UPDATED: Van struck by 'brick' thrown from A12 footbridge

Gazette: Van struck by 'brick' thrown from A12 footbridge Van struck by 'brick' thrown from A12 footbridge

POLICE have launched a manhunt after a van was struck by a missile thrown from an A12 footbridge.

The van was struck by an object, believed to be a brick or a stone, at about 8.15am this morning.

It was thrown from King Coel Bridge, which connects King Coel Road and Halstead Road to Chitts Hill, in Stanway, onto the southbound carriageway.

Police closed the southbound carriageway at junction 27, at Spring Lane, while initial investigations were carried out, between 8.15am and 9.15am.

Although the missile struck the van windscreen at eye level, the male driver, from Clacton, was unhurt as the safety glass windscreen shattered into small pieces.

Essex Police have issued an description of a boy aged between 14 and 18-years-old, who was seen on the bridge immediately before the incident.

He is described was white and was wearing a baseball cap.

Investigating officer, PC Allan Discombe, said: “The driver was lucky that the windscreen wasstrong enough to take the impact.

“Had the object been bigger and had he been driving faster he could have been seriously injured.

"Throwing anything at traffic, especially fast-moving traffic on a dual carriageway, is extremely reckless and dangerous.

“The driver could have lost control and crashed into other vehicles and there could have been serious injuries or fatalities.”

The southbound carriageway was closed while police carried searched the area around the bridge for the object but nothing was found.

Anyone with information on the incident should contact PC Discombe, at Stanway road policing unit on 101 or call Crimestoppers anonymously on 0800 555111.

Comments (26)

Please log in to enable comment sorting

10:10am Tue 14 Jan 14

Ritchie_Hicks says...

This has been a problem on and off for years. It's a cut through to the local school (although I'm not pointing the finger). I saw kids throwing stuff off one morning 10 years ago and there have been various reports since.

The footbridge needs a high (10ft) cage around it. That's what they do in London and it works. Looks ugly though.
This has been a problem on and off for years. It's a cut through to the local school (although I'm not pointing the finger). I saw kids throwing stuff off one morning 10 years ago and there have been various reports since. The footbridge needs a high (10ft) cage around it. That's what they do in London and it works. Looks ugly though. Ritchie_Hicks

11:25am Tue 14 Jan 14

OMPITA [Intl] says...

Here we go again – again - again!

Where is the evidence of the justice meted out that might deter this latest bunch of brain dead morons?

A few previous headlines to stir the memory bugs…....

13 July 2013 - Teen injured by tree branch thrown from bridge

30 May 2013 Maldon - Warning to drivers after debris is thrown on to road

26 May 2013 Essex - Police searches after reports of youngsters throwing stones from bridges

4th March 2013 - Teens arrested after objects thrown at car

14 January 2013 M25 - Police warning after stones thrown from bridge

3 January 2013 M25 - Five teens arrested in connection with brick-throwing incident

28 November 2012 Witham - Driver's life endangered by rock throwing

11 November 2012 - Stones pelted at cars from A120

1 November 2012 - More police on A12 bridges after new rock throwing incidents

2 August 2012 - Van driver's lucky escape after children drop brick off A12

17 February 2012 - Man hurt as concrete dropped on car

13 February 2012- Drivers under attack from missiles

4 December 2011 - Man spotted with concrete on A12 bridge last night

2 December 2011 Concrete thrown from bridges onto A12 motorists below
Here we go again – again - again! Where is the evidence of the justice meted out that might deter this latest bunch of brain dead morons? A few previous headlines to stir the memory bugs….... 13 July 2013 - Teen injured by tree branch thrown from bridge 30 May 2013 Maldon - Warning to drivers after debris is thrown on to road 26 May 2013 Essex - Police searches after reports of youngsters throwing stones from bridges 4th March 2013 - Teens arrested after objects thrown at car 14 January 2013 M25 - Police warning after stones thrown from bridge 3 January 2013 M25 - Five teens arrested in connection with brick-throwing incident 28 November 2012 Witham - Driver's life endangered by rock throwing 11 November 2012 - Stones pelted at cars from A120 1 November 2012 - More police on A12 bridges after new rock throwing incidents 2 August 2012 - Van driver's lucky escape after children drop brick off A12 17 February 2012 - Man hurt as concrete dropped on car 13 February 2012- Drivers under attack from missiles 4 December 2011 - Man spotted with concrete on A12 bridge last night 2 December 2011 Concrete thrown from bridges onto A12 motorists below OMPITA [Intl]

11:26am Tue 14 Jan 14

TheBrotherhoodOfTheBell says...

Ritchie_Hicks wrote:
This has been a problem on and off for years. It's a cut through to the local school (although I'm not pointing the finger). I saw kids throwing stuff off one morning 10 years ago and there have been various reports since.

The footbridge needs a high (10ft) cage around it. That's what they do in London and it works. Looks ugly though.
There he goes again the alter ego of this posting site?

"Quote"(although I'm not pointing the finger).

No but you are insinuating hearsay or attempting to influence an opinion Mr Poirot!
We get this all time and I pass it daily. Police will now be investing in thousands of ££'s of man hours trying to look for this miscreant, who yes might have killed the driver, however it did not happen.
The chaps got a buzz out of doing it, The Criminal Always Returns To The Scene Of the Crime: The twit will be caught:
The major problem in this town is the scourge of drug abuse and one means all types of drugs.
This is where the bravado comes from to perpetrate these types of actions.
Police must stamp out DRUGS and stamp it all out NOW:
Not oh let them do this or do that, or we cant do this and we cant do that DRUGS is the key to this C**P and we need to stamp out the drugs issue in Colchester.
A 10 foot cage is what is needed to keep idiots in who perpertrate these crimes....and a 10 foot cage could be handy for some of the posters on this media site, unfortunately with the size of one or two of the aforementioned orifices 10 feet wide would be a little small.

Jesting aside we need to get rid of Drug and drink abuse in the borough this is the key
[quote][p][bold]Ritchie_Hicks[/bold] wrote: This has been a problem on and off for years. It's a cut through to the local school (although I'm not pointing the finger). I saw kids throwing stuff off one morning 10 years ago and there have been various reports since. The footbridge needs a high (10ft) cage around it. That's what they do in London and it works. Looks ugly though.[/p][/quote]There he goes again the alter ego of this posting site? "Quote"(although I'm not pointing the finger). No but you are insinuating hearsay or attempting to influence an opinion Mr Poirot! We get this all time and I pass it daily. Police will now be investing in thousands of ££'s of man hours trying to look for this miscreant, who yes might have killed the driver, however it did not happen. The chaps got a buzz out of doing it, The Criminal Always Returns To The Scene Of the Crime: The twit will be caught: The major problem in this town is the scourge of drug abuse and one means all types of drugs. This is where the bravado comes from to perpetrate these types of actions. Police must stamp out DRUGS and stamp it all out NOW: Not oh let them do this or do that, or we cant do this and we cant do that DRUGS is the key to this C**P and we need to stamp out the drugs issue in Colchester. A 10 foot cage is what is needed to keep idiots in who perpertrate these crimes....and a 10 foot cage could be handy for some of the posters on this media site, unfortunately with the size of one or two of the aforementioned orifices 10 feet wide would be a little small. Jesting aside we need to get rid of Drug and drink abuse in the borough this is the key TheBrotherhoodOfTheBell

11:31am Tue 14 Jan 14

Ritchie_Hicks says...

