Following recent discussions as to whether "no comment" is a good idea
(which normally I would very much agree with) I was interested to read
this today:
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2025/apr/11/uk-woman-says-she-was-arrested-after-confiscating-her-daughters-ipads
This rather bizarre tale of atypical police urgency strikes me as a case where explaining that no crime has taken place is probably a more useful response.
On 2025-04-12, PJK <pjkvck@outlook.com> wrote:
Following recent discussions as to whether "no comment" is a good idea
(which normally I would very much agree with) I was interested to read
this today:
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2025/apr/11/uk-woman-says-she-was-arrested-after-confiscating-her-daughters-ipads
This rather bizarre tale of atypical police urgency strikes me as a case
where explaining that no crime has taken place is probably a more useful
response.
Actually I think it's a good example of the exact opposite. According to
the article, the iPads did not belong to the woman who took them, they belonged to her children. If she said that to the police, believing this would exonerate her, it could be taken as a confession.*
* I don't know whether confiscating the property of your children is
legal, and I bet you she doesn't either.
On 2025-04-12, PJK <pjkvck@outlook.com> wrote:
Following recent discussions as to whether "no comment" is a good idea
(which normally I would very much agree with) I was interested to read
this today:
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2025/apr/11/uk-woman-says-she-was-arrested-after-confiscating-her-daughters-ipads
This rather bizarre tale of atypical police urgency strikes me as a case
where explaining that no crime has taken place is probably a more useful
response.
Actually I think it's a good example of the exact opposite. According to
the article, the iPads did not belong to the woman who took them, they belonged to her children. If she said that to the police, believing this would exonerate her, it could be taken as a confession.*
* I don't know whether confiscating the property of your children is
legal, and I bet you she doesn't either.
On 12/04/2025 15:37, Jon Ribbens wrote:
On 2025-04-12, PJK <pjkvck@outlook.com> wrote:
Following recent discussions as to whether "no comment" is a good idea
(which normally I would very much agree with) I was interested to read
this today:
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2025/apr/11/uk-woman-says-she-was-arrested-after-confiscating-her-daughters-ipads
This rather bizarre tale of atypical police urgency strikes me as a case >>> where explaining that no crime has taken place is probably a more useful >>> response.
"a 50-year-old woman from Cobham was questioned about the iPads and denied any knowledge of their whereabouts."
Actually I think it's a good example of the exact opposite. According to“Following these enquiries, officers were able to verify that the iPads belonged to the woman’s children, and that she was entitled to confiscate these items from her own children. "
the article, the iPads did not belong to the woman who took them, they
belonged to her children. If she said that to the police, believing this
would exonerate her, it could be taken as a confession.*
* I don't know whether confiscating the property of your children is
legal, and I bet you she doesn't either.
(Presumably even if they were bought by someone else, who was able to
track their location).
“Following these enquiries, officers were able to verify that the
iPads belonged to the woman’s children, and that she was entitled to confiscate these items from her own children. "
(Presumably even if they were bought by someone else, who was able
to
track their location).
Nick Finnigan" <nix@genie.co.uk> wrote:
Jon Ribbens wrote:
PJK <pjkvck@outlook.com> wrote:
Following recent discussions as to whether "no comment" is a good idea >>>> (which normally I would very much agree with) I was interested to read >>>> this today:
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2025/apr/11/uk-woman-says-she-was-arrested-after-confiscating-her-daughters-ipads
This rather bizarre tale of atypical police urgency strikes me as a case >>>> where explaining that no crime has taken place is probably a more useful >>>> response.
"a 50-year-old woman from Cobham was questioned about the iPads and denied >> any knowledge of their whereabouts."
Actually I think it's a good example of the exact opposite. According to >>> the article, the iPads did not belong to the woman who took them, they
belonged to her children. If she said that to the police, believing this >>> would exonerate her, it could be taken as a confession.*
* I don't know whether confiscating the property of your children is
legal, and I bet you she doesn't either.
“Following these enquiries, officers were able to verify that the iPads
belonged to the woman’s children, and that she was entitled to confiscate >> these items from her own children. "
(Presumably even if they were bought by someone else, who was able to
track their location).
It is odd that the police should so assiduously pursue a family dispute about the possession of ipads. They largely don't even attend burglaries nowadays. Should we wonder whether the complainant was also a police officer, or belonged to the same masonic lodge as one?
On 12/04/2025 11:23, Roger Hayter wrote:
Nick Finnigan" <nix@genie.co.uk> wrote:
Jon Ribbens wrote:
PJK <pjkvck@outlook.com> wrote:
Following recent discussions as to whether "no comment" is a good idea >>>>> (which normally I would very much agree with) I was interested to read >>>>> this today:
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2025/apr/11/uk-woman-says-she-was-arrested-after-confiscating-her-daughters-ipads
This rather bizarre tale of atypical police urgency strikes me as a case >>>>> where explaining that no crime has taken place is probably a more useful >>>>> response.
"a 50-year-old woman from Cobham was questioned about the iPads and denied >>> any knowledge of their whereabouts."
Actually I think it's a good example of the exact opposite. According to >>>> the article, the iPads did not belong to the woman who took them, they >>>> belonged to her children. If she said that to the police, believing this >>>> would exonerate her, it could be taken as a confession.*
* I don't know whether confiscating the property of your children is
legal, and I bet you she doesn't either.
“Following these enquiries, officers were able to verify that the iPads >>> belonged to the woman’s children, and that she was entitled to confiscate >>> these items from her own children. "
(Presumably even if they were bought by someone else, who was able to >>> track their location).
It is odd that the police should so assiduously pursue a family dispute about
the possession of ipads. They largely don't even attend burglaries nowadays. >> Should we wonder whether the complainant was also a police officer, or
belonged to the same masonic lodge as one?
A *child* a police officer or Masonic lodge member?
A *child* a police officer or Masonic lodge member?
On 12/04/2025 09:37, Jon Ribbens wrote:
On 2025-04-12, PJK <pjkvck@outlook.com> wrote:
Following recent discussions as to whether "no comment" is a good idea
(which normally I would very much agree with) I was interested to read
this today:
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2025/apr/11/uk-woman-says-she-was-arrested-after-confiscating-her-daughters-ipads
This rather bizarre tale of atypical police urgency strikes me as a case >>> where explaining that no crime has taken place is probably a more useful >>> response.
Actually I think it's a good example of the exact opposite. According to
the article, the iPads did not belong to the woman who took them, they
belonged to her children. If she said that to the police, believing this
would exonerate her, it could be taken as a confession.*
* I don't know whether confiscating the property of your children is
legal, and I bet you she doesn't either.
Of course it isn't. For a start, it doesn't pass the "dishonest appropriation" test.
And in those cases where there is an intention to permanently deprive,
there would be valid defences available (eg, undesirability of
possession of dangerous articles, weapons, etc)..
I suppose these considerations might lose their potency for children
aged 18 and over.
Following recent discussions as to whether "no comment" is a good idea
(which normally I would very much agree with) I was interested to read
this today:
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2025/apr/11/uk-woman-says-she-was-arrested-after-confiscating-her-daughters-ipads
This rather bizarre tale of atypical police urgency strikes me as a case where explaining that no crime has taken place is probably a more useful response.
