Perhaps Mr. Kink should have sent his assailant on his way with a fiver for his distress. What are the police coming to these days?

I have no confidence in the Police or the Law system anymore. They both seem biased in protecting the criminal, who after all provide them with the bulk of their work.

It's disgusting that someone who tries to prevent a crime and detains the real criminal should be treated in this way. He should be praised, not charged.

The police expect the public to help them catch criminals? One has to ask, is it worth it?

Does anyone within the Dorset Police have any common sense these days?

I would like to congratulate Mr. Kink for being a honest member of the public and please don't get too depressed because things will change as people are truly sick and tired of the criminals getting better treatment then then the honest people. I can see the day when vigilante groups take the law into there own hands. I was always on the police side but I have seen so many criminals getting away with everything and people who are honest left to feel not wanted. Again, I would like to say to Mr. Kink, keep your chin up and be proud of yourself. And by the way you were defending yourself. What about your human rights? The criminal lost is rights when he attacked you.He is scum and so is the police if they take this further.

The Police's job now is to protect criminals and persecute the law abiding majority.How dare this man attempt to stop a thug going about his unlawful robbing business, he deserves to be finger printed, dna tested and locked up whatever does he think the police are for? To catch criminals?

Would like to echo everyone else well done mr kink...this is typical of weymouth/dorset police they are a disgrace.... all they seem to do is moan about pay and paperwork...which funny old thing we as tax payers have to fork out...im sure if your pay was performance related u would start delaying with these individuals and stop inoncent people being the victims.I hope they dont take this further ,and i wish mr kink all the best,and i hope through the echo he keeps the people of weymouth informed of any outcome .Good luck and well done sir.

Common assault can be pushing, shoving, punches to head/body causing slight redness, no real pain.
Mr Kink physically restrained the man and the police witnessed the result. For the police to dismiss a complaint whenever the outcome suits them would lead to allegations of police corruption. With regard to the paperwork the complaint will create a lot of paperwork which the police are very unlikely to appreciate especially since they probably were appreciative of Mr Kink’s intercession in the first place.
All the same, safeguards need to be in place to prevent people going further than simple restraint with reasonable force. It is a pity that the law gets abused but it comes as no surprise that a complaint was made by the person he apprehended.

Whilst I applaud Steve for his actions in confronting a would-be criminal, I do beleive that the "victim" has a right to challenge the level of restraint used and this would take the form of the assault charge. Who if not a court can assess this and how else could this be resolved ?? As regards the crime, was it attempted burgulary or just criminal damage brought on by too much alcohol? Has the "victim" been charged also. It seems to me to be a slow news day so lets make a mountain out of a molehill and not fully look into both sides of the story.

Iwonder if Resident would take the same point of view if it were his property being broken into or criminally damaged?

Resident wrote:
Whilst I applaud Steve for his actions in confronting a would-be criminal, I do beleive that the "victim" has a right to challenge the level of restraint used and this would take the form of the assault charge. Who if not a court can assess this and how else could this be resolved ?? As regards the crime, was it attempted burgulary or just criminal damage brought on by too much alcohol? Has the "victim" been charged also. It seems to me to be a slow news day so lets make a mountain out of a molehill and not fully look into both sides of the story.

Ah yes, let's defend the true victim of this crime. Not the proprietor of the shop that was being broken into, not the person who put his own health at risk in catching the perpetrator. No the real victim is the piece of scum who thinks it is his right to steal and rob wherever he thinks fit.

Resident wrote:
Whilst I applaud Steve for his actions in confronting a would-be criminal, I do beleive that the "victim" has a right to challenge the level of restraint used and this would take the form of the assault charge. Who if not a court can assess this and how else could this be resolved ?? As regards the crime, was it attempted burgulary or just criminal damage brought on by too much alcohol? Has the "victim" been charged also. It seems to me to be a slow news day so lets make a mountain out of a molehill and not fully look into both sides of the story.

What are you a resident of? Is it an asylum or a prison?

