They push the button and dunk...remote camera kicks in!! A bowling
ball rolls onto your oversizes guttering and round the house falls off
onto the extension where a see-saw is waiting to be activated up goes
the fireworks which attract the neighbourhood watch.... the wee ****
has moved away from the door and tripped the lazer beam which
activates the explosives at the gate, problem solved!



I take it that you used to play 'MouseTrap' when you was younger !!!!!
Dave

"Kaptain Kremin" wrote in message
om...
dennis@home wrote in message ...
"Kaptain Kremin" wrote in message
om...
Snip
It'll never work, he's not allowed to have a gate :-)

These restrictions don't stop moats.

but, surely the drawbridge would fall foul of the regulations?



Not if it ends up as part of the house wall.

KK

"mogga" wrote in message
news
Shame you can't get boiling oil activated droppers set off by the
doorbell really.

I wonder what would happen if the automatic garden sprinklers went off when
the door bell was pressed?

The water could be pretty smelly if its from a water butt with a dead cat in
it.

On Fri, 10 Jul 2009 08:50:09 +0100, TheScullster wrote:

"John" wrote

John wrote:
I seem to have started to attract some door bell ringing from the
local youths on the skulk home from school. I ignore it - but it has
escalated into them coming up to the windows and knocking on them (to
really impress their mates)

I am thinking of leaving a video camera running in the house -
positioned in such a way that no-one just walking past on the
pavement will be caught in shot. Then if I get a picture of a face at
the window I can show it to my local Community Police Boy.

Any legal issues that you can imagine? Anyone at the window will be
15 feet onto my property.

Do you not have a wall/fence/gate?


--
Dave - The Medway Handyman
www.medwayhandyman.co.uk


Not permitted - open plan fronts in deeds.


Our property has similar restrictions.
When we moved in (2002) there were 20' high blue lawson conifers right round
the boundary which overhung the highway footpath by upto 6'. Made it
impassable in places. Many other properties also have hedges on the
boundary although not as unruly as ours.
We have since had all the conifers removed, and replaced some with fencing
and some with more decorative hedging. Our deeds also exclude the erection
of fencing and hedging on the boundary, but my understanding is that this
would be a condition made by the builder to try to keep the area "all the
same" during the development phase. The fact that our actions removed
overgrown and obstructive fir trees and cleared the adjacent path we saw as
a positive, as did all of our neighbours. In our area, planning permission
is necessary to erect a fence within 2m of a boundary. This permission was
obtained with the condition that the fence is set 500mm from the boundary
and agreed planting scheme adopted between fence and public footpath.

I suspect that it would be possible for the erecton of the fence to be
challenged based on the original stipulation in the deeds, but I believe
that this would involve the complainant registering the issue with the
original builder. As the place was built 30 years ago, he's probably hung
up his trowel long since - IANAL!!!

Phil

Yes, I have a similar restrictive covenant in my deeds. AFAIK and IANAL it's
up to the builder to enforce these covenants and if they decide not to, or if
the original builder no longer exists (and no-one took over) then there's nothing
except planning regulationsto prevent you from doing whatever you like. Provided
yo can put up with the "tutting" from disapproving enighbours.
Round my way, the covenants have falled into disuse and there's a motley
collection of modifications going on ("tut" :-)

I was going to suggest anti-burglar (non drying) paint, with the required notices
of course. But I've been told this can only be used above a certain height.

dennis@home wrote in message ...
Snip
Not if it ends up as part of the house wall.

and there was me thinking you'd have it slide out from a slightly
raised bed

KK

On Thu, 09 Jul 2009 20:08:34 +0100, Kaptain Kremin wrote:

ARWadsworth wrote in message
om... Snip
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/n...re/8142428.stm

Good old days?

Yep. Especially as I didn't suggest any violence although there was of
course the cane for serial offenders.