Peter
On 12/04/2025 15:37, Jon Ribbens wrote:
On 2025-04-12, PJK <pjkvck@outlook.com> wrote:
Following recent discussions as to whether "no comment" is a good idea
(which normally I would very much agree with) I was interested to read
this today:
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2025/apr/11/uk-woman-says-she-was-arrested-after-confiscating-her-daughters-ipads
This rather bizarre tale of atypical police urgency strikes me as a case >>> where explaining that no crime has taken place is probably a more useful >>> response.
"a 50-year-old woman from Cobham was questioned about the iPads and denied any knowledge of their whereabouts."
Actually I think it's a good example of the exact opposite. According to
the article, the iPads did not belong to the woman who took them, they
belonged to her children. If she said that to the police, believing this
would exonerate her, it could be taken as a confession.*
* I don't know whether confiscating the property of your children is
legal, and I bet you she doesn't either.
“Following these enquiries, officers were able to verify that the iPads belonged to the woman’s children, and that she was entitled to confiscate these items from her own children. "
(Presumably even if they were bought by someone else, who was able to
track their location).
On 2025-04-12, Nick Finnigan <nix@genie.co.uk> wrote:
On 12/04/2025 15:37, Jon Ribbens wrote:
* I don't know whether confiscating the property of your children is
legal, and I bet you she doesn't either.
“Following these enquiries, officers were able to verify that the iPads
belonged to the woman’s children, and that she was entitled to confiscate >> these items from her own children. "
I'm not sure what your point is?
On 12 Apr 2025 at 11:19:39 BST, "PJK" <pjkvck@outlook.com> wrote:
Following recent discussions as to whether "no comment" is a good idea
(which normally I would very much agree with) I was interested to read
this today:
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2025/apr/11/uk-woman-says-she-was-arrested-after-confiscating-her-daughters-ipads
This rather bizarre tale of atypical police urgency strikes me as a case
where explaining that no crime has taken place is probably a more useful
response.
Peter
Reflecting on this, it seems likely to be another example, as in the "Quaker" thread, of the police using the process of arrest and incarceration as an informal punishment or intimidation when they have close to zero expectation of making any charge. This is actually unlawful.
Following recent discussions as to whether "no comment" is a good idea (which normally
I would very much agree with) I was interested to read this today:
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2025/apr/11/uk-woman-says-she-was-arrested-after-confiscating-her-daughters-ipads
This rather bizarre tale of atypical police urgency strikes me as a case where
explaining that no crime has taken place is probably a more useful response.
Peter
On 4/12/25 18:32, Roger Hayter wrote:
[quoted text muted]
It reads to me more as if the police went to the property to ask about
the iPads, and she lied (denied all knowledge of their whereabouts).
Which made the police suspicious. The police, not quite knowing what was going on, reasonably asked her to return the iPads.
JNugent <jnugent73@mail.com> wrote in
news:m5vk6rF879tU2@mid.individual.net:
A *child* a police officer or Masonic lodge member?
"Surrey police said a search for the devices began after a man in his 40s reported the theft of two iPads to officers who attended an address in Cobham, following a report of a “concern for safety”."
Possibly an estranged former partner/husband and father of the children?
It does smell of a favour called in.
On 12/04/2025 18:48, Jon Ribbens wrote:
On 2025-04-12, Nick Finnigan <nix@genie.co.uk> wrote:
On 12/04/2025 15:37, Jon Ribbens wrote:
* I don't know whether confiscating the property of your children is
legal, and I bet you she doesn't either.
“Following these enquiries, officers were able to verify that the iPads >>> belonged to the woman’s children, and that she was entitled to confiscate >>> these items from her own children. "
I'm not sure what your point is?
That the police in this case stated that confiscating the property of her own children was legal (without reference her also being a teacher).
"PJK" <pjkvck@outlook.com> wrote in message news:m5ut1rF4i9nU1@mid.individual.net...
Following recent discussions as to whether "no comment" is a good idea (which normally
I would very much agree with) I was interested to read this today:
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2025/apr/11/uk-woman-says-she-was-arrested-after-confiscating-her-daughters-ipads
This rather bizarre tale of atypical police urgency strikes me as a case where
explaining that no crime has taken place is probably a more useful response.
While here's one they made earlier....
quote:
A police force is carrying out a "rapid and thorough review" after a couple were arrested over complaints they made about their daughter's primary school, which included comments on WhatsApp.
Maxie Allen and his partner Rosalind Levine, from Borehamwood, told The Times they were held for 11 hours on suspicion of harassment, malicious communications,
and causing a nuisance on school property
[...]
Mr Allen, a Times Radio producer, said six police officers* turned up at his home
on January 29 this year.
unquote
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c9dj1zlvxglo
On 13/04/2025 09:38, billy bookcase wrote:
While here's one they made earlier....
quote:
A police force is carrying out a "rapid and thorough review" after a
couple were arrested over complaints they made about their daughter's
primary school, which included comments on WhatsApp.
Maxie Allen and his partner Rosalind Levine, from Borehamwood, told
The Times they were held for 11 hours on suspicion of harassment,
malicious communications, and causing a nuisance on school property
[...]
Mr Allen, a Times Radio producer, said six police officers* turned up
at his home on January 29 this year.
unquote
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c9dj1zlvxglo
I suspect that the couple were rude, working class people.
On 2025-04-12, Pancho <Pancho.Jones@protonmail.com> wrote:
On 4/12/25 18:32, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 12 Apr 2025 at 11:19:39 BST, "PJK" <pjkvck@outlook.com> wrote:
Following recent discussions as to whether "no comment" is a good idea >>>> (which normally I would very much agree with) I was interested to read >>>> this today:
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2025/apr/11/uk-woman-says-she-was-arrested-after-confiscating-her-daughters-ipads
This rather bizarre tale of atypical police urgency strikes me as a case >>>> where explaining that no crime has taken place is probably a more useful >>>> response.
Peter
Reflecting on this, it seems likely to be another example, as in the
"Quaker" thread, of the police using the process of arrest and
incarceration as an informal punishment or intimidation when they
have close to zero expectation of making any charge. This is actually
unlawful.
It reads to me more as if the police went to the property to ask about
the iPads, and she lied (denied all knowledge of their whereabouts).
Which made the police suspicious. The police, not quite knowing what was
going on, reasonably asked her to return the iPads. She refused, so they
arrested her.
Presumably the iPads were a present from Dad, and Mum didn't like it.
The reasonable thing would be for her to return them to Dad. I won't say
the police action was optimal, but it doesn't seem terrible.
You've made all of that up though - none of it is evidenced by the
available reporting.
It does seem more likely, as suggested by others,
that the person who filed the report was the father and he has some
sort of police connection which enabled him to wield them as a weapon.
Either that or the report alleged much more than just missing iPads.
Or conceivably the reporting is missing something major that the mother
did when the police arrived.
I don't think it is anything like the Quaker thread. The police
sometimes have to take control of a situation whilst they check their
facts. Taking control of the disputed iPads seems to be a minimalistic
way of doing that. She refused to cooperate.