There is no discipline in society anymore and so there is no respect for either people or property. Mr Kink, just like the rest of us, does not pay ever increasing amounts of council tax just to be treated like this.

Another nail in the coffin of public support for the Police.

What a "Great" message this sends out to the law abiding citizens of Weymouth.....act in good faith,be a good roll-model and suffer the consequences!! God help us, as it seems the Law wont.

Unfortunately this is not an isolated incident, Sussex Police have recently apologised to am Mr McCourt of Crawley after they had charged him with Kidnap.
All Mr McCourt did was to detain a youth who was one of a gang persistently throwing missiles at his house.
Sussex Police took 45 minutes to arrive and then arrested the person who had thought himself to be the victim.
Several weeks later CPS (Criminal Protection Society) decided not to pursue the matter in Court.
The Youths obviously went on their way to throw stones another day without fear of any action being taken against them.
I suggest Mr Kink contacts his MP, it seemed to work for Mr McCourt.

Im afraid to say that this case is not an isolated one... this kind of idiocy is happening countrywide.
I have no time for most of the police force now, and I used to think they were there to protect the innocents.
Infact the 2 policemen that I know are both the biggest law breakers I know... because they know they are immune!
Well done to Mr. Kink... I for one am proud of you, and would hope this didn't put you off being a good citizen.
Best of luck with getting this charge dropped when the CPS realise how stupid it is.

Have we heard both sides of this story ? What if a pub doorman saw a male breaking a window. He 'detains' the male and in the process breaks both the males arms and legs.
Who is in the wrong now, is it the male breaking the window or the doorman for breaking his limbs ? Or are they BOTH in the wrong ?
Would the police be criticised for ignoring the serious injuries of the male, just because he's already committed an offence ?
I'm not suggesting Mr Kink has broken all 4 limbs of the male he was detaining, but do we know what injuries were inflicted ? I'm guessing there were some if he's been charged with assault.

Adam raise an interesting hypothetical question..
"What if a pub doorman saw a male breaking a window. He 'detains' the male and in the process breaks both the males arms and legs."
From what I hear,in the absence of an adequate police presence, Weymouth could do with some pub doormen like this between 4am and 6am.

The Police (Dorset and elsewhere) do not make the rules- they simply enforce them (whether they agree with them or not). Obviously there are some "jobsworth" types, but in general, most police officers hate this sort of event (where the good guy is treated more severely than the bad guy). If they didn't, they wouldn't have become police officers. It would be like saying that a fireman joined the fire service because he likes fire and watching things burn. The real criminals in this are the Government, who make the laws (or at least agree to the propoals) that allow people like Mr Kink to be treated more severely than the true offender. It is not unlike the incident involving the farmer Tony Martin who shot an intruder in his house (yet he went to prison). If the intruder was not in Mr Martin's house, he wouldn't have been shot. If the person had not been in the Colwell Centre at midnight, he would not have got hurt. I do not think that this incident is the sole responsibilty of Dorset Police (they have a duty to investigate every complaint)- it is the law makers of this country that should be ashamed of themselves.

His Majesty King Mob wins the day ably assisted by his humble fool - 'The Echo'. Bravo, bravo..

flaneur wrote:
His Majesty King Mob wins the day ably assisted by his humble fool - 'The Echo'. Bravo, bravo..

No King Law-is-an-**** has won the day ably assisted by his fool, Jester Constable.

A couple more points...
The male 'breaking in' was seen on the stairs going up towards the club, not wriggling through the window he had broken. Is this a burglary or criminal damage?
He gets a caution, suggesting he has little or no criminal record.
Mr Kink, the main witness states he has been assaulted. I assume he gives a statement to the police, but declines to make a complaint of assault by the male. Why ?

Adam..is this the Daily male or the male on Sunday you keep going on about?

As usual, people hear one side of the story and then jump on the bandwagon and criticize the police. Do any of you know the facts, were any of you there, have you seen the CCTV, I doubt it. If he’s been charged, there must be evidence against him.