TheBrotherhoodOfTheB
ell
wrote:
Ritchie_Hicks wrote:
This has been a problem on and off for years. It's a cut through to the local school (although I'm not pointing the finger). I saw kids throwing stuff off one morning 10 years ago and there have been various reports since.

The footbridge needs a high (10ft) cage around it. That's what they do in London and it works. Looks ugly though.
There he goes again the alter ego of this posting site?

"Quote"(althoug
h I'm not pointing the finger).

No but you are insinuating hearsay or attempting to influence an opinion Mr Poirot!
We get this all time and I pass it daily. Police will now be investing in thousands of ££'s of man hours trying to look for this miscreant, who yes might have killed the driver, however it did not happen.
The chaps got a buzz out of doing it, The Criminal Always Returns To The Scene Of the Crime: The twit will be caught:
The major problem in this town is the scourge of drug abuse and one means all types of drugs.
This is where the bravado comes from to perpetrate these types of actions.
Police must stamp out DRUGS and stamp it all out NOW:
Not oh let them do this or do that, or we cant do this and we cant do that DRUGS is the key to this C**P and we need to stamp out the drugs issue in Colchester.
A 10 foot cage is what is needed to keep idiots in who perpertrate these crimes....and a 10 foot cage could be handy for some of the posters on this media site, unfortunately with the size of one or two of the aforementioned orifices 10 feet wide would be a little small.

Jesting aside we need to get rid of Drug and drink abuse in the borough this is the key
Erm, I think you may have gone a little off topic there. Again.

You might also like to look up the meaning of 'alter ego'.

I said I'm not pointing the finger, because I'm not.
[quote][p][bold]TheBrotherhoodOfTheB ell[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ritchie_Hicks[/bold] wrote: This has been a problem on and off for years. It's a cut through to the local school (although I'm not pointing the finger). I saw kids throwing stuff off one morning 10 years ago and there have been various reports since. The footbridge needs a high (10ft) cage around it. That's what they do in London and it works. Looks ugly though.[/p][/quote]There he goes again the alter ego of this posting site? "Quote"(althoug h I'm not pointing the finger). No but you are insinuating hearsay or attempting to influence an opinion Mr Poirot! We get this all time and I pass it daily. Police will now be investing in thousands of ££'s of man hours trying to look for this miscreant, who yes might have killed the driver, however it did not happen. The chaps got a buzz out of doing it, The Criminal Always Returns To The Scene Of the Crime: The twit will be caught: The major problem in this town is the scourge of drug abuse and one means all types of drugs. This is where the bravado comes from to perpetrate these types of actions. Police must stamp out DRUGS and stamp it all out NOW: Not oh let them do this or do that, or we cant do this and we cant do that DRUGS is the key to this C**P and we need to stamp out the drugs issue in Colchester. A 10 foot cage is what is needed to keep idiots in who perpertrate these crimes....and a 10 foot cage could be handy for some of the posters on this media site, unfortunately with the size of one or two of the aforementioned orifices 10 feet wide would be a little small. Jesting aside we need to get rid of Drug and drink abuse in the borough this is the key[/p][/quote]Erm, I think you may have gone a little off topic there. Again. You might also like to look up the meaning of 'alter ego'. I said I'm not pointing the finger, because I'm not. Ritchie_Hicks

11:33am Tue 14 Jan 14

Ritchie_Hicks says...

TheBrotherhoodOfTheB
ell
wrote:
Ritchie_Hicks wrote:
This has been a problem on and off for years. It's a cut through to the local school (although I'm not pointing the finger). I saw kids throwing stuff off one morning 10 years ago and there have been various reports since.

The footbridge needs a high (10ft) cage around it. That's what they do in London and it works. Looks ugly though.
There he goes again the alter ego of this posting site?

"Quote"(althoug
h I'm not pointing the finger).

No but you are insinuating hearsay or attempting to influence an opinion Mr Poirot!
We get this all time and I pass it daily. Police will now be investing in thousands of ££'s of man hours trying to look for this miscreant, who yes might have killed the driver, however it did not happen.
The chaps got a buzz out of doing it, The Criminal Always Returns To The Scene Of the Crime: The twit will be caught:
The major problem in this town is the scourge of drug abuse and one means all types of drugs.
This is where the bravado comes from to perpetrate these types of actions.
Police must stamp out DRUGS and stamp it all out NOW:
Not oh let them do this or do that, or we cant do this and we cant do that DRUGS is the key to this C**P and we need to stamp out the drugs issue in Colchester.
A 10 foot cage is what is needed to keep idiots in who perpertrate these crimes....and a 10 foot cage could be handy for some of the posters on this media site, unfortunately with the size of one or two of the aforementioned orifices 10 feet wide would be a little small.

Jesting aside we need to get rid of Drug and drink abuse in the borough this is the key
You might also like to note that a number of the examples given by OMPITA involved............
...wait for it................ch
ildren.
[quote][p][bold]TheBrotherhoodOfTheB ell[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ritchie_Hicks[/bold] wrote: This has been a problem on and off for years. It's a cut through to the local school (although I'm not pointing the finger). I saw kids throwing stuff off one morning 10 years ago and there have been various reports since. The footbridge needs a high (10ft) cage around it. That's what they do in London and it works. Looks ugly though.[/p][/quote]There he goes again the alter ego of this posting site? "Quote"(althoug h I'm not pointing the finger). No but you are insinuating hearsay or attempting to influence an opinion Mr Poirot! We get this all time and I pass it daily. Police will now be investing in thousands of ££'s of man hours trying to look for this miscreant, who yes might have killed the driver, however it did not happen. The chaps got a buzz out of doing it, The Criminal Always Returns To The Scene Of the Crime: The twit will be caught: The major problem in this town is the scourge of drug abuse and one means all types of drugs. This is where the bravado comes from to perpetrate these types of actions. Police must stamp out DRUGS and stamp it all out NOW: Not oh let them do this or do that, or we cant do this and we cant do that DRUGS is the key to this C**P and we need to stamp out the drugs issue in Colchester. A 10 foot cage is what is needed to keep idiots in who perpertrate these crimes....and a 10 foot cage could be handy for some of the posters on this media site, unfortunately with the size of one or two of the aforementioned orifices 10 feet wide would be a little small. Jesting aside we need to get rid of Drug and drink abuse in the borough this is the key[/p][/quote]You might also like to note that a number of the examples given by OMPITA [Intl] involved............ ...wait for it................ch ildren. Ritchie_Hicks

12:24pm Tue 14 Jan 14

wormshero says...

