CCTV appeal over roof climbers

Warrington Guardian: CCTV footage of suspects CCTV footage of suspects

POLICE are appealing for witness after two men were seen climbing on a shop roof.

The men were captured by security cameras on the roof of the old Miss Selfridge’s unit on Sankey Street.

Officers have released CCTV footage of two suspects they want to speak to.

The incident happened at 9.40pm on Saturday.

PC Graham Davies, from Warrington Town Centre NPU, said that people climbing on roofs in the town centre is an increasing problem.

Objects are then being thrown, say police.

Anyone with information can call the neighbourhood unit on 101.

Comments (29)

Please log in to enable comment sorting

7:03pm Mon 2 Dec 13

the Mighty Wire says...

we walked down sankey st at approx 11.30pm and a couple of girls and a lad were just in front of us and these idiots on the roof threw eggs down and I think one hit one of the girls the lad went round the back to get on the roof he was far from impressed we told the police down bridge st what had happened and 2 officers went that way but as said this was later than 9.40pm. the question is were these nutters on the roof for several hours and nothing was done. ?

regards
far from impressed.
we walked down sankey st at approx 11.30pm and a couple of girls and a lad were just in front of us and these idiots on the roof threw eggs down and I think one hit one of the girls the lad went round the back to get on the roof he was far from impressed we told the police down bridge st what had happened and 2 officers went that way but as said this was later than 9.40pm. the question is were these nutters on the roof for several hours and nothing was done. ? regards far from impressed. the Mighty Wire

8:19pm Mon 2 Dec 13

Godly says...

Id chop his hair off if he thew eggs at me,

What a turnip has nothing better to do on a Saturday night

Thing is.. They look over 18...

Saddos!
Id chop his hair off if he thew eggs at me, What a turnip has nothing better to do on a Saturday night Thing is.. They look over 18... Saddos! Godly

7:42am Tue 3 Dec 13

PageA says...

Mmm... Not sure that publishing photographs of people we think went on do a daft thing is the way forward. Violent crime and robbery yes..but childish pranks? Your CCTV is very impressive but where are we drawing the line?
Mmm... Not sure that publishing photographs of people we think went on do a daft thing is the way forward. Violent crime and robbery yes..but childish pranks? Your CCTV is very impressive but where are we drawing the line? PageA

9:04am Tue 3 Dec 13

Nick Tessla says...

PageA wrote:
Mmm... Not sure that publishing photographs of people we think went on do a daft thing is the way forward. Violent crime and robbery yes..but childish pranks? Your CCTV is very impressive but where are we drawing the line?
I would consider climbing on a roof - potentially causing damage- and throwing things at people as more serious than nicking a couple of packs of fags from a shop (the usual type of offence featured on here)

I wonder if the Police have considered looking at local parkour related groups (including twitter and facebook accounts) to ID these morons.
[quote][p][bold]PageA[/bold] wrote: Mmm... Not sure that publishing photographs of people we think went on do a daft thing is the way forward. Violent crime and robbery yes..but childish pranks? Your CCTV is very impressive but where are we drawing the line?[/p][/quote]I would consider climbing on a roof - potentially causing damage- and throwing things at people as more serious than nicking a couple of packs of fags from a shop (the usual type of offence featured on here) I wonder if the Police have considered looking at local parkour related groups (including twitter and facebook accounts) to ID these morons. Nick Tessla

9:32am Tue 3 Dec 13

PageA says...

