Yobs throw objects off bridge at passing traffic (From Southend Standard)

this is becoming more and more common, and until we stop being namby pambys around these hooligans it will only increase. Lets start having zero tolerance for all crime and ignore the bleatings of the human rights brigade who claim we are infringing on their human rights. How about victims of crime being allowed some human rights for a change.

Terrible thing to do and could cause a lot more than just a broken windscreen.

Just a minor point though..... there is no foot bridge over Royal Artillery Way, the bridge is the other side of the roundabout on Eastern Avenue.

Russ13 wrote:
Terrible thing to do and could cause a lot more than just a broken windscreen. Just a minor point though..... there is no foot bridge over Royal Artillery Way, the bridge is the other side of the roundabout on Eastern Avenue.

I did wonder that - this 'award nominated paper' still needs to work on its geographical skills I believe.

Would it be presumptious to assume the children were from Cecil Jones? Maybe the police should speak to all the pupils there to the dangers, and the consequences...

its amazing that people pick up on minor technicalities and ignore the seriousness of the actual occurence. nowt so strange as folk i guess

This is the kind of crime when these yobs get caught and stand in the dock, the crown courts should say 5 years with no remission. Do you think these idiots will think about the prison sentence. I say that it will stop this crime instantly.

Beth the original one wrote:
its amazing that people pick up on minor technicalities and ignore the seriousness of the actual occurence. nowt so strange as folk i guess

OK.... A minor technicality......

Consider this though:

The police want some witnesses, someone who was in the area and saw the offenders on the bridge over Eastern Avenue but turned on to Hamstel Road.

In answer to the question "Did you see anything going on on the bridge over Royal Artillary Way?" the answer would probably be "No, I didn't use that road"

Minor technicallity maybe but it's still not factually correct and could have a major impact on the investigation.

Take the blinkers off and have a look at the bigger picture Beth ;-)

Russ13 wrote:

Beth the original one wrote:
its amazing that people pick up on minor technicalities and ignore the seriousness of the actual occurence. nowt so strange as folk i guess

OK.... A minor technicality......

Consider this though:

The police want some witnesses, someone who was in the area and saw the offenders on the bridge over Eastern Avenue but turned on to Hamstel Road.

In answer to the question "Did you see anything going on on the bridge over Royal Artillary Way?" the answer would probably be "No, I didn't use that road"

Minor technicallity maybe but it's still not factually correct and could have a major impact on the investigation.

Take the blinkers off and have a look at the bigger picture Beth ;-)

well to be perfectly honest with you, i would use my common sense and realise that they are talking about the footbridge. As when i first made my first comment i naturally assumed that they were talking about the footbridge on eastern avenue, as anyone with an ounce of common sense knows there is not a bridge on royal artillery way. Even the police would know that

Beth the original one wrote:

Russ13 wrote:

Beth the original one wrote: its amazing that people pick up on minor technicalities and ignore the seriousness of the actual occurence. nowt so strange as folk i guess

OK.... A minor technicality...... Consider this though: The police want some witnesses, someone who was in the area and saw the offenders on the bridge over Eastern Avenue but turned on to Hamstel Road. In answer to the question "Did you see anything going on on the bridge over Royal Artillary Way?" the answer would probably be "No, I didn't use that road" Minor technicallity maybe but it's still not factually correct and could have a major impact on the investigation. Take the blinkers off and have a look at the bigger picture Beth ;-)

well to be perfectly honest with you, i would use my common sense and realise that they are talking about the footbridge. As when i first made my first comment i naturally assumed that they were talking about the footbridge on eastern avenue, as anyone with an ounce of common sense knows there is not a bridge on royal artillery way. Even the police would know that

Everyone but the Echo apparantly!

J_blond wrote:

Russ13 wrote:
Terrible thing to do and could cause a lot more than just a broken windscreen. Just a minor point though..... there is no foot bridge over Royal Artillery Way, the bridge is the other side of the roundabout on Eastern Avenue.

I did wonder that - this 'award nominated paper' still needs to work on its geographical skills I believe.

Would it be presumptious to assume the children were from Cecil Jones? Maybe the police should speak to all the pupils there to the dangers, and the consequences...

It was quite probable it was a pupil from Cecil Jones. It was lunchtime so probably coming from or going to McDonalds.
Being linchtime, there must have been loads of kids about so if the police were to quiz every single pupil at the school someone is bound to crack under the questioning. It may take a long time but if needs must.

perini wrote:

Beth the original one wrote:

Russ13 wrote:

Beth the original one wrote: its amazing that people pick up on minor technicalities and ignore the seriousness of the actual occurence. nowt so strange as folk i guess

OK.... A minor technicality...... Consider this though: The police want some witnesses, someone who was in the area and saw the offenders on the bridge over Eastern Avenue but turned on to Hamstel Road. In answer to the question "Did you see anything going on on the bridge over Royal Artillary Way?" the answer would probably be "No, I didn't use that road" Minor technicallity maybe but it's still not factually correct and could have a major impact on the investigation. Take the blinkers off and have a look at the bigger picture Beth ;-)

well to be perfectly honest with you, i would use my common sense and realise that they are talking about the footbridge. As when i first made my first comment i naturally assumed that they were talking about the footbridge on eastern avenue, as anyone with an ounce of common sense knows there is not a bridge on royal artillery way. Even the police would know that

Everyone but the Echo apparantly!

And an award nominated paper too...

Beth the original one wrote:

Russ13 wrote:

Beth the original one wrote: its amazing that people pick up on minor technicalities and ignore the seriousness of the actual occurence. nowt so strange as folk i guess

OK.... A minor technicality...... Consider this though: The police want some witnesses, someone who was in the area and saw the offenders on the bridge over Eastern Avenue but turned on to Hamstel Road. In answer to the question "Did you see anything going on on the bridge over Royal Artillary Way?" the answer would probably be "No, I didn't use that road" Minor technicallity maybe but it's still not factually correct and could have a major impact on the investigation. Take the blinkers off and have a look at the bigger picture Beth ;-)

well to be perfectly honest with you, i would use my common sense and realise that they are talking about the footbridge. As when i first made my first comment i naturally assumed that they were talking about the footbridge on eastern avenue, as anyone with an ounce of common sense knows there is not a bridge on royal artillery way. Even the police would know that

So get it right then..... if it's in Eastern Avenue say it's in Eastern Avenue.

You said you would make an assumption but as soon as you assume something you make an **** out of U and Me ;-)

Just for reference the **** wasn't an expletive, it was "****"ume

Russ13 wrote:
Just for reference the **** wasn't an expletive, it was "****"ume

This language filter is funny...... "A55"ume