They didn't just take control of the iPads, they took control of her.
For over seven hours.
On 4/13/25 12:32, Jon Ribbens wrote:
On 2025-04-12, Pancho <Pancho.Jones@protonmail.com> wrote:
On 4/12/25 18:32, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 12 Apr 2025 at 11:19:39 BST, "PJK" <pjkvck@outlook.com> wrote:
Following recent discussions as to whether "no comment" is a good idea >>>>> (which normally I would very much agree with) I was interested to read >>>>> this today:
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2025/apr/11/uk-woman-says-she-was-arrested-after-confiscating-her-daughters-ipads
This rather bizarre tale of atypical police urgency strikes me as a case >>>>> where explaining that no crime has taken place is probably a more useful >>>>> response.
Peter
Reflecting on this, it seems likely to be another example, as in the
"Quaker" thread, of the police using the process of arrest and
incarceration as an informal punishment or intimidation when they
have close to zero expectation of making any charge. This is actually
unlawful.
It reads to me more as if the police went to the property to ask about
the iPads, and she lied (denied all knowledge of their whereabouts).
Which made the police suspicious. The police, not quite knowing what was >>> going on, reasonably asked her to return the iPads. She refused, so they >>> arrested her.
Presumably the iPads were a present from Dad, and Mum didn't like it.
The reasonable thing would be for her to return them to Dad. I won't say >>> the police action was optimal, but it doesn't seem terrible.
You've made all of that up though - none of it is evidenced by the
available reporting.
Yes, a presumption.
It does seem more likely, as suggested by others,
that the person who filed the report was the father and he has some
sort of police connection which enabled him to wield them as a weapon.
Either that or the report alleged much more than just missing iPads.
Or conceivably the reporting is missing something major that the mother
did when the police arrived.
The two versions are not contradictory. The father reported the iPads
stolen, and said look they are in this house. To my mind, that seems
enough for the police to act upon. If I had something stolen, with a
tracker on, I would want the police to follow it up. I would hope this
would happen even if I didn't know the appropriate handshake.
On Sat, 12 Apr 2025 22:22:21 +0100, Pancho wrote:
On 4/12/25 18:32, Roger Hayter wrote:
[quoted text muted]
It reads to me more as if the police went to the property to ask about
the iPads, and she lied (denied all knowledge of their whereabouts).
Which made the police suspicious. The police, not quite knowing what was
going on, reasonably asked her to return the iPads.
So despite "not quite knowing what was going on", the police "asked her
to return the iPads".
If both those statements are true, then no wonder the police don't get
much respect.
It's timely there is a documentary about the killing of Jean Charles de Menezes coming up. A similar case where
despite "not quite knowing what was going on"
the police removed an innocent mans head.
On 4/12/25 18:32, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 12 Apr 2025 at 11:19:39 BST, "PJK" <pjkvck@outlook.com> wrote:
Following recent discussions as to whether "no comment" is a good idea
(which normally I would very much agree with) I was interested to read
this today:
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2025/apr/11/uk-woman-says-she-was-arrested-after-confiscating-her-daughters-ipads
This rather bizarre tale of atypical police urgency strikes me as a case >>> where explaining that no crime has taken place is probably a more useful >>> response.
Peter
Reflecting on this, it seems likely to be another example, as in the
"Quaker" thread, of the police using the process of arrest and
incarceration as an informal punishment or intimidation when they
have close to zero expectation of making any charge. This is actually
unlawful.
It reads to me more as if the police went to the property to ask about
the iPads, and she lied (denied all knowledge of their whereabouts).
Which made the police suspicious. The police, not quite knowing what was going on, reasonably asked her to return the iPads. She refused, so they arrested her.
Presumably the iPads were a present from Dad, and Mum didn't like it.
The reasonable thing would be for her to return them to Dad. I won't say
the police action was optimal, but it doesn't seem terrible.
I don't think it is anything like the Quaker thread. The police
sometimes have to take control of a situation whilst they check their
facts. Taking control of the disputed iPads seems to be a minimalistic
way of doing that. She refused to cooperate.
They arrested her because she wouldn't give them the iPads, whilst they investigated.
Interesting that the reporting doesn't mention that he's a former
governor at the school and also a local councillor.
The point with De Menezes is not that they shot him in the head, but
that it was an utterly stupid thing to do.
On 2025-04-13, Max Demian <max_demian@bigfoot.com> wrote:
On 13/04/2025 09:38, billy bookcase wrote:
While here's one they made earlier....
quote:
A police force is carrying out a "rapid and thorough review" after a
couple were arrested over complaints they made about their daughter's
primary school, which included comments on WhatsApp.
Maxie Allen and his partner Rosalind Levine, from Borehamwood, told
The Times they were held for 11 hours on suspicion of harassment,
malicious communications, and causing a nuisance on school property
[...]
Mr Allen, a Times Radio producer, said six police officers* turned up
at his home on January 29 this year.
unquote
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c9dj1zlvxglo
I suspect that the couple were rude, working class people.
"Times Radio producer" is a working class profession now is it?
And she's a "Story Producer" at ITV. I don't know what that is,
but it doesn't sound very working class.
Interesting that the reporting doesn't mention that he's a former
governor at the school and also a local councillor.
On Sat, 12 Apr 2025 22:22:21 +0100, Pancho wrote:
On 4/12/25 18:32, Roger Hayter wrote:
[quoted text muted]
It reads to me more as if the police went to the property to ask about
the iPads, and she lied (denied all knowledge of their whereabouts).
Which made the police suspicious. The police, not quite knowing what was
going on, reasonably asked her to return the iPads.
So despite "not quite knowing what was going on", the police "asked her
to return the iPads".
If both those statements are true, then no wonder the police don't get
much respect.
It's timely there is a documentary about the killing of Jean Charles de Menezes coming up. A similar case where
despite "not quite knowing what was going on"
the police removed an innocent mans head.
On 2025-04-12, Pancho <Pancho.Jones@protonmail.com> wrote:
On 4/12/25 18:32, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 12 Apr 2025 at 11:19:39 BST, "PJK" <pjkvck@outlook.com> wrote:
Following recent discussions as to whether "no comment" is a good idea >>>> (which normally I would very much agree with) I was interested to read >>>> this today:
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2025/apr/11/uk-woman-says-she-was-arrested-after-confiscating-her-daughters-ipads
This rather bizarre tale of atypical police urgency strikes me as a case >>>> where explaining that no crime has taken place is probably a more useful >>>> response.
Peter
Reflecting on this, it seems likely to be another example, as in the
"Quaker" thread, of the police using the process of arrest and
incarceration as an informal punishment or intimidation when they
have close to zero expectation of making any charge. This is actually
unlawful.
It reads to me more as if the police went to the property to ask about
the iPads, and she lied (denied all knowledge of their whereabouts).
Which made the police suspicious. The police, not quite knowing what was
going on, reasonably asked her to return the iPads. She refused, so they
arrested her.
Presumably the iPads were a present from Dad, and Mum didn't like it.
The reasonable thing would be for her to return them to Dad. I won't say
the police action was optimal, but it doesn't seem terrible.
