Here's what I just posted there, using my name and giving my location as "New York City, USA":
The man committed an assault -- with water from a hose or fists, it doesn't matter. Someone complained to the cops, and he was arrested, charged, and booked. All according to Hoyle. What's the big deal?
We'll see what happens.
This probably will not be the end of the matter. There's still the lawsuits and endless litigation.
A suing B for the claimed damage the branches are alleged to have caused to his property and the severe emotional stress he received from the light spraying/drenching, depending on which side you take.
B suing A for the claimed emotional stress caused by A's alleged intimidation, shouting and abusive manner.
I can see the no win, no fee lawyers sharpening their selling skills and tapping the route into their sat navs.
After all. it does happen in the US, and we're only a few years behind them.
Someone posted about this story on a message board I frequent; this was on Saturday morning and the number of comments haven't changed since then, so I'm guessing the Mail has forgotten about this particular case and moved on to the next thing that will 'outrage' middle England.
With reference to the story itself, you are absolutely right - this 'financial adviser' chap has committed common assault. In Daily Mail land, they would be much happier if white middle class people were immune from prosecution for crimes like this one, or speeding.
Imagine if the aggressor in this story hadn't been Bob Cornwall, 42, a financial adviser from Shoreham-on-Sea, but instead the aggressor was 'Darren', 22, unemployed from Manchester. Would the story focus on the perceived inefficiencies of the police in not dealing with 'real crime'? Of course, the story would take the angle that some dole-scrounger had not only made his elderly neighbour's life a living hell by dumping garden rubbish on his property, but he also then assaulted him when he came over to politely ask 'Darren' not to dump waste on his property in future. Cue discussion of how society is going the dogs, isn't it terrible, why hasn't 'Darren' been put away for life, etc.
The reason that prisons are full to beyond capacity is that government has decided that more crimes should result in a prison sentence. The public has elected the government on this basis (amongst others, of course). The public (and especially the Daily Mail reading demographic) wants some sort of zero tolerance approach to crime, but only for those whom they are intolerant of.
Also, as far as the comments on the story go, I couldn't believe this one:
'If this man had his DNA and fingerprints taken for this so called offence, how come all the illegals that get caught only get pointed to the local hotels.
Surely you would think that they could pose a greater risk to security and at least be processed in the same way.'
Only in Daily Mail land could a story about a white, middle-class man assaulting his white, middle-class neighbour in their white, middle-class part of the country be turned into an ill-informed diatribe about 'illegals'.
No it shows how you have been indoctrinated.
What other country would have finger prints , DNA, etc for a simple wetting from a hose?
as for accepting a caution - this only proves that he knew it was the easy way out. Not that he was accepting or confessing anything.
All it really needed was some firm authorative sergeant to go along and in so many words tell them to stop buggering about and indicate that if there was any more of this nonsense they would be in trouble.
authoritative sergeants have been cancelled.
More likely the next step will be dawn raids with the whole street being tested for DNA.
After all the innocent have nothing to fear.
the magistrates will accept this on the ground that it happens to everyone.
For references see occupied Europe WW2.
John,
I am very unhappy about the last decade's assault on liberties, and I make no attempt to defend it. My point was about the selective nature of the Mail's indignation, as others have pointed out above.
There is a perfectly sensible argument for creating and maintaining a DNA database, jut as there is a sensible argument in favour of our ancient liberties. Unfortunately the Government won't come clean, and make a decision one way or another. They prefer to build the database by stealth.
This Government never uses the word 'liberty' other than when it is prefaced with the word 'diabolical'.
John Cramer -- the same would probably happen in France and in some states of the US. As for accepting the caution: he was guilty of common assault on his own account, so perhaps that's why he accepted it?
Bystander wrote ... comment pointing out that the police had acted properly, which he did. It was not published: conclusive proof that the Mail did not want to spoil a good 'how dare they' story with the inconvenient truth. ...
Hardly any of the comments I have submitted to national newspapers have been published. Nearly all of these comments have either been short abstracts of pertinent academic research accessible to the layman, or highlighting logical errors, factual inaccuracies or omissions in the original article. In my opinion, my experience does not prove anything conclusively.
On the other hand, I have made hundreds of comments at The Guardian's Comment Is Free, only one of which, an abstract of a speech and a link to a source was deleted, from which I conclude that it was deemed off-topic.
Bystander - "I rang an acqaintance to ask him to add a comment". Why? Do you have such an aversion to the Mail that you won't even e-mail them? Or do they recognise who you are from your e-mail address? If it's the latter, be careful, it won't be long before they expose you.
