Jump to content

Police appeal for potential boater witnesses at Whaley Bridge


Featured Posts

Derbyshire police are hoping to be able to speak to the owners or occupiers of two boats which were at Whaley Bridge late September.

 

The boats, called ‘Maggie-Anne’ and ‘Trojan’, were moored at the site where an incident took place.

 

Link:

 

http://www.derbyshire.police.uk/News-and-Appeals/News/2016/October/06-Oct-Witness-appeal-after-altercation-between-two-people-near-canal-boats.aspx

 

Cheers

Link to post
Share on other sites

Why would you think that the police don't know how to trace a boat's owners?

 

If the owners or occupants of either of these boats were suspected of having been involved in the incident, I'm sure they would have been traced and questioned by now.

 

As potential witnesses to an incident, it's quite reasonable for the police to ask any occupants of the boats to get in touch. It's also reasonable for them to decline to do so. It's not reasonable for the police to go searching for them.

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

As potential witnesses to an incident, it's quite reasonable for the police to ask any occupants of the boats to get in touch. It's also reasonable for them to decline to do so. It's not reasonable for the police to go searching for them.

I do not see what is unreasonable about looking for a potential witness to a crime. If the crime occurred in a street The police have the option to seek witnesses by knocking on the doors of the houses in the street in question. Finding a boat (if the urgency or seriousness warrants the effort) is doing much the same thing just that the boat has moved on. If they find the people it is of course a matter for them whether they wish to offer any information.

  • Greenie 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, it depends how much trouble the police want to go to to find these witnesses doesn't it. It's easy to put out a general appeal through the press, less so to actively look for them. I'm sure the victim of whatever this crime was would rather they did the latter. It's probably not actually reasonable to assume they know the easier ways of finding boats and boaters - if they did they'd be posting on here all the time for a start.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Well I provided the info that should help them to find the boaters in question, I made no comment on whether or not they might do so. I just assumed they may not know about Canalplan etc.

I thought you were being entirely reasonable and helpful, and it seems to be the police's job to get information, so that's reasonable too.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Well I provided the info that should help them to find the boaters in question, I made no comment on whether or not they might do so. I just assumed they may not know about Canalplan etc.

 

I don't doubt your good intentions.

 

Maybe a bit troubling that you think the Derbyshire Police are inept, so they don't know how to trace the owner of a boat should they need to, but we are all entitled to our views on the competence of the police.

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

I don't doubt your good intentions.

 

Maybe a bit troubling that you think the Derbyshire Police are inept, so they don't know how to trace the owner of a boat should they need to, but we are all entitled to our views on the competence of the police.

Why is it troubling? It would perhaps be troubling if they *were* inept (although boat tracing isn't something they'd have to do very often and I don't know why it should be obvious that they'd know the best way to go about it) but why is it troubling that someone might merely think that they are?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Why would you think that the police don't know how to trace a boat's owners?

 

 

 

As potential witnesses to an incident, it's quite reasonable for the police to ask any occupants of the boats to get in touch. It's also reasonable for them to decline to do so. It's not reasonable for the police to go searching for them.

if you had no direct experience of the canals, would you know how to trace the owners of boats on the cut? it's not like the DVLA, after all.

 

why is it unreasonable for the police to go searching for witnesses, and why is it reasonable for a witness to refuse to testify?

 

I'm fed up with this PC world where the police seem to have no powers or rights and citizens can refuse to get involved (entirely lacking in community spirit).

  • Greenie 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

if you had no direct experience of the canals, would you know how to trace the owners of boats on the cut? it's not like the DVLA, after all.

 

why is it unreasonable for the police to go searching for witnesses, and why is it reasonable for a witness to refuse to testify?

 

I'm fed up with this PC world where the police seem to have no powers or rights and citizens can refuse to get involved (entirely lacking in community spirit).

