[danot]

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/arti...-complain.html

[NorthernStar]

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.

[boyfriday]

Originally Posted by NorthernStar

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/arti...#ixzz0jNoEeNoA

[danot]

Originally Posted by boyfriday

..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/arti...#ixzz0jNoEeNoA

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

[Fareast]

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 !

[boyfriday]

Originally Posted by danot

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.

[danot]

Originally Posted by Fareast

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.

[boyfriday]

Originally Posted by Fareast

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.

[scoobydotcom]

Originally Posted by boyfriday

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!

[boyfriday]

Originally Posted by danot

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.

..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.

[danot]

Originally Posted by boyfriday

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.

[boyfriday]

Originally Posted by scoobydotcom

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?

Originally Posted by scoobydotcom

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.

[boyfriday]

Originally Posted by danot

Read this aswell.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/ukne...ping-yobs.html

..it's a dead link.

[Grandad.Malky]

Originally Posted by boyfriday

..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."

[Tony]

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.

[boyfriday]

Originally Posted by Malky

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.

[Grandad.Malky]

Originally Posted by boyfriday

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

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

[danot]

Originally Posted by boyfriday

..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.

[scoobydotcom]

Originally Posted by boyfriday

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

[boyfriday]

Originally Posted by Tony

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.