Robberies and affrey in Newbury Options

[Andy Capp]

Note:I know affray is spelt wrong in the heading.

It would seem that underpasses are becoming a favoured place for robberies or muggings. Perhaps it should be advised not to venture alone into them? Perhaps it is advisable that one shouldn't wander alone at night in Newbury?

With reports of affray, or worse, seemingly on the increase in Newbury, I'd be interested in hearing the views of the local police; if we have any.

I understand that Thames Valley Police covers Reading; I wonder if perhaps that is to the detriment of Newbury?


Man attacked with wooden object in underpass at the Robin Hood Roundabout

A delivery van driver was threatened by two men in Nightingales Road last Wednesday

Man robbed by a man with a large kitchen knife in Burger King Roundabout underpass

Chavghanistan!

[Iommi]

Does anyone know what our plod to public ratio is these days, compared to, say, 30 years ago?

[GMR]

Does anyone know what our plod to public ratio is these days, compared to, say, 30 years ago?

Well, I can tell you something; 30 years ago they did what they were paid to do. Catch criminals and make them suffer for their crimes.

[Roost]

Well, I can tell you something; 30 years ago they did what they were paid to do. Catch criminals and make them suffer for their crimes.

Aye, you try telling that to kids today and they just don't believe you!

And just out of curiosity, since when has it been down to the police to punish, or in your words "make them suffer"? I thought that were down to the Criminal (lack of) Justice system?!

[GMR]

Aye, you try telling that to kids today and they just don't believe you!

And just out of curiosity, since when has it been down to the police to punish, or in your words "make them suffer"? I thought that were down to the Criminal (lack of) Justice system?!

It is not, it is there job to capture them, process them and then send them to the courts. If they can't past the first part then that would be a start.

[ossy1]

It is not, it is there job to capture them, process them and then send them to the courts. If they can't past the first part then that would be a start.

Actually the decision to send to court is not the police either.

On another point having officers on foot instead of cars benefits you lot that live in the town but does it benefit those that live out in the sticks? No.

The response times cannot be met without cars, west berkshire is not just made up of newbury town. If you want more officers on patrol kindly ask the government to stop cutting the budget.

[dannyboy]

Actually the decision to send to court is not the police either.

On another point having officers on foot instead of cars benefits you lot that live in the town but does it benefit those that live out in the sticks? No.

The response times cannot be met without cars, west berkshire is not just made up of newbury town. If you want more officers on patrol kindly ask the government to stop cutting the budget.

Don't waste your time ossy1. Unless the police start lynching 15 year olds from the lampsots of Turnpike, he'll never be happy.

[GMR]

Don't waste your time ossy1. Unless the police start lynching 15 year olds from the lampsots of Turnpike, he'll never be happy.

So you are saying we should just allow the status quo? That we should turn a blind eye, as they police do in Turnpike?

[dannyboy]

So you are saying we should just allow the status quo? That we should turn a blind eye, as they police do in Turnpike?

catching someone in the act is nigh on impossible. If the police do catch someone, they don't turn a blind eye. They can't turn up 30 mins afte the event & start arresting people without evidence. Hearsay isn't evidence.

[GMR]

catching someone in the act is nigh on impossible. If the police do catch someone, they don't turn a blind eye. They can't turn up 30 mins afte the event & start arresting people without evidence. Hearsay isn't evidence.

That is true, but I am not talking about arresting without evidence.

Most crimes are not caught in the act, but afterwards. A lot of criminal activity is known and they have proof... but decide not to take it further. That is what I am talking about.

[dannyboy]

That is true, but I am not talking about arresting without evidence.

Most crimes are not caught in the act, but afterwards. A lot of criminal activity is known and they have proof... but decide not to take it further. That is what I am talking about.

You do a lot of 'talking about' without actually stating what these crimes are.
And what proof you have to give to the police so that something can be done.

circumstantial springs to mind.

[GMR]

You do a lot of 'talking about' without actually stating what these crimes are.
And what proof you have to give to the police so that something can be done.

circumstantial springs to mind.

Exactly, and I have done (given evidence) and I know for a fact that nothing has been done about it.

[dannyboy]

Exactly, and I have done (given evidence) and I know for a fact that nothing has been done about it.

tht is because it will be your word against someone elses - as I said, circumstantial evidence...

[GMR]

tht is because it will be your word against someone elses - as I said, circumstantial evidence...

So what does that mean, we give up?

[dannyboy]

So what does that mean, we give up?

No - but you wouldn't want to be behind bars just because someone else said you'd been bad, would you?
To convict someone you need irrefutable evidence.