As the teacher is 49, let's assume he has been teaching for some
years and has seen his authority gradually eroded by all these left wing
do gooders to the point that he is now constantly abused and vilified by
some oik trying to prove to his peers that he is the "big I am".

Teach has finally snapped with tragic consequences. I do not for one
minute think his actions are acceptable but I also doubt they came about
without severe provocation.



Exactly what I thought. My late dad was a physics teacher at a local
school. When he started training, teaching was a respected profession.
One spoke of "doctors, lawyers, teachers & clerical men" as "professional
people". By the time he retired it had all gone to pot.

Due to all sorts of deals done between the government and the teachers
unions his pay had diminished, the kids were no longer responsive
(probably partly due to H&S removing most of the "interesting"
experiments like blowing the lid off a coffee can!) and he was completely
fed up of the whole thing and glad to be getting out.

That was several years ago. The importance of "street cred" has increased
a lot since - I doubt if he would have stayed in the job at all now. He
certainly wouldn't have even considered training for it (and neither
would I).

--
Mick (Working in a M$-free zone!)
Web: http://www.nascom.info
Filtering everything posted from googlegroups to kill spam.

On Thu, 9 Jul 2009 14:48:36 +0100, "John"
wrote:

I seem to have started to attract some door bell ringing from the local
youths on the skulk home from school. I ignore it - but it has escalated
into them coming up to the windows and knocking on them (to really impress
their mates)

I am thinking of leaving a video camera running in the house - positioned in
such a way that no-one just walking past on the pavement will be caught in
shot. Then if I get a picture of a face at the window I can show it to my
local Community Police Boy.

Any legal issues that you can imagine? Anyone at the window will be 15 feet
onto my property.


Psychology. Confront them and tell them they are doing you a favour
because you suffer from sleeping sickness and their ringing the bell
wakes you up, preventing you from going into too deep a sleep. Then
offer them 50p per day to ring your bell when they pass. Keep your end
of the bargain for a couple of weeks, then complain about the
recession and tell them that unfortunately you are going to have to
cut it to 30p per day. A couple of weeks later tell them that things
have got even worse and you are now going have to drop it to 10p per
day. At that point they will refuse to "Work" for that kind of money
and no longer ring your bell.

"Old Git" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 9 Jul 2009 14:48:36 +0100, "John"
wrote:

I seem to have started to attract some door bell ringing from the local
youths on the skulk home from school. I ignore it - but it has escalated
into them coming up to the windows and knocking on them (to really impress
their mates)

I am thinking of leaving a video camera running in the house - positioned
in
such a way that no-one just walking past on the pavement will be caught in
shot. Then if I get a picture of a face at the window I can show it to my
local Community Police Boy.

Any legal issues that you can imagine? Anyone at the window will be 15
feet
onto my property.


Psychology. Confront them and tell them they are doing you a favour
because you suffer from sleeping sickness and their ringing the bell
wakes you up, preventing you from going into too deep a sleep. Then
offer them 50p per day to ring your bell when they pass. Keep your end
of the bargain for a couple of weeks, then complain about the
recession and tell them that unfortunately you are going to have to
cut it to 30p per day. A couple of weeks later tell them that things
have got even worse and you are now going have to drop it to 10p per
day. At that point they will refuse to "Work" for that kind of money
and no longer ring your bell.

I think they must have been in their final days in the zoo as I haven't seen
them since the incident. I hope they find meaningful employment!

On Fri, 10 Jul 2009 17:15:48 +0100, John wrote:

I think they must have been in their final days in the zoo as I haven't seen

Too many of 'em to get jobs - time to legalise youthenasia.
--
Peter.
The head of a pin will hold more angels if
it's been flattened with an angel-grinder.