Adam,
You raise an interesting point with your hypothetical ‘limb breaking’ incident. Surely this would be unreasonable force with the criminal damage merely providing a pretext to grievously injure someone - such things have been known to happen.
In the case of Mr Kink, I suspect the complainant was more likely suffering bruised pride, although of course I don’t know so.

You also quite rightly observe that we only have Mr Kink’s account and from that he does seem to say that he inferred rather than witnessed a break-in, it may have been criminal damage by someone the worse for drink.
Perhaps Mr Kink himself was the worse for drink consumed in ‘Jakes’ and took it upon himself to rather needlessly lash out ostensibly in public spirited defence of the Phone Zone? By the way I wonder what view the owners of the Phone Zone take of the incident.
A little bit of checking up by Harry Hogger at the Echo would have been the action of a responsible newspaper rather than knowingly publishing this one-sided account to whip up righteous indignation.

Voice of Reason,
The Mr Martin incident and this one are not comparable. Mr Martin apprehended someone in his own private residence. In this case it was an open public building with a bar doing business. On the basis of your if he been there he wouldn’t have got hurt principle there are any number of people who have been in public spaces who wouldn’t have got hurt if they hadn’t been there. In some cases having been subject to serious personal injury by ‘have a go heroes’ who erroneously assumed them to have been the culprit of some other offence.

In reply to Robinson:

The article (upon which we are commenting, and have no other point of reference for this incident) states:

Mr Kink, 47, was in his girlfriend's bar Jakes above the shopping centre after midnight when he heard a security alarm coming from downstairs.

He said he went to investigate and saw a man trying to force entry to the Phone Zone on the ground floor.

Mr Kink said: "As I came down I saw a bloke going up the stairs and I went to meet him.

"I asked him to leave the building and got a smack in the face.

You state that it occured in an "open public building with a bar doing business". The Colwell Centre (NOT a public building- the Library could possibly be called a public building)) is closed at night- the bar has it's own self contained entrance. Mr Kinks' girlfriend runs the bar, so he is not some have a go hero pub goer- he has a link vicariously with the Colwell Centre and the traders in there. An alarm was activated, and he went to investigate (as would the majority of people, I suspect). He confronted the intruder, and got assaulted (according to Mr Kinks' report).

I cannot believe that people are questioning Mr Kink. Maybe he was heavy handed, maybe there is more to the story. However, the fact remains that an individual was in a private building (a building can not be deemed "public", Robinson, if it is owned by somebody- people/customers are "invited" on to the premises- they have no legal obligation to be allowed to enter a building- day or night) when they shouldn't have been. If someone entered my house without my permission, I would endeavour to remove them (and call the police). The same principle applies to the Colwell Centre- it is private property, and had ceased trading for the day. No-one should have been there without permission- certainly not damaging anything. If the individual had not been there, he would not have got hurt. If you do not run across a motorway, you will not get run over on a motorway. If you don't drink too much on a night out, you will not get drunk. THIS IS ALL ABOUT PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY not complaining when you get hurt doing something that you shouldn't.

Voice Of Reason wrote:
In reply to Robinson:

The article (upon which we are commenting, and have no other point of reference for this incident) states:

Mr Kink, 47, was in his girlfriend's bar Jakes above the shopping centre after midnight when he heard a security alarm coming from downstairs.

He said he went to investigate and saw a man trying to force entry to the Phone Zone on the ground floor.

Mr Kink said: "As I came down I saw a bloke going up the stairs and I went to meet him.

"I asked him to leave the building and got a smack in the face.

You state that it occured in an "open public building with a bar doing business". The Colwell Centre (NOT a public building- the Library could possibly be called a public building)) is closed at night- the bar has it's own self contained entrance. Mr Kinks' girlfriend runs the bar, so he is not some have a go hero pub goer- he has a link vicariously with the Colwell Centre and the traders in there. An alarm was activated, and he went to investigate (as would the majority of people, I suspect). He confronted the intruder, and got assaulted (according to Mr Kinks' report).