You've made all of that up though - none of it is evidenced by the
available reporting. It does seem more likely, as suggested by others,
that the person who filed the report was the father and he has some
sort of police connection which enabled him to wield them as a weapon.
Either that or the report alleged much more than just missing iPads.
Or conceivably the reporting is missing something major that the mother
did when the police arrived.
I don't think it is anything like the Quaker thread. The police
sometimes have to take control of a situation whilst they check their
facts. Taking control of the disputed iPads seems to be a minimalistic
way of doing that. She refused to cooperate.
They didn't just take control of the iPads, they took control of her.
For over seven hours.
On Sun, 13 Apr 2025 12:52:19 +0100, Pancho wrote:
The point with De Menezes is not that they shot him in the head, but
that it was an utterly stupid thing to do.
It totally and utterly contradicts their fairy story that he was believed
to be a suicide bomber.
Many years ago - early 90s - I was stopped in a queue whilst police
officers very ostentatiously used mirrors on sticks to "look" underneath
each passing vehicle. I asked the policeman who was holding me about a
cars length from the car in front being "inspected" what would happen to
the queue of traffic if there really was a bomb under the car being
checked.
On Sun, 13 Apr 2025 12:52:19 +0100, Pancho wrote:
The point with De Menezes is not that they shot him in the head, but
that it was an utterly stupid thing to do.
It totally and utterly contradicts their fairy story that he was believed
to be a suicide bomber.
On Sat, 12 Apr 2025 14:37:07 -0000 (UTC), Jon Ribbens
<jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> wrote:
On 2025-04-12, PJK <pjkvck@outlook.com> wrote:
Following recent discussions as to whether "no comment" is a good idea
(which normally I would very much agree with) I was interested to read
this today:
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2025/apr/11/uk-woman-says-she-was-arrested-after-confiscating-her-daughters-ipads
This rather bizarre tale of atypical police urgency strikes me as a case >>> where explaining that no crime has taken place is probably a more useful >>> response.
Actually I think it's a good example of the exact opposite. According to >>the article, the iPads did not belong to the woman who took them, they >>belonged to her children. If she said that to the police, believing this >>would exonerate her, it could be taken as a confession.*
* I don't know whether confiscating the property of your children is
legal, and I bet you she doesn't either.
If I had been in that woman's position, I would rather have run the
risk of being charged with a ridiculously trivial offence rather than
risk giving cause for an extended inquiry into the possible safety of
my children, during which I would be kept in custody.
Reading the things in the report said by the woman and the tone she
used, she comes across as a rather overreactive type of person.
On 2025-04-13, Jethro_uk <jethro_uk@hotmailbin.com> wrote:
On Sun, 13 Apr 2025 12:52:19 +0100, Pancho wrote:
The point with De Menezes is not that they shot him in the head, but
that it was an utterly stupid thing to do.
It totally and utterly contradicts their fairy story that he was
believed to be a suicide bomber.
What? How does it do that?
On 12 Apr 2025 17:32:47 GMT, Roger Hayter <roger@hayter.org> wrote:
Reflecting on this, it seems likely to be another example, as in the "Quaker" >>thread, of the police using the process of arrest and incarceration as an >>informal punishment or intimidation when they have close to zero expectation >>of making any charge. This is actually unlawful.
You and others are treating this as if was all simply about a pair of
iPads when the article clearly states that "Surrey police said a
search for the devices began after a man in his 40s reported the theft
of two iPads to officers who attended an address in Cobham, following
a report of a "concern for safety".
Note that last bit about a *cause for safety* and that the police took
it seriously enough to go to check the children's school, a totally
correct and appropriate response. I can imagine the reaction if the
police had simply ignored the original complaint and the children had
come to serious harm.
Indeed. We also have to bear in mind that we don't have the story from
the person who called the police. There's a whole lot here that we
aren't being told, and that non-public information is likely to be far
more significant than what we do know. Other media reports say that
the person who called the police was her ex-husband. If so, then it's entirely plausible that she's been the victim of a malicious complaint
as part of an ongoing dispute. But the police have no way of knowing
that, at least until after they've throughly investigated.
On the other hand, maybe she wasn't actually an entirely innocent
party. Another media outlet has this to say:
A teacher arrested for confiscating her own children's iPads has
been involved in acrimonious disputes with two different men
and
A previous partner took her to court following a bitter falling out
in which 22 messages were posted on social media about him.
He also claims that his son lost his teaching job because of the
claims that Vanessa had made.
and
Neighbours at an old address in Cobham, Surrey, where Ms Brown moved
out last week told MailOnline she was 'a handful' and they 'avoided
her'.
One said: 'She was here around two years, and the police were here
quite a bit for one thing or another.'
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-14600307/
Now, that's the Daily Mail, so, as always, you may need some salt to
make the report digestible. But it has the ring of truth. The Mail has
enough confidence in the story to splash it as an exclusive. And if it
is accurate, then it does shed a lot of light on the background to the
story.
Mark
On Sun, 13 Apr 2025 15:53:04 +0000, Jon Ribbens wrote:
On 2025-04-13, Jethro_uk <jethro_uk@hotmailbin.com> wrote:
On Sun, 13 Apr 2025 12:52:19 +0100, Pancho wrote:
The point with De Menezes is not that they shot him in the head, but
that it was an utterly stupid thing to do.
It totally and utterly contradicts their fairy story that he was
believed to be a suicide bomber.
What? How does it do that?
Because they acted as if there was no danger that removing his head might trigger the bomb. Something which in 2005 would have been the only
thought I would have had.
Obviously if they had any information that there was no danger of a dead
mans trigger for bomb that never existed, it's never been shared.
On Sun, 13 Apr 2025 15:53:04 +0000, Jon Ribbens wrote:
On 2025-04-13, Jethro_uk <jethro_uk@hotmailbin.com> wrote:
On Sun, 13 Apr 2025 12:52:19 +0100, Pancho wrote:
The point with De Menezes is not that they shot him in the head, but
that it was an utterly stupid thing to do.
It totally and utterly contradicts their fairy story that he was
believed to be a suicide bomber.
What? How does it do that?
Because they acted as if there was no danger that removing his head might trigger the bomb. Something which in 2005 would have been the only
thought I would have had.
Obviously if they had any information that there was no danger of a dead
mans trigger for bomb that never existed, it's never been shared.
It is a bit like Covid there was a lack of sensible scenario planning. Intelligent people should have sat down prior to anything bad happening
and implemented some sensible procedures. We know humans don't think or operate sensibly when panicked.
On Sun, 13 Apr 2025 12:33:32 +0100, Max Demian
<max_demian@bigfoot.com> wrote:
On 13/04/2025 09:38, billy bookcase wrote:
"PJK" <pjkvck@outlook.com> wrote in message news:m5ut1rF4i9nU1@mid.individual.net...
Following recent discussions as to whether "no comment" is a good idea (which normally
I would very much agree with) I was interested to read this today:
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2025/apr/11/uk-woman-says-she-was-arrested-after-confiscating-her-daughters-ipads
This rather bizarre tale of atypical police urgency strikes me as a case where
explaining that no crime has taken place is probably a more useful response.
