Revealed: 12 motorists caught drink driving in police crackdown

Bournemouth Echo: Revealed: 12 motorists caught drink driving in police crackdown Revealed: 12 motorists caught drink driving in police crackdown

TODAY the Echo can reveal the first drink drivers caught in Dorset Police’s summer crackdown.

Dorset Police launched its annual drink and drug drive campaign on June 1, extending it to ensure it covered the entire FIFA World Cup.

The campaign will continue until July 31 but here are twelve drivers already charged.

Bournemouth Echo:

1. Alexander Mair, 23, of Westmorland Way, Chandlers Ford, Eastleigh, was charged on 11 May 2014 with driving a (hired) Mercedes when alcohol level above limit (92 microgrammes in 100ml breath) at the A35 Bakers Arms roundabout. Mair appeared at Bournemouth Magistrates Court on 1 July 2014 where he pleaded guilty and was fined £700 and banned from driving for 24 months, £85 costs, £70 victim surcharge and no drink banning order.

Bournemouth Echo:

2. Daniel Withers, 23, of Harvey Road, Bournemouth, was charged on 1 June 2014 with driving a Mercedes C240 when alcohol level above limit (81 microgrammes in 100ml breath) in Talbot Avenue, Bournemouth. He appeared at Bournemouth Magistrates’ Court on 16 June 2014 and was fined £150 and banned from driving for 12 months, £85 costs, £20 victim surcharge and no drink banning order.

Bournemouth Echo:

3. Linda Taylor, 30, of Portman Road, Bournemouth, was charged on 1 June 2014 with driving a Smart car when alcohol level above limit (53 microgrammes in 100ml breath) in Richmond Park Road, Bournemouth. She appeared at Bournemouth Magistrates’ Court on 16 June 2014 and was fined £300 and banned from driving for 12 months, £85 costs, £30 victim surcharge and no drink banning order.

Bournemouth Echo:

4. Gavin Popham, 36, of Wimborne Road, Bournemouth, was charged on 1 June 2014 with driving a Vivaro van when alcohol level above limit (53 microgrammes in 100ml breath) in Kinson Road, Bournemouth. He appeared at Bournemouth Magistrates’ Court on 16 June 2014 and was fined £110 and banned from driving for 12 months, £85 costs, £20 victim surcharge and no drink banning order.

Bournemouth Echo:

5. James Murray, 28, of Adelphi Court, Bournemouth, was charged on 6 June 2014 with being in charge of a motor vehicle when alcohol level above limit and appeared before Bournemouth Magistrates’ Court on 23 June 2014. He was given a £280 fine and 10 points.

Bournemouth Echo:

6. Joanne Cross, 28, of Arnewood Road, Bournemouth, was charged on 14 June 2014 with driving when alcohol level above limit. She appeared before Bournemouth Magistrates' Court on 30 June 2014 and was fined £350 and disqualified from driving for 17 months. Cross was also ordered to pay a victim surcharge of £35 and costs of £85.

Bournemouth Echo:

7. Kevin Wiles, 35, of Gravel Hill, Wimborne, was charged on 7 June 2014 with driving a motor vehicle when alcohol level above limit. He appeared at Bournemouth Magistrates’ Court on 23 June 2014 and was fined £200, ordered to pay a victim surcharge of £20 and costs of £85. He was also disqualified from driving for 17 months.

Bournemouth Echo:

8. Lois Hunter, 23, of Havelock Road, Poole, was charged on 8 June 2014 with driving a motor vehicle when alcohol level above limit. She failed to appear in court on June 23 and a warrant was issued for arrest. She appeared at Bournemouth Magistrates’ Court on June 24 and was fined £110, ordered to pay a victim surcharge of £20 and costs of £85. She was disqualified from driving for 18 months.

Bournemouth Echo:

9. Wendy Glenister, 34, of Hickory Close, Poole, was charged on 4 June 2014 with driving when alcohol level above limit. She appeared before Bournemouth Magistrates’ Court on 24 June 14 and was fined £110, ordered to pay a victim surcharge of £20 and costs of £85.

Bournemouth Echo:

10. Adam Cox, 22, of Barrack Road, Christchurch, was charged on 7 June 2014 with failing to provide a specimen for analysis and appeared before Bournemouth Magistrates’ Court on 27 June 2014. He pleaded guilty and the case was adjourned until July 18 for a pre-sentence report to be completed.

Bournemouth Echo:

11. Benjamin Richardson, 34, from Newquay, Cornwall, was charged on 14 June 2014 with driving a motor vehicle when alcohol level above limit. Richardson recorded a reading of 103 microgrammes of alcohol in 100 millilitres of breath, nearly three times the legal limit.
He appeared before Bournemouth Magistrates' Court on 30 June 2014 and was fined £800 and disqualified from driving for 36 months. Richardson was also ordered to pay an £80 victim surcharge and costs of £85.

Bournemouth Echo:

12. Juan Fernandez Alarcon, 31, of Maples Court, Bournemouth, was charged on 14 June 2014 with driving a motor vehicle when alcohol level above limit. He appeared before Bournemouth Magistrates' Court on 30 June 2014 and was fined £230 and disqualified from driving for 17 months. He was also ordered to pay a victim surcharge of £23 and costs of £85.

Drink-driver lucky not to be injured after colliding with tree

TWENTY-three-year-old Daniel Withers, of Harvey Road, Bournemouth, was lucky not to be injured when his Mercedes  left the road and collided with a tree in Talbot Avenue.

He was arrested at the scene after a breathalyser test revealed he had 81 microgrammes of alcohol in 100 mls of breath.

And Alexander Mair, 23, lost control of a hired Mercedes and veered off the road at the A35 Bakers Arms roundabout, sustaining extensive damage.

Police were called to reports of the driver staggering around and going into the nearby pub and found him with blood on his face and shirt and glass from the windscreen on his trousers.

In his defence, he argued he had driven the car in a state of panic after he was attacked in a nightclub.

Offenders were given fines of varying amounts and most received driving bans.

Police Sergeant Stuart Pitman, of Dorset Police’s Traffic Unit, said: “It is disappointing that some motorists are continuing to think they are above the law and choose to get behind the wheel or on their bike after consuming alcohol.

“Research has shown that even one drink can impair the ability to drive so please don’t drive or ride after drinking any alcohol at all.

“I would like to remind motorists that officers will be continuing to target those who think they are above the law and are willing to risk their life and the lives of others by drinking and driving.”

If someone is caught drink driving they will face a minimum 12 month driving ban, a criminal record, up to six months in prison and a fine of up to £5,000. If you suspect someone is driving under the influence of alcohol or drugs, dial 999 immediately so police can intercept or call 101 with non-urgent information.

 

 

Comments (75)

Please log in to enable comment sorting

6:09am Fri 4 Jul 14

Getridofthetories says...

How surprising that the police can find resources to lay in wait for drink drivers but cant support local neighbourhood watch groups!
How surprising that the police can find resources to lay in wait for drink drivers but cant support local neighbourhood watch groups! Getridofthetories
  • Score: -118

6:13am Fri 4 Jul 14

Getridofthetories says...

Getridofthetories wrote:
How surprising that the police can find resources to lay in wait for drink drivers but cant support local neighbourhood watch groups!
Probably ruined every one of these peoples lives by taking away their licence,surely a warning that next time they will lose their licence and a visit to the morgue might be more helpful?
[quote][p][bold]Getridofthetories[/bold] wrote: How surprising that the police can find resources to lay in wait for drink drivers but cant support local neighbourhood watch groups![/p][/quote]Probably ruined every one of these peoples lives by taking away their licence,surely a warning that next time they will lose their licence and a visit to the morgue might be more helpful? Getridofthetories
  • Score: -110

6:34am Fri 4 Jul 14

Huey says...

Getridofthetories wrote:
Getridofthetories wrote:
How surprising that the police can find resources to lay in wait for drink drivers but cant support local neighbourhood watch groups!
Probably ruined every one of these peoples lives by taking away their licence,surely a warning that next time they will lose their licence and a visit to the morgue might be more helpful?
These people all deserve what they got.
They knew the risks when the got behind the wheel.
Drink driving kills and is totally avoidable.
There are enough idiots on the road without drunks behind the wheel as well.
Louis hunter looks like she is still pretty merry in her mugshot.
[quote][p][bold]Getridofthetories[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Getridofthetories[/bold] wrote: How surprising that the police can find resources to lay in wait for drink drivers but cant support local neighbourhood watch groups![/p][/quote]Probably ruined every one of these peoples lives by taking away their licence,surely a warning that next time they will lose their licence and a visit to the morgue might be more helpful?[/p][/quote]These people all deserve what they got. They knew the risks when the got behind the wheel. Drink driving kills and is totally avoidable. There are enough idiots on the road without drunks behind the wheel as well. Louis hunter looks like she is still pretty merry in her mugshot. Huey
  • Score: 127

6:43am Fri 4 Jul 14

alasdair1967 says...

Christmas crack down/summer crackdown so what sorry echo people are arrested and convicted of drink driving on a regular basis if not daily I'm all for people being convicted and banned for this offence , as the are not only putting there life's at risk but also the life's of others at risk due to there irresponsible actions
Christmas crack down/summer crackdown so what sorry echo people are arrested and convicted of drink driving on a regular basis if not daily I'm all for people being convicted and banned for this offence , as the are not only putting there life's at risk but also the life's of others at risk due to there irresponsible actions alasdair1967
  • Score: 38

6:43am Fri 4 Jul 14

S,Bowes says...

