Anti-social behaviour on a Lincolnshire waterway

[Ritchard]

Right, so you say that these kids are like they are because no one talks to them, yet at the first sign of trouble you would shoot at them.

 

Im sure the people who issued you with your shot gun licence would like to hear how you intend to use it.

 

No I wouldnt shoot at them at the first sign of trouble, I would only shoot at them if their was immient danger to myself or others aboard - and even then it would be a warning shot over their heads. If they start chucking half bricks Im not going to sit there and wait to get hit am I?

[mayalld]

Yep i will give you that one, but i dont think i would be clambering over the bow rails and fishing around in the anchor locker if a group of youths were threatening me.

Of course, if you had a stern locker, they would be to hand.

 

Perhaps, but I don't keep them to hand, in case I have to hit anyone with them. I keep them stowed in the locker, in case there are no rings at the next mooring spot.

 

Likewise.

 

However, if boarded and in imminent danger of violence, I know where they are.

 

Advantage me!

[carlt]

Possession of a weapon in a PUBLIC place? How's that so? My boats my home, so its possession of a weapon in my home. And yes you can legally have shot guns on canal boats, I have already checked with my local fire arms officer. Its no different legally to having a yoof threaten me while at a land based address - if I believe I am in imminent danger and have warned said yoof's then I can take precautions to protect myself. Quite legally may I add.

This is rubbish.

 

You are allowed to have a firearm on a boat if it is secured in a locked cabinet and unloaded.

 

You cannot produce it, unsheathed and loaded, on a canal because it would be in a public place. Just the same as you can't wave it around in your front garden if it can be seen from the public highway.

 

So these hypothetical children are throwing stones at you. Is nipping inside, unlocking your gun cupboard, loading your gun then nipping out again to use, what is unreasonable force, on these children, really what you'd do?

 

Or would you break the law, on the slim offchance that kids will throw stones at you?

[Ritchard]

I cannot believe that you would be considered a suitable person to hold a gun licence by the issuing authority if they were to know that you were publishing this kind of threat in a public forum. Whilst your promised actions may not be specific they are in response to problem which sadly is all too common, for the reasons we have discussed. You need to think very carefully before posting.

 

As I have said many time previously, if their is an imminent danger to myself or others board I am quite within my legal right to shoot and kill to protect myself or others on board. Providing that; They are shot in the front (eg they are not runnining away).

 

And I would do so, at a land based address or on a boat. A warning shot over their heads is more than I need to give in such a situation. Besides; delinquents tend to go rather quiet and well behaved as soon as they realise they are out matched; so in actual fact I highly doubt I would have to shoot at all - simply having such a weapon and holding it would be more than enough.

 

There is nothing wrong in saying that I would use a gun for self defence if I were forced to, I am sorry if that upsets you.

 

I am actually quite a responsible holder of a gun license Not like the nut nut up the road who shoots into hedges and doesnt understand where the shot will be landing...

[hughc]

I responded to the request for information about problems on the Witham because I have had problems on the Witham. I spent most of my career working with young people in highly disadvantaged areas and during that time and afterwards we ran camping boats so I think we have done our share of trying to interest and motivate the young. There are definite limits to acceptable and unacceptable behaviour and many of the apparent and actual problems with disaffected young people stem from the failures of their elders to set , explain and enforce the limits. Boaters are seen as easy targets because they are easy targets many of them preferring to turn the other cheek or look away rather than tell troublemakers that their behaviour is unacceptable. The police often don't help. When we were attacked by chain wielding youths on the Erewash it was five hours before the police responded and then the reponse was a WPC leaning over a bridge and asking if we were ' alright now.' The youths had of course reported us because we had taken their chain off them.On aniother occasion when a group of drunken adults turned out of the Gallows Inn pub and started stoning a newly painted and signwritten 'Avon' I was subsequently given a police warning for stopping them.Surely when behaviour grossly exceeds normal limits then every one has the right to defend themselves and their property. Britsh Waterways will not protect you and the police are often not interested. Regards, HughC.

[Guest wanted]

As I have said many time previously, if their is an imminent danger to myself or others board I am quite within my legal right to shoot and kill to protect myself or others on board. Providing that; They are shot in the front (eg they are not runnining away).

 

And I would do so, at a land based address or on a boat. A warning shot over their heads is more than I need to give in such a situation. Besides; delinquents tend to go rather quiet and well behaved as soon as they realise they are out matched; so in actual fact I highly doubt I would have to shoot at all - simply having such a weapon and holding it would be more than enough.

 

There is nothing wrong in saying that I would use a gun for self defence if I were forced to, I am sorry if that upsets you.

