Jump to content

Boat Sinks after being moved by film company.


Alan de Enfield

Featured Posts

8 minutes ago, Dav and Pen said:

Don’t just blame the cuts. Over 30 years ago we had a number of break ins at work. The police never once attended even when we had evidence that pointed to the scrot. They wouldn’t go to his house because he lived in Warwickshire or get the local cops to do so. We had a lorry stolen one weekend that went on to damage dozens of cars because it was dragging chain link fencing along with it, demolished a telegraph pole and finally stopped in a hotel car park were they went in to buy some cigarettes. I had a good description of the culprit from the night porter and recognised him to much bother for the plods whose usual response was you’re insured. We had a windscreen smashed and another unit on the estate broken into response from police at 8 am Monday morning, you’re the first today! I have lost all respect for certainly the local force but hey they consficated a young lads car last week who was delivering burgers for the restaurant he worked for only doing itakeaways because he didn’t have business insurance .

30 years ago, when we had just had the same party in government for ten years?  Perhaps a link there?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, doratheexplorer said:

Now who's putting words in mouths eh?  You have no idea at all what I've been through in my life, so please keep your ignorant accusations to yourself.

 

I've already made a suggestion of what can be done.  You may not have condoned anything but the original post we refer to did.  FYI - arson is a very serious crime.  Generally considered more serious than theft.

No it did not. He just said words to the effect that no one affected was bothered. that is not condoning.

 

Interesting that rather than confirm or deny that you may be tempted to think about taking drastic action if you and your family had been abandoned to antisocial law breakers by the authorises you decide to allege I accused you of something. I did not, I suggested that your conduct in certain circumstances may well be very different to that you display in this thread.

 

Once again failing to read and understand what has been written and behaving according to what you would like to have been written.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Tony Brooks said:

No it did not. He just said words to the effect that no one affected was bothered. that is not condoning.

 

Interesting that rather than confirm or deny that you may be tempted to think about taking drastic action if you and your family had been abandoned to antisocial law breakers by the authorises you decide to allege I accused you of something. I did not, I suggested that your conduct in certain circumstances may well be very different to that you display in this thread.

 

Once again failing to read and understand what has been written and behaving according to what you would like to have been written.

Blimy!  Really?  Just for clarity, my position in real life is exactly the same as it is on here.  Why the hell would I say something on here I don't believe?

 

Oh, and yes, it is condoning.  Setting fire deliberately to someones boat is appalling.  Doing it when someone is actually on board leaves me speechless.  The people referenced in that post knew what was happening and did not care.  That's what condoning is.  Your definition of condoning is different to mine.  Now off you go to google a definition that supports your view. 

image.png.e50eea74ae736f7433e07af0be85b083.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 minutes ago, doratheexplorer said:

Oh, and yes, it is condoning.  Setting fire deliberately to someones boat is appalling.  Doing it when someone is actually on board leaves me speechless.  The people referenced in that post knew what was happening and did not care.  That's what condoning is.  Your definition of condoning is different to mine.  Now off you go to google a definition that supports your view. 

Funnily enough, before contributing to this discussion I checked the dictionary to make sure "condone" means what I think it means. The answer it came up with is " to regard or treat (something bad or blameworthy) as acceptable, forgivable, or harmless"  - which was what I thought it did. I'll have to re-read all those posts now in light of the other definition.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, phantom_iv said:

Funnily enough, before contributing to this discussion I checked the dictionary to make sure "condone" means what I think it means. The answer it came up with is " to regard or treat (something bad or blameworthy) as acceptable, forgivable, or harmless"  - which was what I thought it did. I'll have to re-read all those posts now in light of the other definition.

This thread reminds me of when I did jury service on a murder trial. Three defendants, only one wielded the knife, the others were charged using the law of joint enterprise. It was very salutary how little you need to do to be guilty via this route. (Our verdict: one guilty of murder, one guilty of manslaughter, one not guilty of all  charges).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, phantom_iv said:

Funnily enough, before contributing to this discussion I checked the dictionary to make sure "condone" means what I think it means. The answer it came up with is " to regard or treat (something bad or blameworthy) as acceptable, forgivable, or harmless"  - which was what I thought it did. I'll have to re-read all those posts now in light of the other definition.