Who supplied the pictures?surely they never posed for a news paper ,would be nice if traveller that break the law were put on show
Who supplied the pictures?surely they never posed for a news paper ,would be nice if traveller that break the law were put on show S,Bowes
  • Score: 49

6:45am Fri 4 Jul 14

ol'bag lady says...

"Probably ruined every one of these peoples lives......."
No matter that they could have ENDED other peoples lives. Naming and shaming should be used for other offences.
"Probably ruined every one of these peoples lives......." No matter that they could have ENDED other peoples lives. Naming and shaming should be used for other offences. ol'bag lady
  • Score: 79

6:50am Fri 4 Jul 14

user_name says...

Getridofthetories wrote:
How surprising that the police can find resources to lay in wait for drink drivers but cant support local neighbourhood watch groups!
So the police catch someone doing something that is dangerous and known to kill innocent people, and it's still not good enough.
[quote][p][bold]Getridofthetories[/bold] wrote: How surprising that the police can find resources to lay in wait for drink drivers but cant support local neighbourhood watch groups![/p][/quote]So the police catch someone doing something that is dangerous and known to kill innocent people, and it's still not good enough. user_name
  • Score: 78

6:56am Fri 4 Jul 14

retry69 says...

Getridofthetories wrote:
How surprising that the police can find resources to lay in wait for drink drivers but cant support local neighbourhood watch groups!
Getridoftheidiots
[quote][p][bold]Getridofthetories[/bold] wrote: How surprising that the police can find resources to lay in wait for drink drivers but cant support local neighbourhood watch groups![/p][/quote]Getridoftheidiots retry69
  • Score: 48

7:29am Fri 4 Jul 14

Lord Spring says...

Pity we did not have mug shots like these of the convicted druggies and thieves, we would then know who is in our midst and be aware of them.
Pity we did not have mug shots like these of the convicted druggies and thieves, we would then know who is in our midst and be aware of them. Lord Spring
  • Score: 57

7:41am Fri 4 Jul 14

Hessenford says...

If someone is caught drink driving they will face a minimum 12 month driving ban, a criminal record, up to six months in prison and a fine of up to £5,000.
.
If the above is correct why have two of these muppets escaped a driving ban.
If someone is caught drink driving they will face a minimum 12 month driving ban, a criminal record, up to six months in prison and a fine of up to £5,000. . If the above is correct why have two of these muppets escaped a driving ban. Hessenford
  • Score: 44

7:44am Fri 4 Jul 14

Hessenford says...

Getridofthetories wrote:
How surprising that the police can find resources to lay in wait for drink drivers but cant support local neighbourhood watch groups!
Stuff the neighborhood watch, get these dipsticks off the road.
[quote][p][bold]Getridofthetories[/bold] wrote: How surprising that the police can find resources to lay in wait for drink drivers but cant support local neighbourhood watch groups![/p][/quote]Stuff the neighborhood watch, get these dipsticks off the road. Hessenford
  • Score: 49

7:47am Fri 4 Jul 14

Letcommonsenseprevail says...

Getridofthetories wrote:
How surprising that the police can find resources to lay in wait for drink drivers but cant support local neighbourhood watch groups!
Why should they?
[quote][p][bold]Getridofthetories[/bold] wrote: How surprising that the police can find resources to lay in wait for drink drivers but cant support local neighbourhood watch groups![/p][/quote]Why should they? Letcommonsenseprevail
  • Score: 24

7:48am Fri 4 Jul 14

boardsandphotos says...

Getridofthetories wrote:
Getridofthetories wrote:
How surprising that the police can find resources to lay in wait for drink drivers but cant support local neighbourhood watch groups!
Probably ruined every one of these peoples lives by taking away their licence,surely a warning that next time they will lose their licence and a visit to the morgue might be more helpful?
Two of the most stupid comments i've ever read on here.
[quote][p][bold]Getridofthetories[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Getridofthetories[/bold] wrote: How surprising that the police can find resources to lay in wait for drink drivers but cant support local neighbourhood watch groups![/p][/quote]Probably ruined every one of these peoples lives by taking away their licence,surely a warning that next time they will lose their licence and a visit to the morgue might be more helpful?[/p][/quote]Two of the most stupid comments i've ever read on here. boardsandphotos
  • Score: 68

7:58am Fri 4 Jul 14

exmarshy says...

"Getridofthetories" would feel differently if one of your family had been killed by a drink driver!!!!!!!!!!
"Getridofthetories" would feel differently if one of your family had been killed by a drink driver!!!!!!!!!! exmarshy
  • Score: 38

8:30am Fri 4 Jul 14

nickynoodah says...

boardsandphotos wrote:
Getridofthetories wrote:
Getridofthetories wrote:
How surprising that the police can find resources to lay in wait for drink drivers but cant support local neighbourhood watch groups!
Probably ruined every one of these peoples lives by taking away their licence,surely a warning that next time they will lose their licence and a visit to the morgue might be more helpful?
Two of the most stupid comments i've ever read on here.
If you think the above comment is stupid
just wait until nobath's bad back gets better.
[quote][p][bold]boardsandphotos[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Getridofthetories[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Getridofthetories[/bold] wrote: How surprising that the police can find resources to lay in wait for drink drivers but cant support local neighbourhood watch groups![/p][/quote]Probably ruined every one of these peoples lives by taking away their licence,surely a warning that next time they will lose their licence and a visit to the morgue might be more helpful?[/p][/quote]Two of the most stupid comments i've ever read on here.[/p][/quote]If you think the above comment is stupid just wait until nobath's bad back gets better. nickynoodah
  • Score: -9

8:40am Fri 4 Jul 14

Boscomite says...

Somebody commented on another subject, that all drivers under 21, should be accompanied by a qualified driver over 21. The reason they gave was that it's the under 21s, who are irresponsible. Not one of these, are under 21.
Somebody commented on another subject, that all drivers under 21, should be accompanied by a qualified driver over 21. The reason they gave was that it's the under 21s, who are irresponsible. Not one of these, are under 21. Boscomite
  • Score: 38

8:47am Fri 4 Jul 14

Marty Caine UKIP says...

Getridofthetories wrote:
How surprising that the police can find resources to lay in wait for drink drivers but cant support local neighbourhood watch groups!
Aren't neighbourhood watch groups supposed to help the police by reporting incidents in their area rather than dragging them away to attend meetings where all they do there is explain how undermanned they are?
[quote][p][bold]Getridofthetories[/bold] wrote: How surprising that the police can find resources to lay in wait for drink drivers but cant support local neighbourhood watch groups![/p][/quote]Aren't neighbourhood watch groups supposed to help the police by reporting incidents in their area rather than dragging them away to attend meetings where all they do there is explain how undermanned they are? Marty Caine UKIP
  • Score: 29

9:02am Fri 4 Jul 14

podgie says...

Are you sure this isn't the lineup for the 'Snow white dwarf audition.
Lots of Dopey's,Bashfuls,Gru
mpys ,and Sleepys ,I think it may be missing a Doc but maybe the police surgeon can step in.
Are you sure this isn't the lineup for the 'Snow white dwarf audition. Lots of Dopey's,Bashfuls,Gru mpys ,and Sleepys ,I think it may be missing a Doc but maybe the police surgeon can step in. podgie
  • Score: 10

9:11am Fri 4 Jul 14

Lord Spring says...

podgie wrote:
Are you sure this isn't the lineup for the 'Snow white dwarf audition.
Lots of Dopey's,Bashfuls,Gru

mpys ,and Sleepys ,I think it may be missing a Doc but maybe the police surgeon can step in.
Don't start retry69 off again he was auditioning back along.
[quote][p][bold]podgie[/bold] wrote: Are you sure this isn't the lineup for the 'Snow white dwarf audition. Lots of Dopey's,Bashfuls,Gru mpys ,and Sleepys ,I think it may be missing a Doc but maybe the police surgeon can step in.[/p][/quote]Don't start retry69 off again he was auditioning back along. Lord Spring
  • Score: 7

9:12am Fri 4 Jul 14

suzigirl says...

Looks more like the Muppet Show!
Looks more like the Muppet Show! suzigirl
  • Score: 2

9:20am Fri 4 Jul 14

TheDistrict says...

S,Bowes wrote:
Who supplied the pictures?surely they never posed for a news paper ,would be nice if traveller that break the law were put on show
That would be racial harrassment according to the Echo.
[quote][p][bold]S,Bowes[/bold] wrote: Who supplied the pictures?surely they never posed for a news paper ,would be nice if traveller that break the law were put on show[/p][/quote]That would be racial harrassment according to the Echo. TheDistrict
  • Score: 6

9:22am Fri 4 Jul 14

nickynoodah says...

No bedsit dwellers need apply
only people with deeds.
thank you very much George.
No bedsit dwellers need apply only people with deeds. thank you very much George. nickynoodah
  • Score: -15

10:15am Fri 4 Jul 14

burgerboy says...

ol'bag lady wrote:
"Probably ruined every one of these peoples lives......."
No matter that they could have ENDED other peoples lives. Naming and shaming should be used for other offences.
Good article with good quality pictures by the echo.
The echo should start by having a whole new section in their paper on a weekly basis called criminals corner and publish the police mug shots and stories for all to see,it may deter some by naming and shaming.
[quote][p][bold]ol'bag lady[/bold] wrote: "Probably ruined every one of these peoples lives......." No matter that they could have ENDED other peoples lives. Naming and shaming should be used for other offences.[/p][/quote]Good article with good quality pictures by the echo. The echo should start by having a whole new section in their paper on a weekly basis called criminals corner and publish the police mug shots and stories for all to see,it may deter some by naming and shaming. burgerboy
  • Score: 20

10:21am Fri 4 Jul 14

retry69 says...

podgie wrote:
Are you sure this isn't the lineup for the 'Snow white dwarf audition.
Lots of Dopey's,Bashfuls,Gru

mpys ,and Sleepys ,I think it may be missing a Doc but maybe the police surgeon can step in.
Now there's an idea,on top of their fines etc they could perform a panto for a children's charity this Xmas.Well done podgie I'm onto it :)
[quote][p][bold]podgie[/bold] wrote: Are you sure this isn't the lineup for the 'Snow white dwarf audition. Lots of Dopey's,Bashfuls,Gru mpys ,and Sleepys ,I think it may be missing a Doc but maybe the police surgeon can step in.[/p][/quote]Now there's an idea,on top of their fines etc they could perform a panto for a children's charity this Xmas.Well done podgie I'm onto it :) retry69
  • Score: 10

10:26am Fri 4 Jul 14

BigAlfromsunnyBournemouth says...