Nick Tessla wrote:
PageA wrote:
Mmm... Not sure that publishing photographs of people we think went on do a daft thing is the way forward. Violent crime and robbery yes..but childish pranks? Your CCTV is very impressive but where are we drawing the line?
I would consider climbing on a roof - potentially causing damage- and throwing things at people as more serious than nicking a couple of packs of fags from a shop (the usual type of offence featured on here)

I wonder if the Police have considered looking at local parkour related groups (including twitter and facebook accounts) to ID these morons.
Not sure Nick, which is why I asked the question. You consider it more serious but maybe the shopkeeper might argue with you. How about people with overdue library books, how long until they start to feature in here?
[quote][p][bold]Nick Tessla[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]PageA[/bold] wrote: Mmm... Not sure that publishing photographs of people we think went on do a daft thing is the way forward. Violent crime and robbery yes..but childish pranks? Your CCTV is very impressive but where are we drawing the line?[/p][/quote]I would consider climbing on a roof - potentially causing damage- and throwing things at people as more serious than nicking a couple of packs of fags from a shop (the usual type of offence featured on here) I wonder if the Police have considered looking at local parkour related groups (including twitter and facebook accounts) to ID these morons.[/p][/quote]Not sure Nick, which is why I asked the question. You consider it more serious but maybe the shopkeeper might argue with you. How about people with overdue library books, how long until they start to feature in here? PageA

9:55am Tue 3 Dec 13

PageA says...

Nick Tessla wrote:
PageA wrote:
Mmm... Not sure that publishing photographs of people we think went on do a daft thing is the way forward. Violent crime and robbery yes..but childish pranks? Your CCTV is very impressive but where are we drawing the line?
I would consider climbing on a roof - potentially causing damage- and throwing things at people as more serious than nicking a couple of packs of fags from a shop (the usual type of offence featured on here)

I wonder if the Police have considered looking at local parkour related groups (including twitter and facebook accounts) to ID these morons.
Also, nowhere in the article does it say that these young men where seen throwing items from the roof. It says the police want to speak to them after they were seen climbing on a shop roof. Yet you call them morons. Innocent until featured in the local press?
[quote][p][bold]Nick Tessla[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]PageA[/bold] wrote: Mmm... Not sure that publishing photographs of people we think went on do a daft thing is the way forward. Violent crime and robbery yes..but childish pranks? Your CCTV is very impressive but where are we drawing the line?[/p][/quote]I would consider climbing on a roof - potentially causing damage- and throwing things at people as more serious than nicking a couple of packs of fags from a shop (the usual type of offence featured on here) I wonder if the Police have considered looking at local parkour related groups (including twitter and facebook accounts) to ID these morons.[/p][/quote]Also, nowhere in the article does it say that these young men where seen throwing items from the roof. It says the police want to speak to them after they were seen climbing on a shop roof. Yet you call them morons. Innocent until featured in the local press? PageA

12:47pm Tue 3 Dec 13

the Mighty Wire says...

I saw them dropping eggs and I wouldnt like to be hit by one being dropped from such a height
I saw them dropping eggs and I wouldnt like to be hit by one being dropped from such a height the Mighty Wire

2:34pm Tue 3 Dec 13

PageA says...

the Mighty Wire wrote:
I saw them dropping eggs and I wouldnt like to be hit by one being dropped from such a height
Me neither. But I wouldn't want my son or daughter plastered over the local press because 'police want to speak to them'. It's all got a bit Orwellian in my opinion
[quote][p][bold]the Mighty Wire[/bold] wrote: I saw them dropping eggs and I wouldnt like to be hit by one being dropped from such a height[/p][/quote]Me neither. But I wouldn't want my son or daughter plastered over the local press because 'police want to speak to them'. It's all got a bit Orwellian in my opinion PageA

6:03pm Tue 3 Dec 13

Rex Mundi says...

Not just eggs, but bits of coping stone too. For those who think it trivial, let me hit you in the face with an egg from 50 feet up.
Not just eggs, but bits of coping stone too. For those who think it trivial, let me hit you in the face with an egg from 50 feet up. Rex Mundi

2:33pm Wed 4 Dec 13

Nick Tessla says...

There is no good reason for someone to be up on a roof in such a manner - potential reasons include committing criminal damage and burglary - that is why the Police have every reason to question them.
There is no good reason for someone to be up on a roof in such a manner - potential reasons include committing criminal damage and burglary - that is why the Police have every reason to question them. Nick Tessla

4:19pm Wed 4 Dec 13

PageA says...