Whilst the law of the land is as it is, and should be enforced when appropriate, there is a danger in looking at things in such stark black-and-white terms as suggested by Bystander (and JPs more than anyone should recognise that the world comprises innumerable shades of grey). For an alternative view of the waterspraying scandal and enforcement of similar low-level offending, have a read of these two rather despairing postings from operational police officers:
http://inspectorgadget.wordpress...c-biker-writes/
http://nightjack.wordpress.com/2...the-third-rail/
By the way, Bystander, you might want to provide a link to Nightjack's blog. (done - ed) It's well-written, rather less sensationalist than Inspector Gadget's, and the posters have so far refrained from blaming everything on the wet liberal elite that JPs are supposed to be!
Edited By Siteowner
West Country JP wrote ... Nightjack's blog. It's well-written, rather less sensationalist than Inspector Gadget's, ... In my opinion, Inspector Gadget's blog is well-written and is not sensationalist. Do you have a specific example of IG being sensationalist?
Nightjack has an observant wit; Vichy Cops and Gucci Villages are two examples of his which come to mind.
I recall a post (I think it was from Bystander) some while ago about the dangers of accepting cautions without legal advice. Perhaps this gentleman should have taken legal advice first?
Bert - "in my opinion"... I'm contributing to a blog not writing a doctoral thesis. In my opinion what I said is justified by 5 minutes reading IG - just have a look at the current leading strand "Fava beans" with "Raymond Horne" a couple of threads earlier. I also find many of the comments posted of the Daily Mail "Why, oh why?" type (yours excluded, of course). That's not to say that IG's blog and his views don't have any merit, they do, it's just that "in my opinion" Nightjack's blog is a bit more to my taste.
MrD - From the facts as cited in the press it was distinctly likely that Bob Cornwall was guilty of an offence, and he duly accepted that by taking a caution. The debate is whether he should have been criminalised in this way or whether there was a better, more appropriate, method of dealing with him.
The tone of the police blogs indicates that in the past a copper would have read him the riot act and that would have been the end of it: no further offences, no caution on the record, aggrieved neighbour feels vindicated. But now, that discretion has been removed.
Marchie in a post at 02:01 today quite reasonably compares the offence committed by Bob Cornwall with an identical offence committed by Darren, 22 and unemployed. One could argue that it is entirely appropriate that both Bob and Darren are treated the same. But there is the distinct possibility that Bob, 42, has got to his middle years without incurring any sort of a record and his waterspraying antics are both the beginning and the end of his life of crime.
But the police are no longer able to use their discretion to employ a "light touch" if this is the case and must treat Bob the same way as if he were a "Darren" with a record. This might be justifiable in principle but is not a pragmatic solution allowing officers on the ground - in the front line of the judicial system - to respond to the ACTUAL situation.
The Daily Mail article shows a certain attitude about the taking of DNA which appears to be along the lines of it should not have been done in this case. However, they do not really articulate why it should not have been done. Was this because they are opposed to the taking of samples? Somehow, I doubt that! Was it because they oppose the taking of samples from people in occupations like Mr.C? Possibly, but you could not formulate a law which permitted such discrimination. Was it because they considered the intervention of the Police to be totally over-the-top? Possibly and, as some other commentators on this blog have said, there is a case for a less heavy-handed approach. Then again, the Police have “Offences Brought to Justice” targets. The Police are also very keen to expand the National DNA Database.
Since the advent of PACE in 1984 there has been a gradual move away from the various safeguards originally built into the process of taking samples. The National DNA Database exists but does not have specific statutory authority for its existence. The taking of samples does have statutory authority and the position has been reached where samples may be taken without consent from anyone arrested on suspicion of any recordable offence. “Recordable offences” covers a wide range of offending and not all recordable offences are imprisonable.
DNA samples can be removed from the database if a Chief Constable agrees. It is very unclear on what basis this discretion is exercised and there appears to be no judicial control of this process.
The rules are different in Scotland where most DNA samples taken after arrests must be destroyed if the person is not charged or convicted. This difference is very hard to justify.
A challenge to all this is now before the European Court of Human Rights and judgment is awaited. Even if the court does not rule against the retention of samples, the U.K. is unlikely to escape criticism since there are distinctly unsatisfactory aspects to this regime.
These links are of interest:
http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/sci...e/dna-database/
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotl...and/
7260821.stm
http://www.statewatch.org/news/2...na-
database.htm
You’re absolutely right Bystander, just more evidence of their amateurish, sensational reporting.
"he man with the hosepipe accepted a caution, thus agreeing that he had committed the alleged offence"
Come on. You're always saying that people don't understand what a caution implies, and accept it rather than having the hassle and strain of a court appearance.