TheBrotherhoodOfTheB
ell
wrote:
Ritchie_Hicks wrote:
This has been a problem on and off for years. It's a cut through to the local school (although I'm not pointing the finger). I saw kids throwing stuff off one morning 10 years ago and there have been various reports since.

The footbridge needs a high (10ft) cage around it. That's what they do in London and it works. Looks ugly though.
There he goes again the alter ego of this posting site?

"Quote"(althoug
h I'm not pointing the finger).

No but you are insinuating hearsay or attempting to influence an opinion Mr Poirot!
We get this all time and I pass it daily. Police will now be investing in thousands of ££'s of man hours trying to look for this miscreant, who yes might have killed the driver, however it did not happen.
The chaps got a buzz out of doing it, The Criminal Always Returns To The Scene Of the Crime: The twit will be caught:
The major problem in this town is the scourge of drug abuse and one means all types of drugs.
This is where the bravado comes from to perpetrate these types of actions.
Police must stamp out DRUGS and stamp it all out NOW:
Not oh let them do this or do that, or we cant do this and we cant do that DRUGS is the key to this C**P and we need to stamp out the drugs issue in Colchester.
A 10 foot cage is what is needed to keep idiots in who perpertrate these crimes....and a 10 foot cage could be handy for some of the posters on this media site, unfortunately with the size of one or two of the aforementioned orifices 10 feet wide would be a little small.

Jesting aside we need to get rid of Drug and drink abuse in the borough this is the key
You call someone out for "pointing the finger" and then proceed onto making unsubstantiated claims that drugs are somehow the issue, as if drug users have anything to gain from doing it. Why do you even think it's related to drugs? It's not like it'd be crime to get money to buy drugs, because there's no financial reward from throwing a brick at a van, and it's not like someone stoned at 7 in the morning is going to be on any of the few substances which could make them more aggressive. Or do you think it's some kind of rival dealer situation where they camped out and targeted the van?

Pointing the finger is stupid, and I'd be against blaming children too, but on this occasion Richie Hicks assumption at least makes sense. I hope they catch whoever is responsible - having projectiles thrown at your car while travelling at high speed is incredibly nasty and can have terrible consequences.
[quote][p][bold]TheBrotherhoodOfTheB ell[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ritchie_Hicks[/bold] wrote: This has been a problem on and off for years. It's a cut through to the local school (although I'm not pointing the finger). I saw kids throwing stuff off one morning 10 years ago and there have been various reports since. The footbridge needs a high (10ft) cage around it. That's what they do in London and it works. Looks ugly though.[/p][/quote]There he goes again the alter ego of this posting site? "Quote"(althoug h I'm not pointing the finger). No but you are insinuating hearsay or attempting to influence an opinion Mr Poirot! We get this all time and I pass it daily. Police will now be investing in thousands of ££'s of man hours trying to look for this miscreant, who yes might have killed the driver, however it did not happen. The chaps got a buzz out of doing it, The Criminal Always Returns To The Scene Of the Crime: The twit will be caught: The major problem in this town is the scourge of drug abuse and one means all types of drugs. This is where the bravado comes from to perpetrate these types of actions. Police must stamp out DRUGS and stamp it all out NOW: Not oh let them do this or do that, or we cant do this and we cant do that DRUGS is the key to this C**P and we need to stamp out the drugs issue in Colchester. A 10 foot cage is what is needed to keep idiots in who perpertrate these crimes....and a 10 foot cage could be handy for some of the posters on this media site, unfortunately with the size of one or two of the aforementioned orifices 10 feet wide would be a little small. Jesting aside we need to get rid of Drug and drink abuse in the borough this is the key[/p][/quote]You call someone out for "pointing the finger" and then proceed onto making unsubstantiated claims that drugs are somehow the issue, as if drug users have anything to gain from doing it. Why do you even think it's related to drugs? It's not like it'd be crime to get money to buy drugs, because there's no financial reward from throwing a brick at a van, and it's not like someone stoned at 7 in the morning is going to be on any of the few substances which could make them more aggressive. Or do you think it's some kind of rival dealer situation where they camped out and targeted the van? Pointing the finger is stupid, and I'd be against blaming children too, but on this occasion Richie Hicks assumption at least makes sense. I hope they catch whoever is responsible - having projectiles thrown at your car while travelling at high speed is incredibly nasty and can have terrible consequences. wormshero

12:31pm Tue 14 Jan 14

Top-Gun says...

Ritchie_Hicks wrote:
This has been a problem on and off for years. It's a cut through to the local school (although I'm not pointing the finger). I saw kids throwing stuff off one morning 10 years ago and there have been various reports since.

The footbridge needs a high (10ft) cage around it. That's what they do in London and it works. Looks ugly though.
Hey Brain of Britain I count 14 Points on OMPITA's Posts

one said a teenager was hurt!!!!

four of the points mention teenagers or children

one point mentions an adult

thats 5 out of 14....

what abut the rest sherlock or is it arthur scargill ?

are you some sort of ring leader hard type on this site does everyone bow down to you?

er!!!! you cant F******G count but you know how to pick on others

s*d Off
[quote][p][bold]Ritchie_Hicks[/bold] wrote: This has been a problem on and off for years. It's a cut through to the local school (although I'm not pointing the finger). I saw kids throwing stuff off one morning 10 years ago and there have been various reports since. The footbridge needs a high (10ft) cage around it. That's what they do in London and it works. Looks ugly though.[/p][/quote]Hey Brain of Britain I count 14 Points on OMPITA's Posts one said a teenager was hurt!!!! four of the points mention teenagers or children one point mentions an adult thats 5 out of 14.... what abut the rest sherlock or is it arthur scargill ? are you some sort of ring leader hard type on this site does everyone bow down to you? er!!!! you cant F******G count but you know how to pick on others s*d Off Top-Gun

12:36pm Tue 14 Jan 14

Top-Gun says...

wormshero wrote:
TheBrotherhoodOfTheB

ell
wrote:
Ritchie_Hicks wrote:
This has been a problem on and off for years. It's a cut through to the local school (although I'm not pointing the finger). I saw kids throwing stuff off one morning 10 years ago and there have been various reports since.