Nick Tessla wrote:
There is no good reason for someone to be up on a roof in such a manner - potential reasons include committing criminal damage and burglary - that is why the Police have every reason to question them.
ok..It's not a problem, i'm trying (and failing) to make a point about the connection between local police, cctv and local press. I'm not really discussing the price of, speed of or pain caused by...eggs. They put cameras up everywhere for our safety and now there's pictures in the guardian every week of people the police want to speak to. If you're cool with it then brill, I was just raising my concerns. Sorry for the off topic but I'm trying to comment on the story regarding the police being called to the council meeting. Have all the previous comments been removed and new comments disabled?
[quote][p][bold]Nick Tessla[/bold] wrote: There is no good reason for someone to be up on a roof in such a manner - potential reasons include committing criminal damage and burglary - that is why the Police have every reason to question them.[/p][/quote]ok..It's not a problem, i'm trying (and failing) to make a point about the connection between local police, cctv and local press. I'm not really discussing the price of, speed of or pain caused by...eggs. They put cameras up everywhere for our safety and now there's pictures in the guardian every week of people the police want to speak to. If you're cool with it then brill, I was just raising my concerns. Sorry for the off topic but I'm trying to comment on the story regarding the police being called to the council meeting. Have all the previous comments been removed and new comments disabled? PageA

4:26pm Wed 4 Dec 13

PageA says...

Nick Tessla wrote:
There is no good reason for someone to be up on a roof in such a manner - potential reasons include committing criminal damage and burglary - that is why the Police have every reason to question them.
...Being young and a bit daft is a good reason for being up on a roof in my opinion. You don't strike me as the type of person who was either so might not understand
[quote][p][bold]Nick Tessla[/bold] wrote: There is no good reason for someone to be up on a roof in such a manner - potential reasons include committing criminal damage and burglary - that is why the Police have every reason to question them.[/p][/quote]...Being young and a bit daft is a good reason for being up on a roof in my opinion. You don't strike me as the type of person who was either so might not understand PageA

4:37pm Wed 4 Dec 13

Nick Tessla says...

PageA wrote:
Nick Tessla wrote:
There is no good reason for someone to be up on a roof in such a manner - potential reasons include committing criminal damage and burglary - that is why the Police have every reason to question them.
ok..It's not a problem, i'm trying (and failing) to make a point about the connection between local police, cctv and local press. I'm not really discussing the price of, speed of or pain caused by...eggs. They put cameras up everywhere for our safety and now there's pictures in the guardian every week of people the police want to speak to. If you're cool with it then brill, I was just raising my concerns. Sorry for the off topic but I'm trying to comment on the story regarding the police being called to the council meeting. Have all the previous comments been removed and new comments disabled?
Yes - it appears that the Warrington Guardian, Warrington Labour and Cheshire Police have similar approaches to free speech.
[quote][p][bold]PageA[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Nick Tessla[/bold] wrote: There is no good reason for someone to be up on a roof in such a manner - potential reasons include committing criminal damage and burglary - that is why the Police have every reason to question them.[/p][/quote]ok..It's not a problem, i'm trying (and failing) to make a point about the connection between local police, cctv and local press. I'm not really discussing the price of, speed of or pain caused by...eggs. They put cameras up everywhere for our safety and now there's pictures in the guardian every week of people the police want to speak to. If you're cool with it then brill, I was just raising my concerns. Sorry for the off topic but I'm trying to comment on the story regarding the police being called to the council meeting. Have all the previous comments been removed and new comments disabled?[/p][/quote]Yes - it appears that the Warrington Guardian, Warrington Labour and Cheshire Police have similar approaches to free speech. Nick Tessla

4:38pm Wed 4 Dec 13

Nick Tessla says...