I cannot believe that people are questioning Mr Kink. Maybe he was heavy handed, maybe there is more to the story. However, the fact remains that an individual was in a private building (a building can not be deemed "public", Robinson, if it is owned by somebody- people/customers are "invited" on to the premises- they have no legal obligation to be allowed to enter a building- day or night) when they shouldn't have been. If someone entered my house without my permission, I would endeavour to remove them (and call the police). The same principle applies to the Colwell Centre- it is private property, and had ceased trading for the day. No-one should have been there without permission- certainly not damaging anything. If the individual had not been there, he would not have got hurt. If you do not run across a motorway, you will not get run over on a motorway. If you don't drink too much on a night out, you will not get drunk. THIS IS ALL ABOUT PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY not complaining when you get hurt doing something that you shouldn't.

Whether criminal damage or attempted burglary, the fellow concerned was commmitting a criminal offence. I would personally not be too worried if he had suffered 4 broken limbs as a consequence, in a case where it is clear that some form of offence was being committed.

In my view, vigilantism is only a bad thing where there is no evidence of wrongdoing.

Voice of Reason wrote:
The Colwell Centre (NOT a public building- the Library could possibly be called a public building)) is closed at night- the bar has it's own self contained entrance. Mr Kinks' girlfriend runs the bar, so he is not some have a go hero pub goer- he has a link vicariously with the Colwell Centre and the traders in there.

VoR, I stand corrected. Further to which I accept that it is not otherwise a public building but a building the public are invited to use in a like manner. However, I still question the appropriateness of drawing parallels between the Martin incident which took place in a private residence. In that incident it was an invasion of someone's personal space not a business premises, however objectionable the latter may be considered to be.

No I think we should step back and look at the situation from all of the hypothetical situations that the apologists will put forward. In all likelihood this was a completely innocent man out doing a bit of last minute shopping, perhaps for his wife's birthday. So it was past midnight and the Colwell Centre shuts at 5.00pm-5.30pm. he could have quite innocently been unaware of this. The alarm going off may have been caused by him attemting to open the door completely unaware that the shop was in fact closed. Or it may have been set off by a passing car, seagull or faulty wiring. OK so the Colwell Centre is completely enclosed so the liklihood of it being a car or a seagull is remote but we must cover all possibilities for the apologists. So the conclusion therefore is just a misunderstanding over shopping hours.

genghis wrote:
So it was past midnight and the Colwell Centre shuts at 5.00pm-5.30pm. he could have quite innocently been unaware of this.

As a matter of fact genghis I was quite innocently unaware of this having mistakenly believed that the bar was accessed by the public via the Colwell Centre.

JamesY wrote:

Voice Of Reason wrote: In reply to Robinson: The article (upon which we are commenting, and have no other point of reference for this incident) states:

Mr Kink, 47, was in his girlfriend's bar Jakes above the shopping centre after midnight when he heard a security alarm coming from downstairs. He said he went to investigate and saw a man trying to force entry to the Phone Zone on the ground floor. Mr Kink said: "As I came down I saw a bloke going up the stairs and I went to meet him. "I asked him to leave the building and got a smack in the face.

You state that it occured in an "open public building with a bar doing business". The Colwell Centre (NOT a public building- the Library could possibly be called a public building)) is closed at night- the bar has it's own self contained entrance. Mr Kinks' girlfriend runs the bar, so he is not some have a go hero pub goer- he has a link vicariously with the Colwell Centre and the traders in there. An alarm was activated, and he went to investigate (as would the majority of people, I suspect). He confronted the intruder, and got assaulted (according to Mr Kinks' report). I cannot believe that people are questioning Mr Kink. Maybe he was heavy handed, maybe there is more to the story. However, the fact remains that an individual was in a private building (a building can not be deemed "public", Robinson, if it is owned by somebody- people/customers are "invited" on to the premises- they have no legal obligation to be allowed to enter a building- day or night) when they shouldn't have been. If someone entered my house without my permission, I would endeavour to remove them (and call the police). The same principle applies to the Colwell Centre- it is private property, and had ceased trading for the day. No-one should have been there without permission- certainly not damaging anything. If the individual had not been there, he would not have got hurt. If you do not run across a motorway, you will not get run over on a motorway. If you don't drink too much on a night out, you will not get drunk. THIS IS ALL ABOUT PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY not complaining when you get hurt doing something that you shouldn't.