The footbridge needs a high (10ft) cage around it. That's what they do in London and it works. Looks ugly though.
There he goes again the alter ego of this posting site?

"Quote"(althoug

h I'm not pointing the finger).

No but you are insinuating hearsay or attempting to influence an opinion Mr Poirot!
We get this all time and I pass it daily. Police will now be investing in thousands of ££'s of man hours trying to look for this miscreant, who yes might have killed the driver, however it did not happen.
The chaps got a buzz out of doing it, The Criminal Always Returns To The Scene Of the Crime: The twit will be caught:
The major problem in this town is the scourge of drug abuse and one means all types of drugs.
This is where the bravado comes from to perpetrate these types of actions.
Police must stamp out DRUGS and stamp it all out NOW:
Not oh let them do this or do that, or we cant do this and we cant do that DRUGS is the key to this C**P and we need to stamp out the drugs issue in Colchester.
A 10 foot cage is what is needed to keep idiots in who perpertrate these crimes....and a 10 foot cage could be handy for some of the posters on this media site, unfortunately with the size of one or two of the aforementioned orifices 10 feet wide would be a little small.

Jesting aside we need to get rid of Drug and drink abuse in the borough this is the key
You call someone out for "pointing the finger" and then proceed onto making unsubstantiated claims that drugs are somehow the issue, as if drug users have anything to gain from doing it. Why do you even think it's related to drugs? It's not like it'd be crime to get money to buy drugs, because there's no financial reward from throwing a brick at a van, and it's not like someone stoned at 7 in the morning is going to be on any of the few substances which could make them more aggressive. Or do you think it's some kind of rival dealer situation where they camped out and targeted the van?

Pointing the finger is stupid, and I'd be against blaming children too, but on this occasion Richie Hicks assumption at least makes sense. I hope they catch whoever is responsible - having projectiles thrown at your car while travelling at high speed is incredibly nasty and can have terrible consequences.
you seem to be chummy with hicks

not related to the chippy in the high st by any chance/

your post is garbage another site bully?

you say one thing then contradict yourself

drugs causes the problem richard cranium

you take drugs you think your big then you go and stuff someone einstein

then there is the morning after the night before effect

whats the matter time of the month or full moon tonight?
[quote][p][bold]wormshero[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]TheBrotherhoodOfTheB ell[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ritchie_Hicks[/bold] wrote: This has been a problem on and off for years. It's a cut through to the local school (although I'm not pointing the finger). I saw kids throwing stuff off one morning 10 years ago and there have been various reports since. The footbridge needs a high (10ft) cage around it. That's what they do in London and it works. Looks ugly though.[/p][/quote]There he goes again the alter ego of this posting site? "Quote"(althoug h I'm not pointing the finger). No but you are insinuating hearsay or attempting to influence an opinion Mr Poirot! We get this all time and I pass it daily. Police will now be investing in thousands of ££'s of man hours trying to look for this miscreant, who yes might have killed the driver, however it did not happen. The chaps got a buzz out of doing it, The Criminal Always Returns To The Scene Of the Crime: The twit will be caught: The major problem in this town is the scourge of drug abuse and one means all types of drugs. This is where the bravado comes from to perpetrate these types of actions. Police must stamp out DRUGS and stamp it all out NOW: Not oh let them do this or do that, or we cant do this and we cant do that DRUGS is the key to this C**P and we need to stamp out the drugs issue in Colchester. A 10 foot cage is what is needed to keep idiots in who perpertrate these crimes....and a 10 foot cage could be handy for some of the posters on this media site, unfortunately with the size of one or two of the aforementioned orifices 10 feet wide would be a little small. Jesting aside we need to get rid of Drug and drink abuse in the borough this is the key[/p][/quote]You call someone out for "pointing the finger" and then proceed onto making unsubstantiated claims that drugs are somehow the issue, as if drug users have anything to gain from doing it. Why do you even think it's related to drugs? It's not like it'd be crime to get money to buy drugs, because there's no financial reward from throwing a brick at a van, and it's not like someone stoned at 7 in the morning is going to be on any of the few substances which could make them more aggressive. Or do you think it's some kind of rival dealer situation where they camped out and targeted the van? Pointing the finger is stupid, and I'd be against blaming children too, but on this occasion Richie Hicks assumption at least makes sense. I hope they catch whoever is responsible - having projectiles thrown at your car while travelling at high speed is incredibly nasty and can have terrible consequences.[/p][/quote]you seem to be chummy with hicks not related to the chippy in the high st by any chance/ your post is garbage another site bully? you say one thing then contradict yourself drugs causes the problem richard cranium you take drugs you think your big then you go and stuff someone einstein then there is the morning after the night before effect whats the matter time of the month or full moon tonight? Top-Gun

12:42pm Tue 14 Jan 14

wormshero says...

Top-Gun wrote:
wormshero wrote:
TheBrotherhoodOfTheB


ell
wrote:
Ritchie_Hicks wrote:
This has been a problem on and off for years. It's a cut through to the local school (although I'm not pointing the finger). I saw kids throwing stuff off one morning 10 years ago and there have been various reports since.

The footbridge needs a high (10ft) cage around it. That's what they do in London and it works. Looks ugly though.
There he goes again the alter ego of this posting site?

"Quote"(althoug


h I'm not pointing the finger).

No but you are insinuating hearsay or attempting to influence an opinion Mr Poirot!
We get this all time and I pass it daily. Police will now be investing in thousands of ££'s of man hours trying to look for this miscreant, who yes might have killed the driver, however it did not happen.
The chaps got a buzz out of doing it, The Criminal Always Returns To The Scene Of the Crime: The twit will be caught:
The major problem in this town is the scourge of drug abuse and one means all types of drugs.
This is where the bravado comes from to perpetrate these types of actions.
Police must stamp out DRUGS and stamp it all out NOW:
Not oh let them do this or do that, or we cant do this and we cant do that DRUGS is the key to this C**P and we need to stamp out the drugs issue in Colchester.
A 10 foot cage is what is needed to keep idiots in who perpertrate these crimes....and a 10 foot cage could be handy for some of the posters on this media site, unfortunately with the size of one or two of the aforementioned orifices 10 feet wide would be a little small.

Jesting aside we need to get rid of Drug and drink abuse in the borough this is the key
You call someone out for "pointing the finger" and then proceed onto making unsubstantiated claims that drugs are somehow the issue, as if drug users have anything to gain from doing it. Why do you even think it's related to drugs? It's not like it'd be crime to get money to buy drugs, because there's no financial reward from throwing a brick at a van, and it's not like someone stoned at 7 in the morning is going to be on any of the few substances which could make them more aggressive. Or do you think it's some kind of rival dealer situation where they camped out and targeted the van?