Re Nightjack : "the posters have so far refrained from blaming everything on the wet liberal elite that JPs are supposed to be"
Up till now, you mean !
Forgot to say - for once, I agree with you that spraying an elderly guy with a hose could indeed constitute assault.
I think Marchie's analogy is a little far fetched though. Our putative underclass villain wouldn't use a hose - unless it was a short length with wire inside as a flexible club.
Just goes to confirm the old maxim "Never let the truth get in the way of a good story".
This is what I posted. We'll see if they use it:
"It might seem like a waste of time, but under New Labour that is what the police now have to do when any crime is reported, to meet Home Office targets. The police are discouraged from using their discretion these days.
Spraying water on someone IS assault, so it's not good Mr Cornwall complaining that he didn't do anything wrong.
"Everything was incredibly formal, very stiff and serious," -- so all very businesslike and professional then. What's wrong with that?
His DNA stays on the database because he was cauitoned, which means he admitted the offence.
The only thing wrong with all this is teh Home Office interfering with how the police do their job."
"This is unprofessional and dishonest journalism, and the Mail should be ashamed of itself."
Bystander, I'd be interested in your definition of 'professional journalism'. As to 'dishonest', you may well be right - so, status quo, then.
All journalism is opinion. Sometimes verifiable facts may be incorporated, sometimes not. I can recall several discussions with journalists on the News of the World where they freely admitted making up much of what was published - and I saw the results on the printed pages. As far as they were concerned it didn't matter - just as long as it sold more copies, filled column inches and they didn't get sued. In view of the job mobility of journalists I have no reason to think believe this is an uncommon practice.
I also have now tried to post a comment making this point.
It is an extraordinary piece of hypocrisy by the DM, which likes to champion the cause of 'Law and Order' to criticise the police for dealing properly with an offence. But of course in the DM's mind (sic) offences committed by the respectable middles classes are quite different.
@ Richard75
If he'd elected to go to court, and been acquitted, would his DNA still be retained on file?
(Yes- it's arrest that counts) -ed
Edited By Siteowner
I could not agree more Bystander. On 1 January 2005 I made a New Year's Resolution never to again waste any of my money on buying the Daily Mail - I am pleased to say that this is one resolution I have adhered to.
Regretably, I've come into this debate a little late in the day.
When i work with offenders, I'm often struck by the old-fashioned Hobbsian notion of seeing the world as a war of all against all. Only in Middle England would an offence like this be reported or talked about.
I can say quite clearly that if about 80% of the guys I work with were sprayed with a hosepipe in such circumstances, I wouldn't want to be the......er......squirter.
Bloody La La Land !
JVIP
If spraying water on someone is assault, how come Heather Mills wasn't taken down when she baptised Macartney's lawyer? One presumes this incident took place in a court, and is admitted by the guilty party so....
I hold no particular brief for journalism as a whole. With a few exceptions, we have well differentiated populist mass media that can be read to confirm ideas already well formed without troubling one's critical faculties.
What troubled me about the water spray was the Police reaction. Down this route lies rigid, unthinking enforcement of the law, without consideration of discretion, materiality, public interest or alternative.
When I was at school, I was a prefect and for one reason or another, for one week, we chose to enforce the school rules with absolute inflexibility. By the end of the week about one third of the school population had been issued with detention slips. As a police officer, I am not keen to repeat those actions on a wider scale.
Let's be fair to the police here. Common Assault is an offence, one so common that the greenest PC or magistrate knows what it is. If someone complains they have been assaulted the police must investigate. Current rules more or less preclude PCs from having a kindly word, so what are they supposed to do?
Damned if they do...damned if they don't.... can you imagine the upset if the cops had done what most posters here want and given 'words of advice' to both parties and the Daily Mail hacks had been approached by the very wet complaining man? How much stick would the police have got for failing to act on the behalf of the poor elderly man viciously assaulted and abused by his neighbour?
"Daily Mail distorts the news" This should perhaps be filed in the same way as "Pope admits to Catholicism" and "Bears defecate in woods"
OK, Borestander, here's one for you...
(Borestander? Am I supposed to have no feelings? - ed)
Let's say I wake up one night and hear a 'disturbance' going on in the front garden. I open the bedroom window and see below me a pair of drunken urchins having sex - on my lawn!
Sensing that they might not take much notice of my presence, or even hear my voice, I rush to the bathroom, fill a bucket with cold water, return to my bedroom and empty the bucket through the window onto the cavorting couple below.
Assault? Or self-defence? Reasonable force?