PageA wrote:
Nick Tessla wrote:
There is no good reason for someone to be up on a roof in such a manner - potential reasons include committing criminal damage and burglary - that is why the Police have every reason to question them.
...Being young and a bit daft is a good reason for being up on a roof in my opinion. You don't strike me as the type of person who was either so might not understand
Never mind - your continuing immaturity and daftness mean the Universe stays in balance

:-)
[quote][p][bold]PageA[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Nick Tessla[/bold] wrote: There is no good reason for someone to be up on a roof in such a manner - potential reasons include committing criminal damage and burglary - that is why the Police have every reason to question them.[/p][/quote]...Being young and a bit daft is a good reason for being up on a roof in my opinion. You don't strike me as the type of person who was either so might not understand[/p][/quote]Never mind - your continuing immaturity and daftness mean the Universe stays in balance :-) Nick Tessla

5:16pm Wed 4 Dec 13

PageA says...

Nick Tessla wrote:
PageA wrote:
Nick Tessla wrote:
There is no good reason for someone to be up on a roof in such a manner - potential reasons include committing criminal damage and burglary - that is why the Police have every reason to question them.
...Being young and a bit daft is a good reason for being up on a roof in my opinion. You don't strike me as the type of person who was either so might not understand
Never mind - your continuing immaturity and daftness mean the Universe stays in balance

:-)
Touche..bit sad giving yourself a thumbs up though ;)

I appreciate that people buy different national newspapers depending on their particular viewpoint but we only have one newspaper...it can't take sides and it can't work to protect those who serve us. If people in power control the press then they can act however they want, safe in the knowledge that no one will challenge them. If you work for the Warrington Guardian and are complicit in this then shame on you..the truth will out
[quote][p][bold]Nick Tessla[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]PageA[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Nick Tessla[/bold] wrote: There is no good reason for someone to be up on a roof in such a manner - potential reasons include committing criminal damage and burglary - that is why the Police have every reason to question them.[/p][/quote]...Being young and a bit daft is a good reason for being up on a roof in my opinion. You don't strike me as the type of person who was either so might not understand[/p][/quote]Never mind - your continuing immaturity and daftness mean the Universe stays in balance :-)[/p][/quote]Touche..bit sad giving yourself a thumbs up though ;) I appreciate that people buy different national newspapers depending on their particular viewpoint but we only have one newspaper...it can't take sides and it can't work to protect those who serve us. If people in power control the press then they can act however they want, safe in the knowledge that no one will challenge them. If you work for the Warrington Guardian and are complicit in this then shame on you..the truth will out PageA

5:28pm Wed 4 Dec 13

PageA says...

Second time in a month that I've had to use an unrelated point to dare discuss politics in this town. Ridiculous. My apologies to everyone interested in roof climbers
Second time in a month that I've had to use an unrelated point to dare discuss politics in this town. Ridiculous. My apologies to everyone interested in roof climbers PageA

6:25pm Wed 4 Dec 13

Nick Tessla says...

PageA wrote:
Nick Tessla wrote:
PageA wrote:
Nick Tessla wrote:
There is no good reason for someone to be up on a roof in such a manner - potential reasons include committing criminal damage and burglary - that is why the Police have every reason to question them.
...Being young and a bit daft is a good reason for being up on a roof in my opinion. You don't strike me as the type of person who was either so might not understand
Never mind - your continuing immaturity and daftness mean the Universe stays in balance

:-)
Touche..bit sad giving yourself a thumbs up though ;)

I appreciate that people buy different national newspapers depending on their particular viewpoint but we only have one newspaper...it can't take sides and it can't work to protect those who serve us. If people in power control the press then they can act however they want, safe in the knowledge that no one will challenge them. If you work for the Warrington Guardian and are complicit in this then shame on you..the truth will out
Not sure what you mean about giving myself a thumbs up - sounds most unhygienic !

The Warrington Worldwide site is allowing people to submit comments on the Councillor Bennett story.