Hessenford says... If the above is correct why have two of these muppets escaped a driving ban.

See the article:
5. James Murray, 28, of Adelphi Court, Bournemouth, was charged on 6 June 2014 with being in charge of a motor vehicle when alcohol level above limit ...

He wasn't driving, he was just with the vehicle.

9. Wendy Glenister, 34, of Hickory Close, Poole, was charged on 4 June 2014 with driving when alcohol level above limit. She appeared before Bournemouth Magistrates’ Court on 24 June 14 and was fined £110, ordered to pay a victim surcharge of £20 and costs of £85.

It looks like she got away with it, a £215 penalty being no deterrent.
Hessenford says... If the above is correct why have two of these muppets escaped a driving ban. See the article: 5. James Murray, 28, of Adelphi Court, Bournemouth, was charged on 6 June 2014 with being in charge of a motor vehicle when alcohol level above limit ... He wasn't driving, he was just with the vehicle. 9. Wendy Glenister, 34, of Hickory Close, Poole, was charged on 4 June 2014 with driving when alcohol level above limit. She appeared before Bournemouth Magistrates’ Court on 24 June 14 and was fined £110, ordered to pay a victim surcharge of £20 and costs of £85. It looks like she got away with it, a £215 penalty being no deterrent. BigAlfromsunnyBournemouth
  • Score: 8

12:26pm Fri 4 Jul 14

cromwell9 says...

No excuse for drink driving.I
would think these drivers are only the tip of a very big Ice burg,
Not to mention the other Killer Drivers (Mobile Phone+Speeding).
Every day we read of more deaths on our roads .I have lost count the number of Fatal accidents in Dorset this year .
No excuse for drink driving.I would think these drivers are only the tip of a very big Ice burg, Not to mention the other Killer Drivers (Mobile Phone+Speeding). Every day we read of more deaths on our roads .I have lost count the number of Fatal accidents in Dorset this year . cromwell9
  • Score: 11

12:53pm Fri 4 Jul 14

Sir Beachy Head says...

I dont agree with the photos being show. The top 1 is outside court, fair enough, public place and all that.

The others are clearly mugshots taken at the police station then handed to the echo. This is not on and is a massive breach of confidentiality and the data protection act. These people should sue, they'd win.

The only justification for publishing an official police mugshot is if a criminal was on the run and it would be justified to help the public look out for him.

The police and the echo have turned this campaign into a circus. An illegal circus at that.

Disgraceful article and standards
I dont agree with the photos being show. The top 1 is outside court, fair enough, public place and all that. The others are clearly mugshots taken at the police station then handed to the echo. This is not on and is a massive breach of confidentiality and the data protection act. These people should sue, they'd win. The only justification for publishing an official police mugshot is if a criminal was on the run and it would be justified to help the public look out for him. The police and the echo have turned this campaign into a circus. An illegal circus at that. Disgraceful article and standards Sir Beachy Head
  • Score: -36

1:15pm Fri 4 Jul 14

Bournefre says...

Name & Shame!
Name & Shame! Bournefre
  • Score: 12

1:17pm Fri 4 Jul 14

P Barker says...

It would be better to have all year long randem stop checks, not this summer/xmas campaigns. I see people most day who cant drive in a straight line & are possibly drunk.
It would be better to have all year long randem stop checks, not this summer/xmas campaigns. I see people most day who cant drive in a straight line & are possibly drunk. P Barker
  • Score: 17

1:21pm Fri 4 Jul 14

blackdog1 says...

nickynoodah wrote:
No bedsit dwellers need apply
only people with deeds.
thank you very much George.
What on earth is a matter with you?
[quote][p][bold]nickynoodah[/bold] wrote: No bedsit dwellers need apply only people with deeds. thank you very much George.[/p][/quote]What on earth is a matter with you? blackdog1
  • Score: 18

1:39pm Fri 4 Jul 14

dogloverdorset says...

Getridofthetories wrote:
How surprising that the police can find resources to lay in wait for drink drivers but cant support local neighbourhood watch groups!
They do support neighbourhood watch you muppet !They have a dedicated person looking after them, give them grants, run the Dorset Alert Scheme....
And the whole point of neighbourhood watch is that it is done by NEIGHBOURS, SO THE POLICE CAN GET ON WITH ARRESTING PEOPLE WHO ENDANGER OTHERS BY DRINK DRIVING
[quote][p][bold]Getridofthetories[/bold] wrote: How surprising that the police can find resources to lay in wait for drink drivers but cant support local neighbourhood watch groups![/p][/quote]They do support neighbourhood watch you muppet !They have a dedicated person looking after them, give them grants, run the Dorset Alert Scheme.... And the whole point of neighbourhood watch is that it is done by NEIGHBOURS, SO THE POLICE CAN GET ON WITH ARRESTING PEOPLE WHO ENDANGER OTHERS BY DRINK DRIVING dogloverdorset
  • Score: 21

1:53pm Fri 4 Jul 14

Jo__Go says...

Sir Beachy Head wrote:
I dont agree with the photos being show. The top 1 is outside court, fair enough, public place and all that.

The others are clearly mugshots taken at the police station then handed to the echo. This is not on and is a massive breach of confidentiality and the data protection act. These people should sue, they'd win.

The only justification for publishing an official police mugshot is if a criminal was on the run and it would be justified to help the public look out for him.

The police and the echo have turned this campaign into a circus. An illegal circus at that.

Disgraceful article and standards
You due in court soon, Beachy?
[quote][p][bold]Sir Beachy Head[/bold] wrote: I dont agree with the photos being show. The top 1 is outside court, fair enough, public place and all that. The others are clearly mugshots taken at the police station then handed to the echo. This is not on and is a massive breach of confidentiality and the data protection act. These people should sue, they'd win. The only justification for publishing an official police mugshot is if a criminal was on the run and it would be justified to help the public look out for him. The police and the echo have turned this campaign into a circus. An illegal circus at that. Disgraceful article and standards[/p][/quote]You due in court soon, Beachy? Jo__Go
  • Score: 23

2:58pm Fri 4 Jul 14

i have heard it all now says...

Headline story by the Echo for Drink Drivers!!
Where are the Pictures of Muggers,Burglars & other forms of Low life,Echo get your priorities right
Headline story by the Echo for Drink Drivers!! Where are the Pictures of Muggers,Burglars & other forms of Low life,Echo get your priorities right i have heard it all now
  • Score: 8

2:59pm Fri 4 Jul 14

user_name says...

Sir Beachy Head wrote:
I dont agree with the photos being show. The top 1 is outside court, fair enough, public place and all that.

The others are clearly mugshots taken at the police station then handed to the echo. This is not on and is a massive breach of confidentiality and the data protection act. These people should sue, they'd win.

The only justification for publishing an official police mugshot is if a criminal was on the run and it would be justified to help the public look out for him.

The police and the echo have turned this campaign into a circus. An illegal circus at that.

Disgraceful article and standards
Where are you getting your facts from? It's not illegal if they have been found guilty. Papers and news program's show mug shots all the time. If you don't want your mug shot in the newspaper then don't drink and drive. We all know it's wrong and that the price you will pay.
[quote][p][bold]Sir Beachy Head[/bold] wrote: I dont agree with the photos being show. The top 1 is outside court, fair enough, public place and all that. The others are clearly mugshots taken at the police station then handed to the echo. This is not on and is a massive breach of confidentiality and the data protection act. These people should sue, they'd win. The only justification for publishing an official police mugshot is if a criminal was on the run and it would be justified to help the public look out for him. The police and the echo have turned this campaign into a circus. An illegal circus at that. Disgraceful article and standards[/p][/quote]Where are you getting your facts from? It's not illegal if they have been found guilty. Papers and news program's show mug shots all the time. If you don't want your mug shot in the newspaper then don't drink and drive. We all know it's wrong and that the price you will pay. user_name
  • Score: 23

3:01pm Fri 4 Jul 14

Sir Beachy Head says...

Jo__Go wrote:
Sir Beachy Head wrote:
I dont agree with the photos being show. The top 1 is outside court, fair enough, public place and all that.

The others are clearly mugshots taken at the police station then handed to the echo. This is not on and is a massive breach of confidentiality and the data protection act. These people should sue, they'd win.

The only justification for publishing an official police mugshot is if a criminal was on the run and it would be justified to help the public look out for him.

The police and the echo have turned this campaign into a circus. An illegal circus at that.

Disgraceful article and standards
You due in court soon, Beachy?
No I'm not. I speak on a matter of principle that may affect you or a family member one day. You won't be so smug if it does.