Still twisting and turning while ignoring the hypothetical question I asked you. Absolutely no empathy for those who had apparently suffers at this characters hand an unable to even concede in certain circumstances you might be tempted to contemplate something to relieve your suffering.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Tony Brooks said:

Still twisting and turning while ignoring the hypothetical question I asked you. Absolutely no empathy for those who had apparently suffers at this characters hand an unable to even concede in certain circumstances you might be tempted to contemplate something to relieve your suffering.

I can empathise with those who suffered and concede that there might be times I was tempted to retaliate.  However it would not have been as drastic as burning a home with a drunk in it.

  • Greenie 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Alan de Enfield said:

 

The one at Lincoln waited till he had gone out, then they set it alight.

 

So thats all right ?

The "retaliations" I said vigilantes could have used were annoying and unpleasant and intended to make his life a misery so he'd move away and bother somebody else, not destroying his home.

 

Do you think that burning somebody's home down and destroying all their possessions to retaliate for their antisocial thieving behaviour is sensible or proportionate, however much provoked?

  • Greenie 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, doratheexplorer said:

30 years ago, when we had just had the same party in government for ten years?  Perhaps a link there?

So the idle police is the fault of party politics is it, you’re very out of touch with the real world. I hope nothing bad happens to you so you need the police as they will be out enforcing COVID rules or investigating so called non criminal hate crimes.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Dav and Pen said:

Don’t just blame the cuts. Over 30 years ago we had a number of break ins at work. The police never once attended even when we had evidence that pointed to the scrot. They wouldn’t go to his house because he lived in Warwickshire or get the local cops to do so. We had a lorry stolen one weekend that went on to damage dozens of cars because it was dragging chain link fencing along with it, demolished a telegraph pole and finally stopped in a hotel car park were they went in to buy some cigarettes. I had a good description of the culprit from the night porter and recognised him to much bother for the plods whose usual response was you’re insured. We had a windscreen smashed and another unit on the estate broken into response from police at 8 am Monday morning, you’re the first today! I have lost all respect for certainly the local force but hey they consficated a young lads car last week who was delivering burgers for the restaurant he worked for only doing itakeaways because he didn’t have business insurance .

The public demand for reductions in taxes date back a long time but the modern process really started in the early 1980's so already well underway by your above experience. The reality is that the tasks facing the police have increased over time in a non-trivial way. At the present, hidden crime such as financial fraud and scamming money, as well as terror related activities eat into the rest of the budget and they are all very expensive crimes to investigate. I doubt very much whether the police themselves, especially those on the local beat, enjoy having to ignore the petty crimes as they know full well that allowing people to get away with these may well encourage them to bigger things.

 

But don't blame the police - blame ourselves as this is the choice that we make collectively. It may not be you (individually) but it is someone (collectively) and many voters, come an election, hide behind the anonymity to vote in ways that they do not always talk about openly.

 

No, this is not a political posting - at least not in the sense of promoting one specific policy - but rather a comment on how the canals, along with the rest of society, are prone to petty crime especially in places that are not in open view (as is often the case with moored boats). We are just not a cost-effective use of public money!!

  • Greenie 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Tony Brooks said:

No it did not. He just said words to the effect that no one affected was bothered. that is not condoning.

 

Interesting that rather than confirm or deny that you may be tempted to think about taking drastic action if you and your family had been abandoned to antisocial law breakers by the authorises you decide to allege I accused you of something. I did not, I suggested that your conduct in certain circumstances may well be very different to that you display in this thread.

 

Once again failing to read and understand what has been written and behaving according to what you would like to have been written.

I told the story as I thought it relevant to the thread.

I am not sure whether I "condone" or "approve" of the action taken. I had no idea it was going to be done and if I had  would almost certainly have advised against it. I also have no idea what caused the arsonist to do it, presumably something a bit worse than stealing coal.

What I and the rest of the locals did approve of was the result.  Being presented with a fait accompli, that was all we had to think about.

If any authority had done their job, his dog is at least, which terrorised everyone, would have been put down. I wouldn't have killed either of them myself, but certainly would have wept no tears or felt anything but that the world was a better place without the pair of them. I am afraid there are people like that, and the fact is it is better faced than some sentimental concept that there is good in everyone if you just look hard enough. Sometimes there ain't.

  • Greenie 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, Arthur Marshall said:

I told the story as I thought it relevant to the thread.

I am not sure whether I "condone" or "approve" of the action taken. I had no idea it was going to be done and if I had  would almost certainly have advised against it. I also have no idea what caused the arsonist to do it, presumably something a bit worse than stealing coal.