Pointing the finger is stupid, and I'd be against blaming children too, but on this occasion Richie Hicks assumption at least makes sense. I hope they catch whoever is responsible - having projectiles thrown at your car while travelling at high speed is incredibly nasty and can have terrible consequences.
you seem to be chummy with hicks

not related to the chippy in the high st by any chance/

your post is garbage another site bully?

you say one thing then contradict yourself

drugs causes the problem richard cranium

you take drugs you think your big then you go and stuff someone einstein

then there is the morning after the night before effect

whats the matter time of the month or full moon tonight?
I disagree, most of my responses to Hicks have been pretty negative and I usually disagree with him!
I'm trying to work out what your post means, but the only bit I get is your seeming justification "you think your big then you go and stuff someone einstein then there is the morning after the night before effect"
I'd suggest you get more clued up about drugs. There are a few chemicals which make you overly cocky, although even if you were on them at the time they'd be unlikely to make you throw a brick at a van. The comedown on these kind of things would mean the following morning you probably aren't going to be walking to a bridge to throw a brick. I mean, have any opinion you want, but it's based on a lack of knowledge and a fear of what you don't understand. In this situation it seems more likely to be children than the make-believe effects of "drugs" you believe in. Perhaps some kind of education on the effect of this kind of "prank" in schools would be useful, showing the damage to cars/people and the affect it has. I think less people would be likely to throw a projectile if they knew the damage it could cause.
[quote][p][bold]Top-Gun[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]wormshero[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]TheBrotherhoodOfTheB ell[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ritchie_Hicks[/bold] wrote: This has been a problem on and off for years. It's a cut through to the local school (although I'm not pointing the finger). I saw kids throwing stuff off one morning 10 years ago and there have been various reports since. The footbridge needs a high (10ft) cage around it. That's what they do in London and it works. Looks ugly though.[/p][/quote]There he goes again the alter ego of this posting site? "Quote"(althoug h I'm not pointing the finger). No but you are insinuating hearsay or attempting to influence an opinion Mr Poirot! We get this all time and I pass it daily. Police will now be investing in thousands of ££'s of man hours trying to look for this miscreant, who yes might have killed the driver, however it did not happen. The chaps got a buzz out of doing it, The Criminal Always Returns To The Scene Of the Crime: The twit will be caught: The major problem in this town is the scourge of drug abuse and one means all types of drugs. This is where the bravado comes from to perpetrate these types of actions. Police must stamp out DRUGS and stamp it all out NOW: Not oh let them do this or do that, or we cant do this and we cant do that DRUGS is the key to this C**P and we need to stamp out the drugs issue in Colchester. A 10 foot cage is what is needed to keep idiots in who perpertrate these crimes....and a 10 foot cage could be handy for some of the posters on this media site, unfortunately with the size of one or two of the aforementioned orifices 10 feet wide would be a little small. Jesting aside we need to get rid of Drug and drink abuse in the borough this is the key[/p][/quote]You call someone out for "pointing the finger" and then proceed onto making unsubstantiated claims that drugs are somehow the issue, as if drug users have anything to gain from doing it. Why do you even think it's related to drugs? It's not like it'd be crime to get money to buy drugs, because there's no financial reward from throwing a brick at a van, and it's not like someone stoned at 7 in the morning is going to be on any of the few substances which could make them more aggressive. Or do you think it's some kind of rival dealer situation where they camped out and targeted the van? Pointing the finger is stupid, and I'd be against blaming children too, but on this occasion Richie Hicks assumption at least makes sense. I hope they catch whoever is responsible - having projectiles thrown at your car while travelling at high speed is incredibly nasty and can have terrible consequences.[/p][/quote]you seem to be chummy with hicks not related to the chippy in the high st by any chance/ your post is garbage another site bully? you say one thing then contradict yourself drugs causes the problem richard cranium you take drugs you think your big then you go and stuff someone einstein then there is the morning after the night before effect whats the matter time of the month or full moon tonight?[/p][/quote]I disagree, most of my responses to Hicks have been pretty negative and I usually disagree with him! I'm trying to work out what your post means, but the only bit I get is your seeming justification "you think your big then you go and stuff someone einstein then there is the morning after the night before effect" I'd suggest you get more clued up about drugs. There are a few chemicals which make you overly cocky, although even if you were on them at the time they'd be unlikely to make you throw a brick at a van. The comedown on these kind of things would mean the following morning you probably aren't going to be walking to a bridge to throw a brick. I mean, have any opinion you want, but it's based on a lack of knowledge and a fear of what you don't understand. In this situation it seems more likely to be children than the make-believe effects of "drugs" you believe in. Perhaps some kind of education on the effect of this kind of "prank" in schools would be useful, showing the damage to cars/people and the affect it has. I think less people would be likely to throw a projectile if they knew the damage it could cause. wormshero

1:19pm Tue 14 Jan 14

Ritchie_Hicks says...

Top-Gun wrote:
Ritchie_Hicks wrote:
This has been a problem on and off for years. It's a cut through to the local school (although I'm not pointing the finger). I saw kids throwing stuff off one morning 10 years ago and there have been various reports since.

The footbridge needs a high (10ft) cage around it. That's what they do in London and it works. Looks ugly though.
Hey Brain of Britain I count 14 Points on OMPITA's Posts

one said a teenager was hurt!!!!

four of the points mention teenagers or children

one point mentions an adult

thats 5 out of 14....

what abut the rest sherlock or is it arthur scargill ?

are you some sort of ring leader hard type on this site does everyone bow down to you?

er!!!! you cant F******G count but you know how to pick on others

s*d Off
LOL. Nice rant.
[quote][p][bold]Top-Gun[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ritchie_Hicks[/bold] wrote: This has been a problem on and off for years. It's a cut through to the local school (although I'm not pointing the finger). I saw kids throwing stuff off one morning 10 years ago and there have been various reports since. The footbridge needs a high (10ft) cage around it. That's what they do in London and it works. Looks ugly though.[/p][/quote]Hey Brain of Britain I count 14 Points on OMPITA's Posts one said a teenager was hurt!!!! four of the points mention teenagers or children one point mentions an adult thats 5 out of 14.... what abut the rest sherlock or is it arthur scargill ? are you some sort of ring leader hard type on this site does everyone bow down to you? er!!!! you cant F******G count but you know how to pick on others s*d Off[/p][/quote]LOL. Nice rant. Ritchie_Hicks

2:01pm Tue 14 Jan 14

Slamdoor312 says...