On 10 July, 20:29, PeterC wrote:
On Fri, 10 Jul 2009 17:15:48 +0100, John wrote:
I think they must have been in their final days in the zoo as I haven't seen

Too many of 'em to get jobs - time to legalise youthenasia.
--

AYE.... BOYASHAKA

On 10 July, 22:22, Tommy wrote:
On 10 July, 20:29, PeterC wrote:

On Fri, 10 Jul 2009 17:15:48 +0100, John wrote:
I think they must have been in their final days in the zoo as I haven't seen

Too many of 'em to get jobs - time to legalise youthenasia.
--

AYE.... BOYASHAKA

BOYASHAKA
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tuY5sTe0YF8

On Jul 10, 7:32 pm, "TheScullster" wrote:
"Matty F" wrote

A local shopkeeper borrowed a video camera which got a good picture of
a tagger's face, which he then put in the window of his shop. Helpful
locals told him the name and address of the tagger, and that was
written on the picture. There's been no tagging since.

Tagging?
Method to improve organisation of images in database?

Around here, tagging means scribbling a few words on someone's wall or
fence. I use the term graffiti if there is some slight artistic merit.

On 09/07/2009 14:55 Stuart B wrote:

Complain to the skool if they are going to or from it,esp'y from it.

They're between home and school, so why is its school's fault rather
than home's?

They spend more time at home than at school so tell the parents.

For some reason 'society' seem to think that it's up to school to fix
everything. School is for education in its widest sense, but not for
bringing children up. That's the job the parents took on when they
decided on a spot of nookey!

--
F

On 10 Jul 2009 12:46:23 GMT Pete wrote :
Yes, I have a similar restrictive covenant in my deeds. AFAIK and
IANAL it's up to the builder to enforce these covenants and if they
decide not to, or if the original builder no longer exists (and no-one
took over) then there's nothing except planning regulations to prevent
you from doing whatever you like. Provided yo can put up with the
"tutting" from disapproving enighbours.

IANAL either, but where covenants are placed on all owners of an estate
they are classed as a "building scheme" and any owner can take action
against any other. See http://www.wragge.com/analysis_1762.asp for
starters.

Favourite tactic of the NIMBY brigade in some areas.


--
Tony Bryer, 'Software to build on' from Greentram
www.superbeam.co.uk www.superbeam.com www.greentram.com

On Fri, 10 Jul 2009 23:51:58 +0100, F news@nowhere had this to say:

On 09/07/2009 14:55 Stuart B wrote:

Complain to the skool if they are going to or from it,esp'y from it.

They're between home and school, so why is its school's fault rather
than home's?

They spend more time at home than at school so tell the parents.

For some reason 'society' seem to think that it's up to school to fix
everything. School is for education in its widest sense, but not for
bringing children up. That's the job the parents took on when they
decided on a spot of nookey!

I agree 100%.

Sadly the parent(s) seem to have no inkling of how to be parents -
very often they're really still kids themselves.

This has been the case for probably two or three generations now. Some
would argue many more. If parents aren't capable (obviously they
aren't) of talking to and influencing their children then I suppose
that "society" must have some say in the matter.

Back on topic Many years ago my car alarm (one of those 'pendulum'
types) (Selmar?) was often being set off by a youngster from my local
school (now a comprehensive, but it was a grammar-tech when I was
there).

I literally caught the offending youngster and frogmarched him back to
the school where the deputy head remembered me and was able to deal
with the kid. Since then I had no trouble (although I did move home a
while later). No doubt that nowadays I'd be classed as a pædophile...

--
Frank Erskine

On Sat, 11 Jul 2009 09:41:35 +1000, Tony Bryer wrote:

On 10 Jul 2009 12:46:23 GMT Pete wrote :
Yes, I have a similar restrictive covenant in my deeds. AFAIK and
IANAL it's up to the builder to enforce these covenants and if they
decide not to, or if the original builder no longer exists (and no-one
took over) then there's nothing except planning regulations to prevent
you from doing whatever you like. Provided yo can put up with the
"tutting" from disapproving enighbours.

