. You cannot help yourself can you.

The point about me questioning you and others like this, is that I cannot stand it when people make sweeping statements as apparently misleading as yours - like stating facts - yet seemingly can't back them up. This isn't to say that you are wrong in your opinion, but it is just for my own benefit, if someone says something I am not aware of, I like to learn more.

I resent that when I ask for clarity, you resort to abuse. In this instance, my understanding is that JeffG suggested that Police will treat people unfairly according to where they live and how influential they are. When you said you knew for fact I think this is quite an damning thing to say, so I think I am entitled to ask as I did. What do you say?

Posted by: Bill1 Jul 14 2009, 08:05 PM

Yes wife and baby were fine thank goodness.

Thanks for asking though........

Posted by: Sarah Jul 14 2009, 08:18 PM

Are there any threads on here where Iommi, Bill and GMR aren't trying to score points off each other?????

GMR, I suggest you do as I tell my kids to do when someone tries to wind them up, just ignore them, they'll soon get fed up.

Posted by: Bill1 Jul 14 2009, 08:20 PM

What the heck have I done now?

Posted by: Iommi Jul 14 2009, 08:21 PM

Now we all feel bad! http://www.freesmileys.org/smileys.php

Posted by: Bill1 Jul 14 2009, 08:23 PM

Come on Sarah PLEASE explain.

Posted by: Sarah Jul 14 2009, 08:24 PM

Sorry Bill, but I've been reading for a while before joining and so many threads are spoiled by all this petty sniping.

The impression I get is that you and Iommi try to wind GMR up, sorry if I'm wrong, but that's how it appears to onlookers.

Posted by: Iommi Jul 14 2009, 08:29 PM

Careful Dav Bill1, it's a trap.

Posted by: Bill1 Jul 14 2009, 08:29 PM

I cant speak for Iommi, but I had nothing to do with their argument and am not happy, but I do accept your apology.

To be fair though from what I've now read on this thread all Iommi did was ask GMR to substantiate his claims of fact, he even accepted that they might be true and just wanted to know where he got his information from. He doesn't question people's intelligence or jump on the defensive either.

Posted by: Sarah Jul 14 2009, 08:35 PM

This is just one of many threads and probably not the best example, but if you look back there have been much better examples of Iommi deliberately baiting GMR, and to be honest you have got involved to a lesser degree.

Wouldn't it be better if all of you just ignored what you see as gibes, and just tried to be friends.

Posted by: Sarah Jul 14 2009, 08:36 PM

That's a good example of the sort of thing I mean, thank you.

Posted by: Iommi Jul 14 2009, 08:42 PM

Only the moderators will stop me posting as I see fit. Sometimes I think people like GMR, who is very vocal and outspoken, sometimes makes sweeping statements or opinions that I think should be scrutinised. Being this is a public forum and people could do the same to mine if they so wish, I think this is entirely fair.

I am NOT trying to wind GMR or anyone up, but if people chose to abuse me then they will 'get some'!


People like GMR are spouting how Newbury is going down the pan, how the police are inept and questions their impartiality and often state things as fact. My view is when anyone says such things we should all question these people. Sadly when this happens to GMR, he gets abusive, questioning my intelligence, my up bringing and often avoids answering the questions directly. To me, this is a sign of an intellectual bully and I will stand up for myself if treated like this and this doesn't stop at GMR either.

Posted by: Sarah Jul 14 2009, 08:51 PM

I think you misunderstand my post.

I wasn't trying to stop you posting as you see fit, I was advising GMR to ignore your attempts to wind him up.

At the risk of upsetting, I'll add that you both look rather foolish squabbling about nothing.

And before you decide that I will 'get some' as you put it, I'll bid you goodnight.

Posted by: Iommi Jul 14 2009, 08:56 PM

I didn't misunderstand your post, I was merely stating that I will posts as I see fit and I would ignore people like you complaining about it. That being said, I think you have a fair point and there is no reason for me to get upset about this post. You are entitled to your opinion.

To you , we squabble about nothing, but for GMR and myself, we are too proud to back down.

Posted by: GMR Jul 14 2009, 09:11 PM

That statement isn’t true as you have said on another thread that you “enjoy” winding me up.



I have no problems with you questioning what I say; I think that is healthy. However, there are ways and means. A lot of your “questions” are in an emotive language. Putting that with your remarks about you “enjoy winding me up” it is understandable why I see your posts towards me in a certain light.

Maybe we are both guilty of misunderstanding each other. Maybe if you worded your posts a bit better I wouldn’t respond in the way I have. I just want to debate.

I shall leave it there and let you get on with it. Maybe Sarah is right and I shouldn't have responded to your “winding up”, as you put it.

I wish you fair well and no malice towards you.

Regards,

Glenn

Posted by: Iommi Jul 14 2009, 09:40 PM

Thank you for your post. If you think I have responded or posted unfairly, please PM me and I will edit it accordingly. If, however, I were to post something along the lines of 'that is rubbish', this is towards the content of the post and not meant personally.

While people like you and others tend to post original opinions, mine tend to be from a critical reply stance, a kind of scrutineer (doesn't that sound pompus! ) . The more extreme I see the original post, the more mine will be.

I hold no malice and any friction is purely forum based and not personal.


All the best


Witchfinder General.

Posted by: GMR Jul 14 2009, 10:05 PM

Hi, I have responded to you by PM.

I also accept your words and I hope we can go forward with a better understanding between us.