The usual running scared of the obvious, and hysteria over 'demonising children'

Well, if the cap fits.

Which it appears to quite nicely.
The usual running scared of the obvious, and hysteria over 'demonising children' Well, if the cap fits. Which it appears to quite nicely. Slamdoor312

2:06pm Tue 14 Jan 14

Grumpy36 says...

It does not matter who did this for whatever reason - the outcome is still the same.........dangero
us.
It does not matter who did this for whatever reason - the outcome is still the same.........dangero us. Grumpy36

2:17pm Tue 14 Jan 14

pierre-pierre says...

why do yo lot insist on a lot of very long quotes


Slamdoor312 says
Well, if the cap fits

that worked ok
why do yo lot insist on a lot of very long quotes Slamdoor312 says Well, if the cap fits that worked ok pierre-pierre

9:20pm Tue 14 Jan 14

chuffster says...

Why not install CCTV on all the bridges?
Why not install CCTV on all the bridges? chuffster

8:02am Wed 15 Jan 14

Ritchie_Hicks says...

chuffster wrote:
Why not install CCTV on all the bridges?
How many times do we hear that CCTV failed to catch any images? It's also pretty useless in the dark or if someone covers their face.
[quote][p][bold]chuffster[/bold] wrote: Why not install CCTV on all the bridges?[/p][/quote]How many times do we hear that CCTV failed to catch any images? It's also pretty useless in the dark or if someone covers their face. Ritchie_Hicks

9:03am Wed 15 Jan 14

OMPITA [Intl] says...

A most unfortunate negative response from Ritchie Hicks.

Even as far back as the late 1980s sensitive installations were being successfully monitored for unauthorised interference 24/7 by use of a combination of normal and Infra-red CCTV sensors with a motion detection facility that could trigger the attention of a remote operator. The operator could then immediately view the scene and alert the necessary resources to attend and deal with the situation.

Such a facility on the bridges at risk would significantly enhance the chances of apprehending the culprits.

Considering the advances in technology since the period that I mention and the relative cheapness of the requisite equipment it seems almost foolhardy not to invest in it.

The use of Intelligent software could be employed that only triggered the operator's attention in the case of persons stopping and loitering on the bridge. It would be almost as good as having a human sentry actually on the sight observing the behaviour of every person traversing the bridge.

Some might say even better than a human sentry as it would not be prone to 'nodding off'.
A most unfortunate negative response from Ritchie Hicks. Even as far back as the late 1980s sensitive installations were being successfully monitored for unauthorised interference 24/7 by use of a combination of normal and Infra-red CCTV sensors with a motion detection facility that could trigger the attention of a remote operator. The operator could then immediately view the scene and alert the necessary resources to attend and deal with the situation. Such a facility on the bridges at risk would significantly enhance the chances of apprehending the culprits. Considering the advances in technology since the period that I mention and the relative cheapness of the requisite equipment it seems almost foolhardy not to invest in it. The use of Intelligent software could be employed that only triggered the operator's attention in the case of persons stopping and loitering on the bridge. It would be almost as good as having a human sentry actually on the sight observing the behaviour of every person traversing the bridge. Some might say even better than a human sentry as it would not be prone to 'nodding off'. OMPITA [Intl]

9:13am Wed 15 Jan 14

Ritchie_Hicks says...

OMPITA wrote:
A most unfortunate negative response from Ritchie Hicks.

Even as far back as the late 1980s sensitive installations were being successfully monitored for unauthorised interference 24/7 by use of a combination of normal and Infra-red CCTV sensors with a motion detection facility that could trigger the attention of a remote operator. The operator could then immediately view the scene and alert the necessary resources to attend and deal with the situation.

Such a facility on the bridges at risk would significantly enhance the chances of apprehending the culprits.

Considering the advances in technology since the period that I mention and the relative cheapness of the requisite equipment it seems almost foolhardy not to invest in it.

The use of Intelligent software could be employed that only triggered the operator's attention in the case of persons stopping and loitering on the bridge. It would be almost as good as having a human sentry actually on the sight observing the behaviour of every person traversing the bridge.

Some might say even better than a human sentry as it would not be prone to 'nodding off'.
You may think it's negetive, but you only have to look at the various stories on here that show pictures of people with scarfs around their faces on CCTV that are never caught.

Not forgetting the cost that the system you have recommended would cost to install.
[quote][p][bold]OMPITA [Intl][/bold] wrote: A most unfortunate negative response from Ritchie Hicks. Even as far back as the late 1980s sensitive installations were being successfully monitored for unauthorised interference 24/7 by use of a combination of normal and Infra-red CCTV sensors with a motion detection facility that could trigger the attention of a remote operator. The operator could then immediately view the scene and alert the necessary resources to attend and deal with the situation. Such a facility on the bridges at risk would significantly enhance the chances of apprehending the culprits. Considering the advances in technology since the period that I mention and the relative cheapness of the requisite equipment it seems almost foolhardy not to invest in it. The use of Intelligent software could be employed that only triggered the operator's attention in the case of persons stopping and loitering on the bridge. It would be almost as good as having a human sentry actually on the sight observing the behaviour of every person traversing the bridge. Some might say even better than a human sentry as it would not be prone to 'nodding off'.[/p][/quote]You may think it's negetive, but you only have to look at the various stories on here that show pictures of people with scarfs around their faces on CCTV that are never caught. Not forgetting the cost that the system you have recommended would cost to install. Ritchie_Hicks

9:43am Wed 15 Jan 14

Slamdoor312 says...

Perhaps having a go at getting some forensics off the missile thrown , then DNA testing the inmates of that school.

This is attempted murder,

PC Plod need to get off their backside and get in there.
Perhaps having a go at getting some forensics off the missile thrown , then DNA testing the inmates of that school. This is attempted murder, PC Plod need to get off their backside and get in there. Slamdoor312

10:09am Wed 15 Jan 14

alfcavill says...

As slamdoo312 says, this is attempted murder. The whole object of throwing things over the bridge at fast moving traffic is to deliberately cause an accident and kill some one, therefore all these incidents should be investigated as attempted murder and the culprits punished as such.
As slamdoo312 says, this is attempted murder. The whole object of throwing things over the bridge at fast moving traffic is to deliberately cause an accident and kill some one, therefore all these incidents should be investigated as attempted murder and the culprits punished as such. alfcavill

10:11am Wed 15 Jan 14

Ritchie_Hicks says...

Slamdoor312 wrote:
Perhaps having a go at getting some forensics off the missile thrown , then DNA testing the inmates of that school.

This is attempted murder,

PC Plod need to get off their backside and get in there.
You're right, it is attempted murder.