 

I am actually quite a responsible holder of a gun license Not like the nut nut up the road who shoots into hedges and doesnt understand where the shot will be landing...

 

You are part of the problem

[Ritchard]

This is rubbish.

 

You are allowed to have a firearm on a boat if it is secured in a locked cabinet and unloaded.

 

You cannot produce it, unsheathed and loaded, on a canal because it would be in a public place. Just the same as you can't wave it around in your front garden if it can be seen from the public highway.

 

So these hypothetical children are throwing stones at you. Is nipping inside, unlocking your gun cupboard, loading your gun then nipping out again to use, what is unreasonable force, on these children, really what you'd do?

 

Or would you break the law, on the slim offchance that kids will throw stones at you?

 

Your first sentence is more than correct. However does that mean I cannot clean the gun? Or remove the gun from the cabinet to take it elsewhere? I think not.

 

And you can wave a gun around in your garden providing you have written consent from the land owner - I could be shooting rabbits for example, or I could just be getting the 'feel' of how I swing the gun. Its legal, not liked and liable to have the firearms police called out but it is legal. For example I have 2 acres of gardens where I shoot rabbits - people can see me from the road - it doesnt make it illegal. I believe the official figure if something like 50 to 100 yds away from a public highway.

 

And funny how these youths now turn into children isnt it? I would judge it on a case by case manner, young kids 5 to 14 I would moor up and go confront them (unarmed may I add!) while those whom are 14 to 20ish I would most certainly arm myself if there was immient threat of danger. Popping down below and unlocking a gun cabinet would take hardly any time, as for loading it - I would more than likely have two cartridges in my pocket and then load if the troublesome lot hadnt dispersed upon seeing the gun.

 

Im not advocating a shoot first and ask questions later policy...

[wrigglefingers]

As I have said many time previously, if their is an imminent danger to myself or others board I am quite within my legal right to shoot and kill to protect myself or others on board. Providing that; They are shot in the front (eg they are not runnining away).

 

And I would do so, at a land based address or on a boat. A warning shot over their heads is more than I need to give in such a situation. Besides; delinquents tend to go rather quiet and well behaved as soon as they realise they are out matched; so in actual fact I highly doubt I would have to shoot at all - simply having such a weapon and holding it would be more than enough.

 

There is nothing wrong in saying that I would use a gun for self defence if I were forced to, I am sorry if that upsets you.

 

I am actually quite a responsible holder of a gun license Not like the nut nut up the road who shoots into hedges and doesnt understand where the shot will be landing...

 

I still can't believe that you think that this is an acceptable response to the problem. Moreover, as Carl has pointed out, to do so would require you to step into your cabin, find your keys, take out your gun, presumably load it, then return to the deck in order to fire it above someone's head. So it'd hardly be a spur of the moment action, unless you are already breaking the terms of your gun licence by keeping out of it's locked cabinet in anticipation of trouble.

 

In my experience, although groups of young people seem intimidating and can be threatening - they very rarely are when engaged with. Yes. you won't get much out of the 'conversation' but most simply want some attention and recognition of status. It doesn't require much brain power or understanding of human psychology to realise that that is simply an extension of what we all want. If you feel disenfranchised or excluded (and many youths do) then attention-seeking wither by individual or by group action will be the outcome. The more marked the exclusion, the more aggressive the attention-seeking. By aggressively reacting you may make it 'better' for yourself but you've done nothing to improve the situation for anyone else.

[Ritchard]

You are part of the problem

 

Indeed I must be because I wont bend over and let delinquents shaft me. Letting them get away with it doesnt stop them....turning the other cheek doesnt work...if it did Jesus wouldn't have been nailed to a tree. (Not only have I upset the anti gun nuts now, but I've also upset the religious nuts, go me!)

[carlt]

Indeed I must be because I wont bend over and let delinquents shaft me.

What you advocate is delinquent, to the very extreme.

[Ritchard]

I still can't believe that you think that this is an acceptable response to the problem. Moreover, as Carl has pointed out, to do so would require you to step into your cabin, find your keys, take out your gun, presumably load it, then return to the deck in order to fire it above someone's head. So it'd hardly be a spur of the moment action, unless you are already breaking the terms of your gun licence by keeping out of it's locked cabinet in anticipation of trouble.

 

In my experience, although groups of young people seem intimidating and can be threatening - they very rarely are when engaged with. Yes. you won't get much out of the 'conversation' but most simply want some attention and recognition of status. It doesn't require much brain power or understanding of human psychology to realise that that is simply an extension of what we all want. If you feel disenfranchised or excluded (and many youths do) then attention-seeking wither by individual or by group action will be the outcome. The more marked the exclusion, the more aggressive the attention-seeking. By aggressively reacting you may make it 'better' for yourself but you've done nothing to improve the situation for anyone else.