While here's one they made earlier....
quote:
A police force is carrying out a "rapid and thorough review" after a couple >>> were arrested over complaints they made about their daughter's primary
school, which included comments on WhatsApp.
Maxie Allen and his partner Rosalind Levine, from Borehamwood, told The Times
they were held for 11 hours on suspicion of harassment, malicious communications,
and causing a nuisance on school property
[...]
Mr Allen, a Times Radio producer, said six police officers* turned up at his home
on January 29 this year.
unquote
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c9dj1zlvxglo
I suspect that the couple were rude, working class people.
Rude is likely right, working class is certainly not as pointed out by
other posters.
On 2025-04-14, Pancho <Pancho.Jones@protonmail.com> wrote:
It is a bit like Covid there was a lack of sensible scenario planning.
Intelligent people should have sat down prior to anything bad happening
and implemented some sensible procedures. We know humans don't think or
operate sensibly when panicked.
We had a National Security Council sub-committee whose task it was to
ensure the UK was prepared for and would know what to do if a pandemic occurred. Sadly, Boris Johnson abolished it 6 months before COVID.
It is a bit like Covid there was a lack of sensible scenario planning. Intelligent people should have sat down prior to anything bad happening
and implemented some sensible procedures.
On Mon, 14 Apr 2025 15:16:20 +0000, Jon Ribbens wrote:
On 2025-04-14, Pancho <Pancho.Jones@protonmail.com> wrote:
It is a bit like Covid there was a lack of sensible scenario planning.
Intelligent people should have sat down prior to anything bad happening
and implemented some sensible procedures. We know humans don't think or
operate sensibly when panicked.
We had a National Security Council sub-committee whose task it was to
ensure the UK was prepared for and would know what to do if a pandemic
occurred. Sadly, Boris Johnson abolished it 6 months before COVID.
To be fair nobody could have foreseen a global pandemic. That took
everyone by surprise. Except the team that wrote the disaster recovery
and business continuity plans for a large UK insurer. Where it was listed
as something which would cause all offices to be inaccessible at short
notice (along with "alien invasion").
On 4/14/25 09:40, Jethro_uk wrote:
On Sun, 13 Apr 2025 15:53:04 +0000, Jon Ribbens wrote:Him not having an activated dead man switch was a reasonable gamble.
On 2025-04-13, Jethro_uk <jethro_uk@hotmailbin.com> wrote:
On Sun, 13 Apr 2025 12:52:19 +0100, Pancho wrote:
The point with De Menezes is not that they shot him in the head, but >>>>> that it was an utterly stupid thing to do.
It totally and utterly contradicts their fairy story that he was
believed to be a suicide bomber.
What? How does it do that?
Because they acted as if there was no danger that removing his head might
trigger the bomb. Something which in 2005 would have been the only
thought I would have had.
Obviously if they had any information that there was no danger of a dead
mans trigger for bomb that never existed, it's never been shared.
Given that the actual bombers couldn't even construct viable bombs, and
armed dead man switches are as rare as rocking horse shit.
The stupidity was assuming there was any significant risk he had an
armed bomb at all. The stupidity was hyping up a bunch of armed police officers to believe they need to do something.
It is a bit like Covid there was a lack of sensible scenario planning. Intelligent people should have sat down prior to anything bad happening
and implemented some sensible procedures. We know humans don't think or operate sensibly when panicked.
On 14/04/2025 13:11, Pancho wrote:
It is a bit like Covid there was a lack of sensible scenario planning.
Intelligent people should have sat down prior to anything bad happening
and implemented some sensible procedures.
I think that much of what was done was pretty sensible, given the
knowledge available at the time.
For example, excess deaths from Covid peaked at 11,500 a week in
mid-April 2020, which is equivalent to 600,000 extra people dying a year.
The government was right to order a series of lockdowns so as to keep
deaths down until a vaccine was developed. YMMV, but I don't think
anything else made much sense, and I really don't know what difference
more detailed advance planning would have made.
On 2025-04-14, GB <NOTsomeone@microsoft.invalid> wrote:
On 14/04/2025 13:11, Pancho wrote:
It is a bit like Covid there was a lack of sensible scenario planning.
Intelligent people should have sat down prior to anything bad happening
and implemented some sensible procedures.
I think that much of what was done was pretty sensible, given the
knowledge available at the time.
Including dumping sick people in care homes? And then lying about it?
For example, excess deaths from Covid peaked at 11,500 a week in
mid-April 2020, which is equivalent to 600,000 extra people dying a year.
The government was right to order a series of lockdowns so as to keep
deaths down until a vaccine was developed. YMMV, but I don't think
anything else made much sense, and I really don't know what difference
more detailed advance planning would have made.
The lockdowns were sensible, but the timing wasn't. Johnson waited his
entire life to become Prime Minister and have his "Churchill moment",
and when fate finally handed it to him on a platter, every single
important decision he had to make he bottled. He didn't order any of
the lockdowns until he had absolutely no choice. He was a coward, and
the consequences of his cowardice were deadly.
On 14 Apr 2025 at 22:08:00 BST, "Jon Ribbens" <jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> wrote:
On 2025-04-14, GB <NOTsomeone@microsoft.invalid> wrote:
On 14/04/2025 13:11, Pancho wrote:
It is a bit like Covid there was a lack of sensible scenario planning. >>>> Intelligent people should have sat down prior to anything bad happening >>>> and implemented some sensible procedures.
I think that much of what was done was pretty sensible, given the
knowledge available at the time.
Including dumping sick people in care homes? And then lying about it?
This was awful and led to many deaths of frail elderly people. But I really cannot think of anything else they could have done. We needed the hospital beds, and all these fantasy beds set up at in principle would not have
had any form of competent staff. Though in principle any new beds
should have been step down beds, not ventilator farms (as originally suggested by the politicians whose mates had a nice line in cardboard ventilators): but they still could not have been staffed.
You tell me; what could they have done? The only thing I can think of is decanting the uninfected inhabitants of care homes to the corridors of half the homes and using the emptied ones for infected patients. But these homes are people's *homes* - could we do that?
On 2025-04-14, Roger Hayter <roger@hayter.org> wrote:
On 14 Apr 2025 at 22:08:00 BST, "Jon Ribbens" <jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu>
wrote:
On 2025-04-14, GB <NOTsomeone@microsoft.invalid> wrote:
On 14/04/2025 13:11, Pancho wrote:
It is a bit like Covid there was a lack of sensible scenario planning. >>>>> Intelligent people should have sat down prior to anything bad happening >>>>> and implemented some sensible procedures.
I think that much of what was done was pretty sensible, given the
knowledge available at the time.
Including dumping sick people in care homes? And then lying about it?
This was awful and led to many deaths of frail elderly people. But I really >> cannot think of anything else they could have done. We needed the hospital >> beds, and all these fantasy beds set up at in principle would not have
had any form of competent staff. Though in principle any new beds
should have been step down beds, not ventilator farms (as originally
suggested by the politicians whose mates had a nice line in cardboard
ventilators): but they still could not have been staffed.