Only problem with DNA testing is that it's only as good as the records on the database. If this is kids, it's unlikey their DNA will be on the database.
[quote][p][bold]Slamdoor312[/bold] wrote: Perhaps having a go at getting some forensics off the missile thrown , then DNA testing the inmates of that school. This is attempted murder, PC Plod need to get off their backside and get in there.[/p][/quote]You're right, it is attempted murder. Only problem with DNA testing is that it's only as good as the records on the database. If this is kids, it's unlikey their DNA will be on the database. Ritchie_Hicks

10:42am Wed 15 Jan 14

OMPITA [Intl] says...

I fear that Ritchie is missing the point I wish to make.

Surveillance systems provide three levels of performance - they being ‘Detection’, ‘Recognition’ and ‘Identification’
.

Detection would simply indicate that something unusual was there.

Recognition would enable an observer to conclude that a human form was either moving or loitering on the bridge.

Recognition obviously requires imagery of a quality that enables someone who knows the target to be able to say "yes, that is so and so, I know who he or she is".

If an operator were to be alerted to the suspicious behaviour (i.e recognition of a human form loitering on the bridge) there would be a hugely increased chance of the police being able to respond in time to check out the suspects before they departed from the scene.

As for identification. Yes, he is right that inasmuch that street wise savvy kids will often cover their faces, but there are also numerous instances when they do not - or otherwise momentarily drop their guard and show themselves.

Contrary to his opinion on the efficacy of cameras, current systems provide extremely good pictures which clearly enable recognition. For example the superb pictures released by British Transport Police following an attack on a train on 19th December (Comment by ‘tophat27dt’ Basildon echo 9th January who said “Very good clear pictures this time. Surely somebody living next door to these men recognise them?”)

So good in fact that one suspect simply walked into a police station and gave himself up without even waiting to be collared!

Even when perpetrators take the trouble to cover their faces the high quality pictures now becoming available will show all sorts of other minor details of clothing, footwear etc which can be extremely helpful in narrowing down identification.

The technology is available. The price - relative to the cost to the public of a fatal road accident (circa £1M) is peanuts. If we are to be faced with a continuation of this type of crime I think it would be sheer ‘Luddite-ism’ to disregard the potential benefits of investing in such technologically proven surveillance systems on the bridges at risk.
I fear that Ritchie is missing the point I wish to make. Surveillance systems provide three levels of performance - they being ‘Detection’, ‘Recognition’ and ‘Identification’ . Detection would simply indicate that something unusual was there. Recognition would enable an observer to conclude that a human form was either moving or loitering on the bridge. Recognition obviously requires imagery of a quality that enables someone who knows the target to be able to say "yes, that is so and so, I know who he or she is". If an operator were to be alerted to the suspicious behaviour (i.e recognition of a human form loitering on the bridge) there would be a hugely increased chance of the police being able to respond in time to check out the suspects before they departed from the scene. As for identification. Yes, he is right that inasmuch that street wise savvy kids will often cover their faces, but there are also numerous instances when they do not - or otherwise momentarily drop their guard and show themselves. Contrary to his opinion on the efficacy of cameras, current systems provide extremely good pictures which clearly enable recognition. For example the superb pictures released by British Transport Police following an attack on a train on 19th December (Comment by ‘tophat27dt’ Basildon echo 9th January who said “Very good clear pictures this time. Surely somebody living next door to these men recognise them?”) So good in fact that one suspect simply walked into a police station and gave himself up without even waiting to be collared! Even when perpetrators take the trouble to cover their faces the high quality pictures now becoming available will show all sorts of other minor details of clothing, footwear etc which can be extremely helpful in narrowing down identification. The technology is available. The price - relative to the cost to the public of a fatal road accident (circa £1M) is peanuts. If we are to be faced with a continuation of this type of crime I think it would be sheer ‘Luddite-ism’ to disregard the potential benefits of investing in such technologically proven surveillance systems on the bridges at risk. OMPITA [Intl]

1:24pm Wed 15 Jan 14

Hawthorne says...

How would it cost then? Equipment, installation, maintenance, a shift of staff to monitor it... How much over, say, a three year period?
How would it cost then? Equipment, installation, maintenance, a shift of staff to monitor it... How much over, say, a three year period? Hawthorne

1:26pm Wed 15 Jan 14

Ritchie_Hicks says...

Hawthorne wrote:
How would it cost then? Equipment, installation, maintenance, a shift of staff to monitor it... How much over, say, a three year period?
A lot more than the cage I originally suggested...
[quote][p][bold]Hawthorne[/bold] wrote: How would it cost then? Equipment, installation, maintenance, a shift of staff to monitor it... How much over, say, a three year period?[/p][/quote]A lot more than the cage I originally suggested... Ritchie_Hicks

9:59am Thu 16 Jan 14

Slamdoor312 says...

'Only problem with DNA testing is that it's only as good as the records on the database. If this is kids, it's unlikey their DNA will be on the database.'

Well get them on there then.

Get into that school and get testing
'Only problem with DNA testing is that it's only as good as the records on the database. If this is kids, it's unlikey their DNA will be on the database.' Well get them on there then. Get into that school and get testing Slamdoor312

9:24am Fri 17 Jan 14

wormshero says...

Slamdoor312 wrote:
'Only problem with DNA testing is that it's only as good as the records on the database. If this is kids, it's unlikey their DNA will be on the database.'

Well get them on there then.

Get into that school and get testing
One person does something wrong so a few hundred should be treated as criminals?
[quote][p][bold]Slamdoor312[/bold] wrote: 'Only problem with DNA testing is that it's only as good as the records on the database. If this is kids, it's unlikey their DNA will be on the database.' Well get them on there then. Get into that school and get testing[/p][/quote]One person does something wrong so a few hundred should be treated as criminals? wormshero

2:11pm Fri 17 Jan 14

romantic says...

OMPITA wrote:
I fear that Ritchie is missing the point I wish to make.

Surveillance systems provide three levels of performance - they being ‘Detection’, ‘Recognition’ and ‘Identification’

.

Detection would simply indicate that something unusual was there.

Recognition would enable an observer to conclude that a human form was either moving or loitering on the bridge.

Recognition obviously requires imagery of a quality that enables someone who knows the target to be able to say "yes, that is so and so, I know who he or she is".

If an operator were to be alerted to the suspicious behaviour (i.e recognition of a human form loitering on the bridge) there would be a hugely increased chance of the police being able to respond in time to check out the suspects before they departed from the scene.

As for identification. Yes, he is right that inasmuch that street wise savvy kids will often cover their faces, but there are also numerous instances when they do not - or otherwise momentarily drop their guard and show themselves.