No wonder the police have lost nearly all respect from the public recently.
The press lost that decades ago.
[quote][p][bold]Jo__Go[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Sir Beachy Head[/bold] wrote: I dont agree with the photos being show. The top 1 is outside court, fair enough, public place and all that. The others are clearly mugshots taken at the police station then handed to the echo. This is not on and is a massive breach of confidentiality and the data protection act. These people should sue, they'd win. The only justification for publishing an official police mugshot is if a criminal was on the run and it would be justified to help the public look out for him. The police and the echo have turned this campaign into a circus. An illegal circus at that. Disgraceful article and standards[/p][/quote]You due in court soon, Beachy?[/p][/quote]No I'm not. I speak on a matter of principle that may affect you or a family member one day. You won't be so smug if it does. No wonder the police have lost nearly all respect from the public recently. The press lost that decades ago. Sir Beachy Head
  • Score: -24

4:08pm Fri 4 Jul 14

HappyTalkyTalkyHappyTalk says...

Name and shame......... I hope they all hang there heads in shame
Name and shame......... I hope they all hang there heads in shame HappyTalkyTalkyHappyTalk
  • Score: 4

4:21pm Fri 4 Jul 14

breamoreboy says...

TheDistrict wrote:
S,Bowes wrote:
Who supplied the pictures?surely they never posed for a news paper ,would be nice if traveller that break the law were put on show
That would be racial harrassment according to the Echo.
...and entirely welcomed by 99.99% of the population.
[quote][p][bold]TheDistrict[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]S,Bowes[/bold] wrote: Who supplied the pictures?surely they never posed for a news paper ,would be nice if traveller that break the law were put on show[/p][/quote]That would be racial harrassment according to the Echo.[/p][/quote]...and entirely welcomed by 99.99% of the population. breamoreboy
  • Score: 14

4:24pm Fri 4 Jul 14

breamoreboy says...

burgerboy wrote:
ol'bag lady wrote:
"Probably ruined every one of these peoples lives......."
No matter that they could have ENDED other peoples lives. Naming and shaming should be used for other offences.
Good article with good quality pictures by the echo.
The echo should start by having a whole new section in their paper on a weekly basis called criminals corner and publish the police mug shots and stories for all to see,it may deter some by naming and shaming.
Steady now old chap, we couldn't go breaching the poor little lambs human rights. Well actually too flipping right we could, what about our human rights?
[quote][p][bold]burgerboy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]ol'bag lady[/bold] wrote: "Probably ruined every one of these peoples lives......." No matter that they could have ENDED other peoples lives. Naming and shaming should be used for other offences.[/p][/quote]Good article with good quality pictures by the echo. The echo should start by having a whole new section in their paper on a weekly basis called criminals corner and publish the police mug shots and stories for all to see,it may deter some by naming and shaming.[/p][/quote]Steady now old chap, we couldn't go breaching the poor little lambs human rights. Well actually too flipping right we could, what about our human rights? breamoreboy
  • Score: 8

4:30pm Fri 4 Jul 14

breamoreboy says...

blackdog1 wrote:
nickynoodah wrote:
No bedsit dwellers need apply
only people with deeds.
thank you very much George.
What on earth is a matter with you?
The DIY full frontal lobotomy went very wrong.
[quote][p][bold]blackdog1[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]nickynoodah[/bold] wrote: No bedsit dwellers need apply only people with deeds. thank you very much George.[/p][/quote]What on earth is a matter with you?[/p][/quote]The DIY full frontal lobotomy went very wrong. breamoreboy
  • Score: 2

4:37pm Fri 4 Jul 14

MrPitiful says...

If these are cop shop shots, No.8 doesn't look very remorseful.
If these are cop shop shots, No.8 doesn't look very remorseful. MrPitiful
  • Score: 4

5:17pm Fri 4 Jul 14

Rasta dude says...

Getridofthetories wrote:
Getridofthetories wrote:
How surprising that the police can find resources to lay in wait for drink drivers but cant support local neighbourhood watch groups!
Probably ruined every one of these peoples lives by taking away their licence,surely a warning that next time they will lose their licence and a visit to the morgue might be more helpful?
Spoken like a true drink driver lets hope it's none of your family they kill you idiot
[quote][p][bold]Getridofthetories[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Getridofthetories[/bold] wrote: How surprising that the police can find resources to lay in wait for drink drivers but cant support local neighbourhood watch groups![/p][/quote]Probably ruined every one of these peoples lives by taking away their licence,surely a warning that next time they will lose their licence and a visit to the morgue might be more helpful?[/p][/quote]Spoken like a true drink driver lets hope it's none of your family they kill you idiot Rasta dude
  • Score: 9

5:36pm Fri 4 Jul 14

scrumpyjack says...

P Barker wrote:
It would be better to have all year long randem stop checks, not this summer/xmas campaigns. I see people most day who cant drive in a straight line & are possibly drunk.
They do.

There you go it's better
[quote][p][bold]P Barker[/bold] wrote: It would be better to have all year long randem stop checks, not this summer/xmas campaigns. I see people most day who cant drive in a straight line & are possibly drunk.[/p][/quote]They do. There you go it's better scrumpyjack
  • Score: 4

6:22pm Fri 4 Jul 14

Howdie says...

Getridofthetories wrote:
Getridofthetories wrote:
How surprising that the police can find resources to lay in wait for drink drivers but cant support local neighbourhood watch groups!
Probably ruined every one of these peoples lives by taking away their licence,surely a warning that next time they will lose their licence and a visit to the morgue might be more helpful?
and how many innocent lives would a drink driver ruin if they killed someone through their actions....including extended friends and families......don't deserve a driving licence, ever, it;s a priveldge not a right...can't do the time......etc etc and oh yeah...drink driving is against the law
[quote][p][bold]Getridofthetories[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Getridofthetories[/bold] wrote: How surprising that the police can find resources to lay in wait for drink drivers but cant support local neighbourhood watch groups![/p][/quote]Probably ruined every one of these peoples lives by taking away their licence,surely a warning that next time they will lose their licence and a visit to the morgue might be more helpful?[/p][/quote]and how many innocent lives would a drink driver ruin if they killed someone through their actions....including extended friends and families......don't deserve a driving licence, ever, it;s a priveldge not a right...can't do the time......etc etc and oh yeah...drink driving is against the law Howdie
  • Score: 7

6:55pm Fri 4 Jul 14

Kiki1973 says...

BigAlfromsunnyBourne
mouth
wrote:
Hessenford says... If the above is correct why have two of these muppets escaped a driving ban.

See the article:
5. James Murray, 28, of Adelphi Court, Bournemouth, was charged on 6 June 2014 with being in charge of a motor vehicle when alcohol level above limit ...

He wasn't driving, he was just with the vehicle.

9. Wendy Glenister, 34, of Hickory Close, Poole, was charged on 4 June 2014 with driving when alcohol level above limit. She appeared before Bournemouth Magistrates’ Court on 24 June 14 and was fined £110, ordered to pay a victim surcharge of £20 and costs of £85.

It looks like she got away with it, a £215 penalty being no deterrent.
Re number 5, he was in charge of the vehicle... Must be some reason why he didn't face a ban, just doesn't say why. *shrugs*
[quote][p][bold]BigAlfromsunnyBourne mouth[/bold] wrote: Hessenford says... If the above is correct why have two of these muppets escaped a driving ban. See the article: 5. James Murray, 28, of Adelphi Court, Bournemouth, was charged on 6 June 2014 with being in charge of a motor vehicle when alcohol level above limit ... He wasn't driving, he was just with the vehicle. 9. Wendy Glenister, 34, of Hickory Close, Poole, was charged on 4 June 2014 with driving when alcohol level above limit. She appeared before Bournemouth Magistrates’ Court on 24 June 14 and was fined £110, ordered to pay a victim surcharge of £20 and costs of £85. It looks like she got away with it, a £215 penalty being no deterrent.[/p][/quote]Re number 5, he was in charge of the vehicle... Must be some reason why he didn't face a ban, just doesn't say why. *shrugs* Kiki1973
  • Score: 4

7:32pm Fri 4 Jul 14

Bob49 says...

i have heard it all now wrote:
Headline story by the Echo for Drink Drivers!!
Where are the Pictures of Muggers,Burglars & other forms of Low life,Echo get your priorities right
aha, a different class of criminal it would seem - a very sick idea

most muggers and burglars do appear in the paper with said picture

what this is attempting to do is shame those who supposedly have some sense of shame within their community, as oppposed to many of the above who don't

however the police would get far more kudos if they targeted other likely areas ie outside race meetings, golf clubs and point to point meetings where heavy drinking is the norm

but then you never know who they might stop there, so better to concentrate on the 'great unwashed' instead
[quote][p][bold]i have heard it all now[/bold] wrote: Headline story by the Echo for Drink Drivers!! Where are the Pictures of Muggers,Burglars & other forms of Low life,Echo get your priorities right[/p][/quote]aha, a different class of criminal it would seem - a very sick idea most muggers and burglars do appear in the paper with said picture what this is attempting to do is shame those who supposedly have some sense of shame within their community, as oppposed to many of the above who don't however the police would get far more kudos if they targeted other likely areas ie outside race meetings, golf clubs and point to point meetings where heavy drinking is the norm but then you never know who they might stop there, so better to concentrate on the 'great unwashed' instead Bob49
  • Score: 9

8:04pm Fri 4 Jul 14

Sir Beachy Head says...