 

Find my keys? I wouldnt be a very responsible gun owner if I didnt know where those keys are 24/7 would I? Hell I wouldnt be responsible if they were not kept upon my person at all times...

 

Im all for talking and difusing sitations - its often the best way (as I found out while doing door work) however once kids are throwing half bricks and stones I think I can quite safely say that they are past the 'talking' and 'reasoning' stage!

 

And attention seeking? I have no doubt that a few do, but believe me - by the time they are throwing house bricks they aint seeing attention, they are having a jolly good laugh at our expense. Well it wont wash with me mate. Sorry if that upsets you.

[carlt]

By aggressively reacting you may make it 'better' for yourself but you've done nothing to improve the situation for anyone else.

 

But he doesn't care less about anybody else. As long as he is okay he doesn't give a toss about the next boat that will approach kids, now expecting a gun wielding yob, on board.

[wrigglefingers]

Indeed I must be because I wont bend over and let delinquents shaft me. Letting them get away with it doesnt stop them....turning the other cheek doesnt work...if it did Jesus wouldn't have been nailed to a tree. (Not only have I upset the anti gun nuts now, but I've also upset the religious nuts, go me!)

 

Why would the deliquent need to when you're doing a perfectly good job yourself? I'm not anti-gun I simply find your proposed use of one unacceptable. And, although I'm not a churchy person, your lack of intelligence has caused you to totally miss the point of Christianity too.

[JamesFrance]

Some here seem to think this sort of behaviour is a rare occurrence. Well it certainly didn't seem that way when we decided to give up going round the system 7 years ago and try the sea for a change.

 

Gangs of feral kids hurling stones were quite common around towns. They know that if you are in the middle of the canal it is difficult for you to retaliate of course. We finally decided that we were no longer enjoying the canals enough for the considerable cost involved and moved on. Sad about that really. Apart from that we very much enjoyed it all, but it was spoiled.

[choogh]

"You are part of the problem"

 

Aaa... NO.... Lack of discipline, respect and 2years national service.. thats the problem...

 

Richard is not the aggressor, he becomes the defender, when as he says, his life or lives of his family become endangered. Well within his rights to protect himself.

 

"I sleep well at night, knowing that there are rough men abroad willing to serve justice on those who wish us harm "

[Ritchard]

But he doesn't care less about anybody else. As long as he is okay he doesn't give a toss about the next boat that will approach kids, now expecting a gun wielding yob, on board.

 

Or perhaps said yobs would find somewhere else to get their kicks and thrills? I wouldnt need many shot guns pulled on me to decide I might go elsewhere to wind people up...

 

And to further enlighten you carl, I have just remembered that one shoot I used to be a member of used to have a drive where we stood on the canal bank and shot the birds as they were beaten over the canal towards us (runners were sent up to stop the boats for a little while). So your argument of the canal being a public place needs looking into - no doubt a BW towpath is considered public, however what about none towpath sides? It would fall to whomever owned the sporting rights of the land as to whether they wanted to press charges I would imagine. However, whats the score if your on your own boat in the middle of the canal....hmm, interesting legal stuff

[carlt]

Some here seem to think this sort of behaviour is a rare occurrence. Well it certainly didn't seem that way when we decided to give up going round the system 7 years ago and try the sea for a change.

 

Gangs of feral kids hurling stones were quite common around towns. They know that if you are in the middle of the canal it is difficult for you to retaliate of course. We finally decided that we were no longer enjoying the canals enough for the considerable cost involved and moved on. Sad about that really. Apart from that we very much enjoyed it all, but it was spoiled.

At least you didn't carry a gun on board.

 

I do not condone vandalism and violence but I will not lower myself to their level by being as yobbish as they are.

 

Someone proudly proclaiming that they would have no qualms about firing a gun at kids makes them as bad, if not worse than the very thing they are scared of.

[Guest wanted]

Indeed I must be because I wont bend over and let delinquents shaft me. Letting them get away with it doesnt stop them....turning the other cheek doesnt work...if it did Jesus wouldn't have been nailed to a tree. (Not only have I upset the anti gun nuts now, but I've also upset the religious nuts, go me!)

 

I'm not sure which part of that meant to be me, I am anti gun yes, religious, no.

 

The reason I say you are part of the problem is because your resolve to this hypothetical issue has been based on retaliation, revenge, threat and (gun) violence. Let’s take these qualities of yours and transpose them onto a young person say, over the age of 14 on the white city estate in Shepherd's bush. I can almost guarantee that you would have some negative thoughts towards that young person without ever thinking that you share the same resolve.

