Just been reading the story of Sal Miah, a 35 year old restaurant owner for 14 years, who was arrested after the youths that he found breaking into his store room pressed charges against him, after he chased and apprehended two of them.





http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1257496/curry-house-owner-foils-burglary-Hes-thrown-cell-yobs-complain.html

I heard this story being debated on radio 5 a few weeks ago - its an absolute disgrace. Police just seem incapable of doing the right thing these days, they just do whats in their own best interests whether its right or wrong. Its easier to nick an honest man than scum that know how to lie and cheat the system.

Its easier to nick an honest man than scum that know how to lie and cheat the system.

..the last sentence from the article:

"A boy of 13 was later arrested and charged with burglary with intent."

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1257496/Curry-house-owner-foils-burglary--HES-thrown-cell-yobs-complain.html#ixzz0jNoEeNoA

..the last sentence from the article:

"A boy of 13 was later arrested and charged with burglary with intent."

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1257496/Curry-house-owner-foils-burglary--HES-thrown-cell-yobs-complain.html#ixzz0jNoEeNoA


An innocent man protecting his property was also arrested, that's far from proper policing in my book.

Well, you don 't have to only read the last sentence to know that the person was quite young. It does mention, ' teenager ' and ' boy ' well before the end.
But, so what ? The age of criminal responsibility begins at 10 years old. The boy arrested was 13 years old. Is there a suggestion that law-abiding citizens should not in any way deter or interfere in the activities of teenage criminals ?
It 's even possible, that the Liberal-Left, " We Are ALL Guilty " Mob, would advise the Restaurant owner, in the case under discussion, to throw open his doors to the local teenage thieves and just let them wander in and take what they fancy ? We are not too far from that situation now------so, folks, get prepared for the next bout of ' 'Uman Rights ' !
Carry On England !

An innocent man protecting his property was also arrested, that's far from proper policing in my book.

The restaurant owner accepted a caution from the police, he was not required to do so and could have maintained his 'innocence'-we dont know the extent of the assault, if indeed it did happen at all, or whether the burglar was resisting being apprehended or threatening Mr Miah.

Anyone can claim they were assaulted and the accused will be arrested by police, that's standard practice and the right way to do things. If there's no case to answer then they're released and no charges are brought.

Well, you don 't have to only read the last sentence to know that the person was quite young. It does mention, ' teenager ' and ' boy ' well before the end.
But, so what ? The age of criminal responsibility begins at 10 years old. The boy arrested was 13 years old. Is there a suggestion that law-abiding citizens should not in any way deter or interfere in the activities of teenage criminals ?
It 's even possible, that the Liberal-Left, " We Are ALL Guilty " Mob, would advise the Restaurant owner, in the case under discussion, to throw open his doors to the local teenage thieves and just let them wander in and take what they fancy ? We are not too far from that situation now------so, folks, get prepared for the next bout of ' 'Uman Rights ' !
Carry On England !

In another article running this story, the police are alleged to have suggested that people should refrain from doing the same as Mr Miah, they should keep a safe distance and in form the police.:roll:

Well, you don 't have to only read the last sentence to know that the person was quite young. It does mention, ' teenager ' and ' boy ' well before the end.
But, so what ? The age of criminal responsibility begins at 10 years old. The boy arrested was 13 years old. Is there a suggestion that law-abiding citizens should not in any way deter or interfere in the activities of teenage criminals ?

The boy has been arrested for burglary with intent, which is the crime he was apprehended for committing and for which he may well face prosecution, I dont think anyone is making an issue of his age or that he should be treated favourably.

Mr Miah accepted that he assaulted someone by accepting the police caution, frankly Im not sure what the issue is.

The boy has been arrested for burglary with intent, which is the crime he was apprehended for committing and for which he may well face prosecution, I dont think anyone is making an issue of his age or that he should be treated favourably.

Mr Miah accepted that he assaulted someone by accepting the police caution, frankly Im not sure what the issue is.

probably more likely he knew that it wasnt worth complaining about and sometimes its just easier to bite your tongue and take the easy way out

no doubt the scum will be back kicking his restaurant in next week he'll go out shout at them, one of them will brick his window in and he'll get done for inciting a riot

its a very very, mad world!

In another article running this story, the police are alleged to have suggested that people should refrain from doing the same as Mr Miah, they should keep a safe distance and in form the police.:roll:

..for no other reason than for their own safety and to prevent an escalation that might result in a breach of the peace.

It isn't an offence to apprehend a burglar, but you can imagine why the police aren't going to recommend it as action to take.

The restaurant owner accepted a caution from the police, he was not required to do so and could have maintained his 'innocence'-we dont know the extent of the assault, if indeed it did happen at all, or whether the burglar was resisting being apprehended or threatening Mr Miah.

Anyone can claim they were assaulted and the accused will be arrested by police, that's standard practice and the right way to do things. If there's no case to answer then they're released and no charges are brought.


Read this aswell.




Edit: sorry, don't know why that didn't work.

probably more likely he knew that it wasnt worth complaining about and sometimes its just easier to bite your tongue and take the easy way out I did say that it may not have happened in my post, but to be honest we cant arrive at any conclusion about his innocence as details of the 'assault' aren't given and he placed himself in a difficult position by accepting a caution, I certainly wouldnt have done if I'd been accused of something I hadn't done, would you?

no doubt the scum will be back kicking his restaurant in next week he'll go out shout at them, one of them will brick his window in and he'll get done for inciting a riot

its a very very, mad world!

It would be if that was the sequence of events that came to pass.

Read this aswell.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/crime/748269/Restaurant-boss-put-in-prison-for-stopping-yobs.html

..it's a dead link.

..It isn't an offence to apprehend a burglar, but you can imagine why the police aren't going to recommend it as action to take.

Obviously it is.

"Restaurant owner arrested after burglars press charges."

I sounds like the police did exactly what is expected of them and unscrambled the events so that the chap could get back to his life. It's easy to say 'disgraceful' but the police only have one persons word against another when they turn up to a 999 call. Sometimes we get caught up in a *$%^ happens situation - it's just part of life.

I'm more concerned that as a victim he's had his DNA and finger prints retained.

Obviously it is.

"Restaurant owner arrested after burglars press charges."

I didnt know it was a) an offence to be arrested b) wasn't an offence to assault someone.

I didnt know it was a) an offence to be arrested b) wasn't an offence to assault someone.

:hihi::confused:

IF you say so, not that I am sure what you are really saying.