Although it may not sound like it, I'm in total agreement with you. Tracking down the owners of a boat isn't as straightforward for the Police as some on the forum seem to suggest. The likelihood is that they would go to the most likely source, which would be CRT, for the boat details. CRT would only work on the licence details and, given the restrictions of the Data Protection Act they would agree to contact the owners of the boats named but wouldn't give their details to Police (unless the persons on the boat were actually sought for crime). It would then be up to the owners who CRT contacted to make contact themselves with Police.

 

The suggestion that the Police shouldn't be searching for witnesses is, quite frankly, laughable. If a murder was captured on CCTV and an uninvolved person could be seen in the vicinity on the CCTV footage are we seriously to believe that the Police shouldn't put out a circular saying they'd like to speak with a witness (give description from CCTV footage) who may be able to assist with their enquiries? This isn't Political Correctness, this is insanitywacko.png .

 

I can however understand why some people may not wish to give evidence and would respect their right. As an example, whilst working I collared a serial drink driver and one of his neighbours saw everything that had happened. From the idiot crashing into his neighbours cars and staggering into his home address to the point that I led him from his home address in handcuffs. At the time he willingly gave a statement of what he had seen which was included in the file. When the Court date came up however he decided that, since he only lived 3 doors away from the offender, he didn't wish to give his evidence in court since he would then be subject of continual harassment from this idiot. I'd rather he had given his evidence but I could see his point (in the event we convicted the idiot without his neighbour's evidence). I was more than happy to completely p*ss off the drink driver since I didn't live three doors from him and any threats he may have wished to make to me were empty and irrelevantrolleyes.gif .

Link to post
Share on other sites

Why would you think that the police don't know how to trace a boat's owners?

 

Because they've put out a public appeal stating that they wish to talk to the owners of two particular boats, instead of contacting them directly?

 

As potential witnesses to an incident, it's quite reasonable for the police to ask any occupants of the boats to get in touch. It's also reasonable for them to decline to do so. It's not reasonable for the police to go searching for them.

 

Why not? If the police wanted to talk to someone and knew a simple way to get in touch with them, what would be 'unreasonable' about using it?

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

I'm fed up with this PC world where the police seem to have no powers or rights and citizens can refuse to get involved (entirely lacking in community spirit).

What exactly has not wanting to get your head kicked in by a local perpetrator of crime or their mates got to do with political correctness?

 

Surely the reason some people don't 'get involved' is motivated by self preservation. Unfortunately in some communities that is how it works.

Edited by MJG
Link to post
Share on other sites

that should be treated as the exception, not assumed to be the standard approach.

Hence -

 

What exactly has not wanting to get your head kicked in by a local perpetrator of crime or their mates got to do with political correctness?

 

Surely the reason some people don't 'get involved' is motivated by self preservation. Unfortunately in some communities that is how it works.

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Because they've put out a public appeal stating that they wish to talk to the owners of two particular boats, instead of contacting them directly?

 

 

I think it was a mistake to think that the appeal for witnesses is because the police don't know how to trace the owners of the boats. If they had cause to trace the owner, they certainly could and would, by contacting CRT for the details of owners of boats with the corresponding name. But do they have cause to, in this case?

 

 

 

Why not? If the police wanted to talk to someone and knew a simple way to get in touch with them, what would be 'unreasonable' about using it?

 

 

If someone was known to have witnessed a crime, there may well be cause to seek them out, but in this case it's not even known whether the boat/s were occupied at the time of the "incident", let alone whether anyone aboard actually saw or heard anything. It isn't even clear whether a crime is suspected to have been committed.

 

Now, CRT should not be disclosing the personal details of boats' owners to anyone - even if it is the police and the police ask nicely - unless they can do it lawfully. To do it lawfully, the police would need to produce a court order and for a court to grant an order, it would need to be satisfied that the police had a good reason for wanting the owner's details and it wasn't just a fishing expedition, so the "reasonable" test is one which is applied by the court.

 

The police investigating the "incident" probably know that they would fail to get a court order if they asked for one - they would be asking for disclosure of personal details based on nothing more than a hunch - so all they can do is publicise the boat names and ask the owners/occupants to get in touch.

