That's just not cricket

A woman who, frustrated with cricket balls landing on her front garden, decided to hold one of the offending balls captive has found herself on the National DNA database and Police National Computer.

As the Daily Telegraph explains:

Lorretta Cole says she was trying to teach her neighbour's children a lesson after she claims the ball repeatedly landed on her property and even damaged her car.

The 47-year-old retrieved the £3.99 ball from land in front of her home in Baddesley Close, North Baddesley, Hampshire, and refused to give it back when asked by the father of the children.

Mrs Cole said that at the police station she was detained for five hours while she was questioned, had her photograph, DNA swab and fingerprints taken.

Following the interview at Lyndhurst police station, Mrs Cole was released on police bail pending advice from the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS).

Without knowing the full details of the case, I can only really say that Mrs Cole probably shouldn't have held onto the ball - although it is worth noting that while she did not contact the police over potential criminal damage, the father of the boys was only too keen to get the boys in blue involved.

But, honestly, did Lyndhurst police really think that she was in any way a criminal? Did they consider whether, on this occasion, it might make sense to forego loading Mrs Cole's DNA onto the database?

Big Brother Watch are asking Mrs Cole (or anyone who knows her) to contact us and let us help her get her biometric data back.

By Dylan Sharpe

Comments

[alastair]

Surely, if you intentionally throw an item onto someone else's private property you can have no legitimate expectation of its return. It may well remain your legal title, but it seems to me that the law should not require the owner of the property to return it, and you have no right to trespass to recover it either.

Otherwise, a good way of annoying ones neighbours' would be to hire a crane to position a large heavy object on their lawn (being careful to cause no damage), then demand that they return it to you, which presumably would necessitate crane hire.

Yes, I know a ball is easy to return, but it seems to me that whether a ball sent onto someone else's property is returned should be a matter entirely between the property holder and the owner of the ball. The law really shouldn't get involved.

[SadButMadLad]

Read the Telegraph story in depth. The ball was on land in front of her house. The Telegraph doesn't clarify this as to whether this is her land or "just land in front of her house" or in other words public land. If the later she stole. In the former case because the police visited a number of times to ask for the ball to be returned and Lorretta Cole refused each time they probably saw it as theft. She was even warned about the consequences of refusing to hand the ball over. So she had plenty of chances to not get arrested. Other than the police ignoring it, they were pretty much forced to arrest her through her own actions.

Having said all that the person who called in the police went over the top. But then the story doesn't say what the feelings are between the two neighbours. If they were acrimonious then it's not surprising. If this was a first time, then it's over the top.

[The_C]

Far from big brother this is the British police trying to do what they always do. Deal with people who are too petty or stupid to think for themselves.

She obviously is the kind of neighbour we all remember from our childhoods who seemed to think children shouldn't play outside(maybe they want their own miserable existence shared by everyone else). She does seem to have taken it a lot further than those I knew and had her fingers burnt in the process.

When she has taken possession of the ball she then refused to return it, first to the children (I imagine) secondly to the parent of the children, stating she was doing it to teach them a lesson. Surely if she explained this to the adult then she could have returned the ball at this point and the lesson would (if it could be) learnt as they would have been without it for a few hours. However reading between the lines she has obviously got this persons back up to the point where the police were called.

The police again tried reason, however she was described as 'onstructive' by police. Maybe this obstructive behaviour is why the neighbour thought to call the police?

The police gave her more than enough oportunities to hand over the ball and she refused. She would have been arrested for theft and the rest is set in stone.

The moral of the story, don't be such a miserable sod.

[Tom]

Obviously, the local plods have little in the way of crime to worry about.

True, the ball could have been given back, and there are 2 sides to the story, but the police do seem to have acted in a heavy manner and farcical way – maybe the arrest numbers are down for the month?

This story typifies the total lack of old fashioned common sense on behalf of the boys in blue – perhaps in the days of Dixon of dock green PC Dixon would have told the children’s father to control his offspring more, and come up with a compromise. However, modern day Bobbies and plastic plods seem to go in more heavy handed – 2 in this case, plus the sergeant – and wound up the woman concerned. Another bad press day for the police – I’ll file this into the “how to alienate the public" folder.