..for no other reason than for their own safety and to prevent an escalation that might result in a breach of the peace.

It isn't an offence to apprehend a burglar, but you can imagine why the police aren't going to recommend it as action to take.That's all well and good when it's someone else's property, but when it's your own you'll instinctively react.

I did say that it may not have happened in my post, but to be honest we cant arrive at any conclusion about his innocence as details of the 'assault' aren't given and he placed himself in a difficult position by accepting a caution, I certainly wouldnt have done if I'd been accused of something I hadn't done, would you?


It would be if that was the sequence of events that came to pass.

i have had to before, so yes i would/have

no it wouldnt

I sounds like the police did exactly what is expected of them and unscrambled the events so that the chap could get back to his life. It's easy to say 'disgraceful' but the police only have one persons word against another when they turn up to a 999 call. Sometimes we get caught up in a *$%^ happens situation - it's just part of life.

I'm more concerned that as a victim he's had his DNA and finger prints retained.

This is really my point too, we're hearing only one account of the events, and that account and the media publishing it has a vested interest in the 'angle' on the story.

I'm sure if the headline had read "Man Assaults 13 Year Old and Holds Him Prisoner Before Calling the Police", the cries of disapproval may well have been equally premature and probably mis-directed.

Ps: He can ask to have his fingerprints and DNA removed from the database.

..for no other reason than for their own safety and to prevent an escalation that might result in a breach of the peace.

It isn't an offence to apprehend a burglar, but you can imagine why the police aren't going to recommend it as action to take.

they should ring the police go put the kettle on and sit quietly in a chair while someone smashes their property up anything else is inciting a riot and they should be thrown in the slammer, whilst giving the criminals a slap on the wrist and blame it all on them not having anything else to do on an evening

i have had to before, so yes i would/have

no it wouldnt

You were forced to take a caution for something you didn't do? Not possible, you chose to accept it, that is how the system works.

i have had to before, so yes i would/have Well you certainly wouldn't have to at all. If you haven't committed the offence why accept the caution? If there's no evidence against you, then there would be no prosecution to bring against you.

no it wouldnt

No it wouldn't be a 'very, very mad world'?

Ps: He can ask to have his fingerprints and DNA removed from the database.
Sadly his chances of it actually happening are down to the attitude of the Chief Constable of his postcode.

they should ring the police go put the kettle on and sit quietly in a chair while someone smashes their property up anything else is inciting a riot and they should be thrown in the slammer, whilst giving the criminals a slap on the wrist and blame it all on them not having anything else to do on an evening
But you must concede that this situation is one of the exceptions that proves the rule. That rule being the one of law and that it applies to us all equally.

It isn't possible to have a two tier law without vigilantism or miscarriages of justice. We're all subject to the same rules even when the system lets us down. Maybe we should improve the system but we can't just chuck it out when it suits us.

You were forced to take a caution for something you didn't do? Not possible, you chose to accept it, that is how the system works.

depends what you mean by forced, i denied the charges but seeing as there were 3 of them and one of me and no other witnesses or cctv i pretty much had no option

Ps: He can ask to have his fingerprints and DNA removed from the database.

What even after accepting a caution. :suspect:

Well you certainly wouldn't have to at all. If you haven't committed the offence why accept the caution? If there's no evidence against you, then there would be no prosecution to bring against you.


No it wouldn't be a 'very, very mad world'?

what are you getting at? are you saying if someone is commiting a crime, then you should not shout try and get them to stop it because that might antagonise the situation?

codswallop! (ive always wanted to use that lol)

they should ring the police go put the kettle on and sit quietly in a chair while someone smashes their property up anything else is inciting a riot and they should be thrown in the slammer, whilst giving the criminals a slap on the wrist and blame it all on them not having anything else to do on an evening

That isn't what I'm suggesting at all.

I said it isn't an offence to apprehend a burglar and that isn't the advice the police gave in this case.

They always advise against members of the public engaging with burglars because the outcome is unpredictable, that's the only reason they give that advice, not because the householder would be committing an offence, if they were all the following would have been sent to prison, they escaped prosecution, without so much as a caution:

Householder/other victim not prosecuted:

Robbery at a newsagent's. One of the two robbers died after being stabbed by the newsagent. The CPS did not prosecute the newsagent but prosecuted the surviving robber who was jailed for six years (Greater Manchester);

A householder returned home to find a burglar in his home. There was a struggle during which the burglar hit his head on the driveway and later died. No prosecution of householder who was clearly acting in self-defence (Derbyshire);

Armed robbers threatened a pub landlord and barmaid with extreme violence. The barmaid escaped, fetched her employer's shotgun and shot at least one of the intruders. Barmaid not prosecuted (Hertfordshire);

Two burglars entered a house armed with a knife and threatened a woman. Her husband overcame one of the burglars and stabbed him. The burglar died. There was no prosecution of the householder but the remaining burglar was convicted (Lincolnshire);

A middle aged female took a baseball bat off a burglar and hit him over the head, fracturing his skull. The burglar made a complaint but the CPS refused to prosecute (Lancashire).

http://www.cps.gov.uk/news/press_releases/106_05/

what are you getting at? are you saying if someone is commiting a crime, then you should not shout try and get them to stop it because that might antagonise the situation?

codswallop! (ive always wanted to use that lol)

I'm not getting at anything-you proposed a scenario, and I agreed that if it came to pass it would indeed be a 'very very mad world', as you said.

You replied:


no it wouldnt

What even after accepting a caution. :suspect:

He's entitled to 'ask' whether it's done or not is another matter, it illustrates the shortcomings in being cavalier about accepting a caution, by implication it's an admission of guilt.

, by implication it's an admission of guilt.

That’s how I see it so how would he get his information removed from the database.

I'm not getting at anything-you proposed a scenario, and I agreed that if it came to pass it would indeed be a 'very very mad world', as you said.

You replied:

misunderatood, thought when you said 'it would be' you meant it would be inciting a riot

..the last sentence from the article:

"A boy of 13 was later arrested and charged with burglary with intent."

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1257496/Curry-house-owner-foils-burglary--HES-thrown-cell-yobs-complain.html#ixzz0jNoEeNoA

Another one exempt from The British Crime Survey figures as crime keeps dropping!!! Yeah right!