IANAL either, but where covenants are placed on all owners of an estate
they are classed as a "building scheme" and any owner can take action
against any other. See http://www.wragge.com/analysis_1762.asp for
starters.

Favourite tactic of the NIMBY brigade in some areas.

Hmmm, this seems to contradict information that I have been looking at
recently where a court ruled that although neighbours could enforce such a
covenant, it was only applicable to original owners and was not
tranferrable to subsequent owners.

SteveW

On Fri, 10 Jul 2009 07:30:41 +0100, Clint Sharp wrote:

In message , zaax
writes
You could try the 'Mosquito' which is a sound at 17KHZ. It's a high
pitch tone (high frequency tone) that adults can't hear, and kids hate.

Oy, don't you be encouraging that sort of thing, it's not all adults
that can't hear it.

---
zaax
Frustration casues accidents: allow faster traffic to overtake.

I'd also be worried that as these things are inaudible to most adults
(definitely to me), I could have my son in his trolley and he could be
upset by the sound, but I would have no idea why - particularly bad if I
lived in a neighbouring house!

SteveW

Steve Walker wrote:
On Sat, 11 Jul 2009 09:41:35 +1000, Tony Bryer wrote:

On 10 Jul 2009 12:46:23 GMT Pete wrote :
Yes, I have a similar restrictive covenant in my deeds. AFAIK and
IANAL it's up to the builder to enforce these covenants and if they
decide not to, or if the original builder no longer exists (and no-one
took over) then there's nothing except planning regulations to prevent
you from doing whatever you like. Provided yo can put up with the
"tutting" from disapproving enighbours.
IANAL either, but where covenants are placed on all owners of an estate
they are classed as a "building scheme" and any owner can take action
against any other. See http://www.wragge.com/analysis_1762.asp for
starters.

Favourite tactic of the NIMBY brigade in some areas.

Hmmm, this seems to contradict information that I have been looking at
recently where a court ruled that although neighbours could enforce such a
covenant, it was only applicable to original owners and was not
tranferrable to subsequent owners.

Covenants normally get passed on with the land deeds. They are rights or
strictures attached to the land itself.


SteveW

On Sat, 11 Jul 2009 01:45:57 +0100 Steve Walker wrote :
Hmmm, this seems to contradict information that I have been looking
at recently where a court ruled that although neighbours could
enforce such a covenant, it was only applicable to original owners
and was not tranferrable to subsequent owners.

It's 35 years since I did this stuff at uni, but IIRC the distinction
is between the situation where you sell off half your garden with
covenants limiting what the buyer can do and the building scheme
situation where the developer imposes identical covenants on all
buyers of homes on an estate (a 'building scheme').

--
Tony Bryer, 'Software to build on' from Greentram
www.superbeam.co.uk www.superbeam.com www.greentram.com

In article ,
Frank Erskine writes:
I literally caught the offending youngster and frogmarched him back to
the school where the deputy head remembered me and was able to deal
with the kid. Since then I had no trouble (although I did move home a
while later). No doubt that nowadays I'd be classed as a pædophile...

Plus assult, kidnap, and probably more I can't think of right now.

20+ years ago, before most people even knew what pædophile meant,
I recall walking around a B&Q (actually, probably a Texas) with a
chap from work, getting some things to plumb in a new sink in his
just bought house. In the middle of the isle was a little lad,
probably about age 3, crying his eyes out because he'd lost daddy.
Colleague picked up child without any hesitation, sat him on his
shoulders, and the 3 of us set off around the store looking for
daddy, who we found quite quickly, and it was smiles all round.

Probably a couple of times in the last 10 years, I've walked into
an isle of a shop and seen a similarly lost child, and found myself
instinctively doing a U-turn and walking away, in case I'm accused
of doing something nasty. That's a change forced on society by the
continuous campaigning of the likes of the NSPCC, supposedly for
the protection of children, which I find abhorrent, but that's
where we now are, sadly.

