This story is the kind of thing seen regularly over at JuliaM’s.
Lorretta Cole says she was trying to teach her neighbour’s children a lesson after she claims the ball repeatedly landed on her property and even damaged her car.
The 47-year-old retrieved the £3.99 ball from land in front of her home in Baddesley Close, North Baddesley, Hampshire, and refused to give it back when asked by the father of the children.
I can remember incidents like that from my childhood. There would be a little argy bargy and the matter would be forgotten; apart, that is, from the kids remembering not to do that again. Which, of course, was the point. Not in our wonderful 21st Century.
Mrs Cole was then visited on three occasions by police who attempted to persuade her to return the ball.
Yup, the police got involved. And, yes, she was arrested, had her DNA and fingerprints taken and was questioned for five hours. And none of these cretins thought to consider that this might, just might, be a tad over the top. It’s now gone to the CPS, who, if they had a grain of common sense will tell the police what they can do with it, and to attend to real crimes in future, please. Unfortunately, this has all the hallmarks of prosecution written all over it.
Every so often, I wonder what happened to the Peelian principles.
I do indeed like this one. Although I’m not sure ‘like’ is really the appropriate term…
But I have to wonder who on earth thinks this is a useful way to spend police time? The regulars at Insp Gadget’s blog are all adamant that they don’t wish to spend their time on these sorts of cases. Clearly, some of their colleagues don’t agree…
My use of the word “like” was, naturally, facetious.
That is weird. Why didn’t their dad just tell the kids it served them right and then, jsut to show what a loving dad he was, buy a new one anyway?
When something similar happened to us when I was a kid, our parents basically told us that it was our fault and maybe we would learn from it. We never did get the ball back. Should I call the police?
It is, theoretically, theft. But…..
And the police wonder why the antics of Raoul Moat and the ease with which he’s evading them is not greeted with horror and absolute condemnation from ALL quarters….
http://www.opsi.gov.uk/RevisedStatutes/Acts/ukpga/1968/cukpga_19680060_en_1
Theft Act 1968
1968 CHAPTER 60
1 Basic definition of theft
(1) A person is guilty of theft if he dishonestly appropriates property belonging to another with the intention of permanently depriving the other of it; and “thief” and “steal” shall be construed accordingly.
2 “Dishonestly”
(1) A person’s appropriation of property belonging to another is not to be regarded as dishonest—
(a) if he appropriates the property in the belief that he has in law the right to deprive the other of it, [ …]
3 “Appropriates”
(1) Any assumption by a person of the rights of an owner amounts to an appropriation, [ … ]
Theft also requires the thief to steal “with the intention of permanently depriving the other of it;”
The questions of whether Ms Cole was ‘dishonest’ in acquiring the ball, whether she ‘appropriated’ it “with the intention of permanently depriving the other of it;” are paramount. Taking possession of the ball to teach the children a lesson does not suggest dishonesty, nor does it require that she appropriate it as defined or that she intended to deprive the children of it permanently. But the facts may be otherwise. Absent any unreported threats against the children, the father of the child ought not in all reasonableness to have involved the police. The allegation of damage to Ms Cole’s car is a question of fact and ought to have been brought to the attention of the father and, subsequently to the police, supported by evidence of damage. Ms Cole’s position might have been stronger if the ball was on her property when she took possession of it, but being in front of her house on (apparently) public land ought not to be a damning factor.
She “refused to give it back when asked by the father of the children.” This is not in and of itself evidence of intent to steal.
On the whole, the case appears to be an excessive response by both the father in involving the police and the police in pursuing Ms Cole to the lengths they have, which appear disproportionate to the facts presented.
But at least the police have another set of DNA and fingerprints on their database.
Ho hum.
Winston
“The allegation of damage to Ms Cole’s car is a question of fact and ought to have been brought to the attention of the father and, subsequently to the police, supported by evidence of damage.”
Ah, but he’d have denied it, the kids would have denied it, there was no evidence to prove it, and there was Ms Cole, standing there with a ball in her hands that didn’t belong to her.
Job done, back to the canteen for a cuppa!
It’s the behavoir of the kids father that gives me most concern as this sort of attitude now seems to be the norm.
Forty years ago “when Ar were a lad” I would have thought twice about mentioning this to my Dad, because I would have got a thick ear and dragged round to the womans house to apologise. I might then have got my ball back, but would it have been worth the pain and shame? That would have been my decision. Most likely I would just tell Dad that I had lost the ball and hope like mad that the woman did not ever raise the subject with him.
Either way, I would have been far more considerate about where and how I played footy in future, which is the point.
Far too many rights these days, not enough responsibility and bugger all punishment – except for the real victims as we see in this particular case.