Whether criminal damage or attempted burglary, the fellow concerned was commmitting a criminal offence. I would personally not be too worried if he had suffered 4 broken limbs as a consequence, in a case where it is clear that some form of offence was being committed. In my view, vigilantism is only a bad thing where there is no evidence of wrongdoing.

Let's take the hypothetical scenario a stem further then...

"The shopkeeper, on seeing the 10 year old steal a chocolate bar, beat the child around the head causing brain damage". Well, that would be ok, he's a vigilante and he's spotted some criminality. Why shouldn't he? the child was obviously in the wrong and deserved this kind of treatment.

"On seeing the man breaking in to a car, I shot him through the head". No problem there, he obviously was out committing offences, he deserved to get shot. Let's just hope that the vigilante is correct in his thinking and the bloke hasn't just locked his keys in his own car.

Who gives you the right to be judge and jury ? To jump in an make assumptions on the spur of the moment ?

And lastly...

"A large man pinning a smaller man on the ground outside the Colwell Centre, obviously causing him some pain. The large man is obviously a criminal here, he's assaulting the smaller man. Any right minded vigilante can see that and should be able to break the larger mans arms and legs"

genghis wrote:
No I think we should step back and look at the situation from all of the hypothetical situations that the apologists will put forward. In all likelihood this was a completely innocent man out doing a bit of last minute shopping, perhaps for his wife's birthday. So it was past midnight and the Colwell Centre shuts at 5.00pm-5.30pm. he could have quite innocently been unaware of this. The alarm going off may have been caused by him attemting to open the door completely unaware that the shop was in fact closed. Or it may have been set off by a passing car, seagull or faulty wiring. OK so the Colwell Centre is completely enclosed so the liklihood of it being a car or a seagull is remote but we must cover all possibilities for the apologists. So the conclusion therefore is just a misunderstanding over shopping hours.

I don't think i was suggesting that the person breaking the window was in the right. I think if you read back i was saying it was possible that BOTH were in the wrong. that doesn't excuse the original wrong doing in smashing the window.

Adam wrote:

JamesY wrote:

Voice Of Reason wrote: In reply to Robinson: The article (upon which we are commenting, and have no other point of reference for this incident) states:

Mr Kink, 47, was in his girlfriend's bar Jakes above the shopping centre after midnight when he heard a security alarm coming from downstairs. He said he went to investigate and saw a man trying to force entry to the Phone Zone on the ground floor. Mr Kink said: "As I came down I saw a bloke going up the stairs and I went to meet him. "I asked him to leave the building and got a smack in the face.

You state that it occured in an "open public building with a bar doing business". The Colwell Centre (NOT a public building- the Library could possibly be called a public building)) is closed at night- the bar has it's own self contained entrance. Mr Kinks' girlfriend runs the bar, so he is not some have a go hero pub goer- he has a link vicariously with the Colwell Centre and the traders in there. An alarm was activated, and he went to investigate (as would the majority of people, I suspect). He confronted the intruder, and got assaulted (according to Mr Kinks' report). I cannot believe that people are questioning Mr Kink. Maybe he was heavy handed, maybe there is more to the story. However, the fact remains that an individual was in a private building (a building can not be deemed "public", Robinson, if it is owned by somebody- people/customers are "invited" on to the premises- they have no legal obligation to be allowed to enter a building- day or night) when they shouldn't have been. If someone entered my house without my permission, I would endeavour to remove them (and call the police). The same principle applies to the Colwell Centre- it is private property, and had ceased trading for the day. No-one should have been there without permission- certainly not damaging anything. If the individual had not been there, he would not have got hurt. If you do not run across a motorway, you will not get run over on a motorway. If you don't drink too much on a night out, you will not get drunk. THIS IS ALL ABOUT PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY not complaining when you get hurt doing something that you shouldn't.