You tell me; what could they have done? The only thing I can think of is
decanting the uninfected inhabitants of care homes to the corridors of half >> the homes and using the emptied ones for infected patients. But these homes >> are people's *homes* - could we do that?
Well, yes. But also: not lie? Families may well have taken in many care
home residents temporarily if they were told what was happening. As it
was, they weren't even given the option of doing something about it.
Covering it up meant other options couldn't even be explored.
On 14 Apr 2025 at 23:30:44 BST, "Jon Ribbens" <jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> wrote:
On 2025-04-14, Roger Hayter <roger@hayter.org> wrote:
On 14 Apr 2025 at 22:08:00 BST, "Jon Ribbens" <jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> >>> wrote:
On 2025-04-14, GB <NOTsomeone@microsoft.invalid> wrote:
On 14/04/2025 13:11, Pancho wrote:
It is a bit like Covid there was a lack of sensible scenario planning. >>>>>> Intelligent people should have sat down prior to anything bad happening >>>>>> and implemented some sensible procedures.
I think that much of what was done was pretty sensible, given the
knowledge available at the time.
Including dumping sick people in care homes? And then lying about it?
This was awful and led to many deaths of frail elderly people. But I really
cannot think of anything else they could have done. We needed the hospital >>> beds, and all these fantasy beds set up at in principle would not have
had any form of competent staff. Though in principle any new beds
should have been step down beds, not ventilator farms (as originally
suggested by the politicians whose mates had a nice line in cardboard
ventilators): but they still could not have been staffed.
You tell me; what could they have done? The only thing I can think of is >>> decanting the uninfected inhabitants of care homes to the corridors
of half the homes and using the emptied ones for infected patients.
But these homes are people's *homes* - could we do that?
Well, yes. But also: not lie? Families may well have taken in many care
home residents temporarily if they were told what was happening. As it
was, they weren't even given the option of doing something about it.
Covering it up meant other options couldn't even be explored.
I agree about the lying. But dispersing infectious patients around
households so that the one or two people looking after them would
rapidly become unable to do so has obvious risks.
You tell me; what could they have done?
On Sun, 13 Apr 2025 09:38:27 +0100, "billy bookcase" <billy@anon.com>
wrote:
"PJK" <pjkvck@outlook.com> wrote in message news:m5ut1rF4i9nU1@mid.individual.net...
Following recent discussions as to whether "no comment" is a good idea (which
normally
I would very much agree with) I was interested to read this today:
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2025/apr/11/uk-woman-says-she-was-arrested-after-confiscating-her-daughters-ipads
This rather bizarre tale of atypical police urgency strikes me as a case where
explaining that no crime has taken place is probably a more useful response.
Peter
While here's one they made earlier....
quote:
A police force is carrying out a "rapid and thorough review" after a couple >>were arrested over complaints they made about their daughter's primary >>school, which included comments on WhatsApp.
Maxie Allen and his partner Rosalind Levine, from Borehamwood, told The Times >>they were held for 11 hours on suspicion of harassment, malicious communications,
and causing a nuisance on school property
[...]
Mr Allen, a Times Radio producer, said six police officers* turned up at his home
on January 29 this year.
unquote
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c9dj1zlvxglo
<quote>
The school said it had "sought advice from police" after a "high
volume of direct correspondence and public social media posts" that it
said had become upsetting for staff, parents and governors.
</quote>
Of course the fact that we know nothing about the contenbt of those
messages should not stop people here from accusing the police of overreacting.
On 14 Apr 2025 at 13:11:38 BST, "Pancho" <Pancho.Jones@protonmail.com> wrote:
On 4/14/25 09:40, Jethro_uk wrote:
On Sun, 13 Apr 2025 15:53:04 +0000, Jon Ribbens wrote:Him not having an activated dead man switch was a reasonable gamble.
On 2025-04-13, Jethro_uk <jethro_uk@hotmailbin.com> wrote:
On Sun, 13 Apr 2025 12:52:19 +0100, Pancho wrote:
The point with De Menezes is not that they shot him in the head, but >>>>>> that it was an utterly stupid thing to do.
It totally and utterly contradicts their fairy story that he was
believed to be a suicide bomber.
What? How does it do that?
Because they acted as if there was no danger that removing his head might >>> trigger the bomb. Something which in 2005 would have been the only
thought I would have had.
Obviously if they had any information that there was no danger of a dead >>> mans trigger for bomb that never existed, it's never been shared.
Given that the actual bombers couldn't even construct viable bombs, and
armed dead man switches are as rare as rocking horse shit.
The stupidity was assuming there was any significant risk he had an
armed bomb at all. The stupidity was hyping up a bunch of armed police
officers to believe they need to do something.
It is a bit like Covid there was a lack of sensible scenario planning.
Intelligent people should have sat down prior to anything bad happening
and implemented some sensible procedures. We know humans don't think or
operate sensibly when panicked.
Of course, their had been a body set up to plan our response to a virus pandemic, but it was disbanded by the government before it had reported, about
a year before Covid.
Actually I don't share the view that our response was inappropriate, just delayed. And largely ignored by people who thought they were too important.
On 4/14/25 09:40, Jethro_uk wrote:
On Sun, 13 Apr 2025 15:53:04 +0000, Jon Ribbens wrote:
On 2025-04-13, Jethro_uk <jethro_uk@hotmailbin.com> wrote:
On Sun, 13 Apr 2025 12:52:19 +0100, Pancho wrote:
The point with De Menezes is not that they shot him in the head, but >>>>> that it was an utterly stupid thing to do.
It totally and utterly contradicts their fairy story that he was
believed to be a suicide bomber.
What? How does it do that?
Because they acted as if there was no danger that removing his head might
trigger the bomb. Something which in 2005 would have been the only
thought I would have had.
Obviously if they had any information that there was no danger of a dead
mans trigger for bomb that never existed, it's never been shared.
Him not having an activated dead man switch was a reasonable gamble.
Given that the actual bombers couldn't even construct viable bombs, and
armed dead man switches are as rare as rocking horse shit.
The stupidity was assuming there was any significant risk he had an
armed bomb at all. The stupidity was hyping up a bunch of armed police officers to believe they need to do something.
It is a bit like Covid there was a lack of sensible scenario planning. Intelligent people should have sat down prior to anything bad happening
and implemented some sensible procedures. We know humans don't think or operate sensibly when panicked.
The fact that this is a very unwise modus to employ given the confined
space on public transport strongly suggests that no such switch was in
place.
"Martin Harran" <martinharran@gmail.com> wrote in message news:n9npvjh9qbu0idmntjlqlenail3am9b6v2@4ax.com...
[quoted text muted]
The accuastion of "overreacting" arises from the decision to send "six" police officers in "three" police vehicles to this person's home,
as confirmed by the photographs accompanyinhg this article...
On 14 Apr 2025 at 23:30:44 BST, "Jon Ribbens" <jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> wrote:
On 2025-04-14, Roger Hayter <roger@hayter.org> wrote:
On 14 Apr 2025 at 22:08:00 BST, "Jon Ribbens" <jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> >>> wrote:
On 2025-04-14, GB <NOTsomeone@microsoft.invalid> wrote:
On 14/04/2025 13:11, Pancho wrote:
It is a bit like Covid there was a lack of sensible scenario planning. >>>>>> Intelligent people should have sat down prior to anything bad happening >>>>>> and implemented some sensible procedures.