One thing is certain, if an echo employee had been caught for drink driving his face, name, address, car details etc WOULD NOT BE PRINTED IN THE ECHO, you can bet you're house on that.
One thing is certain, if an echo employee had been caught for drink driving his face, name, address, car details etc WOULD NOT BE PRINTED IN THE ECHO, you can bet you're house on that. Sir Beachy Head
  • Score: 1

8:26pm Fri 4 Jul 14

Hobad1 says...

boardsandphotos wrote:
Getridofthetories wrote:
Getridofthetories wrote:
How surprising that the police can find resources to lay in wait for drink drivers but cant support local neighbourhood watch groups!
Probably ruined every one of these peoples lives by taking away their licence,surely a warning that next time they will lose their licence and a visit to the morgue might be more helpful?
Two of the most stupid comments i've ever read on here.
have to agree, but its clear that "Getridofthetories" is a wum, with nothing better to do than to try and provoke reaction whilst he/she/it sits in his/her/its bedsit envious of the people of the normal world who have a life/job/family/purp
ose. He/she/it will probably reply to this !
[quote][p][bold]boardsandphotos[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Getridofthetories[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Getridofthetories[/bold] wrote: How surprising that the police can find resources to lay in wait for drink drivers but cant support local neighbourhood watch groups![/p][/quote]Probably ruined every one of these peoples lives by taking away their licence,surely a warning that next time they will lose their licence and a visit to the morgue might be more helpful?[/p][/quote]Two of the most stupid comments i've ever read on here.[/p][/quote]have to agree, but its clear that "Getridofthetories" is a wum, with nothing better to do than to try and provoke reaction whilst he/she/it sits in his/her/its bedsit envious of the people of the normal world who have a life/job/family/purp ose. He/she/it will probably reply to this ! Hobad1
  • Score: 1

8:37pm Fri 4 Jul 14

S,Bowes says...

When did the police start makin money out of further humiliating people By selling their mug shots ?.
When did the police start makin money out of further humiliating people By selling their mug shots ?. S,Bowes
  • Score: -4

9:29pm Fri 4 Jul 14

peterpansz says...

Hessenford wrote:
If someone is caught drink driving they will face a minimum 12 month driving ban, a criminal record, up to six months in prison and a fine of up to £5,000.
.
If the above is correct why have two of these muppets escaped a driving ban.
Not very nice to refer to them as "muppets is it?" So they have made a mistake, something that you presumably never have. You come across to me as sounding ever so superior up there on your pedastal.
[quote][p][bold]Hessenford[/bold] wrote: If someone is caught drink driving they will face a minimum 12 month driving ban, a criminal record, up to six months in prison and a fine of up to £5,000. . If the above is correct why have two of these muppets escaped a driving ban.[/p][/quote]Not very nice to refer to them as "muppets is it?" So they have made a mistake, something that you presumably never have. You come across to me as sounding ever so superior up there on your pedastal. peterpansz
  • Score: -6

9:30pm Fri 4 Jul 14

peterpansz says...

Hessenford wrote:
If someone is caught drink driving they will face a minimum 12 month driving ban, a criminal record, up to six months in prison and a fine of up to £5,000.
.
If the above is correct why have two of these muppets escaped a driving ban.
Not very nice to refer to them as "muppets is it?" So they have made a mistake, something that you presumably never have. You come across to me as sounding ever so superior up there on your pedastal.
[quote][p][bold]Hessenford[/bold] wrote: If someone is caught drink driving they will face a minimum 12 month driving ban, a criminal record, up to six months in prison and a fine of up to £5,000. . If the above is correct why have two of these muppets escaped a driving ban.[/p][/quote]Not very nice to refer to them as "muppets is it?" So they have made a mistake, something that you presumably never have. You come across to me as sounding ever so superior up there on your pedastal. peterpansz
  • Score: -1

9:37pm Fri 4 Jul 14

peterpansz says...

breamoreboy wrote:
burgerboy wrote:
ol'bag lady wrote:
"Probably ruined every one of these peoples lives......."
No matter that they could have ENDED other peoples lives. Naming and shaming should be used for other offences.
Good article with good quality pictures by the echo.
The echo should start by having a whole new section in their paper on a weekly basis called criminals corner and publish the police mug shots and stories for all to see,it may deter some by naming and shaming.
Steady now old chap, we couldn't go breaching the poor little lambs human rights. Well actually too flipping right we could, what about our human rights?
Time to sign out of the Echo website now, the Daily Mail surely awaits my slightly misguided friends.
[quote][p][bold]breamoreboy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]burgerboy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]ol'bag lady[/bold] wrote: "Probably ruined every one of these peoples lives......." No matter that they could have ENDED other peoples lives. Naming and shaming should be used for other offences.[/p][/quote]Good article with good quality pictures by the echo. The echo should start by having a whole new section in their paper on a weekly basis called criminals corner and publish the police mug shots and stories for all to see,it may deter some by naming and shaming.[/p][/quote]Steady now old chap, we couldn't go breaching the poor little lambs human rights. Well actually too flipping right we could, what about our human rights?[/p][/quote]Time to sign out of the Echo website now, the Daily Mail surely awaits my slightly misguided friends. peterpansz
  • Score: 4

10:50pm Fri 4 Jul 14

BigAlfromsunnyBournemouth says...

Kiki1973 says... Re number 5, he was in charge of the vehicle... Must be some reason why he didn't face a ban, just doesn't say why. *shrugs*

Bloke No.1 has a few beers, decides he's had too much to drive home, he settles down in his car until the morning to sleep it off, he's left his car keys in the safekeeping of the bar staff so he cannot possibly drive his car. No problem unless he is still over the limit when driving the following day.

Bloke No.2 has a few beers, decides he's had too much to drive home, he settles down in his car until the morning to sleep it off, he's still got his car keys but he isn't driving his car just sleeping, however because he has the keys and could drive the car, he is in charge of it, he could still get banned but he might be let off with just a fine.

Bloke No.3 has a few beers, he's had too much to drive but he drives home anyway, result drinking and driving with a ban.
Kiki1973 says... Re number 5, he was in charge of the vehicle... Must be some reason why he didn't face a ban, just doesn't say why. *shrugs* Bloke No.1 has a few beers, decides he's had too much to drive home, he settles down in his car until the morning to sleep it off, he's left his car keys in the safekeeping of the bar staff so he cannot possibly drive his car. No problem unless he is still over the limit when driving the following day. Bloke No.2 has a few beers, decides he's had too much to drive home, he settles down in his car until the morning to sleep it off, he's still got his car keys but he isn't driving his car just sleeping, however because he has the keys and could drive the car, he is in charge of it, he could still get banned but he might be let off with just a fine. Bloke No.3 has a few beers, he's had too much to drive but he drives home anyway, result drinking and driving with a ban. BigAlfromsunnyBournemouth
  • Score: 4

11:05pm Fri 4 Jul 14

Wageslave says...

ol'bag lady wrote:
"Probably ruined every one of these peoples lives......."
No matter that they could have ENDED other peoples lives. Naming and shaming should be used for other offences.
Yes, start with people using phones while driving, just as deadly as drink.
[quote][p][bold]ol'bag lady[/bold] wrote: "Probably ruined every one of these peoples lives......." No matter that they could have ENDED other peoples lives. Naming and shaming should be used for other offences.[/p][/quote]Yes, start with people using phones while driving, just as deadly as drink. Wageslave
  • Score: 9

12:33am Sat 5 Jul 14

scrumpyjack says...

Wageslave wrote:
ol'bag lady wrote:
"Probably ruined every one of these peoples lives......."
No matter that they could have ENDED other peoples lives. Naming and shaming should be used for other offences.
Yes, start with people using phones while driving, just as deadly as drink.
All stats say significantly more dangerous,
[quote][p][bold]Wageslave[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]ol'bag lady[/bold] wrote: "Probably ruined every one of these peoples lives......." No matter that they could have ENDED other peoples lives. Naming and shaming should be used for other offences.[/p][/quote]Yes, start with people using phones while driving, just as deadly as drink.[/p][/quote]All stats say significantly more dangerous, scrumpyjack
  • Score: 8

12:36am Sat 5 Jul 14

scrumpyjack says...

Hobad1 wrote:
boardsandphotos wrote:
Getridofthetories wrote:
Getridofthetories wrote:
How surprising that the police can find resources to lay in wait for drink drivers but cant support local neighbourhood watch groups!
Probably ruined every one of these peoples lives by taking away their licence,surely a warning that next time they will lose their licence and a visit to the morgue might be more helpful?
Two of the most stupid comments i've ever read on here.
have to agree, but its clear that "Getridofthetor
ies" is a wum, with nothing better to do than to try and provoke reaction whilst he/she/it sits in his/her/its bedsit envious of the people of the normal world who have a life/job/family/purp

ose. He/she/it will probably reply to this !
I completely agree.
[quote][p][bold]Hobad1[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]boardsandphotos[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Getridofthetories[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Getridofthetories[/bold] wrote: How surprising that the police can find resources to lay in wait for drink drivers but cant support local neighbourhood watch groups![/p][/quote]Probably ruined every one of these peoples lives by taking away their licence,surely a warning that next time they will lose their licence and a visit to the morgue might be more helpful?[/p][/quote]Two of the most stupid comments i've ever read on here.[/p][/quote]have to agree, but its clear that "Getridofthetor ies" is a wum, with nothing better to do than to try and provoke reaction whilst he/she/it sits in his/her/its bedsit envious of the people of the normal world who have a life/job/family/purp ose. He/she/it will probably reply to this ![/p][/quote]I completely agree. scrumpyjack
  • Score: 1

12:40am Sat 5 Jul 14

scrumpyjack says...