Quote:-"The British Crime Survey has also been criticised for its exclusion of all under 16s"

Maybe more in it than first seems ..you have to agree to accept a caution..if everything was kosher why did he agree to a caution which will be on his record,if he had refused the caution the Police would have had to charge him and as far as the report given is concerned the DPP would have thrown it out on the basis that it wasnt worth while following up.reading between the lines a bit of instant justice was carried out probably illegally..i.e went too far

That’s how I see it so how would he get his information removed from the database.

He probably wouldn't I guess, but he could still ask for it to be removed.

Another one exempt from The British Crime Survey figures as crime keeps dropping!!! Yeah right!

Quote:-"The British Crime Survey has also been criticised for its exclusion of all under 16s"

Well he's not eligible to be included yet, since he's not been convicted of the offence!

But I would agree, a 13 year old committing crime is the same as a 30 year old committing crime, from a statistics point of view.

Maybe more in it than first seems ..you have to agree to accept a caution..if everything was kosher why did he agree to a caution which will be on his record,if he had refused the caution the Police would have had to charge him and as far as the report given is concerned the DPP would have thrown it out on the basis that it wasnt worth while following up.reading between the lines a bit of instant justice was carried out probably illegally..i.e went too far

Except the law does not quite work that way.

Reading between the lines is always dangerous. Better off sticking to the facts as they are presented, and if inconclusive then no verdict.

Its getting to something when someone is trying to break into your property; you grab them by the scruff of their neck; they struggle to get away so you lamp em one and then get told you could face assault charges. Really does not make sense. And I am not talking about kicking the seven bells out of the kid.

Maybe more in it than first seems ..you have to agree to accept a caution..if everything was kosher why did he agree to a caution which will be on his record,if he had refused the caution the Police would have had to charge him and as far as the report given is concerned the DPP would have thrown it out on the basis that it wasnt worth while following up.reading between the lines a bit of instant justice was carried out probably illegally..i.e went too far

Without wishing to judge either side, this is how it appears to me. Mr Miah should have been warned about the implications of accepting a caution and offered legal advice.

I'm sure the police are tempted to offer cautions to people because it's an instant fix to an allegation without having to investigate it, but if Mr Miah was innocent of the assault then a solicitor would have told him not to accept the caution.

Except the law does not quite work that way.

Reading between the lines is always dangerous. Better off sticking to the facts as they are presented, and if inconclusive then no verdict.

..top form today Dragon, how does the following account relate to the 'facts'??! ;)


Its getting to something when someone is trying to break into your property; you grab them by the scruff of their neck; they struggle to get away so you lamp em one and then get told you could face assault charges. Really does not make sense. And I am not talking about kicking the seven bells out of the kid.

We've only heard one side of the story and your even paraphrasing that account.

Maybe more in it than first seems ..you have to agree to accept a caution..if everything was kosher why did he agree to a caution which will be on his record,if he had refused the caution the Police would have had to charge him and as far as the report given is concerned the DPP would have thrown it out on the basis that it wasnt worth while following up.reading between the lines a bit of instant justice was carried out probably illegally..i.e went too farSo what if he got a little heavy with them, his intention was to bring the two scroats back to the restaurant so the police could deal with them. I very much doubt the possibility of it being his charismatic charm that persuaded them to follow him willingly.

..top form today Dragon, how does the following account relate to the 'facts'??! ;)



We've only heard one side of the story and your even paraphrasing that account.

Oh stop it. It is quite obvious that I was making a statement concerning something not directly connected with this particular case. I was saying that in the event that this happened then you could well be charged or threatened with the charge of assault.

Sheesh! Sometimes I think you deliberately set out to wind me up boyfriday, but you don't cos that would be trolling and I know from your posts that you are not a troll. :D

Oh stop it. It is quite obvious that I was making a statement concerning something not directly connected with this particular case. I was saying that in the event that this happened then you could well be charged or threatened with the charge of assault. LOL, yes of course you were ;)

The fact is in that in your unrelated scenario, the person hasn't committed an offence, so they have nothing to fear. The burglar might make an assault claim, but he's entitled to, so could the woman I bumped into in Cole Brothers this morning, but nowt would come of it.


Sheesh! Sometimes I think you deliberately set out to wind me up boyfriday, but you don't cos that would be trolling and I know from your posts that you are not a troll. :D

Deliberately wind you up? That's usually the limp response I expect from someone of less virtue than yourself, who's been caught with their pants down :D

LOL, yes of course you were ;)

The fact is in that in your unrelated scenario, the person hasn't committed an offence, so they have nothing to fear. The burglar might make an assault claim, but he's entitled to, so could the woman I bumped into in Cole Brothers this morning, but nowt would come of it.



Deliberately wind you up? That's usually the limp response I expect from someone of less virtue than yourself, who's been caught with their pants down :D

Firstly my pants are definitely up.

Are you stating as a fact that in my scenario the person who apprehended the would be burglar would NOT be charged with assault? Charged as opposed to convicted note.

My point being that the restaurant owner may have been advised to accept a caution as he would then not face further questioning and not have to take time off work in order to attend court hearings etc. There are ways of implying things that can make the unknowing admit to things they may not actually be guilty of - because it makes life easier.

So what if he got a little heavy with them, his intention was to bring the two scroats back to the restaurant so the police could deal with them. I very much doubt the possibility of it being his charismatic charm that persuaded them to follow him willingly.

Because it's easy for you or anyone else to sit there behind your keyboard pontificating after the event believing that you're in possession of all the facts...

... when obviously none of us were there and we only know what we've read.

Are you stating as a fact that in my scenario the person who apprehended the would be burglar would NOT be charged with assault? Charged as opposed to convicted note. No, because you haven't presented any element of evidence that might be able to support the claim.


My point being that the restaurant owner may have been advised to accept a caution as he would then not face further questioning and not have to take time off work in order to attend court hearings etc. There are ways of implying things that can make the unknowing admit to things they may not actually be guilty of - because it makes life easier. Well now you're reading between the lines, which is what you criticised Noddyholder for doing.

We dont know any of this as fact, you may well be right, you might be wrong, but it would be wrong to support or criticise any party involved in this incident, including the police, without knowing the full detail of what happened.

Because it's easy for you or anyone else to sit there behind your keyboard pontificating after the event believing that you're in possession of all the facts...

... when obviously none of us were there and we only know what we've read.

Pontificating.. iv'e just had to goole that;)


Firstly tony, IF he did get a little heavy with them.. 'so what?, that's what I said. He was up against 2 teenagers that will have been resisting arrest, obviously!, so what's he supposed to do.. walk away to avoid a situation?