I think that much of what was done was pretty sensible, given the
knowledge available at the time.
Including dumping sick people in care homes? And then lying about it?
This was awful and led to many deaths of frail elderly people. But I really
cannot think of anything else they could have done. We needed the hospital >>> beds, and all these fantasy beds set up at in principle would not have
had any form of competent staff. Though in principle any new beds
should have been step down beds, not ventilator farms (as originally
suggested by the politicians whose mates had a nice line in cardboard
ventilators): but they still could not have been staffed.
You tell me; what could they have done? The only thing I can think of is >>> decanting the uninfected inhabitants of care homes to the corridors of half >>> the homes and using the emptied ones for infected patients. But these homes >>> are people's *homes* - could we do that?
Well, yes. But also: not lie? Families may well have taken in many care
home residents temporarily if they were told what was happening. As it
was, they weren't even given the option of doing something about it.
Covering it up meant other options couldn't even be explored.
I agree about the lying. But dispersing infectious patients around households so that the one or two people looking after them would rapidly become unable to do so has obvious risks.
On Tue, 15 Apr 2025 08:24:51 +0000, Spike wrote:
The fact that this is a very unwise modus to employ given the confined
space on public transport strongly suggests that no such switch was in
place.
You have allowed yourself to be bamboozled by the coverage.
The reason there was no dean mans handle had nothing to do with the particulars of bombing the underground and everything to do with the fact there was never a bomb to start with.
So any analysis of the actions of the police disregarding the possibility
of a dead mans handle is useless.
On 2025-04-14, Jethro_uk <jethro_uk@hotmailbin.com> wrote:
On Sun, 13 Apr 2025 15:53:04 +0000, Jon Ribbens wrote:
On 2025-04-13, Jethro_uk <jethro_uk@hotmailbin.com> wrote:
On Sun, 13 Apr 2025 12:52:19 +0100, Pancho wrote:
The point with De Menezes is not that they shot him in the head, but >>>>> that it was an utterly stupid thing to do.
It totally and utterly contradicts their fairy story that he was
believed to be a suicide bomber.
What? How does it do that?
Because they acted as if there was no danger that removing his head might
trigger the bomb. Something which in 2005 would have been the only
thought I would have had.
Obviously if they had any information that there was no danger of a dead
mans trigger for bomb that never existed, it's never been shared.
Accepting of course that none of us here have any actual knowledge of
this sort of thing, what actions from the police do you think would
have been consistent with the suspect being believed to be a suicide
bomber then?
Because it seems to me that if the bomber has a dead man's switch then
you're screwed. If you shoot them, the bomb goes off. If you don't shoot
them but try to stop them, they trigger it manually and the bomb goes
off.
So you only have two choices, if they're already in a populated area:
let them continue and hope that they travel through an unpopulated area before they reach their target, or shoot them on the spot and hope they
don't in fact have a dead man's switch.
Jon Ribbens <jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> wrote:
On 2025-04-14, Jethro_uk <jethro_uk@hotmailbin.com> wrote:
On Sun, 13 Apr 2025 15:53:04 +0000, Jon Ribbens wrote:
On 2025-04-13, Jethro_uk <jethro_uk@hotmailbin.com> wrote:
On Sun, 13 Apr 2025 12:52:19 +0100, Pancho wrote:
The point with De Menezes is not that they shot him in the head, but >>>>>> that it was an utterly stupid thing to do.
It totally and utterly contradicts their fairy story that he was
believed to be a suicide bomber.
What? How does it do that?
Because they acted as if there was no danger that removing his head might >>> trigger the bomb. Something which in 2005 would have been the only
thought I would have had.
Obviously if they had any information that there was no danger of a dead >>> mans trigger for bomb that never existed, it's never been shared.
Accepting of course that none of us here have any actual knowledge of
this sort of thing, what actions from the police do you think would
have been consistent with the suspect being believed to be a suicide
bomber then?
Because it seems to me that if the bomber has a dead man's switch then
you're screwed. If you shoot them, the bomb goes off. If you don't shoot
them but try to stop them, they trigger it manually and the bomb goes
off.
So you only have two choices, if they're already in a populated area:
let them continue and hope that they travel through an unpopulated area
before they reach their target, or shoot them on the spot and hope they
don't in fact have a dead man's switch.
It’s highly unlikely that a suicide bomber who had to make an extensive journey through highly-populated areas by public transport to reach his target would have been fitted with a dead man’s switch.
On 15/04/2025 09:51, Spike wrote:
Jon Ribbens <jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> wrote:
On 2025-04-14, Jethro_uk <jethro_uk@hotmailbin.com> wrote:
On Sun, 13 Apr 2025 15:53:04 +0000, Jon Ribbens wrote:
On 2025-04-13, Jethro_uk <jethro_uk@hotmailbin.com> wrote:
On Sun, 13 Apr 2025 12:52:19 +0100, Pancho wrote:
The point with De Menezes is not that they shot him in the head, but >>>>>>> that it was an utterly stupid thing to do.
It totally and utterly contradicts their fairy story that he was
believed to be a suicide bomber.
What? How does it do that?
Because they acted as if there was no danger that removing his head might >>>> trigger the bomb. Something which in 2005 would have been the only
thought I would have had.
Obviously if they had any information that there was no danger of a dead >>>> mans trigger for bomb that never existed, it's never been shared.
Accepting of course that none of us here have any actual knowledge of
this sort of thing, what actions from the police do you think would
have been consistent with the suspect being believed to be a suicide
bomber then?
Because it seems to me that if the bomber has a dead man's switch then
you're screwed. If you shoot them, the bomb goes off. If you don't shoot >>> them but try to stop them, they trigger it manually and the bomb goes
off.
So you only have two choices, if they're already in a populated area:
let them continue and hope that they travel through an unpopulated area
before they reach their target, or shoot them on the spot and hope they
don't in fact have a dead man's switch.
It’s highly unlikely that a suicide bomber who had to make an extensive
journey through highly-populated areas by public transport to reach his
target would have been fitted with a dead man’s switch.
He could have a dead man's switch which he only activated when he was
near his intended target.
On Tue, 15 Apr 2025 08:18:14 +0100, "billy bookcase" <billy@anon.com>
wrote:
"Martin Harran" <martinharran@gmail.com> wrote in message >>news:n9npvjh9qbu0idmntjlqlenail3am9b6v2@4ax.com...
On Sun, 13 Apr 2025 09:38:27 +0100, "billy bookcase" <billy@anon.com>
wrote:
"PJK" <pjkvck@outlook.com> wrote in message news:m5ut1rF4i9nU1@mid.individual.net...
Following recent discussions as to whether "no comment" is a good idea (which
normally
I would very much agree with) I was interested to read this today:
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2025/apr/11/uk-woman-says-she-was-arrested-after-confiscating-her-daughters-ipads
This rather bizarre tale of atypical police urgency strikes me as a case where
explaining that no crime has taken place is probably a more useful response.
