Is there any way you can find out what someone was arrested for?

sassyblue

corbyboy wrote: »

It's a well known fact that in 2014 everybody is a !!!!!phile. So the details of the case are entirely irrelevant.

For example, see how the OP has gone from "a man watching kids in the park" straight to "I have a right to know if he is a !!!!!phile."

Do you know l love to see and hear kids playing, stems from my own infertility when l didn't think l would get lucky.

It's frightening to think l could be old and sit on a park bench one day and automatically labelled a !!!!!. And I'm a woman!

jaylee3

sassyblue wrote: »

Do you know l love to see and hear kids playing, stems from my own infertility when l didn't think l would get lucky.

It's frightening to think l could be old and sit on a park bench one day and automatically labelled a !!!!!. And I'm a woman!

I know, it's preposterous! A man can't simply watch children for a few moments without someone labelling them a pee-doe?!

I don't believe for one second at ALL that there was any old woman involved, I strongly believe that it's just the OP being a nosey busy-body, a stirrer, and a trouble-maker, and he is desperate to know more details, so that he can launch a witch-hunt against this man.

The OP said the man 'watching the kids play.' (BIG DEAL.) And then he says it was 'obvious what he was doing?' So what was THAT then 'Baker's Dozen?' DO tell us please! What WAS he doing?

This man did nothing wrong, clearly, so there will be no public information about it. Fortunately. Looks like the OP will have to find something else to occupy his time.

People like the OP makes me sick. Nosey parkers, trying to cause trouble for innocent people.

MadelinesMum

He must have been known to the police or they probably wouldn't have cuffed him and taken him away. Perhaps there had been other reports of a weirdo hanging around, so the police were hot to trot.

You did the best thing. Keep an eye out in the local paper - it will probably be in there next week.

lika_86

Bakers_Dozen wrote: »

If he was innocent he would not have been arrested now would he? You missed all that during your ramble which makes everything else you have said completely pointless. What a waste of time.

Because no innocent people are ever arrested? I mean, I'm not sure why we have courts and trials and a presumption of innocence because if you're arrested then you must be guilty!

If all this story is true then I can only imagine that either the police are, as usual, heavy handed and ego-tripping, or he was known and wanted for something else. Standing and watching children is not (and I hope never will be) any sort of offence.

Indie_Kid

Bakers_Dozen wrote: »

If he was innocent he would not have been arrested now would he? You missed all that during your ramble which makes everything else you have said completely pointless. What a waste of time.

If you're arrested it's on suspicion. Therefore, it's perfectly possible to be innocent.

jaylee3

lika_86 wrote: »

Because no innocent people are ever arrested? I mean, I'm not sure why we have courts and trials and a presumption of innocence because if you're arrested then you must be guilty!

If all this story is true then I can only imagine that either the police are, as usual, heavy handed and ego-tripping, or he was known and wanted for something else. Standing and watching children is not (and I hope never will be) any sort of offence.

EXACTLY. Just because someone was taken in by the police; it doesn't make them 'guilty' of a crime.

But why let this little FACT, get in the way of a petty little nosey parker's vendetta against a probably innocent man he doesn't even know from adam.

Some people need to get a life, and stay out of others peoples.

Just because someone is looking at children playing doesn't mean they're a pee-doe. Says more about you than it does about THEM, if you assume that.

Puts me in mind of the lyrics of the PARAMORE song 'Playing God.'



(Text removed by MSE Forum Team)

lika_86

Bakers_Dozen wrote: »

He was stood in the trees watching them. He was not just out for a walk. It is only a patch of trees on the edge of the field.

It doesn't matter whether he was out for a walk or just standing there, the point is that it is not an offence to stand somewhere.

Indie_Kid

It's possible that the arrest was planned and was nothing to do with him supposedly watching these children. And how do you know that the children (or one of them, anyway) wasn't one of his or a grandchild?

FBaby

I think you gather a feeling from such situations and the old lady and OP clearly felt uneasy with his actions. I suppose it very much comes down to what 'hiding in the trees' really meant. Quite a difference between sitting on a banch slightly hidden by trees to standing on uneven ground hidding behind leaves, with just a hand moving a few over the eyes.

Yes, maybe he is a known pedophile or maybe the police force decided to practice their arrest skills on that day. I personally was surprised by the extensiveness of the investigation when we reported a buglary two years ago when little was stolen. They were in the house for 3 hours, asking many questions, doing finger prints etc..., they interviewed all the neighbours, came back to investigate our garden and how they could have escaped etc... Not sure at this time whether it meant that they were just doing their job properly (because maybe not all police force are overwelhmed and can only prioritise serious crimes) or whether there had been many burglaries around that time, they knew who the people were and were just desperate to find evidence to arrest them.

Stephb1986_2

If he wasn't hiding in the bushes and was just stood watching no one would of batted an eyelid probably it's because he was hiding in the bushes that made him look a bit suspicious.