Contrary to his opinion on the efficacy of cameras, current systems provide extremely good pictures which clearly enable recognition. For example the superb pictures released by British Transport Police following an attack on a train on 19th December (Comment by ‘tophat27dt’ Basildon echo 9th January who said “Very good clear pictures this time. Surely somebody living next door to these men recognise them?”)

So good in fact that one suspect simply walked into a police station and gave himself up without even waiting to be collared!

Even when perpetrators take the trouble to cover their faces the high quality pictures now becoming available will show all sorts of other minor details of clothing, footwear etc which can be extremely helpful in narrowing down identification.

The technology is available. The price - relative to the cost to the public of a fatal road accident (circa £1M) is peanuts. If we are to be faced with a continuation of this type of crime I think it would be sheer ‘Luddite-ism’ to disregard the potential benefits of investing in such technologically proven surveillance systems on the bridges at risk.
You probably have a point in that it would be possible to have CCTV up on bridges, and have signs up saying that it is operating. That might make somebody think twice about chucking stuff on the road in the first place. The system you suggest would literally have every bridge in the area being monitored, and enough police around that somebody could be there before they had run. That would be one heck of a system! Do you know that town on a typical weekend night has one CCTV operator and less than a dozen police officers. I would suggest CCTV on problem bridges, but sadly it would probably only assist in catching somebody, not stopping them in the first place. Kids who chuck rocks onto roads (and non-kids, too) do not hang around long, they'll be gone in 20 seconds. And how do you detect the one rock-thrower from among everyone else who is just walking across?

Other people are suggesting DNA testing of every child. This assumes, first of all, you can locate the actual piece of rock thrown, and get DNA from it. At what age do these people suggest DNA testing should be done? 14? Starting secondary school? Age 5? At birth? you might as well DNA test the whole population. How about visitors - maybe they also need to be DNA scanned at the airport. But don't forget one thing: the famous "one in a million" match still means there are statistically 60+ matches for your DNA. DNA testing is used to great effect, but it is not the sole means of solving a crime.

If it is kids (and nobody knows for sure, but it wouldn't be a colossal surprise), the only way forward is to get into the schools and educate the kids there about what can happen if a driver gets hit by a rock. We had a kid at school who liked to do this. The first time we saw it, we thought it was a laugh. After we'd had somebody come in and show us some fairly graphic pics, he thought it was an even better idea - but none of us others wanted anything to do with him. He may have carried on doing it, I am not sure, but got pretty much ostracised as a "nutter". The point is that it is most likely one lone kid who has a few mates with him. Get into the school and show real injuries that have resulted from this. Perhaps you can never "de-nut" a "nutter" completely, but being shunned by the herd could work. There seems to be an underlying implication from many older posters that the entire younger generation is without morals, thought or decency, but actually, that is very much not the case. We don't gain anything by dragging the whole school in to be DNA tested, and in effect treated like criminals. We do stand a better chance if we make the cause and effect connection between chucking rocks and some body's mum being badly injured.
[quote][p][bold]OMPITA [Intl][/bold] wrote: I fear that Ritchie is missing the point I wish to make. Surveillance systems provide three levels of performance - they being ‘Detection’, ‘Recognition’ and ‘Identification’ . Detection would simply indicate that something unusual was there. Recognition would enable an observer to conclude that a human form was either moving or loitering on the bridge. Recognition obviously requires imagery of a quality that enables someone who knows the target to be able to say "yes, that is so and so, I know who he or she is". If an operator were to be alerted to the suspicious behaviour (i.e recognition of a human form loitering on the bridge) there would be a hugely increased chance of the police being able to respond in time to check out the suspects before they departed from the scene. As for identification. Yes, he is right that inasmuch that street wise savvy kids will often cover their faces, but there are also numerous instances when they do not - or otherwise momentarily drop their guard and show themselves. Contrary to his opinion on the efficacy of cameras, current systems provide extremely good pictures which clearly enable recognition. For example the superb pictures released by British Transport Police following an attack on a train on 19th December (Comment by ‘tophat27dt’ Basildon echo 9th January who said “Very good clear pictures this time. Surely somebody living next door to these men recognise them?”) So good in fact that one suspect simply walked into a police station and gave himself up without even waiting to be collared! Even when perpetrators take the trouble to cover their faces the high quality pictures now becoming available will show all sorts of other minor details of clothing, footwear etc which can be extremely helpful in narrowing down identification. The technology is available. The price - relative to the cost to the public of a fatal road accident (circa £1M) is peanuts. If we are to be faced with a continuation of this type of crime I think it would be sheer ‘Luddite-ism’ to disregard the potential benefits of investing in such technologically proven surveillance systems on the bridges at risk.[/p][/quote]You probably have a point in that it would be possible to have CCTV up on bridges, and have signs up saying that it is operating. That might make somebody think twice about chucking stuff on the road in the first place. The system you suggest would literally have every bridge in the area being monitored, and enough police around that somebody could be there before they had run. That would be one heck of a system! Do you know that town on a typical weekend night has one CCTV operator and less than a dozen police officers. I would suggest CCTV on problem bridges, but sadly it would probably only assist in catching somebody, not stopping them in the first place. Kids who chuck rocks onto roads (and non-kids, too) do not hang around long, they'll be gone in 20 seconds. And how do you detect the one rock-thrower from among everyone else who is just walking across? Other people are suggesting DNA testing of every child. This assumes, first of all, you can locate the actual piece of rock thrown, and get DNA from it. At what age do these people suggest DNA testing should be done? 14? Starting secondary school? Age 5? At birth? you might as well DNA test the whole population. How about visitors - maybe they also need to be DNA scanned at the airport. But don't forget one thing: the famous "one in a million" match still means there are statistically 60+ matches for your DNA. DNA testing is used to great effect, but it is not the sole means of solving a crime. If it is kids (and nobody knows for sure, but it wouldn't be a colossal surprise), the only way forward is to get into the schools and educate the kids there about what can happen if a driver gets hit by a rock. We had a kid at school who liked to do this. The first time we saw it, we thought it was a laugh. After we'd had somebody come in and show us some fairly graphic pics, he thought it was an even better idea - but none of us others wanted anything to do with him. He may have carried on doing it, I am not sure, but got pretty much ostracised as a "nutter". The point is that it is most likely one lone kid who has a few mates with him. Get into the school and show real injuries that have resulted from this. Perhaps you can never "de-nut" a "nutter" completely, but being shunned by the herd could work. There seems to be an underlying implication from many older posters that the entire younger generation is without morals, thought or decency, but actually, that is very much not the case. We don't gain anything by dragging the whole school in to be DNA tested, and in effect treated like criminals. We do stand a better chance if we make the cause and effect connection between chucking rocks and some body's mum being badly injured. romantic

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