S,Bowes wrote:
When did the police start makin money out of further humiliating people By selling their mug shots ?.
Missing your point here - is this sarcasm, (need to link to a comment to clarify) or do you think they are paid?
[quote][p][bold]S,Bowes[/bold] wrote: When did the police start makin money out of further humiliating people By selling their mug shots ?.[/p][/quote]Missing your point here - is this sarcasm, (need to link to a comment to clarify) or do you think they are paid? scrumpyjack
  • Score: 7

12:44am Sat 5 Jul 14

scrumpyjack says...

peterpansz wrote:
Hessenford wrote:
If someone is caught drink driving they will face a minimum 12 month driving ban, a criminal record, up to six months in prison and a fine of up to £5,000.
.
If the above is correct why have two of these muppets escaped a driving ban.
Not very nice to refer to them as "muppets is it?" So they have made a mistake, something that you presumably never have. You come across to me as sounding ever so superior up there on your pedastal.
Whooooa this is about drivers; check out any story with a chance to mention cyclists. Keep 'em peeled.
[quote][p][bold]peterpansz[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Hessenford[/bold] wrote: If someone is caught drink driving they will face a minimum 12 month driving ban, a criminal record, up to six months in prison and a fine of up to £5,000. . If the above is correct why have two of these muppets escaped a driving ban.[/p][/quote]Not very nice to refer to them as "muppets is it?" So they have made a mistake, something that you presumably never have. You come across to me as sounding ever so superior up there on your pedastal.[/p][/quote]Whooooa this is about drivers; check out any story with a chance to mention cyclists. Keep 'em peeled. scrumpyjack
  • Score: 4

7:04am Sat 5 Jul 14

S,Bowes says...

scrumpyjack wrote:
S,Bowes wrote:
When did the police start makin money out of further humiliating people By selling their mug shots ?.
Missing your point here - is this sarcasm, (need to link to a comment to clarify) or do you think they are paid?
There are many comments you fail to follow .The point was as stated,how did the paper obtain the photo's.Have a go at starting a thread
[quote][p][bold]scrumpyjack[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]S,Bowes[/bold] wrote: When did the police start makin money out of further humiliating people By selling their mug shots ?.[/p][/quote]Missing your point here - is this sarcasm, (need to link to a comment to clarify) or do you think they are paid?[/p][/quote]There are many comments you fail to follow .The point was as stated,how did the paper obtain the photo's.Have a go at starting a thread S,Bowes
  • Score: 0

9:51am Sat 5 Jul 14

miltonarcher says...

Make them all retake the driving test. Interesting observation, check out the ages of these idiots. Nobody over the age of 50. This is why older drivers get cheaper insurance, less accidents, more responsible. For those who call for drivers over a certain age to face a retest, hang your heads in shame.
Make them all retake the driving test. Interesting observation, check out the ages of these idiots. Nobody over the age of 50. This is why older drivers get cheaper insurance, less accidents, more responsible. For those who call for drivers over a certain age to face a retest, hang your heads in shame. miltonarcher
  • Score: 1

9:55am Sat 5 Jul 14

Ophilum says...

One word Do Not Drink Behind The Wheel Then you are Safe and so are Every one else, you know it makes great common sense. Unless you are a lush that is.
One word Do Not Drink Behind The Wheel Then you are Safe and so are Every one else, you know it makes great common sense. Unless you are a lush that is. Ophilum
  • Score: 0

10:00am Sat 5 Jul 14

scrumpyjack says...

S,Bowes wrote:
scrumpyjack wrote:
S,Bowes wrote:
When did the police start makin money out of further humiliating people By selling their mug shots ?.
Missing your point here - is this sarcasm, (need to link to a comment to clarify) or do you think they are paid?
There are many comments you fail to follow .The point was as stated,how did the paper obtain the photo's.Have a go at starting a thread
'many'. Hmmm.

Well at least I am not alone judging by the thumbsometer. (not a word I just made it up)

Anyway, thanks for (sort of) clarifying; you think the Police sold the pictures?

I think otherwise. I strongly think otherwise.
[quote][p][bold]S,Bowes[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]scrumpyjack[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]S,Bowes[/bold] wrote: When did the police start makin money out of further humiliating people By selling their mug shots ?.[/p][/quote]Missing your point here - is this sarcasm, (need to link to a comment to clarify) or do you think they are paid?[/p][/quote]There are many comments you fail to follow .The point was as stated,how did the paper obtain the photo's.Have a go at starting a thread[/p][/quote]'many'. Hmmm. Well at least I am not alone judging by the thumbsometer. (not a word I just made it up) Anyway, thanks for (sort of) clarifying; you think the Police sold the pictures? I think otherwise. I strongly think otherwise. scrumpyjack
  • Score: -2

10:33am Sat 5 Jul 14

S,Bowes says...

scrumpyjack wrote:
S,Bowes wrote:
scrumpyjack wrote:
S,Bowes wrote:
When did the police start makin money out of further humiliating people By selling their mug shots ?.
Missing your point here - is this sarcasm, (need to link to a comment to clarify) or do you think they are paid?
There are many comments you fail to follow .The point was as stated,how did the paper obtain the photo's.Have a go at starting a thread
'many'. Hmmm.

Well at least I am not alone judging by the thumbsometer. (not a word I just made it up)

Anyway, thanks for (sort of) clarifying; you think the Police sold the pictures?

I think otherwise. I strongly think otherwise.
It is not important whether they sold or donated the pictures . Perhaps the police or the Echo would like to comment as aposed to you acting as their spoksperson .And me and other debating the ethics of police mug shots being used to further humiliate people that answered their crime in a court of law have you seen a police mug shot of Savile or Harris
[quote][p][bold]scrumpyjack[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]S,Bowes[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]scrumpyjack[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]S,Bowes[/bold] wrote: When did the police start makin money out of further humiliating people By selling their mug shots ?.[/p][/quote]Missing your point here - is this sarcasm, (need to link to a comment to clarify) or do you think they are paid?[/p][/quote]There are many comments you fail to follow .The point was as stated,how did the paper obtain the photo's.Have a go at starting a thread[/p][/quote]'many'. Hmmm. Well at least I am not alone judging by the thumbsometer. (not a word I just made it up) Anyway, thanks for (sort of) clarifying; you think the Police sold the pictures? I think otherwise. I strongly think otherwise.[/p][/quote]It is not important whether they sold or donated the pictures . Perhaps the police or the Echo would like to comment as aposed to you acting as their spoksperson .And me and other debating the ethics of police mug shots being used to further humiliate people that answered their crime in a court of law have you seen a police mug shot of Savile or Harris S,Bowes
  • Score: -2

11:58am Sat 5 Jul 14

scrumpyjack says...

*rolls eyes

Mugshot of Harris:

http://www.itv.com/n
ews/update/2014-06-3
0/rolf-harris-mugsho
t-released-by-met-po
lice/

As for Saville - you do know he is dead and was never arrested? Don't you?
*rolls eyes Mugshot of Harris: http://www.itv.com/n ews/update/2014-06-3 0/rolf-harris-mugsho t-released-by-met-po lice/ As for Saville - you do know he is dead and was never arrested? Don't you? scrumpyjack
  • Score: 3

12:15pm Sat 5 Jul 14

kalebmoledirt says...

scrumpyjack wrote:
*rolls eyes

Mugshot of Harris:

http://www.itv.com/n

ews/update/2014-06-3

0/rolf-harris-mugsho

t-released-by-met-po

lice/

As for Saville - you do know he is dead and was never arrested? Don't you?
You certainly know your dodgy celebs .And love the last .so go ahead then have a long lunch break
[quote][p][bold]scrumpyjack[/bold] wrote: *rolls eyes Mugshot of Harris: http://www.itv.com/n ews/update/2014-06-3 0/rolf-harris-mugsho t-released-by-met-po lice/ As for Saville - you do know he is dead and was never arrested? Don't you?[/p][/quote]You certainly know your dodgy celebs .And love the last .so go ahead then have a long lunch break kalebmoledirt
  • Score: 0

12:27pm Sat 5 Jul 14

scrumpyjack says...

kalebmoledirt wrote:
scrumpyjack wrote:
*rolls eyes

Mugshot of Harris:

http://www.itv.com/n


ews/update/2014-06-3


0/rolf-harris-mugsho


t-released-by-met-po


lice/

As for Saville - you do know he is dead and was never arrested? Don't you?
You certainly know your dodgy celebs .And love the last .so go ahead then have a long lunch break
I know them?

Err I didn't bring them up but yes I had noticed something on the news about both Saville and about Harris funnily enough.

Surprised you missed it.
[quote][p][bold]kalebmoledirt[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]scrumpyjack[/bold] wrote: *rolls eyes Mugshot of Harris: http://www.itv.com/n ews/update/2014-06-3 0/rolf-harris-mugsho t-released-by-met-po lice/ As for Saville - you do know he is dead and was never arrested? Don't you?[/p][/quote]You certainly know your dodgy celebs .And love the last .so go ahead then have a long lunch break[/p][/quote]I know them? Err I didn't bring them up but yes I had noticed something on the news about both Saville and about Harris funnily enough. Surprised you missed it. scrumpyjack
  • Score: 1

2:11pm Sat 5 Jul 14

boardsandphotos says...

S,Bowes wrote:
scrumpyjack wrote:
S,Bowes wrote:
scrumpyjack wrote:
S,Bowes wrote:
When did the police start makin money out of further humiliating people By selling their mug shots ?.
Missing your point here - is this sarcasm, (need to link to a comment to clarify) or do you think they are paid?
There are many comments you fail to follow .The point was as stated,how did the paper obtain the photo's.Have a go at starting a thread
'many'. Hmmm.