Not sure why you would think I work for the Warrington Guardian or approve of their approach to comment on this issue.
[quote][p][bold]PageA[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Nick Tessla[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]PageA[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Nick Tessla[/bold] wrote: There is no good reason for someone to be up on a roof in such a manner - potential reasons include committing criminal damage and burglary - that is why the Police have every reason to question them.[/p][/quote]...Being young and a bit daft is a good reason for being up on a roof in my opinion. You don't strike me as the type of person who was either so might not understand[/p][/quote]Never mind - your continuing immaturity and daftness mean the Universe stays in balance :-)[/p][/quote]Touche..bit sad giving yourself a thumbs up though ;) I appreciate that people buy different national newspapers depending on their particular viewpoint but we only have one newspaper...it can't take sides and it can't work to protect those who serve us. If people in power control the press then they can act however they want, safe in the knowledge that no one will challenge them. If you work for the Warrington Guardian and are complicit in this then shame on you..the truth will out[/p][/quote]Not sure what you mean about giving myself a thumbs up - sounds most unhygienic ! The Warrington Worldwide site is allowing people to submit comments on the Councillor Bennett story. Not sure why you would think I work for the Warrington Guardian or approve of their approach to comment on this issue. Nick Tessla

7:36pm Wed 4 Dec 13

Karlar says...

Serendipity, we are all well most of us, are agreed WG should not have pulled comments on the "Police called to Warrington Borough Council meeting" article, and it took comment on an unrelated matter of the antics of roof climbers to bring it into focus.
Serendipity, we are all well most of us, are agreed WG should not have pulled comments on the "Police called to Warrington Borough Council meeting" article, and it took comment on an unrelated matter of the antics of roof climbers to bring it into focus. Karlar

8:13pm Wed 4 Dec 13

PageA says...

Nick Tessla wrote:
PageA wrote:
Nick Tessla wrote:
PageA wrote:
Nick Tessla wrote:
There is no good reason for someone to be up on a roof in such a manner - potential reasons include committing criminal damage and burglary - that is why the Police have every reason to question them.
...Being young and a bit daft is a good reason for being up on a roof in my opinion. You don't strike me as the type of person who was either so might not understand
Never mind - your continuing immaturity and daftness mean the Universe stays in balance

:-)
Touche..bit sad giving yourself a thumbs up though ;)

I appreciate that people buy different national newspapers depending on their particular viewpoint but we only have one newspaper...it can't take sides and it can't work to protect those who serve us. If people in power control the press then they can act however they want, safe in the knowledge that no one will challenge them. If you work for the Warrington Guardian and are complicit in this then shame on you..the truth will out
Not sure what you mean about giving myself a thumbs up - sounds most unhygienic !

The Warrington Worldwide site is allowing people to submit comments on the Councillor Bennett story.

Not sure why you would think I work for the Warrington Guardian or approve of their approach to comment on this issue.
Sorry for the confusion I don't think that nick, It wasn't you I was talking to.
[quote][p][bold]Nick Tessla[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]PageA[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Nick Tessla[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]PageA[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Nick Tessla[/bold] wrote: There is no good reason for someone to be up on a roof in such a manner - potential reasons include committing criminal damage and burglary - that is why the Police have every reason to question them.[/p][/quote]...Being young and a bit daft is a good reason for being up on a roof in my opinion. You don't strike me as the type of person who was either so might not understand[/p][/quote]Never mind - your continuing immaturity and daftness mean the Universe stays in balance :-)[/p][/quote]Touche..bit sad giving yourself a thumbs up though ;) I appreciate that people buy different national newspapers depending on their particular viewpoint but we only have one newspaper...it can't take sides and it can't work to protect those who serve us. If people in power control the press then they can act however they want, safe in the knowledge that no one will challenge them. If you work for the Warrington Guardian and are complicit in this then shame on you..the truth will out[/p][/quote]Not sure what you mean about giving myself a thumbs up - sounds most unhygienic ! The Warrington Worldwide site is allowing people to submit comments on the Councillor Bennett story. Not sure why you would think I work for the Warrington Guardian or approve of their approach to comment on this issue.[/p][/quote]Sorry for the confusion I don't think that nick, It wasn't you I was talking to. PageA

4:48pm Thu 5 Dec 13

phil wa1 says...