What's your opinion?
(Possibly assault. Certainly not self defence. Not reasonable either in my view. The 'cavorting' couple could be guilty of a few offences though - ed)
Edited By Siteowner
Here's another story in similar vein of a mother dealt with harshly by the Police for standing up to "yobs." [The Daily Mail's word not mine]!
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages...ge_id=1770&
ct=5
NB: Although the magistrates "threw her case out" the samples she had to give will be retained.
Ignoring Banjo's cheap and unworthy jibe at our esteemed siteowner, I do think he's illustrated the point nicely. Joe Public is offended at some low-level wrongdoing (shagging in his garden) the sort of offence where the police would turn up, if at all, three hours after climax, discarding of rubber johnny in the rosebushes, when the miscreants have long gone. So what does Joe Public do? Put up with the trespass and the offence caused to him and his family? He could, of course, confront the bonking couple and suffer verbal abuse at the very least, and possibly violence. He could shout from his bedroom window "I say, would you mind awfully..." and no doubt be told to "Eff off and mind yer own effing business, you effing perv", or he can intervene in a more direct way, perhaps by doing what he'd do if a couple of dogs were at it in his garden.
Yes, technically an assault has been committed. But in the global scheme of things was Joe Public's bucket of water unreasonable? Should he be criminalised because of it?
Apologies for the, erm, 'offence' Mr Bystander. It's just that I did find your article rather predictable of the "dull but (un)worthy" genre that blinkered liberals who can't see common sense tend to waffle on about.
Come to think of it, I guess the modern way to, erm, 'surmount' the problem of offensive behaviour, be it shagging on your lawn or peeing up your driveaway, is to grab it on the mobile, and then pass it on to Old Bill - who will promptly lose it, I guess.
On the other hand, putting the clip on YouTube coukld be fun too, but might be considered an abuse of the human rights of those who were caught in the act.
So again, which is worse? Having your lawn shagged or pissed upon, or having your exploits exposed to the public (even though that was done the very first time with the public performance)?
Any answers for us yet, Bystander?
With respect to Bystander's vastly greater experience, I disagree with him about the soaked exhibitionists. D could plead private defence (defence of his property) or prevention of crime (s3 Criminal Law Act 1967). Necessity would probably be established if, say, D shouted at the couple to desist and they ignored him. Reasonableness? I see no problem there either -- as batteries go, throwing water at someone is a comparatively mild application of force.
I'm still awaiting my (pro police) response to be publised in the comments section.
I won't be holding my breath
(three days and counting)
I also have written an post on my blog regarding this Daily Mail article. To sum up my views, yes I agree that Mr Cornwall committed Common Assault as defined by the Nation Crime Recording Standards but a bit of common sense needed to be applied to this case and his arrest was unjustified when he could have been dealt with by voluntary interview. That way his photograph, fingerprints and DNA would not have been taken. Please see my post for my full thoughts: http://pcbobbydazzler.blogspot.c...-
neighbour.html
Like those above, I made a comment on the article based on the same argument that Bystander makes. The Daily Mail did not seem to want to publish it though. It seems you have to have a moan in general agreement with the article for it to fall within the DM's definition of a "comment". What a truly obtuse and disgraceful organisation the Daily Mail is!
Dear all:
A comment above stated that the same would have happened in France.
France allows DNA samples to be retained only for very serious crimes - initially sexual assaults of all kinds, homicides, but certainly not for this kind of assault.
To me taking DNA and all the rest seems excessive for such a minor crime, but that is the law and the Police has a duty to uphold the law as it is, not as we would like it to be.
I find it particularly ironic as I am sure the Daily Mail were delighted at the idea of all the harsh treatment for minor puplic order type offences while they expected it to be aimed at hoody wearing youths.
I would be interested to see what the story would have been if a hoody wearing youth had soaked a Financial Advsor with a hose pipe and the police had refused to take action.
The Daily Mail often don't publish comments that are contrary to the gist of their articles.
This is what I said in comment:
Why blame the Police - what about the prat who called them? Police don't write laws - they enforce them. In this case the law says it is common assault. Whether it is a good law is another matter - but don't blame the police for being used by our corrupt political classes - all parties - to further their political ambitions.
Like others I am not holding my breath to see it published. I thought the example of the hypothetical Darren was a good one - comics like the Mail base their arguments not on the case but on the perceived character of the people involved.
I have often left comments on the Daily Mail. I have never sworn or made any personal attacks, but they NEVER get published because they always point out the crass hypocrisy of the article in question.
Such as the recent one about Max Mosley. Tee hee.
Commenting by HaloScan