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

I think it was a mistake to think that the appeal for witnesses is because the police don't know how to trace the owners of the boats. If they had cause to trace the owner, they certainly could and would, by contacting CRT for the details of owners of boats with the corresponding name. But do they have cause to, in this case?

 

 

 

 

If someone was known to have witnessed a crime, there may well be cause to seek them out, but in this case it's not even known whether the boat/s were occupied at the time of the "incident", let alone whether anyone aboard actually saw or heard anything. It isn't even clear whether a crime is suspected to have been committed.

 

Now, CRT should not be disclosing the personal details of boats' owners to anyone - even if it is the police and the police ask nicely - unless they can do it lawfully. To do it lawfully, the police would need to produce a court order and for a court to grant an order, it would need to be satisfied that the police had a good reason for wanting the owner's details and it wasn't just a fishing expedition, so the "reasonable" test is one which is applied by the court.

 

The police investigating the "incident" probably know that they would fail to get a court order if they asked for one - they would be asking for disclosure of personal details based on nothing more than a hunch - so all they can do is publicise the boat names and ask the owners/occupants to get in touch.

Is this not exactly the same scenario for which Police carry out house to house enquiries in the vicinity of a crime? I would suggest that they have a duty to carry out these sort of enquiries whether it is a 'fishing exercise' or not. Can you imagine a case reaching Court and the defence quite reasonably asking an investigating officer if he had spoken with the people on two narrow boats seen nearby, and getting the reply, "Nah, we couldn't be bothered, we didn't think they had anything to add". The phrase 'getting ripped apart for bog paper' would come to mindunsure.png .

 

The only real difference between house to house enquiries and enquiries of boat owners is that our 'houses' tend to move a bit so need to be traced.

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

I think it was a mistake to think that the appeal for witnesses is because the police don't know how to trace the owners of the boats. If they had cause to trace the owner, they certainly could and would, by contacting CRT for the details of owners of boats with the corresponding name. But do they have cause to, in this case?

 

 

 

 

If someone was known to have witnessed a crime, there may well be cause to seek them out, but in this case it's not even known whether the boat/s were occupied at the time of the "incident", let alone whether anyone aboard actually saw or heard anything. It isn't even clear whether a crime is suspected to have been committed.

 

Now, CRT should not be disclosing the personal details of boats' owners to anyone - even if it is the police and the police ask nicely - unless they can do it lawfully. To do it lawfully, the police would need to produce a court order and for a court to grant an order, it would need to be satisfied that the police had a good reason for wanting the owner's details and it wasn't just a fishing expedition, so the "reasonable" test is one which is applied by the court.

 

The police investigating the "incident" probably know that they would fail to get a court order if they asked for one - they would be asking for disclosure of personal details based on nothing more than a hunch - so all they can do is publicise the boat names and ask the owners/occupants to get in touch.

 

Don't think that is correct.

Link to post
Share on other sites

CRT can contact the owners of the boats without giving the police their details, so that the boaters themselves can make a decision.

Assisting the police in finding potential witnesses who might not know the police need to speak to them and who may be keen to help is not the same as shopping someone!!

Link to post
Share on other sites

Four years ago I came across an online appeal from Liverpool Coroner's Office. They were dealing with the case of a man who had passed away at home, but were having difficulty tracing any family to notify them, and arrange for a formal identification.

 

I have been researching my family history for over twelve years, and have a database of over 4,000 people. In less than one minute I was able to find the names of his 2 brothers and 2 sisters. A short phone call enabled the Coroner's Officer to find the man's relatives on the electoral roll, and set about notifying them.

 

The deceased was in fact a 4th cousin of mine, but I only knew of him through my genealogy research. I have never met him or his family.

 

A few minutes of my time saved the Coroner's Office and Police many hours of their time, and thus our ( taxpayers ) money.

 

I fail to see why helping with an appeal is frowned upon by some on this forum.

  • Greenie 3
Link to post
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.