Couldn't get out of Netherton

[MHS]

That is why I used H2o

Well thought, that rules out chavs from understanding your post

[Hawkmoth]

CCTV as far as I understand can't be used as evidence.

A friend of mine has just failed using CCTV evidence.

Do you know why?

Bob

[MHS]

Do you know why?

Bob

I am sure cctv can be used, but it would need to be conclusive and clear enough to identify the culprit. So many cctv images a blurry and not usable. 1080p hd cctv is becoming cheaper, and will make a big difference in evidence collecting.

[Hawkmoth]

I am sure cctv can be used, but it would need to be conclusive and clear enough to identify the culprit. So many cctv images a blurry and not usable. 1080p hd cctv is becoming cheaper, and will make a big difference in evidence collecting.

Thanks, BTW very apt boat name given the subject.

Bob

[Laurie Booth]

Do you know why?

Bob

Not sure but I think that the person denied being the person in the video.

[magpie patrick]

There is a difference between evidence admissible in court and evidence that assists the police in grabbing the culprit. Photographic evidence can help the police know who they are looking for, which makes it easier for them to collect admissible evidence. It may also be that the person in the photograph is already known to the police.

 

One problem with photographs is that without a clear landmark they may not prove where the culprit was seen and they don't normally catch the culprit "in the act"

[PaulG]

Yes that wouuld have been us. If it was below Diglis we would have been travelling quite fast after our engineer told us to push it really haard and see if the new engine overheated (it didn't) so Upper Lode to Diglis took just less than 3 hours - after that we were travelling much slower.

I thought you were travelling at a fair old clip!

Tewkesbury to Diglis takes me more like 4 1/2 hours.

[Dharl]

There is a difference between evidence admissible in court and evidence that assists the police in grabbing the culprit. Photographic evidence can help the police know who they are looking for, which makes it easier for them to collect admissible evidence. It may also be that the person in the photograph is already known to the police.

 

One problem with photographs is that without a clear landmark they may not prove where the culprit was seen and they don't normally catch the culprit "in the act"

no but I am liking the fact that it is a deterrent in the first place. I am not keen on having chavs throwing stones on my family, boat or me as we go about our way!

 

I have been to several bits of the world where the locals come on-board your ship with rusty AK47s, some of them legit some not but the powers that be turn a blind eye, and a camera wouldn't deter them at all, infact might escalate the situation!

[magpie patrick]

no but I am liking the fact that it is a deterrent in the first place. I am not keen on having chavs throwing stones on my family, boat or me as we go about our way!

 

 

Agreed, it is a very effective deterrent, and one I use, the longer the telephoto the better

 

A pyschologist could probably explain it, but perhaps there is a fear of being identifiable?

[Swallowman]

I have also found - e.g.with stone throwers, that getting your camera or phone camera out and pointing it at vandals inhibits them too - they mostly run off.

 

The only time we were ever stoned was by 10 year olds already known to Police near Wolverhampton. Getting the camera out actually encouraged more of them down onto the towpath and two of of the little fatherless children chased us along the path as we headed North. This happened during a huge storm and the the first place we were able to stop and moor was under the M54 bridge. The Police did offer to come and take statements but because of the age of criminal responsibility...........

[casper ghost]

We went through Netherton a couple of days ago heading towards Stourbridge. We didn't experience any trouble, apart from a complete lack of work by the Trust to clear the canal of all the over hanging branches..

Casp'

[muddywaters]

CCTV as far as I understand can't be used as evidence.

A friend of mine has just failed using CCTV evidence.

Strange because when I did jury service, the main evidence in the case I was on the jury in was CCTV footage.

Which was useless actually because we really needed to hear what was being said and it only had pictures no sound

[Laurie Booth]

Strange because when I did jury service, the main evidence in the case I was on the jury in was CCTV footage.

Which was useless actually because we really needed to hear what was being said and it only had pictures no sound

Was he found guilty?

[bigray]

I've never been able to understand people doing this sort of thing I know it happens to trains as well. Vandalism is the same. Why? You can almost understand theft (although i'd still string them up) as you get some sort of financial gain but with vandalism etc. all you get is the risk of being caught although perhaps thats the reasoning.

 

Remind me is keel hauling still legal if you don't get caught doing it?

[MHS]

Keel hauling is still a perfectly acceptable punishment.

Provided you have produced a mission statement with a health and safety report, and have the correct qualifications and insurance, you will be fine.