He was up against 2 teenagers that will have been resisting arrest, obviously!, so what's he supposed to do.. walk away to avoid a situation?

That's exactly what we dont know danot, they ran away when challenged and before they entered the beer cellar, according to the report.

Presumably Mr Miah 'assaulted' them after he'd caught hold of them, but there's no claim they assaulted him or they were resisting him physically, which is an observation Im sure the Mail would have made if they had been.

Pontificating.. iv'e just had to goole that;)


Firstly tony, IF he did get a little heavy with them.. 'so what?, that's what I said. He was up against 2 teenagers that will have been resisting arrest, obviously!, so what's he supposed to do.. walk away to avoid a situation? My bold

No, they wouldn't have been resisting arrest, because the restaurant owner wasn't a policeman. And, even if he had been, he still wouldn't legally be allowed to "get a little heavy with them", the law allows the police and public to use reasonable force and no more.

That's exactly what we dont know danot, they ran away when challenged and before they entered the beer cellar, according to the report.

Presumably Mr Miah 'assaulted' them after he'd caught hold of them, but there's no claim they assaulted him or they were resisting him physically, which is an observation Im sure the Mail would have made if they had been.


Maybe they weren't breaking into his cellar at all,.. 'maybe they are wanna-be window fitters just checking that the glass was up to fensa standards.

Pontificating.. iv'e just had to goole that;)


Firstly tony, IF he did get a little heavy with them.. 'so what?, that's what I said. He was up against 2 teenagers that will have been resisting arrest, obviously!, so what's he supposed to do.. walk away to avoid a situation?

To be honest I'm not especially concerned what he did do (that's his choice) but my point was that we can't have a situation where he is allowed to get heavy with them.

While you and I might say "so what?" that's not a sustainable position for the law. It follows that the police have to uphold the law which is exactly what seems to have happened from the little we have learned.

On a separate note I'd hazard a guess that the police knew exactly who the kids were if they are breaking and entering at 13. They won't be on the streets for long, but in order for them to be locked up and / or hopefully rehabilitated the fuzz have to follow the law of the land not of the street.

On another note I am dispepsic that his personal DNA / fingerprint data has been retained from a mere caution.

No, because you haven't presented any element of evidence that might be able to support the claim.

Well now you're reading between the lines, which is what you criticised Noddyholder for doing.

We dont know any of this as fact, you may well be right, you might be wrong, but it would be wrong to support or criticise any party involved in this incident, including the police, without knowing the full detail of what happened.

As is common with you, you misread and misinterpret what is put and stick your own meaning on for the sake of trying to appear more clever than you actually are.

Where am I reading between the lines. I did not say anything had happened. I was stating that it is possible the restaurant owner COULD have accepted a caution in order to avoid having to attend court etc. This DOES happen - whether you like to believe it or not.

I am not imagining or suggesting that the restaurant owner assaulted the person or did not assault him. I am stating that many people WILL take a plea if this makes life easier for them.

I have no idea what took place in the case in question. I do not know if assault actually took place or if the restaurant owner was advised to accept a caution to make his life easier. What I am saying is that some people would accept a caution if it meant they did not have to attend court and have time off work. Anything to make life a bit easier.

My bold

No, they wouldn't have been resisting arrest, because the restaurant owner wasn't a policeman. And, even if he had been, he still wouldn't legally be allowed to "get a little heavy with them", the law allows the police and public to use reasonable force and no more.You don't need to be a policeman to make an arrest, and with regards to using reasonable force, police often use an heavy approach to criminals caught in the act, it's a deliberately measure to intimidate and subdue them.

As is common with you, you misread and misinterpret what is put and stick your own meaning on for the sake of trying to appear more clever than you actually are. I'll resist the temptation to respond by saying whenever anyone challenges your view you resort to attacking the personalities of posters ;)

Where am I reading between the lines. I did not say anything had happened. I was stating that it is possible the restaurant owner COULD have accepted a caution in order to avoid having to attend court etc. This DOES happen - whether you like to believe it or not. I was agreeing with noddyhoder's speculation if you read back, it was you that objected to it, remember?

I am not imagining or suggesting that the restaurant owner assaulted the person or did not assault him. I am stating that many people WILL take a plea if this makes life easier for them. I didn't say that is what you said, he should have been offered legal advice before he did so-the implication by accepting a caution is that he's guilty of the assault and takes the caution to avoid the consequences of a successful prosecution.

I have no idea what took place in the case in question. I do not know if assault actually took place or if the restaurant owner was advised to accept a caution to make his life easier. What I am saying is that some people would accept a caution if it meant they did not have to attend court and have time off work. Anything to make life a bit easier. But this is the only established fact we know-that Mr Miah accepted a caution, therefore acknowledges some complicity in the offence that he was accused of.

I do not agree that totally innocent people accept a police caution for 'an easy life', the charge could easily be challenged if it were not true, and if it relied entirely on the testimony of boys he apprehended then clearly they have a credibility issue.

I'll resist the temptation to respond by saying whenever anyone challenges your view you resort to attacking the personalities of posters ;)
I was agreeing with noddyhoder's speculation if you read back, it was you that objected to it, remember?
I didn't say that is what you said, he should have been offered legal advice before he did so-the implication by accepting a caution is that he's guilty of the assault and takes the caution to avoid the consequences of a successful prosecution.
But this is the only established fact we know-that Mr Miah accepted a caution, therefore acknowledges some complicity in the offence that he was accused of.

I do not agree that totally innocent people accept a police caution for 'an easy life', the charge could easily be challenged if it were not true, and if it relied entirely on the testimony of boys he apprehended then clearly they have a credibility issue.

well they do

But this is the only established fact we know-that Mr Miah accepted a caution, therefore acknowledges some complicity in the offence that he was accused of.

No it doesn't. It assumes some complicity. As I have said - he could have been absolutely innocent of anything other than grabbing the lads arm, but have been advised that to make things easier he should accept a caution which he accepted. That does not make him guilty of anything other than someone wanting an easier life.


I do not agree that totally innocent people accept a police caution for 'an easy life', the charge could easily be challenged if it were not true, and if it relied entirely on the testimony of boys he apprehended then clearly they have a credibility issue.

Obviously you have lived a very sheltered life then. Sometimes it is easier to just accept and get on with it rather than go through courts. Having court action hanging over your head has much more implication than just financial loss. It places a great deal of strain on relationships and a person's mental health. Strain that is not there when a person accepts a caution and has done with the whole affair.