--
Andrew Gabriel
[email address is not usable -- followup in the newsgroup]

On Sat, 11 Jul 2009 01:12:51 +0100, Frank Erskine wrote:

I literally caught the offending youngster and frogmarched him back to
the school
snip
No doubt that nowadays I'd be classed as a pædophile...

Or, at the very least, done for assault or maybe even kidnap.

--
Cheers
Dave.

Tony Bryer wrote:
On Sat, 11 Jul 2009 01:45:57 +0100 Steve Walker wrote :
Hmmm, this seems to contradict information that I have been looking
at recently where a court ruled that although neighbours could
enforce such a covenant, it was only applicable to original owners
and was not tranferrable to subsequent owners.

It's 35 years since I did this stuff at uni, but IIRC the distinction
is between the situation where you sell off half your garden with
covenants limiting what the buyer can do and the building scheme
situation where the developer imposes identical covenants on all
buyers of homes on an estate (a 'building scheme').

Indeed. You can write a contract with the land, or its owner.

On 11 Jul 2009 09:42:03 GMT, Andrew Gabriel wrote:

In article ,
Frank Erskine writes:
I literally caught the offending youngster and frogmarched him back to
the school where the deputy head remembered me and was able to deal
with the kid. Since then I had no trouble (although I did move home a
while later). No doubt that nowadays I'd be classed as a pædophile...

Plus assult, kidnap, and probably more I can't think of right now.

20+ years ago, before most people even knew what pædophile meant,
I recall walking around a B&Q (actually, probably a Texas) with a
chap from work, getting some things to plumb in a new sink in his
just bought house. In the middle of the isle was a little lad,
probably about age 3, crying his eyes out because he'd lost daddy.
Colleague picked up child without any hesitation, sat him on his
shoulders, and the 3 of us set off around the store looking for
daddy, who we found quite quickly, and it was smiles all round.

Probably a couple of times in the last 10 years, I've walked into
an isle of a shop and seen a similarly lost child, and found myself
instinctively doing a U-turn and walking away, in case I'm accused
of doing something nasty. That's a change forced on society by the
continuous campaigning of the likes of the NSPCC, supposedly for
the protection of children, which I find abhorrent, but that's
where we now are, sadly.

I've done very similar - usually hung around far enough away to not be
accused of anything, but close enough to keep an eye on the child to make
sure nothing happens, until either a parent or a woman arrives.

SteveW

We were somewhere around Barstow, on the edge of the desert, when the
drugs began to take hold. I remember "John"
saying something like:


Any legal issues that you can imagine? Anyone at the window will be 15 feet
onto my property.

Hire a science teacher to commit attempted murder on them.

On Sat, 11 Jul 2009 14:44:03 +0100, Steve Walker wrote:

I've done very similar - usually hung around far enough away to not be
accused of anything, but close enough to keep an eye on the child to
make sure nothing happens, until either a parent or a woman arrives.

What makes you think women are not perpetrators of child abuse?

Hanging about near a distressed child might not be a good idea, some
one might jump to the wrong conclusions.

--
Cheers
Dave.

Andrew Gabriel wrote:
In article ,
Frank Erskine writes:
I literally caught the offending youngster and frogmarched him back
to the school where the deputy head remembered me and was able to
deal with the kid. Since then I had no trouble (although I did move
home a while later). No doubt that nowadays I'd be classed as a
pædophile...

Plus assult, kidnap, and probably more I can't think of right now.

20+ years ago, before most people even knew what pædophile meant,
I recall walking around a B&Q (actually, probably a Texas) with a
chap from work, getting some things to plumb in a new sink in his
just bought house. In the middle of the isle was a little lad,
probably about age 3, crying his eyes out because he'd lost daddy.
Colleague picked up child without any hesitation, sat him on his
shoulders, and the 3 of us set off around the store looking for
daddy, who we found quite quickly, and it was smiles all round.