What I and the rest of the locals did approve of was the result.  Being presented with a fait accompli, that was all we had to think about.

If any authority had done their job, his dog is at least, which terrorised everyone, would have been put down. I wouldn't have killed either of them myself, but certainly would have wept no tears or felt anything but that the world was a better place without the pair of them. I am afraid there are people like that, and the fact is it is better faced than some sentimental concept that there is good in everyone if you just look hard enough. Sometimes there ain't.

But it isn't for us to judge and condemn a man to death. However bad he was he didn't deserve to die. Thankfully it had a result that was beneficial to the 'good' guys and he moved away. How might you have felt if he had died, I wouldn't have liked that on my conscience although I accept you had nothing to do with the fire setting, you still felt it was justified? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

38 minutes ago, Chagall said:

But it isn't for us to judge and condemn a man to death. However bad he was he didn't deserve to die. Thankfully it had a result that was beneficial to the 'good' guys and he moved away. How might you have felt if he had died, I wouldn't have liked that on my conscience although I accept you had nothing to do with the fire setting, you still felt it was justified? 

I don't think death would be a good penalty for stealing coal and generally being a nuisance, though I suspect some on here might be in favour of it for some things. I think that is a topic for the political threads, not this one.  I don't know whether the fire setting was justified, as I don't know why it was done. I doubt whether the bloke had actually killed anyone, at least deliberately, though as one of his many faults was driving while very drunk and stoned it's quite possible, nor have I given any thought as to whether that would justify it anyway. If he had, and it was my kid?

I only have to justify my own actions, not anyone else's. All I can say is what I've said, we were relieved he was gone, and none of us would have cared two hoots if he'd gone down with his boat.  Got nowt to do with my conscience, whatever one of those is, and neither do I think that any of us should necessarily get what someone unnamed thinks we might deserve.  Anyway, he didn't die, so it doesn't matter.

You can't blame the police for not helping either, they wouldn't have found anyone to give evidence against him, they'd be too scared of getting badly hurt. What were they supposed to do?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 hours ago, Arthur Marshall said:

I told the story as I thought it relevant to the thread.

I am not sure whether I "condone" or "approve" of the action taken. I had no idea it was going to be done and if I had  would almost certainly have advised against it. I also have no idea what caused the arsonist to do it, presumably something a bit worse than stealing coal.

What I and the rest of the locals did approve of was the result.  Being presented with a fait accompli, that was all we had to think about.

If any authority had done their job, his dog is at least, which terrorised everyone, would have been put down. I wouldn't have killed either of them myself, but certainly would have wept no tears or felt anything but that the world was a better place without the pair of them. I am afraid there are people like that, and the fact is it is better faced than some sentimental concept that there is good in everyone if you just look hard enough. Sometimes there ain't.

The world would be a better placed if society took action that turned them into good citizens.

 

Interesting obit today about a life-long civil servant who for a time headed the justice part of the Home Office and made it his aim to turn the justice system into a better place. Must be turning in his grave now, wondering what his life's work had achieved.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, Mike Todd said:

The world would be a better placed if society took action that turned them into good citizens.

 

 

How are we supposed to do that?

Perhaps Pfizer could now work on a "Good Citizen" vaccine.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 04/12/2020 at 21:08, Arthur Marshall said:

Near one of my moorings, on a clapped out unlicensed cruiser lived a seriously dangerous guy who bragged sbout stealing from our boats, and that from local knowledge we knew it was true. He stole coal, diesel, generators and anything else he could get, broke into a few. Police wouldn't do anything, couldn't even be bothered to interview either us or him.

None of us were particularly surprised or saddened when someone set fire to his boat, nor were we bothered that he was asleep drunk at the time. He and his dog (which had bitten enough people for us not to care about that either) got off and survived unhurt, the boat didn't,  he shoved off somewhere and all the thieving stopped.

Trouble is, the law is useless against most antisocial behaviour, however bad it is, and so sometimes you have to treat badly behaved animals  like you do similar nonhuman ones. Rules only work against people who recognise their validity, and pisstakers don't. Thus CRT takes years to get a liveaboard off the water, and everyone suffers for that time.

I make no apologies for quoting the above passage, to ensure we all know exactly what was said.

Ask any Fire Brigade, how often are they turned out to house fires, where the occupant has forgotten the chip pan/smoldering fag end, and gone to sleep.

"Someone" could well have been himself.

 

Bod.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.