Maybe they weren't breaking into his cellar at all,.. 'maybe they are wanna-be window fitters just checking that the glass was up to fensa standards.

Oh no, I believe they were going to burgle his premises and nick as much beer as they possibly could, I hope the charge that has been laid at the 13 year old is prosecuted and he pays the price if he's guilty.

Incidentally, I would probably have acted in the same way as Mr Miah, and gone after them, without the lary physical stuff unless it was necessary.

To be honest I'm not especially concerned what he did do (that's his choice) but my point was that we can't have a situation where he is allowed to get heavy with them.

While you and I might say "so what?" that's not a sustainable position for the law. It follows that the police have to uphold the law which is exactly what seems to have happened from the little we have learned.

On a separate note I'd hazard a guess that the police knew exactly who the kids were if they are breaking and entering at 13. They won't be on the streets for long, but in order for them to be locked up and / or hopefully rehabilitated the fuzz have to follow the law of the land not of the street.

On another note I am dispepsic that his personal DNA / fingerprint data has been retained from a mere caution.So in other words, if Anyone wants to avoid being arrested and detained by the police for 5 hours, where they take your DNA, fingerprints and mugshot, do the wise thing, 'call the police and walk away if you find someone breaking into your property'?

So in other words, if Anyone wants to avoid being arrested and detained by the police for 5 hours, where they take your DNA, fingerprints and mugshot, do the wise thing, 'call the police and walk away if you find someone breaking into your property'?

And when the police turn up 6 hours later and you have lost everything they can make a report and add it to the thousands of other unsolved crimes.

Danot, I'm not suggesting that at all because I'd be the first one down the cellar steps with a big heavy flashlight that in no way resembles a legal baton.

What I'm saying is that sometimes crap happens and we get caught up in it with even crapper consequences. That's not a justification of ignoring the rule of law. It is an incentive for improving the law though.

Where I do draw the line is at criminalising victims. Sadly this current government seems to be doing all in its power to bring that about - hence my dispepsitity.

That's all well and good when it's someone else's property, but when it's your own you'll instinctively react.Oh no you shouldn't, you should use the boyfriday code of conduct and call 'Time Out' whiilst you troll through a load of law books; and naturaly the criminal will heed your request and stand around waiting for a few months whilst you take your law degree.

I know even before I post this Im going to get knee jerk replies but lets get things into perspective re the apprehension of these hardened criminals..the only person charged is a 13 y o boy, now where I come from hes a kid nothing more.

Oh no, I believe they were going to burgle his premises and nick as much beer as they possibly could, I hope the charge that has been laid at the 13 year old is prosecuted and he pays the price if he's guilty.

Incidentally, I would probably have acted in the same way as Mr Miah, and gone after them, without the lary physical stuff unless it was necessary.I think most of us would have gone after them, this is what I meant by the present law not appreciating emotive responses, what will Mr miah do if it happens again?.. it's a joke!

If he only gets a fine, perhaps the sensible people would chip in a quid each, just to let him know we are all have sympathy for him.

Originally Posted by DragonofAna
As is common with you, you misread and misinterpret what is put and stick your own meaning on for the sake of trying to appear more clever than you actually are.

I'll resist the temptation to respond by saying whenever anyone challenges your view you resort to attacking the personalities of posters ;)
At least someone else has now caught on to you, if someone said "good morning" you'd find some way of misconstruing or misquoting it with the usual "So what you are really saying is......."

Danot, I'm not suggesting that at all because I'd be the first one down the cellar steps with a big heavy flashlight that in no way resembles a legal baton.

What I'm saying is that sometimes crap happens and we get caught up in it with even crapper consequences. That's not a justification of ignoring the rule of law. It is an incentive for improving the law though.

Where I do draw the line is at criminalising victims. Sadly this current government seems to be doing all in its power to bring that about - hence my dispepsitity.When the rule of the law doesn't serve or protect us, why not ignore it.. what difference would it make?

I know even before I post this Im going to get knee jerk replies but lets get things into perspective re the apprehension of these hardened criminals..the only person charged is a 13 y o boy, now where I come from hes a kid nothing more.In lundwood it 23 before they start school.:hihi:

No it doesn't. Yes it does, accepting a caution is conditional on an admission from the cautionee.


It assumes some complicity. As I have said - he could have been absolutely innocent of anything other than grabbing the lads arm, but have been advised that to make things easier he should accept a caution which he accepted. That does not make him guilty of anything other than someone wanting an easier life. If you accept a caution no ones interested in your reasons for doing so, they will see it as an admission of guilt. Mr Miah may well have accepted the caution for an easy life, however the blot on his copybook is a caution for an assault on a minor, assuming it was the 13 year old he assaulted.

So tell me-do you think any application he might make in the future to work with children should take no account of this caution? That's the point Ive been trying to make, whether he assaulted them or not, he put himself in a difficult position to deny it subsequently.


Obviously you have lived a very sheltered life then. Or maybe lived a life.

Sometimes it is easier to just accept and get on with it rather than go through courts. Having court action hanging over your head has much more implication than just financial loss. It places a great deal of strain on relationships and a person's mental health. Strain that is not there when a person accepts a caution and has done with the whole affair. Thanks for the lecture, Im aware of how the courts sytem works and why defendants might behave in certain ways.

I also understand the reasons why people might accept cautions, invariably after legal advice they dont accept them, unless there exists evidence that could implicate them. Accepting a caution is a serious issue with an assault allegation, and someone who accepts one just for an easy life might find it makes their life a lot less easy than they anticipated.

At least someone else has now caught on to you, if someone said "good morning" you'd find some way of misconstruing or misquoting it with the usual "So what you are really saying is......."

Oh hello again Dragonof Ana, oops I mean Harvest Moon, I have to say your 'attention' is becoming a bit creepy.

Ps: Whether the claim is true or not, why are you unable to simply state your case, so we can discuss it?

All your bleating tells me is that you're intimidated by an argument you can't answer coherently.

LOL, yes of course you were ;)
The burglar might make an assault claim, but he's entitled to, so could the woman I bumped into in Cole Brothers this morning, but nowt would come of it.


Did you bump into her from in front or from behind? Did she see it coming?

If the answers are 'behind' and 'No' you didn't assault her, so you couldn't be charged with assault.

I think most of us would have gone after them, this is what I meant by the present law not appreciating emotive responses, what will Mr miah do if it happens again?.. it's a joke!