Probably a couple of times in the last 10 years, I've walked into
an isle of a shop and seen a similarly lost child, and found myself
instinctively doing a U-turn and walking away, in case I'm accused
of doing something nasty. That's a change forced on society by the
continuous campaigning of the likes of the NSPCC, supposedly for
the protection of children, which I find abhorrent, but that's
where we now are, sadly.

I have to concur; whereas in the past I would not hesitste to assist, I now
think twice about how to help. I have both organised and been a principal
participant in an annual local carnival put on by a local charity for 25
years. The requirement put on us by the local authority in the contract we
have to sign to use the land now requires all members of the club
participating to have valid CRB checks and all involved in any way with food
to have hygiene certificates..

On Sat, 11 Jul 2009 22:09:07 +0100 (BST), Dave Liquorice wrote:

On Sat, 11 Jul 2009 14:44:03 +0100, Steve Walker wrote:

I've done very similar - usually hung around far enough away to not be
accused of anything, but close enough to keep an eye on the child to
make sure nothing happens, until either a parent or a woman arrives.

What makes you think women are not perpetrators of child abuse?

It's not that women never abuse children, but the public perception is that
the incidence is much lower and therefore a woman approaching an upset
child is much less likely to be falsely accused by the parents when they
return or by others, whereas I as a man might be.

Hanging about near a distressed child might not be a good idea, some
one might jump to the wrong conclusions.

I can't just walk away completely, but I don't want to get involved either,
therefore my only option is to hang around at a distance, just keeping an
eye open to ensure that no harm comes to the child.

SteveW

In article ,
dave wrote:
I can't just walk away completely, but I don't want to get involved
either, therefore my only option is to hang around at a distance, just
keeping an eye open to ensure that no harm comes to the child.

SteveW

What a place the perverts have made of this country - and what an
insult to most decent men.

Don't think there is a larger percentage of 'perverts' now than ever. It's
just that communications are so much better everyone hears about every
incident.

--
*Sherlock Holmes never said "Elementary, my dear Watson" *

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

dave wrote in message
...
Snip
What a place the perverts have made of this country - and what
an
insult to most decent men.

Actually, I think you'll find that should read "what a place the
gutter press and brain dead have made this country".

Popular opinion fuelled by the drivel served up by the daily rags
and men hating social workers have concluded that every male has
an ulterior motive.

I doubt there are many more instances of child abduction /
interference etc than say 30 or 40 years ago. The difference is
that *everybody* now has easy access to news media and is willing
to go that route.

KK

On Mon, 13 Jul 2009 06:19:13 +0100, Kaptain Kremin wrote:

dave wrote in message
...
Snip
What a place the perverts have made of this country - and what
an
insult to most decent men.

Actually, I think you'll find that should read "what a place the
gutter press and brain dead have made this country".

Popular opinion fuelled by the drivel served up by the daily rags
and men hating social workers have concluded that every male has
an ulterior motive.

I doubt there are many more instances of child abduction /
interference etc than say 30 or 40 years ago. The difference is
that *everybody* now has easy access to news media and is willing
to go that route.

KK

I certainly saw a documentary (probably around eight years ago) where they
asserted that the number of children kidnapped and abused/murdered hadn't
changed for fifty years, so as you say, it is most likely just that there
is a lot more reporting of it.

SteveW

On Mon, 13 Jul 2009 10:08:22 +0100 Steve Walker wrote :
I certainly saw a documentary (probably around eight years ago) where
they asserted that the number of children kidnapped and abused/murdered
hadn't changed for fifty years, so as you say, it is most likely just
that there is a lot more reporting of it.

The main risk to children AIUI is from the boyfriends/new partners of
single mothers, not strangers in dirty raincoats, and changing life
patterns mean that children are far more likely to come into contact with
the former than fifty years ago.