Whether criminal damage or attempted burglary, the fellow concerned was commmitting a criminal offence. I would personally not be too worried if he had suffered 4 broken limbs as a consequence, in a case where it is clear that some form of offence was being committed. In my view, vigilantism is only a bad thing where there is no evidence of wrongdoing.

Let's take the hypothetical scenario a stem further then...

"The shopkeeper, on seeing the 10 year old steal a chocolate bar, beat the child around the head causing brain damage". Well, that would be ok, he's a vigilante and he's spotted some criminality. Why shouldn't he? the child was obviously in the wrong and deserved this kind of treatment.

"On seeing the man breaking in to a car, I shot him through the head". No problem there, he obviously was out committing offences, he deserved to get shot. Let's just hope that the vigilante is correct in his thinking and the bloke hasn't just locked his keys in his own car.

Who gives you the right to be judge and jury ? To jump in an make assumptions on the spur of the moment ?

And lastly...

"A large man pinning a smaller man on the ground outside the Colwell Centre, obviously causing him some pain. The large man is obviously a criminal here, he's assaulting the smaller man. Any right minded vigilante can see that and should be able to break the larger mans arms and legs"

My friend, liberal apologists such as yourself warrant little audience. In this case, and as i said in my posting, there was evidence of wrongdoing. What you and your congenitally stupid liberal friends fail to realise is that your demands for fairness are criminalizing the innocent, whilst providing protection for the criminals.

In the old days, the local constable could give a criminal a good bashing with his nightstick rather than filling in paperwork. It seems that approach worked rather well.

So a man is seen trying to break in to a shop by Mr Kink who has been alerted by a building alarm. The man then decides to wander off up the stairs elsewhere in the arcade.
Moments later this man is met on the stairs by Mr Kink. Was it a concerted attempt at a break-in if so soon after being first seen he was met on the stairs by Mr Kink or was it something more along the lines of a half-hearted rattle of a security grille?
If he caused damage to enter the building and was then witnessed trying to break-in to a shop why did Mr Kink on confronting him and ask him to leave the arcade?
Wouldn’t the sensible thing to have done, having notified the police that someone was wandering in the arcade and of their apparent intentions, simply to continue to monitor the situation until the police arrived? Just as Mr Kink reportedly monitored but did not intervene in the attempted break-in.
If apprehension or restraint was called for then surely this should only have been necessary if before the police arrived the man attempted to leave the building so evading arrest for having caused damage in the process of entering the premises and being witnessed attempting to break-in to one of the shops.

Ah ! The otiose solecism of these tortuous tautological comments are mellifluously soporific after Sunday lunch..
yawn..burp..

Mr JamesY, so what you are saying is that you don't want a fair system. You would like police officers to just turn up, bash the first likely candidate who looks like he may have possibly committed an offence and disappear on to the next job without asking questions.
I wonder what would have happened when your thug like officers turned up to find Mr Kink sat on another male in the street. Who would have got bashed ?

A few thoughts:

It is clearly reasonable that any force used must be sufficient to prevent possible serious injury to oneself; thus, a relatively frail person might reasonably use lethal, or near lethal, force against an apparently fit or strong person. Just how does one reckon ones chances against an unknown criminal, especially if you have never done it before?

It is not always possible to refrain from tackling a criminal - he or she might be attacking oneself or another person. (Reportedly, Mr Kink was assaulted first.)

It seems to me that what really matters is what happens after restraint has been achieved convincingly. At that point, it would be wrong to give punishment, or to gain enjoyment, through continued violence. Could it be that prosecutors believe that the alleged criminal assault by Mr Kink continued after effective restraint?