Peter
While here's one they made earlier....
quote:
A police force is carrying out a "rapid and thorough review" after a couple >>>>were arrested over complaints they made about their daughter's primary >>>>school, which included comments on WhatsApp.
Maxie Allen and his partner Rosalind Levine, from Borehamwood, told The Times
they were held for 11 hours on suspicion of harassment, malicious communications,
and causing a nuisance on school property
[...]
Mr Allen, a Times Radio producer, said six police officers* turned up at his home
on January 29 this year.
unquote
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c9dj1zlvxglo
<quote>
The school said it had "sought advice from police" after a "high
volume of direct correspondence and public social media posts" that it
said had become upsetting for staff, parents and governors.
</quote>
Of course the fact that we know nothing about the contenbt of those
messages should not stop people here from accusing the police of
overreacting.
The accuastion of "overreacting" arises from the decision to send "six" >>police officers in "three" police vehicles to this person's home,
How do you know that was excessive? How do you know, for example, that
they weren't warned of potential violence at the house?
Oops, sorry, I forgot that the Daily Mail told you it was excessive so
it *must* be true.
Jon Ribbens <jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> wrote:
[quoted text muted]
It’s highly unlikely that a suicide bomber who had to make an extensive journey through highly-populated areas by public transport to reach his target would have been fitted with a dead man’s switch. The chances of mistakenly loosening his grip due to being jostled or bumped during the journey are too great.
On Mon, 14 Apr 2025 08:32:19 +0100, Martin Harran <martinharran@gmail.com> wrote:
On 12 Apr 2025 17:32:47 GMT, Roger Hayter <roger@hayter.org> wrote:
Reflecting on this, it seems likely to be another example, as in the "Quaker"
thread, of the police using the process of arrest and incarceration as an >>> informal punishment or intimidation when they have close to zero expectation
of making any charge. This is actually unlawful.
You and others are treating this as if was all simply about a pair of
iPads when the article clearly states that "Surrey police said a
search for the devices began after a man in his 40s reported the theft
of two iPads to officers who attended an address in Cobham, following
a report of a "concern for safety".
Note that last bit about a *cause for safety* and that the police took
it seriously enough to go to check the children's school, a totally
correct and appropriate response. I can imagine the reaction if the
police had simply ignored the original complaint and the children had
come to serious harm.
Indeed. We also have to bear in mind that we don't have the story from the person who called the police. There's a whole lot here that we aren't being told, and that non-public information is likely to be far more significant than what we do know. Other media reports say that the person who called the police was her ex-husband. If so, then it's entirely plausible that she's been the victim of a malicious complaint as part of an ongoing dispute. But the police have no way of knowing that, at least until after they've throughly investigated.
On the other hand, maybe she wasn't actually an entirely innocent party. Another media outlet has this to say:
A teacher arrested for confiscating her own children's iPads has been
involved in acrimonious disputes with two different men
and
A previous partner took her to court following a bitter falling out in
which 22 messages were posted on social media about him.
He also claims that his son lost his teaching job because of the claims
that Vanessa had made.
and
Neighbours at an old address in Cobham, Surrey, where Ms Brown moved out
last week told MailOnline she was 'a handful' and they 'avoided her'.
One said: 'She was here around two years, and the police were here quite a
bit for one thing or another.'
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-14600307/
Now, that's the Daily Mail, so, as always, you may need some salt to make
the report digestible. But it has the ring of truth. The Mail has enough confidence in the story to splash it as an exclusive. And if it is accurate, then it does shed a lot of light on the background to the story.
Mark
On Tue, 15 Apr 2025 18:14:30 +0100, "billy bookcase" <billy@anon.com>
wrote:
"Martin Harran" <martinharran@gmail.com> wrote in message >>news:q4asvj1pg9t2h8tcc7v42vnh4d0ei8omf5@4ax.com...
On Tue, 15 Apr 2025 08:18:14 +0100, "billy bookcase" <billy@anon.com>
wrote:
"Martin Harran" <martinharran@gmail.com> wrote in message >>>>news:n9npvjh9qbu0idmntjlqlenail3am9b6v2@4ax.com...
On Sun, 13 Apr 2025 09:38:27 +0100, "billy bookcase" <billy@anon.com> >>>>> wrote:
"PJK" <pjkvck@outlook.com> wrote in message >>>>>>news:m5ut1rF4i9nU1@mid.individual.net...
Following recent discussions as to whether "no comment" is a good idea (which
normally
I would very much agree with) I was interested to read this today: >>>>>>>
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2025/apr/11/uk-woman-says-she-was-arrested-after-confiscating-her-daughters-ipads
This rather bizarre tale of atypical police urgency strikes me as a case where
explaining that no crime has taken place is probably a more useful response.
Peter
While here's one they made earlier....
quote:
A police force is carrying out a "rapid and thorough review" after a couple
were arrested over complaints they made about their daughter's primary >>>>>>school, which included comments on WhatsApp.
Maxie Allen and his partner Rosalind Levine, from Borehamwood, told The Times
they were held for 11 hours on suspicion of harassment, malicious communications,
and causing a nuisance on school property
[...]
Mr Allen, a Times Radio producer, said six police officers* turned up at his home
on January 29 this year.
unquote
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c9dj1zlvxglo
<quote>
The school said it had "sought advice from police" after a "high
volume of direct correspondence and public social media posts" that it >>>>> said had become upsetting for staff, parents and governors.
</quote>
Of course the fact that we know nothing about the contenbt of those
messages should not stop people here from accusing the police of
overreacting.
The accuastion of "overreacting" arises from the decision to send "six" >>>>police officers in "three" police vehicles to this person's home,
How do you know that was excessive? How do you know, for example, that
they weren't warned of potential violence at the house?
Doubtless had there been any history of violence concerning Mr Allen,
Ms Levine or their daughters, Sascha (9) or Francesca (3), that fact
would have somehow "emerged"; possibly at around the same time
as the force in question "decided", just like that, to carry out
a "rapid and thorough review" of the operation.
When you don't know the actual facts, it's never a particularly useful exercise to make up stuff that *might* or *might not* have been true.
Oops, sorry, I forgot that the Daily Mail told you it was excessive so
it *must* be true.
As the police haven't actually denied any substantive aspect of the story >>nor claimed that Mr Allen, Ms Levine or their daughters Sascha (9) or >>Francesca (3) were and are prone to random acts of senseless violence,
I believe it safe to conclude, that the story must be true.
However, unlike the "Daily Mail" the police haven't seen fit to issue
any pictures of the incident.
Perhaps you are not aware of this but the police never get into
significant detail about *any* individual case as it creates all sorts
of other potential issues, privacy infringement being just one of
them.
But don't worry about that, the Daily Mail will always keep you right!
| Sysop: | Keyop |
|---|---|
| Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
| Users: | 498 |
| Nodes: | 16 (2 / 14) |
| Uptime: | 22:31:43 |
| Calls: | 9,828 |
| Calls today: | 7 |
| Files: | 13,761 |
| Messages: | 6,191,776 |