PageA wrote:
Mmm... Not sure that publishing photographs of people we think went on do a daft thing is the way forward. Violent crime and robbery yes..but childish pranks? Your CCTV is very impressive but where are we drawing the line?
Trespassing on the roof, potential criminal damages to gain access? and throwing things at people is assalt so I would agree that this is an effective and just use of the CCTV system.
[quote][p][bold]PageA[/bold] wrote: Mmm... Not sure that publishing photographs of people we think went on do a daft thing is the way forward. Violent crime and robbery yes..but childish pranks? Your CCTV is very impressive but where are we drawing the line?[/p][/quote]Trespassing on the roof, potential criminal damages to gain access? and throwing things at people is assalt so I would agree that this is an effective and just use of the CCTV system. phil wa1

5:01pm Thu 5 Dec 13

phil wa1 says...

PageA wrote:
Nick Tessla wrote:
PageA wrote:
Mmm... Not sure that publishing photographs of people we think went on do a daft thing is the way forward. Violent crime and robbery yes..but childish pranks? Your CCTV is very impressive but where are we drawing the line?
I would consider climbing on a roof - potentially causing damage- and throwing things at people as more serious than nicking a couple of packs of fags from a shop (the usual type of offence featured on here)

I wonder if the Police have considered looking at local parkour related groups (including twitter and facebook accounts) to ID these morons.
Not sure Nick, which is why I asked the question. You consider it more serious but maybe the shopkeeper might argue with you. How about people with overdue library books, how long until they start to feature in here?
Your an idiot. Why are you talking about library books? The police are asking for assistance in an "increasing problem". CCTV still frames are regularly published by the police to great effect. It helps them in their fight against our town's CRIME and to catch CRIMINALS... e.g. the girl who was seen being racially abusive handed herself in after the picture was published - racism is a crime and this occasion trespassing/assault - both a crime. So if you have nothing constructive to say then please refrain.
[quote][p][bold]PageA[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Nick Tessla[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]PageA[/bold] wrote: Mmm... Not sure that publishing photographs of people we think went on do a daft thing is the way forward. Violent crime and robbery yes..but childish pranks? Your CCTV is very impressive but where are we drawing the line?[/p][/quote]I would consider climbing on a roof - potentially causing damage- and throwing things at people as more serious than nicking a couple of packs of fags from a shop (the usual type of offence featured on here) I wonder if the Police have considered looking at local parkour related groups (including twitter and facebook accounts) to ID these morons.[/p][/quote]Not sure Nick, which is why I asked the question. You consider it more serious but maybe the shopkeeper might argue with you. How about people with overdue library books, how long until they start to feature in here?[/p][/quote]Your an idiot. Why are you talking about library books? The police are asking for assistance in an "increasing problem". CCTV still frames are regularly published by the police to great effect. It helps them in their fight against our town's CRIME and to catch CRIMINALS... e.g. the girl who was seen being racially abusive handed herself in after the picture was published - racism is a crime and this occasion trespassing/assault - both a crime. So if you have nothing constructive to say then please refrain. phil wa1

9:26pm Thu 5 Dec 13

PageA says...

phil wa1 wrote:
PageA wrote:
Nick Tessla wrote:
PageA wrote:
Mmm... Not sure that publishing photographs of people we think went on do a daft thing is the way forward. Violent crime and robbery yes..but childish pranks? Your CCTV is very impressive but where are we drawing the line?
I would consider climbing on a roof - potentially causing damage- and throwing things at people as more serious than nicking a couple of packs of fags from a shop (the usual type of offence featured on here)