--
Tony Bryer, 'Software to build on' from Greentram
www.superbeam.co.uk www.superbeam.com www.greentram.com

We were somewhere around Barstow, on the edge of the desert, when the
drugs began to take hold. I remember Steve Walker
saying something like:

I doubt there are many more instances of child abduction /
interference etc than say 30 or 40 years ago. The difference is
that *everybody* now has easy access to news media and is willing
to go that route.

KK

I certainly saw a documentary (probably around eight years ago) where they
asserted that the number of children kidnapped and abused/murdered hadn't
changed for fifty years, so as you say, it is most likely just that there
is a lot more reporting of it.

Exactly.
I'm reminded of a study of the so-called 'crimewave' of the 1960s (of
which the tabloid rags made a big deal), done a few years later. Turned
out the incidence of real crimes hadn't increased at all, it's just that
almost every house had a phone in it by the end of the 60s, so the
reported crimes shot up, in lockstep with the number of phones.

Co-incidence? I think not.

Grimly Curmudgeon wrote:
We were somewhere around Barstow, on the edge of the desert, when the
drugs began to take hold. I remember Steve Walker
saying something like:

I doubt there are many more instances of child abduction /
interference etc than say 30 or 40 years ago. The difference is
that *everybody* now has easy access to news media and is willing
to go that route.

KK

I certainly saw a documentary (probably around eight years ago)
where they asserted that the number of children kidnapped and
abused/murdered hadn't changed for fifty years, so as you say, it is
most likely just that there is a lot more reporting of it.

Exactly.
I'm reminded of a study of the so-called 'crimewave' of the 1960s (of
which the tabloid rags made a big deal), done a few years later.
Turned out the incidence of real crimes hadn't increased at all, it's
just that almost every house had a phone in it by the end of the 60s,
so the reported crimes shot up, in lockstep with the number of phones.

Co-incidence? I think not.

Rather like the increase in the number of 'alcohol related' hospital
admissions coinciding with the police decision (after a few deaths) not to
keep drunks in cells overnight to sleep it off. Now its left to the
ambulance service to take them to A&E to sleep it off.

Same amount of drunks, different paperwork.


--
Dave - The Medway Handyman
www.medwayhandyman.co.uk

The Medway Handyman wrote:
Grimly Curmudgeon wrote:
We were somewhere around Barstow, on the edge of the desert, when the
drugs began to take hold. I remember Steve Walker
saying something like:

I doubt there are many more instances of child abduction /
interference etc than say 30 or 40 years ago. The difference is
that *everybody* now has easy access to news media and is willing
to go that route.

KK
I certainly saw a documentary (probably around eight years ago)
where they asserted that the number of children kidnapped and
abused/murdered hadn't changed for fifty years, so as you say, it is
most likely just that there is a lot more reporting of it.
Exactly.
I'm reminded of a study of the so-called 'crimewave' of the 1960s (of
which the tabloid rags made a big deal), done a few years later.
Turned out the incidence of real crimes hadn't increased at all, it's
just that almost every house had a phone in it by the end of the 60s,
so the reported crimes shot up, in lockstep with the number of phones.

Co-incidence? I think not.

Rather like the increase in the number of 'alcohol related' hospital
admissions coinciding with the police decision (after a few deaths) not to
keep drunks in cells overnight to sleep it off. Now its left to the
ambulance service to take them to A&E to sleep it off.

Same amount of drunks, different paperwork.

Why not change the paperwork again and put the drunks on the park
benches to look after themselves?

Dave

On Thu, 16 Jul 2009 23:21:07 +0100, Dave
had this to say:

The Medway Handyman wrote:
Grimly Curmudgeon wrote:
We were somewhere around Barstow, on the edge of the desert, when the
drugs began to take hold. I remember Steve Walker
saying something like:

I doubt there are many more instances of child abduction /
interference etc than say 30 or 40 years ago. The difference is
that *everybody* now has easy access to news media and is willing
to go that route.