Well at least I am not alone judging by the thumbsometer. (not a word I just made it up)

Anyway, thanks for (sort of) clarifying; you think the Police sold the pictures?

I think otherwise. I strongly think otherwise.
It is not important whether they sold or donated the pictures . Perhaps the police or the Echo would like to comment as aposed to you acting as their spoksperson .And me and other debating the ethics of police mug shots being used to further humiliate people that answered their crime in a court of law have you seen a police mug shot of Savile or Harris
Mug shot of Harris? Err...yes, the Echo have one posted right now.
[quote][p][bold]S,Bowes[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]scrumpyjack[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]S,Bowes[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]scrumpyjack[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]S,Bowes[/bold] wrote: When did the police start makin money out of further humiliating people By selling their mug shots ?.[/p][/quote]Missing your point here - is this sarcasm, (need to link to a comment to clarify) or do you think they are paid?[/p][/quote]There are many comments you fail to follow .The point was as stated,how did the paper obtain the photo's.Have a go at starting a thread[/p][/quote]'many'. Hmmm. Well at least I am not alone judging by the thumbsometer. (not a word I just made it up) Anyway, thanks for (sort of) clarifying; you think the Police sold the pictures? I think otherwise. I strongly think otherwise.[/p][/quote]It is not important whether they sold or donated the pictures . Perhaps the police or the Echo would like to comment as aposed to you acting as their spoksperson .And me and other debating the ethics of police mug shots being used to further humiliate people that answered their crime in a court of law have you seen a police mug shot of Savile or Harris[/p][/quote]Mug shot of Harris? Err...yes, the Echo have one posted right now. boardsandphotos
  • Score: 1

2:20pm Sat 5 Jul 14

boardsandphotos says...

http://www.pressgaze
tte.co.uk/acpo-media
-chief-urges-police-
forces-release-pictu
res-convicted-crimin
als-media


The Association of Chief Police Officers has urged police forces around the country to be more forthcoming when it comes to releasing pictures of convicted criminals to the media.

ACPO media lead Andy Trotter wrote to all UK police forces on Friday reiterating guidance on the release of police photos which was first issued in 2010.

This guidance states: "Post conviction there is likely to be much demand from the media and from the public for information and this may include releasing an image.

“Forces are encouraged to engage with the media and be as open as possible. The release of images at this stage in the criminal justice process could assist with deterring potential criminals and preventing subsequent crime as well as encouraging other victims and witnesses to come forward.”

Trotter told Press Gazette: "We want to make sure that we adopt the same policy across the country. We felt a need to remind everyone about that guidance.

“Some forces have reverted to their own individual policies and I find that hard to explain to journalists. I would encourage journalists to know what the policy is."

Trotter said that the presumption is that pictures of those convicted of criminal offences will be released to journalists, adding: "We should really have a good reason not to release the images."

Trotter said: "Crime is going down and the prisons are full. Something is going right somewhere. Part of that is getting the information out there that the criminal justice system actually works.

“If journalists have a real problem with a police force press office, they should send me an email and I will see if I can have a discussion with the force concerned.“

The ACPO move follows a report in the Mail on Sunday on 13 July that "hundreds of thousands of convicted criminals are having their identities protected by police".

MoS research found that more than half of forces in England and Wales refuse to publish mugshots of offenders unless they have been jailed, in contravention of ACPO guidelines.
http://www.pressgaze tte.co.uk/acpo-media -chief-urges-police- forces-release-pictu res-convicted-crimin als-media The Association of Chief Police Officers has urged police forces around the country to be more forthcoming when it comes to releasing pictures of convicted criminals to the media. ACPO media lead Andy Trotter wrote to all UK police forces on Friday reiterating guidance on the release of police photos which was first issued in 2010. This guidance states: "Post conviction there is likely to be much demand from the media and from the public for information and this may include releasing an image. “Forces are encouraged to engage with the media and be as open as possible. The release of images at this stage in the criminal justice process could assist with deterring potential criminals and preventing subsequent crime as well as encouraging other victims and witnesses to come forward.” Trotter told Press Gazette: "We want to make sure that we adopt the same policy across the country. We felt a need to remind everyone about that guidance. “Some forces have reverted to their own individual policies and I find that hard to explain to journalists. I would encourage journalists to know what the policy is." Trotter said that the presumption is that pictures of those convicted of criminal offences will be released to journalists, adding: "We should really have a good reason not to release the images." Trotter said: "Crime is going down and the prisons are full. Something is going right somewhere. Part of that is getting the information out there that the criminal justice system actually works. “If journalists have a real problem with a police force press office, they should send me an email and I will see if I can have a discussion with the force concerned.“ The ACPO move follows a report in the Mail on Sunday on 13 July that "hundreds of thousands of convicted criminals are having their identities protected by police". MoS research found that more than half of forces in England and Wales refuse to publish mugshots of offenders unless they have been jailed, in contravention of ACPO guidelines. boardsandphotos
  • Score: 3

6:12pm Sat 5 Jul 14

FNS-man says...

Just goes to show motorists all break the law, really. They are all the same, and should be treated as such.
Just goes to show motorists all break the law, really. They are all the same, and should be treated as such. FNS-man
  • Score: 2

9:12pm Sat 5 Jul 14

scrumpyjack says...

boardsandphotos wrote:
http://www.pressgaze

tte.co.uk/acpo-media

-chief-urges-police-

forces-release-pictu

res-convicted-crimin

als-media


The Association of Chief Police Officers has urged police forces around the country to be more forthcoming when it comes to releasing pictures of convicted criminals to the media.

ACPO media lead Andy Trotter wrote to all UK police forces on Friday reiterating guidance on the release of police photos which was first issued in 2010.

This guidance states: "Post conviction there is likely to be much demand from the media and from the public for information and this may include releasing an image.

“Forces are encouraged to engage with the media and be as open as possible. The release of images at this stage in the criminal justice process could assist with deterring potential criminals and preventing subsequent crime as well as encouraging other victims and witnesses to come forward.”

Trotter told Press Gazette: "We want to make sure that we adopt the same policy across the country. We felt a need to remind everyone about that guidance.

“Some forces have reverted to their own individual policies and I find that hard to explain to journalists. I would encourage journalists to know what the policy is."

Trotter said that the presumption is that pictures of those convicted of criminal offences will be released to journalists, adding: "We should really have a good reason not to release the images."

Trotter said: "Crime is going down and the prisons are full. Something is going right somewhere. Part of that is getting the information out there that the criminal justice system actually works.

“If journalists have a real problem with a police force press office, they should send me an email and I will see if I can have a discussion with the force concerned.“

The ACPO move follows a report in the Mail on Sunday on 13 July that "hundreds of thousands of convicted criminals are having their identities protected by police".

MoS research found that more than half of forces in England and Wales refuse to publish mugshots of offenders unless they have been jailed, in contravention of ACPO guidelines.
What a brilliant find. I failed miserably.

Interesting as well.

Personally I advocate the ACPO stance and these images should be widely used; as many on here complain that sentences are too lenient then at the very least name and shame in the modern day version of the stocks,
[quote][p][bold]boardsandphotos[/bold] wrote: http://www.pressgaze tte.co.uk/acpo-media -chief-urges-police- forces-release-pictu res-convicted-crimin als-media The Association of Chief Police Officers has urged police forces around the country to be more forthcoming when it comes to releasing pictures of convicted criminals to the media. ACPO media lead Andy Trotter wrote to all UK police forces on Friday reiterating guidance on the release of police photos which was first issued in 2010. This guidance states: "Post conviction there is likely to be much demand from the media and from the public for information and this may include releasing an image. “Forces are encouraged to engage with the media and be as open as possible. The release of images at this stage in the criminal justice process could assist with deterring potential criminals and preventing subsequent crime as well as encouraging other victims and witnesses to come forward.” Trotter told Press Gazette: "We want to make sure that we adopt the same policy across the country. We felt a need to remind everyone about that guidance. “Some forces have reverted to their own individual policies and I find that hard to explain to journalists. I would encourage journalists to know what the policy is." Trotter said that the presumption is that pictures of those convicted of criminal offences will be released to journalists, adding: "We should really have a good reason not to release the images." Trotter said: "Crime is going down and the prisons are full. Something is going right somewhere. Part of that is getting the information out there that the criminal justice system actually works. “If journalists have a real problem with a police force press office, they should send me an email and I will see if I can have a discussion with the force concerned.“ The ACPO move follows a report in the Mail on Sunday on 13 July that "hundreds of thousands of convicted criminals are having their identities protected by police". MoS research found that more than half of forces in England and Wales refuse to publish mugshots of offenders unless they have been jailed, in contravention of ACPO guidelines.[/p][/quote]What a brilliant find. I failed miserably. Interesting as well. Personally I advocate the ACPO stance and these images should be widely used; as many on here complain that sentences are too lenient then at the very least name and shame in the modern day version of the stocks, scrumpyjack
  • Score: 2

9:14pm Sat 5 Jul 14

scrumpyjack says...

FNS-man wrote:
Just goes to show motorists all break the law, really. They are all the same, and should be treated as such.
See what you did there.

Funny how the usual suspects have suddenly slipped away when even they can't twist this into being the fault of the 2 wheeler.
[quote][p][bold]FNS-man[/bold] wrote: Just goes to show motorists all break the law, really. They are all the same, and should be treated as such.[/p][/quote]See what you did there. Funny how the usual suspects have suddenly slipped away when even they can't twist this into being the fault of the 2 wheeler. scrumpyjack
  • Score: 2

12:41pm Sun 6 Jul 14

breamoreboy says...

scrumpyjack wrote:
boardsandphotos wrote:
http://www.pressgaze


tte.co.uk/acpo-media


-chief-urges-police-


forces-release-pictu


res-convicted-crimin


als-media


The Association of Chief Police Officers has urged police forces around the country to be more forthcoming when it comes to releasing pictures of convicted criminals to the media.