 

You have a gun, why?

[wrigglefingers]

Find my keys? I wouldnt be a very responsible gun owner if I didnt know where those keys are 24/7 would I? Hell I wouldnt be responsible if they were not kept upon my person at all times...

 

Im all for talking and difusing sitations - its often the best way (as I found out while doing door work) however once kids are throwing half bricks and stones I think I can quite safely say that they are past the 'talking' and 'reasoning' stage!

 

And attention seeking? I have no doubt that a few do, but believe me - by the time they are throwing house bricks they aint seeing attention, they are having a jolly good laugh at our expense. Well it wont wash with me mate. Sorry if that upsets you.

 

Excellent, can you tell me when you last met a group of brick-throwing youths and shot over their heads? Because I'll look up the report in the press. If I believe rightly, Linda Walker was jailed for six months for shooting a pellet gun into the ground after a sustained period of assault on her property. A sentence that was changed to a conditional discharge (and a certain irony there) as the duration of bullying behaviour had lasted for a long period of time. The prosecution accepted that she had been driven to the point of reason and, that she showed complete remorse. I don't think you could argue that at present although you might well after the event.

 

Actually I don't think you would take this course of action, I think you enjoy winding up people by threatening certain kinds of behaviour as a form of attention-seeking yourself. No need to apologise to me because I'm not upset, I'm just very very sad that you believe it's acceptable to behave in such a way.

[carlt]

And to further enlighten you carl, I have just remembered that one shoot I used to be a member of used to have a drive where we stood on the canal bank and shot the birds as they were beaten over the canal towards us (runners were sent up to stop the boats for a little while). So your argument of the canal being a public place needs looking into - no doubt a BW towpath is considered public, however what about none towpath sides? It would fall to whomever owned the sporting rights of the land as to whether they wanted to press charges I would imagine. However, whats the score if your on your own boat in the middle of the canal....hmm, interesting legal stuff

Your shoot was breaking the law.

[n.b.Goldie]

I think that I and many others are confused about what steps one can take to protect oneself from perceived and actual threats. Today in the media we are told that two youths have been jailed for 'happy slapping' a chap to death in front of his young grand-daughter. These were not 'hypothetical youths' and the chap's death was not 'hypothetical'.

 

Perhaps if he had a gun and the youths did not he might be alive but in jail. However, realistically, widespread gun ownership will cause more deaths than it prevents. Anyway most guns used 'in anger' now seem to be in the hands of criminals.

 

It does seem that 'reasonable force' is an ill-defined concept and is much discussed in the media but from my observations of reported cases is would appear that if the attacked uses enough force to chase the assailants away then that is acceptable but if the attacked overcomes the assailants then like as not the assailants become the victims and the poor person being attacked becomes the criminal.

 

In short, if you are attacked, call the police if you can then try to run away or else submit. If you are lucky you might live but if you don't at least you will die knowing that you have not broken any anti-social laws.

[choogh]

"I do not condone vandalism and violence but I will not lower myself to their level by being as yobbish as they are."

 

No. you'll be too busy going astern, still talking, then going ahead, still talking, then astern, still talking, dodging rocks and bricks all the while, but still talking, until one hits you in the mouth.

[Ritchard]

Why would the deliquent need to when you're doing a perfectly good job yourself? I'm not anti-gun I simply find your proposed use of one unacceptable. And, although I'm not a churchy person, your lack of intelligence has caused you to totally miss the point of Christianity too.

 

The point of Christianity being to keep the masses in fear and paying donations to a massive organisation that likes to fiddle with kiddies?

 

Ok, ok - I cede that their may be quite a few decent ethical lesssons within the bible and other religians, but the organisation its self? I have no respect nor time for it, they were just a way of gaining power and influence over the populace in a by gone age when the earth was flat and the only way anything could be explained was 'god made it so'.

 

We have science now. And thank God!

 

As for me not being intelligent, nah Im dumb as two house bricks mate. Private Education (Salve! - yes, that is Latin which I know a little of) and University does that to most people. Damn those student parties! And all that alcohol! And all those drugs! Damn!

[Matthew Knowles]

Your shoot was breaking the law.

Also, what right do they have to stop people from travelling along a right-of-way so that they can have their shoot? I'd be tempted to tell them to b*gger off!

[carlt]

Your shoot was breaking the law.

 

 

BW Bylaws:

 

46. No person shall throw, shoot or otherwise propel any stone, shot, etc. bullet or other missile from, into or over any vessel or canal.

 

Ironic that you'd be breaking the same laws as the yobs throwing stones.