I wonder if the Police have considered looking at local parkour related groups (including twitter and facebook accounts) to ID these morons.
Not sure Nick, which is why I asked the question. You consider it more serious but maybe the shopkeeper might argue with you. How about people with overdue library books, how long until they start to feature in here?
Your an idiot. Why are you talking about library books? The police are asking for assistance in an "increasing problem". CCTV still frames are regularly published by the police to great effect. It helps them in their fight against our town's CRIME and to catch CRIMINALS... e.g. the girl who was seen being racially abusive handed herself in after the picture was published - racism is a crime and this occasion trespassing/assault - both a crime. So if you have nothing constructive to say then please refrain.
"You're" illiterate. And ignorant to the law. Trespass isn't a crime and no image has been presented showing these lads throwing anything from the roof. Get back in your box numbnuts
[quote][p][bold]phil wa1[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]PageA[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Nick Tessla[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]PageA[/bold] wrote: Mmm... Not sure that publishing photographs of people we think went on do a daft thing is the way forward. Violent crime and robbery yes..but childish pranks? Your CCTV is very impressive but where are we drawing the line?[/p][/quote]I would consider climbing on a roof - potentially causing damage- and throwing things at people as more serious than nicking a couple of packs of fags from a shop (the usual type of offence featured on here) I wonder if the Police have considered looking at local parkour related groups (including twitter and facebook accounts) to ID these morons.[/p][/quote]Not sure Nick, which is why I asked the question. You consider it more serious but maybe the shopkeeper might argue with you. How about people with overdue library books, how long until they start to feature in here?[/p][/quote]Your an idiot. Why are you talking about library books? The police are asking for assistance in an "increasing problem". CCTV still frames are regularly published by the police to great effect. It helps them in their fight against our town's CRIME and to catch CRIMINALS... e.g. the girl who was seen being racially abusive handed herself in after the picture was published - racism is a crime and this occasion trespassing/assault - both a crime. So if you have nothing constructive to say then please refrain.[/p][/quote]"You're" illiterate. And ignorant to the law. Trespass isn't a crime and no image has been presented showing these lads throwing anything from the roof. Get back in your box numbnuts PageA

8:16am Fri 6 Dec 13

ItsD2G2U says...

Page A, YOU'RE clutching at straws now.
Page A, YOU'RE clutching at straws now. ItsD2G2U

9:11am Fri 6 Dec 13

PageA says...

ItsD2G2U wrote:
Page A, YOU'RE clutching at straws now.
I disagree. My point has been consistent throughout. I'm not defending anybody, just asking a question. it might makefor easy police-work and it keeps the local gossips happy, but if they're not presenting actual evidence of a crime being committed why are these boys in the newspaper? The story says these boys were seen on the roof..that this is an increasing problem...and that objects are being thrown. Are we supposed to join this up together ourselves? Are we to presume that they are the increasing problem and that it is the boys in the picture that are responsible for throwing objects?it's just that the first person to comment on here says it happened at 11.30pm and not 9.40pm as stated in the article. Maybe the boys that really threw the objects found another way onto the roof..or were wearing hoods. maybe these boys went up earlier and tried to get the real egg flingers to stop. All of this would come out in a 'proper' police investigation and maybe it would find these boys to be guilty.
[quote][p][bold]ItsD2G2U[/bold] wrote: Page A, YOU'RE clutching at straws now.[/p][/quote]I disagree. My point has been consistent throughout. I'm not defending anybody, just asking a question. it might makefor easy police-work and it keeps the local gossips happy, but if they're not presenting actual evidence of a crime being committed why are these boys in the newspaper? The story says these boys were seen on the roof..that this is an increasing problem...and that objects are being thrown. Are we supposed to join this up together ourselves? Are we to presume that they are the increasing problem and that it is the boys in the picture that are responsible for throwing objects?it's just that the first person to comment on here says it happened at 11.30pm and not 9.40pm as stated in the article. Maybe the boys that really threw the objects found another way onto the roof..or were wearing hoods. maybe these boys went up earlier and tried to get the real egg flingers to stop. All of this would come out in a 'proper' police investigation and maybe it would find these boys to be guilty. PageA

9:17am Fri 6 Dec 13

PageA says...