KK
I certainly saw a documentary (probably around eight years ago)
where they asserted that the number of children kidnapped and
abused/murdered hadn't changed for fifty years, so as you say, it is
most likely just that there is a lot more reporting of it.
Exactly.
I'm reminded of a study of the so-called 'crimewave' of the 1960s (of
which the tabloid rags made a big deal), done a few years later.
Turned out the incidence of real crimes hadn't increased at all, it's
just that almost every house had a phone in it by the end of the 60s,
so the reported crimes shot up, in lockstep with the number of phones.

Co-incidence? I think not.

Rather like the increase in the number of 'alcohol related' hospital
admissions coinciding with the police decision (after a few deaths) not to
keep drunks in cells overnight to sleep it off. Now its left to the
ambulance service to take them to A&E to sleep it off.

Same amount of drunks, different paperwork.

Why not change the paperwork again and put the drunks on the park
benches to look after themselves?

In fact, why not supply them with alcohol (just to make sure it's
pure)?

--
Frank Erskine

On Thu, 16 Jul 2009 23:21:07 +0100, Dave
wrote:

The Medway Handyman wrote:
Grimly Curmudgeon wrote:
We were somewhere around Barstow, on the edge of the desert, when the
drugs began to take hold. I remember Steve Walker
saying something like:

I doubt there are many more instances of child abduction /
interference etc than say 30 or 40 years ago. The difference is
that *everybody* now has easy access to news media and is willing
to go that route.

KK
I certainly saw a documentary (probably around eight years ago)
where they asserted that the number of children kidnapped and
abused/murdered hadn't changed for fifty years, so as you say, it is
most likely just that there is a lot more reporting of it.
Exactly.
I'm reminded of a study of the so-called 'crimewave' of the 1960s (of
which the tabloid rags made a big deal), done a few years later.
Turned out the incidence of real crimes hadn't increased at all, it's
just that almost every house had a phone in it by the end of the 60s,
so the reported crimes shot up, in lockstep with the number of phones.

Co-incidence? I think not.

Rather like the increase in the number of 'alcohol related' hospital
admissions coinciding with the police decision (after a few deaths) not to
keep drunks in cells overnight to sleep it off. Now its left to the
ambulance service to take them to A&E to sleep it off.

Same amount of drunks, different paperwork.

Why not change the paperwork again and put the drunks on the park
benches to look after themselves?

Dave

Or why not tidy them away in a special van. Where they get charged for
being removed.
--
http://www.freedeliveryuk.co.uk
http://www.holidayunder100.co.uk

In message , Dave
writes
The Medway Handyman wrote:
Grimly Curmudgeon wrote:
We were somewhere around Barstow, on the edge of the desert, when the
drugs began to take hold. I remember Steve Walker
saying something like:

I doubt there are many more instances of child abduction /
interference etc than say 30 or 40 years ago. The difference is
that *everybody* now has easy access to news media and is willing
to go that route.

KK
I certainly saw a documentary (probably around eight years ago)
where they asserted that the number of children kidnapped and
abused/murdered hadn't changed for fifty years, so as you say, it is
most likely just that there is a lot more reporting of it.
Exactly.
I'm reminded of a study of the so-called 'crimewave' of the 1960s (of
which the tabloid rags made a big deal), done a few years later.
Turned out the incidence of real crimes hadn't increased at all, it's
just that almost every house had a phone in it by the end of the 60s,
so the reported crimes shot up, in lockstep with the number of phones.

Co-incidence? I think not.
Rather like the increase in the number of 'alcohol related'
hospital admissions coinciding with the police decision (after a few
deaths) not to keep drunks in cells overnight to sleep it off. Now
its left to the ambulance service to take them to A&E to sleep it off.
Same amount of drunks, different paperwork.

Why not change the paperwork again and put the drunks on the park
benches to look after themselves?

Drunk Yoga anyone ?

http://acidcow.com/pics/3100-russian...a_10_pics.html


--
geoff