Iona wrote:
A few thoughts: It is clearly reasonable that any force used must be sufficient to prevent possible serious injury to oneself; thus, a relatively frail person might reasonably use lethal, or near lethal, force against an apparently fit or strong person. Just how does one reckon ones chances against an unknown criminal, especially if you have never done it before? It is not always possible to refrain from tackling a criminal - he or she might be attacking oneself or another person. (Reportedly, Mr Kink was assaulted first.) It seems to me that what really matters is what happens after restraint has been achieved convincingly. At that point, it would be wrong to give punishment, or to gain enjoyment, through continued violence. Could it be that prosecutors believe that the alleged criminal assault by Mr Kink continued after effective restraint?

What is effective restraint? I've seen four security staff and two police officers struggle to restrain a 15/16 year old shoplifter. The shoplifter had bruises and graizes when they finally managed to calm him down. Now like all of us on this thread I don't know all of the facts but Mr Kink, by himself, was attempting to restrain an adult who no doubt was struggling to get away. But the real question is if we see a crime taking place do we do something about it or just turn away and let the criminals have the run of the place? Seems to me too many are saying give in to the criminals.

At the end of the day the police must have all the evidence and we do not. They were there, had access to the cctv and spoke to witnesses and saw injuires. There was obviously enough for them to charge Kink - who was not eligable for a caution like the other guy - why? I also wonder what effect this will have on the guy Kink assaulted? If this is going to court how is he going to feel now that Kink has got this spread accross the papers - isn't court the place to be judged and not the echo???

Looking at mr Ray Davies he is hardly a shrinking violet.Tattooist as well,hardly known for their peace not war philosophies.I would say the other chap was in the wrong place at the wrong time.

mindy wrote:
At the end of the day the police must have all the evidence and we do not. They were there, had access to the cctv and spoke to witnesses and saw injuires. There was obviously enough for them to charge Kink - who was not eligable for a caution like the other guy - why? I also wonder what effect this will have on the guy Kink assaulted? If this is going to court how is he going to feel now that Kink has got this spread accross the papers - isn't court the place to be judged and not the echo???

So why wasn't he arrested when the Police were there? They would most certainly have seen the condition of the man who caused the incident, they would have had access to all the witnesses there and then. Why does this allegation only come out later? The offender looking for a bit of vengeance perhaps?

Mr Kink gives a slightly different account of events in today's Daily Heil online.
I wonder if he got his story clear when he was questioned by the police, he may need to rely on it in court.

genghis Regards effective restaint - I know exactly your point. I am one of those who could not reliably and effectively restrain even an average 10-year-old. For me, I would simply not get involved or, if needs demanded it, I would have to totally incapacitate the other person. The force required to do that could easily result in serious injury or death. However, some people are very handy when it comes to violent confrontation and could possibly restrain another less handy person without causing very serious injury.

genghis wrote:

mindy wrote: At the end of the day the police must have all the evidence and we do not. They were there, had access to the cctv and spoke to witnesses and saw injuires. There was obviously enough for them to charge Kink - who was not eligable for a caution like the other guy - why? I also wonder what effect this will have on the guy Kink assaulted? If this is going to court how is he going to feel now that Kink has got this spread accross the papers - isn't court the place to be judged and not the echo???

So why wasn't he arrested when the Police were there? They would most certainly have seen the condition of the man who caused the incident, they would have had access to all the witnesses there and then. Why does this allegation only come out later? The offender looking for a bit of vengeance perhaps?

Good question.... maybe the 'offender' didn't report the assault or maybe there was not enough police to deal with the whole lot at that time. We know how stretched police are in this town. Maybe it was a case of all crimes coming in at once - they knew where Mr Kink would be and got him later. There is no smoke without fire!

Mindy wrote:
There is no smoke without fire!

In Weymouth there is. Not that the town has a monopoly on 'smoke without fire' but...