Hopefully he'll go after the youths, and use force appropriate to the requirement to restrain them.

Did you bump into her from in front or from behind? Did she see it coming?

If the answers are 'behind' and 'No' you didn't assault her, so you couldn't be charged with assault.

..cant remember Rupert, I was stealing her purse at the time ;)

I know even before I post this Im going to get knee jerk replies but lets get things into perspective re the apprehension of these hardened criminals..the only person charged is a 13 y o boy, now where I come from hes a kid nothing more.

So do you think he should be released without charge or being prosecuted?

Oh no you shouldn't, you should use the boyfriday code of conduct and call 'Time Out' whiilst you troll through a load of law books; and naturaly the criminal will heed your request and stand around waiting for a few months whilst you take your law degree.


;) I know he means well.

Hopefully he'll go after the youths, and use force appropriate to the requirement to restrain them.Gets out law handbook whilst holding alleged (for boyfriday) criminal with one hand and discovers that as it's after 2100 hrs and there's an 'R' in the month compounded by the fact that it's a 'leap year' he has to let brat go.

Were you stealing the purse, or were you stealing the contents of the purse?

Was the purse empty?

Can you steal from an empty purse?

(that brings back memories ....)

I know even before I post this Im going to get knee jerk replies but lets get things into perspective re the apprehension of these hardened criminals..the only person charged is a 13 y o boy, now where I come from hes a kid nothing more.


Is that what you'd say to your neighbours if he was your lad?

When the rule of the law doesn't serve or protect us, why not ignore it.. what difference would it make?

I know you don't believe that as you've written it because if you did you'd need a massive reality check. :)

Were you stealing the purse, or were you stealing the contents of the purse?

Was the purse empty?

Can you steal from an empty purse?

(that brings back memories ....)

I think the purse had recently been purchased from the Dolce & Gabbani counter, so in fact was of more interest than the contents might have been, I particularly liked the leopard skin design, so would have been reluctant to fence something that so closely resembled other items from the 'smalls' drawer in my wardrobe.

I choose which laws i wanna break and I am happy to "do the time" if i get caught

Oh no you shouldn't, you should use the boyfriday code of conduct and call 'Time Out' whiilst you troll through a load of law books; and naturaly the criminal will heed your request and stand around waiting for a few months whilst you take your law degree.

Did I say that?

Im surprised, my constant bedtime companion, the infamous Billy Baseballbat has a delinquent mind all of his own where univited guests full of malcontent are concerned ;)

I choose which laws i wanna break and I am happy to "do the time" if i get caught

..some clarity, I agree. I'm of the same view, and acknowledge that a disproportional response isn't right and shouldn't be celebrated, but if someone gets a bonus whack who's in my house, then I'll put my hands up to it and not go bawling to the newspapers!

I choose which laws i wanna break and I am happy to "do the time" if i get caught

That's your choice and that's cool, but don't be surprised to learn that you are a criminal and will be treated as one.

Hopefully he'll go after the youths, and use force appropriate to the requirement to restrain them.

Not that easy BF. If my 14 year old son was kicking off in the street for some reason and I had to restrain him to take him home, i'd no doubt struggle if he was resisting me. So expecting Mr Miah to restrain two 13 year olds without using a firm hand sounds a big ask to me.

Not that easy BF. If my 14 year old son was kicking off in the street for some reason and I had to restrain him to take him home, i'd no doubt struggle if he was resisting me. So expecting Mr Miah to restrain two 13 year olds without using a firm hand sounds a big ask to me.

..I agree, but this is what we dont know from the DM article-the level of force that he used.

If he was grappling with two youths then that isn't a problem, but if he decided to administer a couple of punishment beatings then he would have been charged for it, quite rightly.

I understand the difficulties in what he was trying to achieve, but I think the examples from the CPS website on the other thread show that the they are very reluctant to prosecute people who are protecting their property.

Personally, I believe there's much more to this story, as most would have symnpathy for Mr Miah as the story has been set out.

I know you don't believe that as you've written it because if you did you'd need a massive reality check. :)Why would I?. The law obviously failed Mr Miah.. so he may as well have delt with the matter himself in the park.

He may well deal with it in the park. That's his choice and that's cool. Like you he'd not be surprised if he were to be treated as the criminal he would then be.

He may well deal with it in the park. That's his choice and that's cool. Like you he'd not be surprised if he were to be treated as the criminal he would then be.

What do you mean like me?

That's your choice and that's cool, but don't be surprised to learn that you are a criminal and will be treated as one.

I'm not ... I break the law and i am a criminal, but not a vicious one

(i mean things like speeding etc)

So do you think he should be released without charge or being prosecuted?
If he has broke the law then obviously he has to take whats coming to him I have no trouble with that situation,I merely commented on what I perceive to be heavy handedness by the man.I wonder if he would have been as quick to deal out the fist if it had been a man he were taking on,Im guessing not

If he has broke the law then obviously he has to take whats coming to him I have no trouble with that situation,I merely commented on what I perceive to be heavy handedness by the man.I wonder if he would have been as quick to deal out the fist if it had been a man he were taking on,Im guessing notWho says he did deal out the fist?

If he has broke the law then obviously he has to take whats coming to him I have no trouble with that situation,I merely commented on what I perceive to be heavy handedness by the man.I wonder if he would have been as quick to deal out the fist if it had been a man he were taking on,Im guessing not

In fairness we dont know how heavy handed he was with his fist, or whether the assault involved his fist at all.

To be honest I'm not especially concerned what he did do (that's his choice) but my point was that we can't have a situation where he is allowed to get heavy with them.

While you and I might say "so what?" that's not a sustainable position for the law. It follows that the police have to uphold the law which is exactly what seems to have happened from the little we have learned.

On a separate note I'd hazard a guess that the police knew exactly who the kids were if they are breaking and entering at 13. They won't be on the streets for long, but in order for them to be locked up and / or hopefully rehabilitated the fuzz have to follow the law of the land not of the street.

On another note I am dispepsic that his personal DNA / fingerprint data has been retained from a mere caution.

A caution sounds as though it is just that, but it is more than that it can affect your life. A programme on TV a while back was talking to people who had accepted cautions for silly things like drinking then found they could not get jobs they had applied for, one of them being a nurse. I think a caution stays on your file for life and if you apply for a job that requires a CRB check the prospective employer will know about it.