I'm finding it hard to make the leap between a police officer responding to an egg throwing incident...to these CCTV pictures featuring in the local press. Who operates these cameras?
I'm finding it hard to make the leap between a police officer responding to an egg throwing incident...to these CCTV pictures featuring in the local press. Who operates these cameras? PageA

10:03am Sat 7 Dec 13

ddb2013 says...

my eldest thinks the attended Newman leaving she left in 2011 they could have left that year or the year before or after
my eldest thinks the attended Newman leaving she left in 2011 they could have left that year or the year before or after ddb2013

7:40pm Sun 8 Dec 13

grey-area says...

Just how easy is it to get on the roof of town centre properties?
Just how easy is it to get on the roof of town centre properties? grey-area

3:03pm Mon 9 Dec 13

GRUMPY PARENT says...

PageA wrote:
ItsD2G2U wrote:
Page A, YOU'RE clutching at straws now.
I disagree. My point has been consistent throughout. I'm not defending anybody, just asking a question. it might makefor easy police-work and it keeps the local gossips happy, but if they're not presenting actual evidence of a crime being committed why are these boys in the newspaper? The story says these boys were seen on the roof..that this is an increasing problem...and that objects are being thrown. Are we supposed to join this up together ourselves? Are we to presume that they are the increasing problem and that it is the boys in the picture that are responsible for throwing objects?it's just that the first person to comment on here says it happened at 11.30pm and not 9.40pm as stated in the article. Maybe the boys that really threw the objects found another way onto the roof..or were wearing hoods. maybe these boys went up earlier and tried to get the real egg flingers to stop. All of this would come out in a 'proper' police investigation and maybe it would find these boys to be guilty.
PageA, The police do not have to have to give actual evidence of a crime being committed to the local rag so that you can have your kangaroo court and find these people guilty of any offence. The "rag" and I quote "The men were captured by security cameras on the roof of the old Miss Selfridge’s unit on Sankey Street". That alone is an offence called trespassing and possible criminal damage in getting up there in the first place! We don't know for sure what evidence the police or the CCTV operators have as we only see what is reported to the rag. We are not the defence against the prosecution, I am sure the Police have enough evidence to prosecute these "alleged" offenders or they would not wish to "speak with them".
Still grumpy
[quote][p][bold]PageA[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]ItsD2G2U[/bold] wrote: Page A, YOU'RE clutching at straws now.[/p][/quote]I disagree. My point has been consistent throughout. I'm not defending anybody, just asking a question. it might makefor easy police-work and it keeps the local gossips happy, but if they're not presenting actual evidence of a crime being committed why are these boys in the newspaper? The story says these boys were seen on the roof..that this is an increasing problem...and that objects are being thrown. Are we supposed to join this up together ourselves? Are we to presume that they are the increasing problem and that it is the boys in the picture that are responsible for throwing objects?it's just that the first person to comment on here says it happened at 11.30pm and not 9.40pm as stated in the article. Maybe the boys that really threw the objects found another way onto the roof..or were wearing hoods. maybe these boys went up earlier and tried to get the real egg flingers to stop. All of this would come out in a 'proper' police investigation and maybe it would find these boys to be guilty.[/p][/quote]PageA, The police do not have to have to give actual evidence of a crime being committed to the local rag so that you can have your kangaroo court and find these people guilty of any offence. The "rag" and I quote "The men were captured by security cameras on the roof of the old Miss Selfridge’s unit on Sankey Street". That alone is an offence called trespassing and possible criminal damage in getting up there in the first place! We don't know for sure what evidence the police or the CCTV operators have as we only see what is reported to the rag. We are not the defence against the prosecution, I am sure the Police have enough evidence to prosecute these "alleged" offenders or they would not wish to "speak with them". Still grumpy GRUMPY PARENT

9:20am Mon 23 Dec 13

Rex Mundi says...

It might not be these two, but the "harmless fun" argument is gone after this weekend's damge to a car (someone dropped a washbasin on it from above) and skylights smashed in the Cotton Mill bar.
It might not be these two, but the "harmless fun" argument is gone after this weekend's damge to a car (someone dropped a washbasin on it from above) and skylights smashed in the Cotton Mill bar. Rex Mundi

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