ACPO media lead Andy Trotter wrote to all UK police forces on Friday reiterating guidance on the release of police photos which was first issued in 2010.

This guidance states: "Post conviction there is likely to be much demand from the media and from the public for information and this may include releasing an image.

“Forces are encouraged to engage with the media and be as open as possible. The release of images at this stage in the criminal justice process could assist with deterring potential criminals and preventing subsequent crime as well as encouraging other victims and witnesses to come forward.”

Trotter told Press Gazette: "We want to make sure that we adopt the same policy across the country. We felt a need to remind everyone about that guidance.

“Some forces have reverted to their own individual policies and I find that hard to explain to journalists. I would encourage journalists to know what the policy is."

Trotter said that the presumption is that pictures of those convicted of criminal offences will be released to journalists, adding: "We should really have a good reason not to release the images."

Trotter said: "Crime is going down and the prisons are full. Something is going right somewhere. Part of that is getting the information out there that the criminal justice system actually works.

“If journalists have a real problem with a police force press office, they should send me an email and I will see if I can have a discussion with the force concerned.“

The ACPO move follows a report in the Mail on Sunday on 13 July that "hundreds of thousands of convicted criminals are having their identities protected by police".

MoS research found that more than half of forces in England and Wales refuse to publish mugshots of offenders unless they have been jailed, in contravention of ACPO guidelines.
What a brilliant find. I failed miserably.

Interesting as well.

Personally I advocate the ACPO stance and these images should be widely used; as many on here complain that sentences are too lenient then at the very least name and shame in the modern day version of the stocks,
To my knowledge the last person to go into our village stocks was the late Lesley "Jump" Edsall. It was a unanimous verdict, failing to stand his round again.
[quote][p][bold]scrumpyjack[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]boardsandphotos[/bold] wrote: http://www.pressgaze tte.co.uk/acpo-media -chief-urges-police- forces-release-pictu res-convicted-crimin als-media The Association of Chief Police Officers has urged police forces around the country to be more forthcoming when it comes to releasing pictures of convicted criminals to the media. ACPO media lead Andy Trotter wrote to all UK police forces on Friday reiterating guidance on the release of police photos which was first issued in 2010. This guidance states: "Post conviction there is likely to be much demand from the media and from the public for information and this may include releasing an image. “Forces are encouraged to engage with the media and be as open as possible. The release of images at this stage in the criminal justice process could assist with deterring potential criminals and preventing subsequent crime as well as encouraging other victims and witnesses to come forward.” Trotter told Press Gazette: "We want to make sure that we adopt the same policy across the country. We felt a need to remind everyone about that guidance. “Some forces have reverted to their own individual policies and I find that hard to explain to journalists. I would encourage journalists to know what the policy is." Trotter said that the presumption is that pictures of those convicted of criminal offences will be released to journalists, adding: "We should really have a good reason not to release the images." Trotter said: "Crime is going down and the prisons are full. Something is going right somewhere. Part of that is getting the information out there that the criminal justice system actually works. “If journalists have a real problem with a police force press office, they should send me an email and I will see if I can have a discussion with the force concerned.“ The ACPO move follows a report in the Mail on Sunday on 13 July that "hundreds of thousands of convicted criminals are having their identities protected by police". MoS research found that more than half of forces in England and Wales refuse to publish mugshots of offenders unless they have been jailed, in contravention of ACPO guidelines.[/p][/quote]What a brilliant find. I failed miserably. Interesting as well. Personally I advocate the ACPO stance and these images should be widely used; as many on here complain that sentences are too lenient then at the very least name and shame in the modern day version of the stocks,[/p][/quote]To my knowledge the last person to go into our village stocks was the late Lesley "Jump" Edsall. It was a unanimous verdict, failing to stand his round again. breamoreboy
  • Score: 1

3:59pm Tue 8 Jul 14

Chef Hermes says...

Sir Beachy Head wrote:
I dont agree with the photos being show. The top 1 is outside court, fair enough, public place and all that.

The others are clearly mugshots taken at the police station then handed to the echo. This is not on and is a massive breach of confidentiality and the data protection act. These people should sue, they'd win.

The only justification for publishing an official police mugshot is if a criminal was on the run and it would be justified to help the public look out for him.

The police and the echo have turned this campaign into a circus. An illegal circus at that.

Disgraceful article and standards
Dear Sir Beachy Head - SHUT UP until you actually know what you're talking about.
To quote the Press Gazette:
"In fact the Echo have the legal right to publish the images.

They have a journalistic exemption under the Data Protection Act, and the pictures aren’t defamatory if they are accompanied by privileged court copy or accurate facts."
[quote][p][bold]Sir Beachy Head[/bold] wrote: I dont agree with the photos being show. The top 1 is outside court, fair enough, public place and all that. The others are clearly mugshots taken at the police station then handed to the echo. This is not on and is a massive breach of confidentiality and the data protection act. These people should sue, they'd win. The only justification for publishing an official police mugshot is if a criminal was on the run and it would be justified to help the public look out for him. The police and the echo have turned this campaign into a circus. An illegal circus at that. Disgraceful article and standards[/p][/quote]Dear Sir Beachy Head - SHUT UP until you actually know what you're talking about. To quote the Press Gazette: "In fact the Echo have the legal right to publish the images. They have a journalistic exemption under the Data Protection Act, and the pictures aren’t defamatory if they are accompanied by privileged court copy or accurate facts." Chef Hermes
  • Score: 1

1:29pm Thu 10 Jul 14

bmthlad says...

Name and shame - Well done Echo
Name and shame - Well done Echo bmthlad
  • Score: 0

11:05am Wed 23 Jul 14

Arthur Maureen says...

Chef Hermes wrote:
Sir Beachy Head wrote:
I dont agree with the photos being show. The top 1 is outside court, fair enough, public place and all that.

The others are clearly mugshots taken at the police station then handed to the echo. This is not on and is a massive breach of confidentiality and the data protection act. These people should sue, they'd win.

The only justification for publishing an official police mugshot is if a criminal was on the run and it would be justified to help the public look out for him.

The police and the echo have turned this campaign into a circus. An illegal circus at that.

Disgraceful article and standards
Dear Sir Beachy Head - SHUT UP until you actually know what you're talking about.
To quote the Press Gazette:
"In fact the Echo have the legal right to publish the images.

They have a journalistic exemption under the Data Protection Act, and the pictures aren’t defamatory if they are accompanied by privileged court copy or accurate facts."
Next up, the pervs caught upto their old tricks on Studland. Please arise Sir Beachy Head!! ;P
[quote][p][bold]Chef Hermes[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Sir Beachy Head[/bold] wrote: I dont agree with the photos being show. The top 1 is outside court, fair enough, public place and all that. The others are clearly mugshots taken at the police station then handed to the echo. This is not on and is a massive breach of confidentiality and the data protection act. These people should sue, they'd win. The only justification for publishing an official police mugshot is if a criminal was on the run and it would be justified to help the public look out for him. The police and the echo have turned this campaign into a circus. An illegal circus at that. Disgraceful article and standards[/p][/quote]Dear Sir Beachy Head - SHUT UP until you actually know what you're talking about. To quote the Press Gazette: "In fact the Echo have the legal right to publish the images. They have a journalistic exemption under the Data Protection Act, and the pictures aren’t defamatory if they are accompanied by privileged court copy or accurate facts."[/p][/quote]Next up, the pervs caught upto their old tricks on Studland. Please arise Sir Beachy Head!! ;P Arthur Maureen
  • Score: 0

8:54am Wed 30 Jul 14

Townee says...

Getridofthetories wrote:
How surprising that the police can find resources to lay in wait for drink drivers but cant support local neighbourhood watch groups!
We were pestered to start a neighbour hood watch scheme by the local police because of anti social behaviour.. So we got together and PAID to have neighbour hood watch signs put up on few lamp post at the ends of our road. Later found out we didn't need to pay but still we thought it would be worth it. Police were very helpful for a number of weeks, then an officer who was very helpful was moved to another patch. Now it's just like we don't exist no one contacts us and patrols the road. The only time we get any information is when there is a ringmaster message on an email. Anyone can sign up for these type of messages and they cover most of Bournemouth.
We feel let down by the police after a great start. I should say that about 15 years ago the same thing happened and in the end it just fizzled out.
[quote][p][bold]Getridofthetories[/bold] wrote: How surprising that the police can find resources to lay in wait for drink drivers but cant support local neighbourhood watch groups![/p][/quote]We were pestered to start a neighbour hood watch scheme by the local police because of anti social behaviour.. So we got together and PAID to have neighbour hood watch signs put up on few lamp post at the ends of our road. Later found out we didn't need to pay but still we thought it would be worth it. Police were very helpful for a number of weeks, then an officer who was very helpful was moved to another patch. Now it's just like we don't exist no one contacts us and patrols the road. The only time we get any information is when there is a ringmaster message on an email. Anyone can sign up for these type of messages and they cover most of Bournemouth. We feel let down by the police after a great start. I should say that about 15 years ago the same thing happened and in the end it just fizzled out. Townee
  • Score: 1

Comments are closed on this article.

click2find

About cookies

We want you to enjoy your visit to our website. That's why we use cookies to enhance your experience. By staying on our website you agree to our use of cookies. Find out more about the cookies we use.

I agree