The boy has been arrested for burglary with intent, which is the crime he was apprehended for committing and for which he may well face prosecution, I dont think anyone is making an issue of his age or that he should be treated favourably.

Mr Miah accepted that he assaulted someone by accepting the police caution, frankly Im not sure what the issue is.

Stop talking from your arris.

Stop talking from your arris.

It's a little more plausible than talking out of your arse.

It's a little more plausible than talking out of your arse.

Unless you're wearing a leopard-skin thong! :hihi:

Unless you're wearing a leopard-skin thong! :hihi:

..dear girl, it's the front end that does the talking when I've got that on! :banana:

..dear girl, it's the front end that does the talking when I've got that on! :banana:

Even though it does speak very very quietly :hihi:

Even though it does speak very very quietly :hihi:

..it barely raises a murmur at my time of life, but looks like a gob****e ;)

Where am I going with this? :blush:

In fairness we dont know how heavy handed he was with his fist. 41b 2ozs or thereabouts.

A caution sounds as though it is just that, but it is more than that it can affect your life. A programme on TV a while back was talking to people who had accepted cautions for silly things like drinking then found they could not get jobs they had applied for, one of them being a nurse. I think a caution stays on your file for life and if you apply for a job that requires a CRB check the prospective employer will know about it.I've heard that as well. It's a lot more than a warning, which people think it is. The 'spent' rule doesn't apply to cautions, they always have to be declared and stay on your record for life. Ask most people and they don't seem to realise what they're doing in agreeing to accept it. I think the police don't tell people what they're doing in accepting a caution. In the end, it's in the police's interest, less work for them than having to go to court etc.

Who says he did deal out the fist?
Dont be so naive why the hell do you think he accepted a caution.

Dont be so naive why the hell do you think he accepted a caution.

He'd never had dealings with the police, maybe he wasn't aware of the implications of accepting the caution. I can say with all honesty that I didn't realise that it's there forever if you accept it.

He'd never had dealings with the police, maybe he wasn't aware of the implications of accepting the caution. I can say with all honesty that I didn't realise that it's there forever if you accept it.

Me neither. Damn! That sort of makes a mess of my clean record. :rant:

Reading the article again, it appears Mr Miah was cautioned for the incident involving the youths outside his restaurant, not whilst apprehending the potential burglars

Fearing for the safety of his customers, Mr Miah locked the door to prevent the 'intimidating' youths getting in, he said.
He also went outside to stop them from breaking his windows and pushed several of them away.
But when the police arrived the youths accused Mr Miah of punching them and he was arrested

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1257496/Curry-house-owner-foils-burglary--HES-thrown-cell-yobs-complain.html#ixzz0jSUSPkSu

The other interesting point, is that an assault charge can't be dealt with by way of a caution, so there's more to this than meets the eye

There are no rigid rules about the particular situations in which cautions should be used – this is at the discretion of senior police officers.

The only exceptions are more serious crimes like robbery or assault, which must always be referred to the Crown Prosecution Service.

http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/police/powers/cautioning/index.html

Reading the article again, it appears Mr Miah was cautioned for the incident involving the youths outside his restaurant, not whilst apprehending the potential burglars

Fearing for the safety of his customers, Mr Miah locked the door to prevent the 'intimidating' youths getting in, he said.
He also went outside to stop them from breaking his windows and pushed several of them away.
But when the police arrived the youths accused Mr Miah of punching them and he was arrested

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1257496/Curry-house-owner-foils-burglary--HES-thrown-cell-yobs-complain.html#ixzz0jSUSPkSu

The other interesting point, is that an assault charge can't be dealt with by way of a caution, so there's more to this than meets the eye

There are no rigid rules about the particular situations in which cautions should be used – this is at the discretion of senior police officers.

The only exceptions are more serious crimes like robbery or assault, which must always be referred to the Crown Prosecution Service.

http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/police/powers/cautioning/index.htmlThere's definately more to it, Mr Miah claimed that the police neglected to take statements from the customers that were inside the restaurant at the time.

It does not always work by the book though boyfriday. What is written is not always what is followed to the letter.

The police have words with the lads and tell them they will get a much better deal if they drop the assault charge. They then tell the accused that if he accepts a caution he will not have to go to court to face charges. Both accept and that's the end of it.

Not saying that is what happened in this case. I am saying this happens.

It does not always work by the book though boyfriday. What is written is not always what is followed to the letter.

The police have words with the lads and tell them they will get a much better deal if they drop the assault charge. They then tell the accused that if he accepts a caution he will not have to go to court to face charges. Both accept and that's the end of it.

Not saying that is what happened in this case. I am saying this happens.

I dont disagree DragonofAna, but whatever happened the 'offence' that Mr Miah admitted and received a caution for wasn't assault, because assaults can't be dealt with that way.

My main point is that the 'burglars' and the 'intimidating youths' were two different sets of people and the behaviour that appears to have landed him in trouble wasn't apprehending the burglars, but how he dealt with the yobs outside his restaurant.

I dont disagree DragonofAna, but whatever happened the 'offence' that Mr Miah admitted and received a caution for wasn't assault, because assaults can't be dealt with that way.

My main point is that the 'burglars' and the 'intimidating youths' were two different sets of people and the behaviour that appears to have landed him in trouble wasn't apprehending the burglars, but how he dealt with the yobs outside his restaurant.Which would make Mr Miah's frustrations understandable when he claims that the witnesses in the restaurant at the time were not questioned.

Which would make Mr Miah's frustrations understandable when he claims that the witnesses in the restaurant at the time were not questioned.

I think we have to be circumspect about Mr Miah's account or at how it's been reported. We're only hearing his side of the story. An allegation of assault is serious, and if it had happened as Mr Miah claims, the police had captive witnesses (the customers) who would have offered evidence, probably in his favour if what he says is true. They might also have substantiated his claim of intimidating behaviour by the youths outside his shop, but there's no mention of that either from a charging point of view.

I'm guessing, but to me it sounds like Mr Miah has caused a breach of the peace after the police have arrived and has not responded to warnings to behave, hence no need for witness statements as the police have witnessed it.

The article says the caution would expire after 5 years, but cautions stay on file indefinately, bind overs for breaching the peace are given for a specific period of time.

I think we have to be circumspect about Mr Miah's account or at how it's been reported. We're only hearing his side of the story. An allegation of assault is serious, and if it had happened as Mr Miah claims, the police had captive witnesses (the customers) who would have offered evidence, probably in his favour if what he says is true. They might also have substantiated his claim of intimidating behaviour by the youths outside his shop, but there's no mention of that either from a charging point of view.

I'm guessing, but to me it sounds like Mr Miah has caused a breach of the peace after the police have arrived and has not responded to warnings to behave, hence no need for witness statements as the police have witnessed it.

The article says the caution would expire after 5 years, but cautions stay on file indefinately, bind overs for breaching the peace are given for a specific period of time.In the article, Mr Miah admits to phsycally pushing some of the youths away when they gathered outside the restaurant to support their two friends that were being detained inside. So I can't see why Mr Miah would deny assault if the police witnessed it.

If a caution is given does that mean that the "crime" is not classed as one so the the figures are kept down?

In the article, Mr Miah admits to phsycally pushing some of the youths away when they gathered outside the restaurant to support their two friends that were being detained inside. So I can't see why Mr Miah would deny assault if the police witnessed it.

I dont believe he was ever arrested for assault. A caution can't be used in those circumstances. I think the police witnessed a breach of the peace on his part, which may have been understandable but the police use effectively to calm volatile situations.

If a caution is given does that mean that the "crime" is not classed as one so the the figures are kept down?

That's right iansheff, it's not recorded as a conviction, but there may be good reasons to issue them other than keeping the figures down.

I dont believe he was ever arrested for assault. A caution can't be used in those circumstances. I think the police witnessed a breach of the peace on his part, which may have been understandable but the police use effectively to calm volatile situations.

It may say that in the book of the law - that you cannot be cautioned if the charge is assault, but it happens - FACT.

I dont believe he was ever arrested for assault. A caution can't be used in those circumstances. I think the police witnessed a breach of the peace on his part, which may have been understandable but the police use effectively to calm volatile situations.
Of course he wasnt cautioned for assault or he would have been charged ,thats probably the reason he accepted the caution..he went to far,The police have probably helped him avoid a stiffer sentence and he repays them by moaning

Of course he wasnt cautioned for assault or he would have been charged ,thats probably the reason he accepted the caution..he went to far,The police have probably helped him avoid a stiffer sentence and he repays them by moaningWho's to say he went too far?.. who's to say the police didn't over react?, they have been known to.

It may say that in the book of the law - that you cannot be cautioned if the charge is assault, but it happens - FACT.

If it says it in the 'book of law' then the procedure has to be followed or the caution is meanginless-'the book' is obsessed with procedure.

Cautions are only intended to deal with minor offences ie those that are triable only summarily at a magistrates court. Assault is an either way offence and can be dealt with either in a magistrates court or Crown Court if the offence exceeds a magistrates sentencing powers.

There's a set procedure for issuing a caution, including the signing by the cautionee of a document which outlines the offence and his admission of his guilt. If he says he's assaulted someone and he admits it then the case should go to court.

Of course he wasnt cautioned for assault or he would have been charged ,thats probably the reason he accepted the caution..he went to far,The police have probably helped him avoid a stiffer sentence and he repays them by moaning

...but what has he been cautioned for?

Boyfriday - not sure why you are having such a hard time with this. I will try to put it simply and through experiences I have had -

"You are under arrest charged with assault ..." police officer states, and then goes on to tell you your rights.
You are taken to police station and statements taken.
Time passes.
More time passes.
"We have spoken to the other person involved and they have accepted a caution. If you are willing to do likewise then that will be an end of the matter."
Signed for.
End of.

Boyfriday - not sure why you are having such a hard time with this. I will try to put it simply and through experiences I have had -

"You are under arrest charged with assault ..." police officer states, and then goes on to tell you your rights.
You are taken to police station and statements taken.
Time passes.
More time passes.
"We have spoken to the other person involved and they have accepted a caution. If you are willing to do likewise then that will be an end of the matter."
Signed for.
End of.

That would almost certainly be some sort of breach of the peace they have been cautioned for. The caution does not have to be given for the same offence they were arrested for.

That would almost certainly be some sort of breach of the peace they have been cautioned for. The caution does not have to be given for the same offence they were arrested for.

The point is that the assault charge is still dropped.

This could have been similar to the case in question is all I am saying.

Accept a caution and we will reduce the original charge.

The point is that the assault charge is still dropped.

This could have been similar to the case in question is all I am saying.

Accept a caution and we will reduce the original charge.
The point is that if someone had used more gorm in the first place we wouldn't be discussing it now.

Boyfriday - not sure why you are having such a hard time with this. I will try to put it simply and through experiences I have had -

"You are under arrest charged with assault ..." police officer states, and then goes on to tell you your rights.
You are taken to police station and statements taken.
Time passes.
More time passes.
"We have spoken to the other person involved and they have accepted a caution. If you are willing to do likewise then that will be an end of the matter."
Signed for.
End of.

I'm not having a 'hard time' with anything.

I'm not really interested in your experiences, I'm interested in the statements made in the article and whether it's a truthful account of what actually happened.

It says he was arrested for assault & battery and accepted a caution.

The focus of the tale is that a normarily law abiding citizen has been accused of assaulting a burglar whilst protecting his property and his customers. It's a very sensational subject matter and the article has been designed to arouse the anger of Joe Public.

First of all the police dont issue cautions for assault, and where they do issue cautions it requires the admission from the cautionee of an offence-we're not told what that offence is. The article would like us to believe that it's related to the 'assault' to maintain the indignation of Joe Public.

However it appears that when the police arrived they took no statements from the restaurant customers, yet a serious allegation had been made.

Frankly I believe as often happens in these situations, the outraged 'victim' makes a great deal of what's happened to him and when asked to calm down by the attending police officers maintains challenging behaviour. He's warned, arrested and taken from the scene and subsequentley bound of over to keep the peace for a given period of time.

Cautions dont expire, which also makes me think he's been bound over, rather than cautioned as the article mentions a caution for 5 years. But of course reporting on a bind over wouldn't create so many headlines as it would indicate some shortcomings in Mr Miah's behaviour which was witnessed by the police officers.

Oh no, I believe they were going to burgle his premises and nick as much beer as they possibly could, I hope the charge that has been laid at the 13 year old is prosecuted and he pays the price if he's guilty.

Incidentally, I would probably have acted in the same way as Mr Miah, and gone after them, without the lary physical stuff unless it was necessary.

What do you think the price will be?

Do you think he's guilty? from what you have read.

What do you think the price will be?

Do you think he's guilty? from what you have read.

I dont know if Im honest Bruno.